Assange will be refused safe passage even if Ecuador grants asylum - Foreign Office

[ikri]

44. From what I've been told of Swedish law

Someone can't be charged in absentia so the interview that Sweden wants to conduct would be the point at which charges were laid. He's broken UK law by skipping bail, it really doesn't matter if he's innocent of the accusations or not he's violated his bail terms and is wanted in the UK for that crime. Sweden doesn't use the same law system as the UK and US so can't be expected to follow UK or US procedures.

The UK government haven't threatened to invade Ecuador's accredited and recognised embassy, they've pointed out that there are provisions in UK law to remove that recognition if the embassy isn't being used for diplomatic purposes, a provision put in place after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan embassy in London.

It's also worth noting that Article 41 of the Vienna Convention:

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

If the Ecuadorian embassy isn't respecting British law then the UK government would be well within its rights to revoke the embassy accreditation and expel their ambassador.

There's been talk of Ecuador naming Assange a diplomat but diplomatic credentials are granted by the host country, not the embassy. Ecuador would have to apply to the UK government to make Assange a diplomat which would be rejected. Nor can they pack him in a cardboard box, declare it a diplomatic pouch and send him to the nearest airport. Diplomatic pouches are only respected when they actually contain documents related to diplomatic activity, they can be, and are, intercepted and opened such as when Italy intercepted 40 kilos of cocaine in a diplomatic pouch.

I'm fairly sure that it is pretty unusual for any country to allow people to leave another country by seeking asylum at their embassy. If you were wanted by the police in a foreign country and sought refuge at your own nation's embassy they'd almost always arrange for you to leave, perhaps with an embassy official to assure that you were being treated fairly but you'd get little direct support. When Chen Guangcheng sought protection at the US embassy in Beijing the US negotiated with China and he ended up leaving the protection of the embassy. It's worth adding that China demanded that the US apologise for the incident and never interfere in China's domestic matters in such way again, see Article 41 again - China would have been well within its rights to expel the US ambassador from China and suspend the embassy, similar to what the UK has told Ecuador and backed that up with the specific parts of UK law that would allow for the UK to do so.

You ask why England (the United Kingdom really) would risk an act of war? It wouldn't be an act of war since the embassy would just be a set of offices owned or rented by another country. You might also want to ask, why would Ecuador risk pissing off the UK, Sweden and potentially the whole European Union by giving asylum to Assange? Even if the UK government decides to look the other way and let Assange leave the country, what does Ecuador gain?