The UK: disrespect for international law

WikiLeaks is once again in the spotlight as an international diplomatic row has sparked over the fate of its founder, Julian Assange.

Assange and Berezovsky: what`s the difference?

Julian Assange is facing sexual allegations by Swedish law-enforcement forces. He received asylum from Ecuador`s embassy in London. And it has become almost impossible to get him out of there. The UK issued a warning that it would enter the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Mr Assange. Global reaction was immediate and unambiguous – this is the violation of international law!

The Times called on official London to "refrain from getting into conflict". It warned that it could create a dangerous "precedent for the debasing" of one of its own embassies in the future. "What if a real dissident takes refuge at a British embassy?"

The Independent clearly warned that issuing a threat was not a solution. The newspaper said arresting Assange by entering embassy means giving Ecuador a diplomatic argument.

The Financial Times went even further by calling the British authorities` move "an inglorious embassy siege" This position was shared by other leading western newspapers.

The most important is why such a venerable country as the UK decided to disregard international law. In our opinion the answer is that the Western states definitely consider themselves the cradle of justice. Therefore, they do what they want.

The UK has given asylum to hundreds of people, and not all of them had clear past. Reports suggest that they have been granted asylum for the sake of political, economic or other interests. And it`s impossible to persuade the British authorities into negotiations to ensure the extradition of any person granted asylum. But the United Kingdom can do it...In some cases asylum is granted for bribe. For example, Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky gave £320,000 through offshore companies for asylum (1).

Defiance of Vienna Convention

On an international level, the UK attempted to breach Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. The Article 22 of this Convention reads: "The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity" (2).

And the British authorities wanted to enter Ecuador`s embassy in London to arrest a man who was given asylum. What democratic model can one talk about if a developed western country attempts to overtly violate international law? Those who see such injustice will lose confidence in human rights and justice, on the whole.

The United Kingdom, which criticizes other countries and accuses them of breaching human rights, has once again proved that it can take a biased and unfair position for the sake of its own interests. And it is impossible to combat terrorism in a world, where international law and human rights are treated in such a way. Under such circumstances, Armenia will never give up its policy of aggression.

One thing is clear: if super powers are not just and accurate in observing international law, humanity will continue facing troubles, innocent people will continue being killed, and there will be no peace and prosperity on earth.

References:

Sam Greenhill. So why did a controversial Russian oligarch give Queen's cousin Prince Michael £320000 through offshore companies? / Daily Mail, 13 May 2012; URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143711/Queens-cousin-given-320-000-controversial-Russian-oligarch-pay-grace-favour-flat-upkeep.html

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. United Nations Treaty Collection. URL:http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-3&chapter=3&lang=en.

Newtimes.az