Diplomatic dilemmas and Julian Assange

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/19/diplomatic-dilemmas-and-julian-assange

Version 0 of 1.

Your editorial (17 August) states categorically that "an embassy car is not diplomatically protected", although I don't know how you square that with Article 22(3) of the Vienna convention ("The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution"). This, however, seems unlikely to help Mr Assange to get himself to Ecuador without being arrested when he leaves the embassy to get into the car or at the port or airport when he gets out of it. A safer way might be for Ecuador to appoint him to the diplomatic staff of their embassy in London, for which the UK government's agreement would not be required. Mr Hague would then expel him, after the Ecuadoreans had refused to waive his diplomatic immunity. But Assange would retain his diplomatic immunity from arrest until he had left the UK, presumably on his way to Ecuador and political asylum. Such diplomatic chicanery to enable Assange to escape British and Swedish due process would lay Ecuador open to retaliation – Britain could expel its ambassador or even break off diplomatic relations – but the Ecuadoreans might think it worthwhile. No doubt Mr Assange would! Brian Barder London

• Your leader was an oasis of sense amid the myopic tone of most of the letters concerning Mr Assange on the opposite page. One wonders what the Ecuadorean government would have done had British diplomats in Quito given refuge to a man wanted in Ecuador and other countries, and London had then given him sanctuary in Britain: most probably smoked him out of the legation one way or another. However, Britain must keep its temper over Mr Assange. Much better to let this wanted man stew in the embassy until sense prevails and he leaves to face the allegations that the Swedish women have made. Sweden is a democratic country and, incidentally, one that is far less beholden to America than is Britain. John Webster London

• You are right that Julian Assange is not exactly a total hero, and he's probably safer against US extradition if he's in Sweden than in Britain. But the sheer vengefulness and ugliness of the noises coming from much of the US has to be a cause for concern. They want to try him for treason (despite not being an American) and espionage (though every member of every non-US intelligence service in the world could be accused in the same way). This should not be dismissed as just the manic extremes sounding off, if only because these people might be in power in a few months' time. Given this and the gleefully harsh treatment of Bradley Manning even under the present regime, and the noticeably cool and proviso-ridden Swedish response about guarantees against further extradition, it is probably best if some way is found to pack him off to Ecuador. Roger Schafir London

• The left and radical movement have often been associated with well-known figures who have been less than ideal despite their undoubted qualities. Henry Hunt who spoke at Peterloo in 1819 was involved in doubtful business deals, while William Cobbett was prone to voicing antisemitic views. Yet the ruling order of the day hated them not for this but because they were a thorn in the side of the establishment. Fast forward almost 200 years and Julian Assange fits the model. Certainly he needs to address allegations of sexual assault and rape which he appears to take rather less seriously than is warranted. But he is the focus for so much attention not for this reason – after all, western governments regularly welcome and deal with people who are guilty of far greater crimes – but because he blew the whistle on the debacle of the Iraq war. Keith Flett London

• If the UK government is unwilling to accept the view of Ecuador that Julian Assange deserves political asylum because he fears for his freedom to continue as a journalist, why did they not insist that Swedish prosecutors interview him in the Ecuadorean embassy before the decision to grant asylum was reached? As that has not been done, how can we even consider extradition to Sweden? The solution should be similar to the recent Chinese action when a dissident sought asylum in an American embassy. The dissident and his family were assisted to leave the embassy, escorted to an airport and flown to the country which had offered asylum. Owen Ephraim Chelmsford, Essex

• I seem to recall that when General Pinochet was being detained in London on a Spanish arrest warrant the British government was unable to fulfil its extradition obligations and he was allowed to escape back to his Chilean bolthole. It seems that in Britain you stand a better chance of avoiding extradition if you are a murderous fascist dictator than if you are a champion of free speech and open government. But of course we must dismiss from our minds any suspicion that in both cases it was and is Washington that has reminded London where its real obligations (and best interests) lie. Perish the thought. Adrian Marlowe The Hague, Netherlands

• William Hague says the UK does not recognise diplomatic asylum. Strange. The UK did recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum when the Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty was sentenced to death by the communist authorities for supporting the anti-communist uprising in Hungary in 1956. Mindszenty spent 15 years in diplomatic asylum in the American embassy in Budapest. Strange that the UK authorities did not protest then. But maybe Hague is too young to actually know of this precedent. Jan Culik University of Glasgow