Interview with Ecuador’s President R. Correa: - August 25, 2012 - informationclearinghouse.info
(Here’s my snips but you can read the whole transcript at the link)
RT: Why did Ecuador get involved in all this? By standing up for Julian Assange, the country is exposing itself to risk. According to the media, one of the reasons for the delay in granting asylum to Julian Assange was Ecuador’s fear of a possible US response. Is this true?
RC:Not at all. We just wanted to address the request in a very thorough and responsible way. We looked at the motivations for Mr. Assange’s asylum bid. We looked into the charges brought against him in Sweden, we reviewed UK law, as well as international law, and of course we went over our own legislation. Then we made a responsible decision, [...] We will always be guided by principles and values, not fear.
RT: What consequences might Ecuador face after granting asylum to Julian Assange?
RC: Normally, such a decision shouldn’t have any consequences – that is, if all countries respect international law, which clearly says that a state has the right to grant asylum. How many times has Sweden granted asylum? A lot of people requested asylum in Sweden and live there now. This country is known for its willingness to give asylum. What consequences could there be? But unfortunately, in this particular case we see that some countries are displaying their colonial and imperial ambitions, their ethnocentricity. It turns out that if Ecuador grants asylum to someone, it suddenly might have consequences. What consequences are we talking about, if we are exercising our sovereignty in line with international law?
[...]
RT: Why do you think Julian Assange chose Ecuador and not another country?
RC: Only Mr. Assange can answer that. The fact he did is the best response to the smear campaign and to the people who maintain we have no freedom of speech: the man who is‘freedom of speech’ personified requested asylum in Ecuador. It’s the best response to all the lies.
RT: How long do you think it might take? How long will Julian Assange be staying in the embassy?
RC: In theory, indefinitely, unless the UK goes ahead with its threat to raid our embassy to arrest him. As you know, the threat is in written form, and the UK hasn’t revoked it.
RT: Do you think they’d really go as far as that?
RC: I think it would be pure insanity on the part of the UK. After doing so, any of their embassies could be raided, and what will they say then?
RT: What kind of repercussions would such a development have?
RC: We would immediately sever our diplomatic ties, of course. I think it would lead to a backlash in all the Latin American countries, but I maintain that the UK has more to lose. After that, how would they prevent the same from happening to the UK embassies around the world? And I assure you, the UK has more diplomatic missions than Ecuador.
RT: If the UK doesn’t give permission for Julian Assange’s safe passage to Ecuador, how will he get there? In a diplomatic vehicle?
RC: No, it would be impossible. If he leaves the embassy, he can be arrested by the UK police. I am not an expert on this, but I would think that even if you are in a car with diplomatic license plates, you are still at the mercy of the driver, and who knows what he will agree to. In any case, no one is trying to hide Assange from the Swedish prosecution, but we need guarantees that he wouldn’t be extradited to a third country.
RT: Why do you think Sweden refused Ecuador’s proposal to question Assange at the embassy? Even via Skype, as has been done before?
RC: Why? This is a widely accepted legal practice; it has been done many times before. That’s why the Ecuadorian embassy proposed this to the Swedish prosecution. We invited them to come to the embassy and question Assange in person. Isn’t that what they’ve been trying to do all along? They denied our offer, so what are we supposed to think now?
RT: In your opinion, why have Sweden and the UK stood so firm on their position? What are their real motives?
RC: First, it’s absolutely possible and legal. There have been many precedents, many similar cases that prove that Sweden could question Mr Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Second, the UK could extradite Mr Assange on a condition that he would not be then handed over to a third country.Third, Sweden could accept Mr Assange on a condition that he would not be extradited to a third country. Why has this not happened? It’s up to humanity to address this question [...]
LINK (Includes video):
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32281.htm
