International law, sovereignty, the "Nation State," extradition And Wikileaks' founder and publisher Julian Assange are all either notions, entities or individuals in a state of flux, and dangerously so.
A brief article, courtesy of Yahoo! News Lookout follows which talks about Ecuador's granting of political asylum (non-extradition) to Mr. Assange, but Britain's threat to exert whatever pressure (political or otherwise...the threat is real but unspecified) may be necessary in order to "bring (Mr. Assange) "to justice" [this does admittedly sound like a quote from the USA's former president George W. Bush] regardless.
To view this article,simply click on this link, and return to this blog posting as soon as you have gotten the true gist and implications of the article. They are worth discussing.
The parties involved are Britain, Sweden (where there are criminal allegations against Mr. Assange), Ecuador, the United States, Mr. Assange (himself) and the entire world. Any member of the Global Community with unrestricted access to the news should be more than confused about the state of sovereignty, sanctuary, jurisdiction, and the apparent inconsistencies in the laws and treaties by which nations and their embassies conduct themselves.
This type of unprecedented disruption is forcing each involved nation to resolve a great number of things:
1) Its own sovereignty and the weight of its own laws;
2) Whether various international treaties are of greater force than a nation's own laws;
3) Can an embassy genuinely be exempt from the laws of its hosting nation?
4) What international body, tribunal, court or governing authority has the power to decide this matter?
5) If the matter can be decided, how can the finding or order of the body with appropriate judicial capacity be executed? Can it be executed, or will its findings be moot?
6) What is the underlying agenda of each of these nations in terms of its stance with respect to the fate of Mr. Assange?
Item 7) is perhaps the most frightening one of them all. It is really a cluster of questions each with a core or life of its own:
A) By what process will the parties settle this matter?
B) What precedent will ultimately be set by the outcome of this standoff?
C) Will the unstated outcome of this process be a form of World Government?
Yes, Mr. Assange is a controversial character - but there can be no mistaking his incredible catalytic importance in terms of the future of the notions of nations, sovereignty, embassies, treaties and conflict resolution at the international level.
Perhaps this tug-of-war between countries and their respective agencies will lead to a new set of laws which will form the foundation for a form of International Government.
Let us keep watching. Let's see if some order comes of this chaos, or if it just results in a whimper and a quiet "deal" among the players which allows them to defer the process by which such matters are officially resolved a back room secret.
Douglas E. Castle for The Internationalist Page Blog
