‘Imperial ambitions’ won’t change Ecuador`s position on Assange - CorreaRT: 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: So many countries and organizations have supported Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Assange, including UNASUR and most of the ALBA nations. In what way did they express their backing?
RC: The support we have enjoyed has been primarily due to Britain’s diplomatic clumsiness – I hope you will excuse my language, but I just cannot find another way to put it. The British threatened us with storming our embassy to arrest Mr Assange. This is what has united all the nations in South America and other continents in their desire to stand behind Ecuador, confronted as it was with such a barbaric prospect.
Such threats are unacceptable. Had they been carried out, this would have constituted a violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law: the inviolability of diplomatic premises. It was this threat rather than our eventual asylum decision that has prompted such widespread support in our favor from the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas and the Union of South American Nations. And on Friday, foreign ministers of the member nations of the Organization of American States will meet to discuss the issue.
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.
RT: Why do you think they haven’t taken any of those options?
RC: I’d rather not say.
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.
read the entire interview at:
http://rt.com/news/interview-correa-ecuador-assange-514/
Forum
Pages: 
Assange Granted Ecuadorian Asylum (Read 36244 times)
