Julian Assange Asylum - Ecuador is Right to Stand Up to the US
The United States would paint itself as a promoter of
human rights, but any right to make that claim is long
gone
By Mark Weisbrot Guardian (UK) August 16, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador
Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum
to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that
should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the
UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented
threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed
over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating
international law and diplomatic conventions that it is
difficult to even find an example of a democratic government
even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.
When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry
and defiant response, released the written threats to the
public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't
a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's
sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of
this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?
The United States would paint itself as a promoter of
human rights, but any right to make that claim is long
gone
By Mark Weisbrot Guardian (UK) August 16, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador
Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum
to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that
should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the
UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented
threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed
over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating
international law and diplomatic conventions that it is
difficult to even find an example of a democratic government
even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.
When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry
and defiant response, released the written threats to the
public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't
a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's
sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of
this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?
No comments:
Post a Comment