Ecuador says it has granted nationality to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange | Hacker News Reader

Ecuador says it has granted nationality to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

abcnews.go.com

44 pointsorjan29 comments

I saw a more detailed article a bit ago on it and it said that Ecuador gave him citizenship on December 12th and then sent a request on December 20th for the UK to treat Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat and all of the protections that entails. UK rejected that a day later.

edit: article in question - https://www.yahoo.com/news/ecuador-grants-citizenship-wikile...

How does the UK deny a sovereign nation’s determination?

Normally a country can reject a diplomat's entry into the country. Which makes sense, given the extent of diplomatic immunity. Therefore it does make sense that one cannot willy nilly change a person's diplomatic status while in country.

Edit: delete repeated words

Technically he is in Ecuador.

Not really, embassy’s are not the sovereign territory of the foreign country, the land still belongs to the host county, so officially he’s still in Britain, but is protected under the Vienna treaty

This sounds like you know more about the situation than I do. I just assumed it was considered foreign territory for all intents and purposes. (Maybe due to that treaty).

Might makes right.

Well, I guess nations do that all the time. Certainly I've heard of it in the last year or so.

  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-erdogan-president-us-ambassador-visa-latest-a7993116.html
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11527987/Pope-Francis-refuses-gay-French-ambassador.html
  https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/254049/israel-won%27t-recognise-nz-ambassador

In a legal manner (and not because I'm a UK citizen) I presume the host nation can decline and then the proposing nation can find another one or send them anyway but risk that he falls foul of the law and the host country does not recognise any diplomatic immunity. In this case though, if the UK declines then he is still stuck in there with no way out.

I think its kind of strange really that we have spent all this money pursuing this guy for what was a minor warrant (that they wanted to speak to him) which has since been cancelled and think that we (the UK) should just say enough already and turn a blind eye to him leaving on a jet plane. Oh yeah, but the strange part is that it really seems as if its important to somebody that that doesn't happen.

the warrant was revoked, but prior to that he skipped bail, which is contempt of court

at worst it's a year in prison

think that's the norm, really. Usually it is more a rubber stamping formality (Russia / Trump's US-to-Russia diplomat pick), but I imagine a country could reject a diplomat, especially if said the host country has a previous issue with the diplomat in question.

I'm a bit shocked at how brazen it is, honestly. Perhaps, if anything, it implies that Britain doesn't view Assange as a big issue anymore as doing what Ecuador did last month would almost certainly be viewed as a diplomatic slap in the face otherwise. It almost reads like their response was "haha--no"

I think the UK tried to pretend Assange isn’t a big issue anymore and Ecuador called their bluff. It’s an easily dismissed abuse of diplomatic process though.

The host country has the right to accept or deny a diplomat's credentials. Here's the US Ambassador presenting his credentials to Queen Elizabeth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4E9LMK46oo

According to former ambassador Craig Murray, this applies only to head of mission (ambassador) : https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/01/ecuador-and-...

A host state may expel a diplomat, but may not remove/ignore their diplomatic immunity.

So.. problem solved? Make Julian a diplomat, let the UK Persona-Non-Grata him, requiring him to "return" to Ecuador?

Of course, there'd also be the problem of other countries denying the plane access to their airspace. They're probably upset with him over his role in the Snowden event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

The other nation doesn’t get to decide what happens in the UK because the UK is also a sovereign nation.

Although it would be unusual, impolite and probably unwise, if the UK decides to enter the embassy by force and just take Assange, there isn’t a whole lot Ecuador could do about it, apart from making a big fuss. Ultimately it is the UK who decides to allow Ecuador the right to have an embassy on their soil in the first place and they can come back on that decision whenever they want.

Then of course you could argue Ecuador could abduct people from, for example, the British Embassy if they saw fit. It would set an incredibly unwise precedent.

I mean... Ecuador could, it's mutually assured abduction that keeps nations from doing this, but it's hardly unprecedented.

I know there's not much more to say, but I think it's pretty funny that the title is also the contents of the 'article'. Is this someones tweet that was published as an article?

it is this tweet https://twitter.com/AP/status/951486396618956802

How much longer can the UK threaten him with arrest for breach of bail triggered by a closed procedure in a foreign country for a now-deemed-non-existent crime? is there a limitation period -- 10, 15, 20 years, or will he be hounded in perpetuity?

it doesn't matter what the law is, they'll bend the law

no limitation period

If one were in his position, how would one scheme a safe escape from the UK?

I can imagine scenarios to leave the embassy building (mob action, disguises...), but then what?

Do the UK authorities have to post agents all around the embassy 24/7 to be sure he doesn’t just walk out?

They did until 2015 [1]. The UK government estimated that cost over GBP 12 million.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34508500

And right back to where he started. Its contingent on the UK to decide Assange's fate and their is no indication that they have changed their mind.

I don’t know why, but the first thing I searched for after reading this was: the CIA runs Ecuador.

Turns out, they do. I figured the overlords of the drug trade would want to make their home near the place of production. This is just theater.

Citation? You’ll need a smoking gun.

Search for the same phrase? There are plenty.

Also, I don't need a smoking gun because I'm not bringing anybody into a court for trial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com