<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Ambassador Craig Murray (former British ambassador to Uzbekistan), blogs (red bold mine):<br><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/">http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/</a></font><br><br><font style="font-size: 16pt;" size="4"><a href="http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally">America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally</a></font><br><br>I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation
from within the FCO that the UK <br><BR>government has indeed decided – after
immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter <br><BR>the Ecuadorean
Embassy and seize Julian Assange.<BR><br><BR>
This will be, beyond any argument,<b><font style="" color="#FF0000"> a blatant breach of the Vienna
Convention of 1961,</font></b> to which <br><BR>the UK is one of the original parties and
which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice <br><BR>which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is
the most subscribed single<BR> international treaty in the world.<BR><br><BR>
The provisions of the <a href="http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf">Vienna Convention</a>
on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in<BR> deliberately
absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in
the treaty. <br><BR><br><BR>
<b><font style="" color="#FF0000"><em>Article 22</em></font></b><BR>
<blockquote><b><font style="" color="#FF0000">1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State <br></font></b><BR><b><font style="" color="#FF0000">may not enter</font><font style="" color="#FF0000"> </font><font style="" color="#FF0000">them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.</font></b><BR><br>
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises<br>
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the<br>
mission or impairment of its dignity.<BR><br>
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of<br>
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.<BR><br><BR></blockquote>
Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17877005">Chen <br></a><BR><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17877005">Guangchen</a>. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from <br><BR>each other’s embassies. <em>Murder in Samarkand</em>
relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to <br><BR>help Uzbek
dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in
British Embassies being <br><BR>subject to raids and harassment worldwide. <br><BR><br><BR>
The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a
strong enough power to deter such<BR> intrusions. This is yet another
symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in
the<BR> era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of
international law.<BR><br><BR>
The British Government bases its argument on domestic British
legislation. But the<b> <font style="" color="#FF0000">domestic legislation </font><font style="" color="#FF0000"><br></font></b><BR><b><font style="" color="#FF0000">of a country cannot counter
its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw <br></font></b><BR><b><font style="" color="#FF0000">from </font><font style="" color="#FF0000">them. </font></b> If the government does not wish to follow the obligations
imposed on it by the Vienna <br><BR>Convention, it has the right to resile from
it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide. <br><BR><br><BR>
I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US
administration. William Hague <br><BR>had been supporting the move against the
concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been <br><BR>opposing the
move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been
taken in Number 10. <br><BR><br><BR>
There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal
Democrats. That opens a wider <br><BR>question – there appears to be no
“liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing<BR>
how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are
worth far more than any belief <br><BR>to these people. I cannot now conceive
how I was a member of that party for over thirty years,<BR>deluded into a
genuine belief that they had principles.<BR><br> </div></body>
</html>