this week in news (august 12-18):
- the British response to Ecuador's granting of asylum to Julian Assange merits a look at international law and opens concerning doors for asylum-seekers worldwide
- Syria's situation continues to worsen without international intervention, causing destabilization in surrounding countries and potentially opening the door for al-Qaeda into the region
- Israeli media covers the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iran
Ecuador, United Kingdom, and Assange: A Question of Sovereignty
August 16
Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum after an application nearly two months ago. Assange had been in the embassy since June to avoid extradition to Sweden for charges of sexual molestation and rape. These alleged crimes took place two years ago during Assange's stay in Sweden for a seminar on the media's role in wartime.
The primary argument for asylum used by Assange, and now adopted by Ecuador, was that if extradited to Sweden for questioning over this charges, he would then be extradited to the United States to face charges concerning US government information WikiLeaks posted in 2010. There, Assange believes his human rights would be violated. How does this figure?
Well, the information Assange and his WikiLeaks team posted included thousands of confidential State Department cables, videos showing indiscriminate military murder, and the Afghanistan war logs. For the posting of such information, it is unclear precisely how the government would prosecute Assange, but many analysts believe that, if convicted, he could face life imprisonment and some even say the death penalty (a claim Ecuador agrees with). Not only is this prospect of life imprisonment likely, but Assange, and now Ecuador, believe that he would not receive a fair and public trial, something both parties base on the United States' history with military persecution. On such serious charges with such serious penalties and the potential for a secret or military trial that could easily expedite a guilty decision, extradition can feasibly be constituted a violation of human rights.
Ecuador's reasoning for the asylum application is outlined in this press release and it draws on a long history of asylum laws from both global and region-specific treatises. Ecuador believes it has the legal right to offer Assange asylum.
The British government has publicly stated that if Assange steps onto British soil, they will arrest him and begin the extradition process. Regardless of the concerns for Assange's human rights or your feelings on the matter, it is clear that Britain has a legal obligation to do this. A Sydney-based report from June 24, 2012, confirms that Assange is in agreement that he should face charges in Sweden and agrees to do so only if there are protections in place to ensure he is not extradited to the United States.
This is not yet the interesting part. The most controversial part of their response was the British threat to employ the British Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 which they claim allows them to strip the rights of an embassy "if a state ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post." This threat was made in a letter on August 15th to the Ecuadorian government in which the British Foreign Office said that they hope they do not need to employ this law, "but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us."
This then enters into contestable legal territory (how can a state decide that an embassy is no longer serving its purposes?) especially given that granting asylum is an internationally-protected right. However, even this is not clear-cut, since nowhere in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the document which outlines which tasks are to be carried out by an embassy and protected by international law, does it provide for an embassy protecting people wanted by the courts for non-political reasons.
While article 22 of the Vienna document clearly does not allow government agents of the host country (in this case, British police) to enter the premises without the consent of the ambassador, if the embassy is not fulfilling its proper role (e.g. if housing Assange is not a protected right of an embassy), then the embassy may not have this protection.
The legality of the threat is unclear, but the Ecuadorian response to the British is straightforward. A clear message was sent when the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Ricardo Patino stated "... we're not a British colony. The colonial times are over."
The British threat to employ the 1987 law has two major implications. The first is the conflict it would start between Ecuador and Britain. Ecuador has clearly stated any British intrusion on the embassy would be seen as an aggressive move. If Assange is captured within the embassy's jurisdiction, it would be challenged in international courts, surely, but would also greatly anger the Ecuadorian public (more so than it has already).
The other implication is that it would set a precedent. The 1987 law has never been enforced and revoking the status of an embassy to capture someone for arrest can open the window for the British government to employ the law again. Similar treatment of British embassies around the world can be expected if (more likely, when) a similarly contentious case occurs and, really, for any embassies anywhere. This would present a major blow for asylum-seekers everywhere if an international precedent to declassify and intrude on a functional embassy is set.
The part of the story to follow is not about Assange, however, rather how the two governments will be dealing with this threat. Can governments supersede international laws protecting an embassy, and if so, under what conditions? Does this case meet these conditions? Watch the British actions closely because the 1987 law agrees that any action must be in line with international laws. Ecuador will surely challenge any steps taken against its embassy if the time comes.
Syria's Regional Destabilization
August 15
The world watches as Syrian violence continues, seeing absolutely no slowing down. In fact, the only evidence of change is that the violence has spread beyond its borders and begun destabilizing regions outside of Syria, such as Lebanon, its neighbor to the west, and southern Turkey, its northern neighbor.
The sectarian divide within the nation is growing more apparent and seems to be a regional issue now. The Alawite minority is the current ruling class in Syria and many consider them a branch of Shia Islam, while the opposition is a largely Sunni-lead effort. While this divide is clear in Syria, it is also becoming more apparent in the region at-large when looking at foreign supporters of the two sides of the civil conflict. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey (Sunni Muslim nations) are in support of the opposition forces, while the Shiite Iran has largely been selling weapons to the Alawite regime.
While nations in the region had to take a stand on the issue (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation suspended Syria's membership Thursday), the rest of the world has sent mixed messages. The United States and the United Kingdom have stated that they will increase aid to the rebels and the United Nations has been surveying the region, yet little physical action has been taken to help the region. For the United States, in particular, the stalemate is partially due to China and Russia's opposition to Western involvement and partially due to the upcoming elections.
It is in this environment that al-Qaeda has found a foothold, Richard Engels reported earlier this week. Arriving "flush with money and weapons," the Sunni group is now offering assistance to the opposition forces in exchange for allegiance to the extremist organization.
The choices facing Syrians are limited right now, and without improved weapons, the opposition forces fear the current regime will stay in place. Secular opposition groups have even signed on to al-Qaeda just for the sake of receiving the weapons they believe they need to topple the current regime.
An al-Qaeda base is just one of many recent problem facing the region. Just a few days ago, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait all asked their citizens to leave Lebanon over security fears. Of the eleven Lebanese Shiite pilgrims captured hostage by the opposition in Syria in May (yet another example of the now regional sectarian crisis), at least seven were killed earlier this week, prompting a retaliation by the Shiite al-Meqdad clan in Lebanon. The group captured twenty people affiliated with the Syrian opposition forces and worked to create widespread chaos not seen in Lebanon since its civil war.
All of this is in addition to another problem caused by the Syrian conflict: refugees. The U.N. now says that over 170,000 refugees have registered in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. Many believe this is a smaller estimate than the true number (potentially tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are yet to be registered) and is only a fraction of the 1.2 million Syrians uprooted internally by the conflict. The number of refugees has caused domestic problems for Syria's bordering nations and has struck a particular chord in Lebanon where new sectarian violence has come in addition to the months-long strain on the government and economy to provide for the refugees.
The combination of rampant sectarian conflict and the refugee situation is slowly destabilizing the region which has now been in unrest for the past two years. As the world watches without major assistance, Syria's worsening condition may be opening the doors to al-Qaeda into the nation. The major concern for much of the Western world right now is that in the midst of the region's worsening condition, could Syria become the window for al-Qaeda into the Middle East as a whole?
This is where the rest of the world needs to put its gaze and commitment. The U.N. just named a new Syria envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi (who has served to ease conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan), to do just that. Many agree, as I do, that his largest challenge will be advocating intervention.
from ABC News:
"I think his biggest challenge is convincing the international community to intervene and end this — whatever it takes, because non-intervention has much higher cost than intervention"
-Nadim Shehadi, Chatham House
Israel's Heated Stance Against Iran
August 14
Israeli media has been heavily covering the idea of a preemptive strike upon Iran in response to alleged reports of Iran's growing capabilities to develop a nuclear warhead.
While Israel has long been an opponent to Iran's nuclear capabilities, in the past few weeks, their rhetoric towards U.N. sanctions against Iran has been increasingly critical. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's PM, believes that sanctions have not deterred Iran's progress "one iota" and his Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, believes that "the international community should announce the diplomatic process with Iran a failure, today." Israel hope to see the end of Iran's nuclear development in a few weeks and hopes that the international community, not just Israel, stands behind that decision.
Although, in terms of a preemptive strike, Israel says that they would not need to wait for US assistance.
Most are quick to dismiss this recent discussion of war, however, as an attempt to induce the international community to enforce Israel's long-stated demands for greater sanctions against Iran.
US politics, however, is on edge as such a strike would place the Obama administration on the spot (potentially impacting the election if it happens before the November 6th voting day) and would force either presidential candidate to address the situation come next January. They hope, as the world does, that this threat is merely a rhetorical strategy at this stage.
