Skip to main content

Assange: South America v colonialism?

Julian Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and the Brits wonder what to do to get him out of there.  The Swedes want Assange on their patch.  The US wants Assange too - as The Sydney Morning Herald revealed yesterday.   Meanwhile, a different "play" is afoot.  Some South American countries throwing down the gauntlet to what they see as residual colonialism by the Brits and its cohorts.

"Ecuador was this weekend seeking support from its Latin American partners to confront what officials described as threats by Britain over Quito’s decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder.

The government of President Rafael Correa has played the role of the mouse that roared at the British bulldog in the standoff over Mr. Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy since seeking refuge there on June 19.

Ricardo Patiño, Ecuador’s foreign minister, this week accused British authorities of planning to storm the embassy to enforce an extradition warrant against Mr. Assange and declared: “We are not a British colony.”

President Correa will not have to push very hard to win a ringing declaration of solidarity from his closest regional allies, including Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia, who are always on the alert for any manifestation of neo-colonialist bullying.

The radical Alianza Bolivariana, which includes those countries, issued a statement firmly rejecting British threats, even before its officials met in Ecuador on Saturday to discuss the situation.

The larger Union of South American Nations (Unasur), which includes most states in the continent, was meeting on Sunday, also in the Ecuadorian city of Guayaquil.

Despite the tone of righteous indignation likely to dominate both meetings, the Assange case has thrown up some odd contradictions, and accusations that, when it comes to the sanctity of political asylum, the Latin Americans do not always practice what they preach.

In Bolivia, one of Ecuador’s closest allies, opposition politicians have highlighted the case of Roger Pinto, a right-wing senator who has been sheltering in the Brazilian Embassy in La Paz for almost three months.

Mr. Pinto has been granted asylum by Brazil but the Bolivian government will not give him safe conduct out of the country on the grounds that he is the subject of corruption allegations.

Bolivian opposition figures said the government was guilty of doublespeak, and Fabián Yaksic, an opposition parliamentarian, said that in the Pinto case “they’re using the same arguments that we’re hearing from Britain’s Conservative government.”

Mr. Assange’s lawyers include Baltasar Garzón, a Spanish jurist and human rights campaigner.

Mr Garzón was on the other side of an extradition battle in 1998 when he issued an international warrant for the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean president, on allegations that included the murder and torture of Spanish citizens.

The former dictator was in Britain at the time and a London magistrate granted a request for his extradition to Spain. The British government subsequently allowed him to return home to Chile on health grounds.

One of Gen. Pinochet’s firmest supporters at the time of his battle against extradition was Margaret Thatcher, the former Conservative prime minister. She had received help from the Chilean leader during the Falklands War of 1982 to recover Britain’s far-flung colony after an Argentine invasion.

That conflict still rankles with the Latin Americans and, Mr. Assange notwithstanding, remains at the root of their occasional outbursts against British neo-colonialism.

A Bolivian official, Idón Moisés Chivi Vargas, made a straight connection between the two cases in an article denouncing British colonialism. “Yesterday it was Argentina, today it is Ecuador, tomorrow it could be Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...