Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Assange in Limbo

In an article in 1988 published in the Law Society Gazette, the author Carl Islam explains, with some rigour, the basis of immunity afforded to diplomatic and consular premises in Britain. The subject seems dry, until you realise the serious implications it poses to individuals such as Julian Assange, who sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in violation of his bail conditions.

Islam begins with the principle of inviolability.  “Inviolability guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular premises.” Then, the warning.  “While it does not place premises about the law, anybody who remains on diplomatic or consular premises can take refuge from the law.”  Hence the need for changes to rectify such abuse.

The background to this change of heart and the need to embrace a qualification to such diplomatic immunities came in 1984.  The British establishment was shaken that year by the activities of the Libyan People’s Bureau, which saw the killing of Woman Police Constable Fletcher from shots fired from the Bureau’s premises.  Over the years, the LPB had been purportedly stockpiling weapons under the cover of immunity, ostensibly to deal with dissidents of the Gaddafi regime.  While these were deemed gross abuses of diplomatic privileges granted by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the British found their hands tied.

The white paper of 1985 made it clear that the British authorities were keen on implementing a “firmer” policy on how the Vienna Convention was applied and “take administrative measures to deal with abuse of diplomatic premises and to limit the extent of mission premises in accordance with international law and practice.”  Hence the passage of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 which would remove the diplomatic status of premises that were being misused.  The Vienna Convention, while accepted as part of British law, is qualified as to the residence of the mission accepted in the country.

Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino has been forceful about the stance on Assange and equally forceful towards the efforts being made by the British authorities to extract the Australian from the premises. “We are not a colony of Britain.” WikiLeaks has itself released a statement claiming that Assange’s rights to asylum are being compromised in this act of bullying.

The British response is both clever and sophistic – not so much to discredit the Ecuadorean mission as to discredit the premises the mission is being used for.  In June, the Foreign Office did accept the embassy as diplomatic territory.  As long as Assange was on the premises, he was “beyond the reach of police” (Guardian, Jun 20).  Citing the DCPA signals a change of approach, though the Ecuadoreans could hardly be surprised.  The Act grants the British government the power to determine the status of land for diplomatic and consular missions.  Importantly, it controls sites, locations and places where those embassies might be established.  Prior to the act’s passage, diplomatic missions might establish their premises in any part of the city, or allow premises to fall into decay, immune from the title aspirations of local authorities.

What are the options for Assange?  The fact that Assange is on Ecuadorean premises, as it were, does not, of its own, accord him immunity from interference.  Even if he was to be granted an Ecuadorean diplomatic passport, and become an Ecuadorean national, he would still not be beyond the reaches of British law.  The irony of that would be that he could hardly seek asylum in a place of which he was a national.  The second complicating feature of that would be that immunity from arrest is only applicable to diplomats accredited to the Court of St. James’s with the Foreign Office’s blessing.

Diplomatic immunity for consular missions has been previously revoked in spectacular fashion.  The U.S. embassy in Teheran was occupied in 1979-1980 under a wave of fundamentalist fervour with the blessing of the Ayatollah Khomeini.  The Vienna Convention became a mere piece of paper before the revolution.  But the assumption underlying such diplomatic missions is that an unwarranted entry onto their premises is tantamount to an act of aggression.  Sanctity is indispensable to good relations.  Again Patino’s comments are on point.  “If the measure announced in the British official communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty.  It would force us to respond.”

As this situation develops, it is clear, however, that Assange’s options are few and far between.  The question is how far the British authorities are willing to make the case that the Ecuador mission has abused its premises.  While it is true that Assange has violated his bail conditions, he is merely a suspect before charges that have not even been formally laid. The gravity of his offences hardly qualify as matters of terrorist import, and it would be questionable whether the DCPA is being appropriately used.  But that may well be something the local constabulary will disagree with.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail