Out of the many things that I don’t understand about the Julain Assange situation, the thing I don’t understand the most is what Ecuador has to do with the whole situation. Unless I missed something, he’s not an Ecuadorian citizen. Why did he pick that particular embassy in which to seek asylum? Could he have just as well chosen another country, or is there something special about Ecuador in this case?
The president of Ecuador said in an interview some time ago that he supported Assange and would give him political asylum in Ecuador if he needed it. Assanged remembered that when it was decided that he would be extradited. Whether president Correa now regrets his words is unkown, but to my mind not impossible.
“Any port in a storm”. I don’t think he had that many countries to choose from…
The legal analyst opined this morning on the news that Assange really has two choices. The first is to surrender and face extradition, the second, to remain in the embassy he’s now hiding in. It doesn’t sound like he’s going to be seeing the Ecuadorian countryside any time soon.
I wonder just how long they’re going to feed him and house him. I think he’ll start to stink even sooner than the customary three days.
As South America is a world center of US-hating, Assange was wise to seek that area as a refuge. His hope is, no doubt, that some Big Banana somewhere who wants to annoy the US (Chavez comes to mind as a possibility) will grant him permanent refugee/residency status.
We shouldn’t care if he rots–he was nothing but an asshole spy, and motivated only by the publicity he could garner. He did a lot of harm and no good whatsoever.
If publishing infos that someone else disclosed though he wasn’t supposed to makes you a spy, then a lot of regular journalists are spies too.
That’s not up to third parties to ensure that sensitive information isn’t disseminated.
Thanks. I wondered too and didn’t get an answer in the other thread.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true.
President Correa of Ecuador is Hugo Chavez lite. His great enemy Colombia is in the US pals team, and many down there may be friendly with Chavez but it doesn’t make them his vassals, they just don’t choose camps.
So maybe Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia aren’t terribly friendly with the US. I don’t know if that is the main reason why they are taking Assange.
Probably a combination of political expediency and ego. Correa was interviewed by Assange for Russia Today. During the interview, the expellation of Embassador Hodges from Ecuador over Wikileaks revelations (alleged corruption in Ecuador) was discussed. Correa seemed to sympathize with Assange and his “persecution” and chuckled when Assange closed the interview with “Don’t get assassinated.”
Additionally as pointed out here, Correa can use relief from criticism over his free speech record.
Much of the world is now talking about Ecuador and Correa. When’s the last time that happened? It seems like Correa is following Chavez’s method for getting noticed: Thumb you nose at America and reap the local popularity that comes from sticking up to the U.S.
News analysis in the New York Times:
It’s Not About Assange, published today (Aug. 19, 2012), by Anita Isaacs, political science professor.
It’s not about Assange, nor about Ecuadorean/British relations, but:
Similar sentiments from Max Fisher
So is it fair to say that none of this has anything to do with Sweden and sexual assault charges, but is in fact about the US ?
Wouldn’t that mean that Julian Assange has a point ?
To be honest, I can’t say with any certainty what Correa’s main motivation is. Whatever his reasons are, however, they neither legitimize nor delegitimize Assange’s behavior or point-of-view.
Fair enough, I suppose Correa is kind of “after the fact”.
If [the President of] Ecuador is granting assylum for his/it’s own prestige and electioneering purposes, how does that prove that Assange has a point?
Edit: I see this is “asked and answered”.