About a month ago I asked a former colleague in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office what Hague saw as the endgame in the Julian Assange asylum standoff, and where the room for negotiation lay. My friend was dismissive – the policy was simply to wait for the Presidential election in Ecuador in February. The United States and allies were confident that Correa will lose, and my friend and I having both been senior diplomats for many years we understood what the United States would be doing to ensure that result. With Correa replaced by a pro-USA President, Assange’s asylum will be withdrawn, the Metropolitan Police invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.
I have been struck by the naivety of those who ask why the United States could not simply request Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom. The answer is simple – the coalition government. Extradition agreements are government to government international treaties, and the decision on their implementation is ultimately political and governmental – that is why it was Teresa May and not a judge who took the final and very different political decisions on Babar Ahmad and Gary Mackinnon.
CIA supporters in the UK have argued vociferously that it would be impossible for Sweden to give Assange the assurance he would not be extradited to the United States, with which he would be prepared to return to Sweden to see off the rather pathetic attempted fit-up there. In fact, as extradition agreements are governmental not judicial instruments, it would be perfectly possible for the Swedish government to give that assurance. Those who argue otherwise, like Gavin Essler and Joan Smith here, are not being truthful – I suspect their very vehemence indicates that they know that.
Most Liberal Democrat MPs are happy to endorse the notion that Assange should be returned to Sweden to face sexual accusations. However even the repeatedly humiliated Lib Dem MPs would revolt at the idea that Assange should be sent to face life imprisonment in solitary confinement in the United States for the work of Wikileaks. That is why the United States has held off requesting extradition from the United Kingdom, to avoid the trouble this would cause Cameron. I am not speculating, there have been direct very senior diplomatic exchanges on this point between Washington and London.
There was confidence that the Correa problem would soon pass, but the State Department has since been shocked by the return of Hugo Chavez. Like Correa, senior US diplomats had convinced themselves – and convinced La Clinton – that Chavez was going to lose. The fury at Chavez’s return has led to a diktat that the same mistake must not be made in Ecuador.
CIA operations inside Ecuador are in any case much less disrupted than in Venezuela. I learn that the US budget, using mostly Pentagon funds, devoted to influencing the Ecuadorean election has, since the Venezuelan result, been almost tripled to US $87 million. This will find its way into opposition campaign coffers and be used to fund, bribe or blackmail media and officials. Expect a number of media scandals and corruption stings against Correa’s government in the next few weeks.
I do not have much background on Ecuadorean politics and I really do not know what Correa’s chances of re-election are. Neither do I know if any of the opposition parties are decent and not in the hands of the USA. But I do know that the USA very much want Correa to lose, were very confident that he was going to lose, and now are not. From their point of view, the danger is that in upping the ante, their efforts will become so obvious they will backfire in a nationalist reaction. My US source however is adamant that the Obama adminstration will not actually use the funds to incite another military coup attempt against Correa. That has apparently been ruled out. Assange being expelled into the arms of the CIA by a newly installed military dictatorship might be a difficult sell even for our appalling mainstream media.
I haven’t noticed the rest of the UK media trying to destroy the BBC, but only for lack of opportunity and any will to look for it, necessitating distasteful exposure to their content. The BBC have done a grand job of it entirely by their own efforts, needing no help from outside. I think there are obvious motivations for the powerful to kick this wounded but still dangerous animal, as there are for the powerless subjected to its nauseating spin and disinformation not to mourn its swift passing. The mandatory TV-tax and powers to kick in doors to enforce this absurdity are an intolerable erosion of basic liberties, this unsubtle extortion is so long entrenched we’re inured to its evils. Fear and shame is used to defame defaulters either unable to pay it or those who never watch the television and when they do object to being forced to pay up front specifically for the BBC elite’s mediocre output which is indistinguishable from and bland like all the rest. What is payed for reflects nothing of relevance use or interest to the lives of those who foot the bill.
Even well-known anti-bbc/biased BBC websites are Zionist run honeypots. Why contend with opposition when you can be your own opposition.
“Just read some of the comments supporting rafael correa. They are obviously paid to say so. It is unbelievable.”
I could easily say this is pure projection. In all likelihood, though, this Daniel guy is a well-off Ecuadorian (evidently one who can write fluent English, probably educated abroad) who is threatened by the first Ecuadorian government that doesn’t pander to the elites.
“This people has no education they are all brainwhased or paid to support him.”
This is idiotic. To be the most popular president of the Americas, support from the (rapidly diminishing) poor and uneducated class of Ecuador is insufficient. With unemployment at 4.6% (latest figures), poverty in free fall, massive infrastructure investment, overhaul of the education system, political stability not seen for many years before Correa, what’s so hard to understand about Correa’s popularity? Even critics admit that Ecuador is going through a period of surprising growth. Why in the world would Correa need to pay people to support him?
Correa is not perfect by any means. I could go on and on about what I believe to be mistakes, but is he the best president Ecuador has had in modern times? Uncontroversially, yes.
BTW, see votaecuador.com for an online presidential survey. While we can all agree online surveys are not reliable, note a couple things: (1) They require you to have an old Twitter account to vote; (2) People with access to the internet in Ecuador are not in Correa’s primary demographic.
If I wasn’t clear, I’m Ecuadorian too.
More context…
http://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/2012/03/from-carlos-alberto-montaner-cuba-prepares-for-post-chavez-era/
A South American concept of nurture;
Forget the politics and base our well being on betterment and understanding of what it is to to be part of this ocean of life.
Grow and prosper and nurture the planet and create a better future for our children to enjoy.
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/ls2_genge.pdf
I’ll be damned if I can figure his politics, but he makes valid points. I don’t think he’s a right-winger, even though his column originates in Miami, the pejorative ‘nest’ of anti-Castro Fascists.
Duncan,
“The amnesty international reports do report torture, disappearances and murders by police of indigenous people who oppose mining and dam construction in Ecuador though ā and even a case of a government minister shouting āyouāre a dead manā at one campaigner against a development, so maybe a dictatorship in practice in some ways.”
What year? I’d like to see the report you’re referring to.
Ecuador did have a problem with police brutality and disappearances back in the day, still with some isolated incidents. Currently police undergo human rights training and you don’t hear much about it anymore.
I have read about human rights abuses against indigenous people who opposed mining projects, but that was in 2002 or even earlier. I think it’s important to distinguish the actions of the current government (2007 and later) from Ecuador’s past.
What Amnesty accuses the current government of is arresting and charging demonstrators, sometimes with a charge of “terrorism”. I think the charge of “terrorism” is in fact misused, and that’s a valid criticism. But Amnesty gives the impression that demonstrations are always peaceful in Ecuador, which is incorrect. One of the cases involves manslaughter.
A Node
āWe might not like the BBC, but we only need to observe the effort that, for example, the Murdoch empire put into undermining it, to realise that it has at least the potential to be a thorn in their side.ā
The Murdochās of this world donāt hate the BBC they want to undermine it so they can take it over; it has a worldwide reach and is funded by taxes.
āBetter we work towards regaining control over the BBC than destroying it.ā
We have never had control of the BBC it has always been the British State propaganda machine; far more powerful than the newspapers but doing the same job: misinforming the public in Britain and in countries overseas.
A-Node,
Comparing these news headlines:
Telegraph: “British al-Qaeda gang from Birmingham planned ‘another 9/11’ in UK”
BBC: “Men ‘planned mass suicide attack'”
The prosecution claim “the men were “jihadists” and “extremists” who were influenced by an al-Qaeda affiliated preacher, Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki was ‘killed’ by a CIA drone 12 days before these men were arrested. The men have been in Belmarsh prison for over a year and this case is timed to coincide with calls from Washington that the Justice and Security Bill is fully implemented in civil cases involving so called ‘state secrets’ so that judges are vetted and the cases are held in secret behind closed doors.
My sources tell me that MI6 is aware of a
poolgang (50) of so called jihadists from Britain who have been recruited to fight in Syria against the Assad government. They have been trained to use and plant explosives, thus creating fear in Alawite communities supporting the government.Hi Jose – I was surprised too, as i’d previously got the impression indigenous indians were better off under Correa but Amnesty International’s 2012 report (covering 2011) mentions a lot of police violence, even including forced eviction, killings and disappearances, of indigenous people in Ecuador protesting against mining and other companies
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador/report-2012
If you go to the amnesty website and go to library and do an advanced search with Ecuador as the country, you’ll find more, including some on torture and one on a government minister shouting “you’re a dead man” at one indigenous protester and another about a campaigner being shot in the head and killed
One of the cases in the 2012 report involves the forced eviction of 1,700 indigenous people and bulldozing of their homes
Of course , as with Chavez, he could still be the best / least bad President Ecuador has ever had – may have been much worse under his predecessors
Is there any evidence about Craig comments?, or it is only one man comments? Sorry but to believe on it I need evidence.
Please leave conspiracy theories as they really are, theories, even when evidence is presented.
EspaƱol: Hay evidencia o pruebas que soporten estos comentarios?, o son solo comentarios de una persona. Disculpen pero para creer esto se necesitan pruebas.
Favor dejar las teorias de conspiraciĆ³n como lo que son, solo teorĆas. Hasta cuando se presenten pruebas.
Snap,
Mostly: El Comercio, El Universo, El Hoy, La Hora (private outlets) and El Telegrafo (public outlet).
Private media are basically the political opposition in Ecuador, since there are no strong opposition leaders at the moment.
The quality is not necessarily very good. Correa is criticized for harassing and sometimes even suing private media outlets, and this is a valid criticism, but is also in part the result of poor journalism (i.e. making stuff up.)
All have online presence. All generally allow comments. (El Comercio temporarily shut down theirs recently while they implement a different system that they can better control, and this is one of many controversies in Ecuador.)
You mean, not mainstream? I don’t think that works in Ecuador the way you’re used to. I can’t think of any type of blog that would be considered too radical.
I’d say, very little. Prior censorship is prohibited constitutionally.
I understand it’s about 30%.
Can’t say.
@moderator: Anyone who choices to label people, who don’t buy into their theory, a “denialist”, is clearly a conformist. Please keep your dogma to yourself.
Jose
What is the main demographic vehicle for Correa, or even just for his ideas?
Are the professional class involved? Are there those from wealth who have turned to support him. If so to what extent?
What is the demographic for those who will lose in democracy, and are they declining?
I doubt very much that U.S senators believed that Chavez would lose. He was ahead in every poll, except the ones linked to the Capriles campaign. Those polls have also been consistently wrong in other elections.
I recommend this great article on the recent election:
http://news.yahoo.com/breaking-political-echo-chamber-venezuela-184843910.html
Duncan,
There is some disturbing information in there that I wasn’t aware of, but after reading all of it, I think you’re not characterizing it accurately. It seems that 5 or so indigenous people protesting the construction of a dam were injured, but the report doesn’t claim there were killings and disappearances of indigenous people. Separately, 12 police officers were convicted in the torture (police brutality) of 3 people, and the disappearance of one more. (Yes, authorities do get brought to justice for torture in Ecuador, go figure.) I do find the short sentences in that case to be reprehensible, but I’m not familiar with the case. The rest of the cases are about incidents that happened a long time ago, or about apparently ordinary murders, arrests, lawsuits, etc.
Of course, no one is claiming that Ecuador is no longer a third world country. And it clearly still has some challenges with law and order. It’s important to distinguish state actions from actions carried out by state actors (like criminal elements in the police force.)
Jose: So who decides what theories are OK to discuss? Technically the official theory of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. You should learn to respect other people’s opinions. Everybody doesn’t agree with your dogma.
Dan,
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you perhaps addressing Jorge instead?
“Is there any evidence about Craig comments?, or it is only one man comments? Sorry but to believe on it I need evidence.
Please leave conspiracy theories as they really are, theories, even when evidence is presented.”
Well Craig is a most famous and celebrated whistleblowing ex-diplomat and he reported in this post information from a knowledgeable contact. I believe expert testimoney from respected sources is a substantial kind of evidence/information.
There are theories and there are silly tales, whether they involve conspiracy or not, does not determine their seriousness.
Besides the poor, I’m pretty sure people with progressive and anti-neo-liberal views, and those who value sovereignty, would tend to prefer Correa over his opposition, despite his flaws.
He must have substantial support in the middle class, although I haven’t seen polls to that effect. Rumor has it that even the wealthy are sort of loving him (though still ideologically opposed to him) because of the economic “bonanza” Ecuador is going through at the moment.
Not sure what you mean. The demographic of his opposition? Those who don’t like Correa’s taxes, want to be closer to the US, been affected economically in some way, feel Correa is more authoritarian than predecessors, etc.
@Jose: Yes I meant Jorge, sorry.
Thanks, Jose.
What exactly is the alternative to Correa?
@Herbie,
Alberto Acosta, a key proponent of the 2008 constitution, and formerly a member of Correa’s movement, is ideologically similar to Correa, but unproven.
All the other major candidates are right-wing (albeit often portraying themselves as leftists) and would surely undo most of what Correa has done, including the rather progressive constitution we have now.
Assange would be on a plane to Sweden in a matter of months with most of them, maybe even with Acosta.
Is Acosta an opponent of Correa now? How does he differentiate himself from Correa?
The rest are the usual CIA death squad gang from the old days?
Hi Jose – still forced demolition of 1,700 peoples’ homes by bulldozer and them left homeless, with violence against some of those resisting by police – and the cases mentioned on the annual report page are in addition to other reports from previous months and years
If you look here and scroll down to ‘search results’ there are more reports
http://www.amnesty.org/en/ai_search?keywords=&show_advanced=true&title=&ai_index=&sort=date&start_date%5Bdate%5D=&end_date%5Bdate%5D=®ion%5B0%5D=1899&language%5Ben%5D=en&document_types%5Breports%5D=reports&document_types%5Bpress_materials%5D=press_materials&document_types%5Burgent_actions%5D=urgent_actions&document_types%5Baudio_video%5D=audio_video&document_types%5Bevent%5D=event&document_types%5Bother%5D=other&form_build_id=form-5a7f2043556fdf9ec0261c65ef38ba63&form_id=amnestysearch_filters_form&op=Search
However i agree that not all of this is necessarily approved by Correa. There may well be corruption by police bribed by companies and wealthy landowners at a lower level.
The death threat to one campaigner against a development by a government minister in 2009 sounds pretty serious though, especially since some campainers are killed
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR28/002/2009/en
I still think Correa’s government is better / less bad than most of it’s predecessors, as with Chavez in Venezuela – and that some of the violence is probably not ordered by Correa’s government. It doesn’t mean we should look the other way or shrug where Chavez or Correa are involved though.
Correa and Acosta developed some differences during the constitutional assembly that resulted in the 2008 constitution. Acosta was president of the assembly. It’s early to tell, but I’m guessing Acosta will run as someone who will continue Correa’s massive social investment, but who will be less authoritarian. But the thing is that Acosta is not well known, and it’s unclear that he’ll be nearly as competent as Correa.
š
Cable 05QUITO850 will tell you what Lucio Gutierrez is all about. Cable 07QUITO768 shows what Guillermo Lasso was doing early on to coordinate opposition to Correa, while dutifully informing the US embassy of it at every step.
Jose, (12:10 am)
thank you for your informative reply on the media landscape in Ecuador. Interesting, so not really any blogs like this one, or from NGOs or political groups. Maybe you should start one before the CIA does š
If that indicates only around 30% of the population have some form of web access, then the print media may at least not be suffering financial decline and layoff of journalists quite yet, and have an important influence.
What is the TV and radio landscape like, and is it cross-owned with press?
Look at these figures from recent polls for the 2013 elections in Ecuador. Following your argument, the CIA must do something extreme in order to turn these numbers around:
Perfiles de opinion (sept. 29-30 2012): Rafael Correa 61.7%, Guillermo Lasso 12.6%, Lucio Gutierrez 3.6%, Alberto Acosta 2.6%, Alvaro Noboa 1.8%
CEDATOS (oct. 7 2012): Rafael Correa 44%; Guillermo Lasso 18%; Lucio GutiĆ©rrez 6,9%; Alberto Acosta 6,5%; Ćlvaro Noboa 2,3%
In other words, most Ecuadorians (by far) support Correa. In one of the most politically unstable countries in Latin America (and probably the world) such support after 5 years in office is unheard of. He must be doing something right, I guess.
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/
Is a good source for news from Latin America. The archives include articles on the years since 2007 when Correa was first elected.