The British journalist writes with a lot of venom on the issue at hand. However, for President Correa the decision was not easy as the UK and US are capable of inflicting heavy financial repercussions.
Hague threatens invasion Embassy of Ecuador; Assange Granted Asylum
(The Guardian) – Today, the US claims the legal right to indefinitely detain its citizens; the president can order the assassination of a citizen without so much as even a hearing; the government can spy on its citizens without a court order; and its officials are immune from prosecution for war crimes. It doesn’t help that the US has less than 5% of the world’s population but almost a quarter of its prison inmates, many of them victims of a “war on drugs” that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the rest of the world.
Ecuador’s decision to grant political asylum to Assange was both predictable and reasonable. But it is also a ground-breaking case that has considerable historic significance. Assange’s successful pursuit of asylum from the US is another blow to Washington’s international reputation. At the same time, it shows how important it is to have democratic governments that are independent of the US and – unlike Sweden and the UK – will not collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency. Hopefully other governments will let the UK know that threats to invade another country’s embassy put them outside the bounds of law-abiding nations. This letter delivered by a British official to the Foreign Office of Ecuador:
“You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange’s presence in your premises, this is an open option for us.”
President Correa didn’t want this mess and it has been a lose-lose situation for him from the beginning. He has suffered increased tension with three countries that are diplomatically important to Ecuador – the US, UK and Sweden. The US is Ecuador’s largest trading partner and has several times threatened to cut off trade preferences that support thousands of Ecuadorian jobs. And since most of the major international media has been hostile to Assange from the beginning, they have used the asylum request to attack Ecuador, accusing the government of a “crackdown” on the media at home. As I have noted elsewhere, this is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of Ecuador, which has an uncensored media that is mostly opposed to the government. And for most of the world, these misleading news reports are all that they will hear or read about Ecuador for a long time.
Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange’s extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is “unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate“, because he could be easily questioned in the UK.
But, most importantly, the government of Ecuador agreed with Assange that he had a reasonable fear of a second extradition to the United States, and persecution here for his activities as a journalist. The evidence for this was strong.
- See my earlier diary Will Ecuador Grant Assange Asylum?
Ecuador’s $18bn lawsuit against Chevron below the fold …
U.S. Government Deals Chevron Stinging Defeat Over Ecuador Trade Preferences
WASHINGTON (PR Newswire) July 2, 2012 — For the sixth straight year, the United States government has flatly rejected Chevron’s increasingly frantic attempts to cut trade preferences for Ecuador in what critics say is part of an unethical campaign to interfere in a private environmental litigation brought by rainforest villagers, according to Amazon Defense Coalition.
“Chevron’s attempt to enlist the U.S. government to quash a private litigation in the courts of a democratic ally is unconscionable and we applaud the Obama Administration for rejecting it,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for dozens of indigenous and farmer communities of Ecuador who have sued the oil giant over what experts consider to be the worst oil-related contamination in the world.
“Simply put, Chevron’s arguments not only rest on a series of lies but the entire request runs counter to the U.S. foreign policy goal of promoting the rule of law in Latin America,” said Hinton.
Hinton said Chevron tried to mislead the United States Trade Representative, which is mandated by Congress to renew trade preferences for the Andean nations (which include Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia), by arguing that it was the victim of a fraudulent $18 billion judgment in Ecuador.
In fact, the judgment against Chevron was based on an eight-year trial that produced “overwhelming” scientific evidence that the oil giant dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways and abandoned more than 900 toxic waste pits that have pipes to funnel oil sludge into streams and rivers used by indigenous groups for their drinking water.
A summary of the evidence against Chevron relied on by the court can be found here or viewed here in this video. The court also imposed a punitive damages penalty after finding evidence that Chevron lawyers threatened judges, engaged in an attempted bribery scheme, and tried to grind the trial to a halt by filing dozens of frivolous motions.
Chevron has met stiff opposition in Congress to its lobbying effort. In 2006, Senators Obama and Leahy wrote a letter asking the USTR to stay out of the case. In 2009, four Senators – Wyden, Durbin, Leahy, and Casey – again demanded the USTR not meddle in the litigation. See here.
