My understanding is that it's a little more nuanced than that: that the UK believes it has the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of the building used for the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuadorian diplomats would continue to have diplomatic protection, presumably would be given long notice of the requirement to vacate the embassy, and move goods from it... but Mr Assange would not have any of that protection. I'm not sure which part of the Vienna Convention you think this would violate?
I think the UK is working on a technicality. They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange. Also the UK puts it's entire foreign affairs/ministry (operating in other countries) at real risk as well. Usually in these situation there are always tit-for-tat repercussions.
You expel my diplomat, I expel your diplomat.
So far it's, Mr Assange applies (key word!) for asylum.
Britain threatens Ecuador with a letter, Ecuador gives him asylum.
Ecuador pretty much has to give him asylum or risk looking to be diplomatically weak.
The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well. He got famous for leaking documents on the internet and I'm pretty sure the embassy has the internet. So he can continue leaking documents on the internet.
The bonus is now that he is "on the run" he will have credibility and he can pretty much expose whatever he wants except for leaks of Ecuadorian issues.
Sure, but so are the Ecuadors - Diplomatic Immunity wasn't set up to allow embassies to offer temporary asylum for non-national fugitives :-)
> They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange
And Ecuador risks its ties by not giving him up, not to mention millions of pounds of development aid the UK gives them. These things are historically quietly resolved outside of the limelight. Sending this letter is just putting pressure on the Ecuadors ... they'll eventually give him up, and magically the EU's development budget for Ecuador increases in the next year...
> The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well.
I think you're mistaken there. In six months time, if he's still there, he'll quietly become a bargaining chip, and one day the Ecuadors will announce that "new evidence has come to light", and he'll be handed over, and some Ecuador-originated bill at the UN will have British support a few months later...
> It's not a technicality, diplomatic ties are broken and restarted all the time.
How is it not a technicality? the idea of having an embassy is that a nation can have representatives in a foreign nation operating and relaying communications. What the UK is going is saying "you have operate, but not for these 15 mins so that we can take what we want from your embassy"
> Arguably, Ecuador risked it's ties with the UK first by habouring a wanted suspect.
See the aggressor isn't Ecuador. Ecuador was still considering when UK issued the letter. The normal thing to do is let Ecuador make their decision, and then act accordingly.
>if they can't spin "no, he's wanted for rape, he should go on trial", they ARE weak, and not just diplomatically.
Ecuador has asked that they guaranteed that he won't be extradited to the US so he can face trial for rape. UK and Sweeden hasn't guaranteed that. If it is "just all about rape", then they can make that guarantee, but they aren't. Ecuador has asked the right questions and the UK hasn't given any strong answers.
IMO the proper diplomatic response from the UK would be to use a diplomatic back channel and ask Ecuador to deny him asylum. In exchange the UK can give Ecuador some under the table concessions. Even if Ecuador resisted, Ecuador could give him asylum and then the UK could issue it's letter. The Order of Ops matters. Many UK foreign diplomats agree.
Various media I've read makes the same claim that arresting Assange would violate the Vienna convention, including the linked article from GP. Seems like the main topic is this:
Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage. [0]
I don't really believe the UK is going to march into the embassy and take Assange; can you imagine the political fiasco that would arise? The letter was probably meant to add pressure to use as a negotiating tactic.
The UK law they mention is the one about revoking the diplomatic state of land. Explicitly the idea seems to be to stop the land being diplomatic, meaning the Vienna convention not violated
"Although most persons with diplomatic immunity carry diplomatic passports, having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport must obtain a non-diplomatic visa when traveling to a country where he is not currently nor is going to be accredited as a diplomat, if visas are required to nationals of his country."
More frequently, I hear of UK embassies not offering full diplomatic protection to their non-political staff in foreign countries. If you're sending someone from your Tourism Board to the British embassy in Thailand, you simply don't want the hassle of having to specifically revoke his diplomatic privilege when he shows up in Pattaya with a dead hooker, where you're happy to give them diplomatic car plates so the traffic police don't try and get 500THB from them for speeding... I assume this is an international trend, rather than something the Brits thought up.
