Julian Assange granted asylum by Ecuador - as it happened

This article is more than 11 years old
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's application for political asylum is accepted by Ecuador's foreign minister
A masked supporter of Julian Assange outside Ecuador's embassy in Knightsbridge, London.
A masked supporter of Julian Assange outside Ecuador's embassy in Knightsbridge, London. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Vaughn Smith, founder of the Frontline Club and friend of Julian Assange, is on Newsnight. He calls Assange a "challenging friend" and "an engaging personality". Whatever the truth is, he says, he believes that Assange believes his life is at risk if he is extradited to Sweden.


@suttonnick, editor of the BBC's World at One, has posted this audioboo with Smith and his reaction to Ecuador granting asylum to Assange:

Vaughan Smith - a friend of Julian Assange gives his reaction to Ecuador granting asylum to the Wikileaks founder - The World at One, BBC Radio 4 (mp3)

Wikileaks has published a translated transcript of the press conference held by Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patino giving Ecuador's reasons for granting asylum:

The government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity.

On Ecuador's history of receiving those who have applied for territorial or refugee status:

Our country has stood out in recent years to accommodate a large number of people who have applied for territorial asylum or refugee status, having unconditionally respected the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, while it has taken steps to provide refugee status in an expeditious manner, taking into account the circumstances of applicants, mostly Colombians fleeing armed conflicts in their own country.

The Union of South American Nations (Unasur) is due to hold an "extraordinary meeting" in Ecuador on Sunday to discuss the situation at the embassy in London.


A statement released on the website of Peru's foreign ministry, which holds the rotating presidency of the intergovernmental union, said:

The foreign ministry of Peru lets public opinion know that, in concordance with the statutory responsibilities of the temporary presidency of Unasur, at the behest of the Republic of Ecuador and after consulting member states, an extraordinary meeting of the Counsel of Foreign Ministers of the Union has been convened on Sunday August 19 in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador.


The meeting has been requested with the intention of considering the situation raised at the embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.

Julian Assange is also due to give a live address on the same day, according to Wikileaks.

Evening summary

  • Ecuador has granted Julian Assange's request for political asylum. In a high-octane speech in Quito, the country's foreign minister said the South American nation believed the WikiLeaks founder's fears of persecution were legitimate.
  • Foreign secretary William Hague has made it clear there will be no safe passage. Although Ecuador has granted Assange's request it is unclear quite how Assange will get there, with the prospect of his arrest if he leaves the embassy.
  • Assange will give a live statement on Sunday 19 August at 2pm, according to Wikileaks' Twitter feed. Again it is unclear how he will do this given the huge police presence on the doorsteps of the Ecuadorean embassy.
  • Assange could appeal to the International Court of Justice if the UK blocks his exit, according to another Wikileaks tweet. Professor Eileen Denza, a legal expert on diplomatic issues, says the court has been used in the past to settle disputes. The situation is currently a standoff, with the embassy unable to hold him indefinitely and the UK not obliged to give Assange safe passage.
  • Supporters and critics are still split between those who believe that Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges and those who believe it would open him up to extradition to the US. Assange has said he would be prepared to return to Sweden to answer questions if he received diplomatic assurances that he would not be pursued by the US for leaking documents. So far this hasn't happened.

It would be "an outrageous breach of international law" say the Ecuadoreans but can British police enter an embassy? My colleague Rajeev Syal has produced this guide:

Under international law, security forces across the world are not allowed to enter an embassy without the express permission of the ambassador – even though the embassy remains the territory of the host nation. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations codified the "rule of inviolability", which all nations observe because their own diplomatic missions are otherwise at risk elsewhere.

However, the Foreign Office told Ecuador that it had the power to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. This act was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead from inside the embassy.

Such a step might set a dangerous precedent by encouraging other governments to justify entering embassies to arrest dissidents seeking diplomatic asylum.

If Ecuador challenged a revocation, ministers would have to argue at the high court that the mission, by harbouring Assange, had itself fallen foul of international law. The government used the power in 1988 to deal with squatters in the Cambodian embassy.

The 1961 convention stresses that missions must respect local laws and not interfere in the host nation's internal affairs. The Metropolitan police says it has the power and right to arrest Assange for breach of bail if he steps outside the embassy.They have also delivered a letter to the embassy demanding that Assange surrender himself.

A legal source at the Ecuador embassy claimed yesterday that the 1987 Act was established to stop a major threat such as terrorism or a nuclear threat.

"The law was established after the shooting of a police officer and would be invoked if the public are under threat. In this case, no one could argue that Assange's presence in this embassy is a threat to the British public," the source said.

No Australian has received more consular support than Julian Assange since legal proceedings commenced against him in 2010, according to Australian foreign minister Bob Carr in Australia's Northern Star.

However, Carr said the Australian government would not be intervening in current events.

"It is a matter between Mr Assange and the governments of Ecuador and the United Kingdom ... And the court case that led to this affair arising in this fashion ... is between Mr Assange and the government of Sweden."

The Australian government would not be making "representations one way or the other," he said.

Extradition expert Anand Doobay has just put paid to Tariq Ali's idea that Assange become a member of embassy staff in order to avoid arrest: to be a diplomat in the UK, you must be accredited by the government.


Doobay said another suggestion that he be smuggled out in a "diplomatic bag" – usually used to carry post and papers – was far fetched. "Ecuador would have to breach the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations," he said.

Human rights groups have criticised Ecuador's record of human rights after its foreign affairs minister, Ricardo Patino, said Assange had been granted asylum due to fears that his human rights might be violated.

Padraig Reidy, news editor of Index on Censorship, which campaigns for freedom of expression around the globe, said Ecuador has been "more than willing to use the law to pursue opposition voices."

Reidy said a case last year in which the head of the comment section of one of the Ecuador's largest daily newspapers – El Universo – and three of the publication's board of directors were jailed over an article that described the president as a dictator and accused him of ordering his forces to open fire on a hospital (they were later pardoned following widespread criticism), showed the country was not above using criminal laws to silence a free press.

It demonstrates to us that for all its rhetoric, Ecuador is a country that is more than willing to use the law to pursue opposition voices. It doesn't have a great deal of respect for free press.


Reidy added:

Anyone can be put in prison for speaking their mind. In the western world we have a civil system that means you can be fined, but people in Ecuador can face jail for airing their opinions. When the president personally pursues these cases then we do have to worry.

Tamaryn Nelson, Amnesty International's Ecuador researcher, said a right to protest had been criminalised to "send a message that you shouldn't do it because you will run into trouble." Nelson said the judicial system was also being used to clamp down on indigenous leaders to prevent them from protesting against crude oil projects where they lived.

A 2012 Human Rights Watch report said:

In a referendum held in May 2011, president Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.

Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Criminal defamation laws that restrict freedom of expression remain in force and Correa has used them repeatedly against his critics.

An interesting solution to the Assange standoff from his friend Tariq Ali, who suggests that Ecuador make Assange a citizen, and then appoint him as an attaché to the embassy, therefore giving him diplomatic immunity.

Kevin Rawlinson from the Independent has just tweeted this:

Kevin Rawlinson (@KevinJRawlinson)

Sources tell me that, if Julian Assange goes ahead with statement on Sunday on front steps, he will be liable to arrest. #Wikileaks #Assange

August 16, 2012

More from professor Eileen Denza, who has been a legal adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Though she was involved in drafting the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, which the British embassy in Quito quoted in its letter to the Ecuadorian government, she says she "hadn't thought of using it" in this situation.

The receiving country is not entitled to enter the premises but conversely, Ecuador doesn't have the right to indefinitely keep him [at the embassy] or to give him safe passage.

This type of conflict has happened before, says Denza, and has “taken years” to resolve – that's quite a standoff.


Denza continues:

One point that hasn't been raised is the possibility of trial in a neutral state but only Sweden has jurisdiction. But if there's a long-term stand off, part of the Vienna Convention could be used.

She said the International Court of Justice had dealt with previous standoffs including a case in 1950 that involved Columbia and Peru.

Speaking about the wider implication of Assange's claim for asylum, Denza says:

It's bound to be a worry, not just for the UK but for any government if claim asylum was accepted. It's shooting a hole into the system of extradition.



Another tweet from Wikileaks says Assange will appeal to the International Court of Justice if he cannot get to Ecuador.

WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)

ANNOUNCE: Garzon: #Assange will appeal to International Court of Jusice if UK blocks his exit theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-… wlfriends.org

August 16, 2012

Julian Assange will give a statement outside the Ecuadorean embassy on Sunday afternoon at 2pm, according to Wikileaks' Twitter feed.

WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)

ANNOUNCEMENT: Julian Assange will give a live statement infront of the Ecuadorian embassy, Sunday 2pm.

August 16, 2012

According to another tweet, Sunday will be the two-month anniversary since Assange claimed asylum from Ecuador.

WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)

Sunday the 19th is two months exactly since Assange entered the embassy. It will be his first public apperance since March.

August 16, 2012

Professor Eileen Denza, a legal expert from University College London, has been talking on the BBC's World Have Your Say programme.

She says diplomatic asylum is regulated by customary law.


Diplomatic asylum is regulated by customary law and there are a number of treaties. But under customary law, the embassy or visiting state is only allowed to give diplomatic asylum to a refugee and in exceptional circumstances.


These circumstances fall into two categories:

  • For the purpose of saving someone's life or from injury.
  • If that person has no prospect of receiving a fair trial.

Denza said the law in Ecuador has never shown to be "significantly different" to the UK or Europe and that she didn't believe Assange was "in danger of the mob"

The foreign secretary denied claims by Assange and his supporters that there was a deal to extradite to the United States.

We have no arrangement with the United States. This is the United Kingdom fulfilling its obligations under the Extradition Act to Sweden, a close partner in so many ways, a fellow democracy in the European Union.

It is as simple as that. Therefore to us it is a simple matter of carrying out our law, but as well as being simple it is something we must do. We absolutely must fulfill our obligations under the Extradition Act.

Therefore we are determined to do so and we remain determined to do so despite the regrettable announcement that Ecuador has made today.


Diplomatic asylum is not a concept recognised by Britain- and, even for those countries which do recognise it, it should not be used "for the purposes of escaping" the courts, Hague said.


We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so. The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum.

It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments which require us to recognise the grant of diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy in this country.

Moreover, it is well established that, even for those countries which do recognise diplomatic asylum, it should not be used for the purposes of escaping the regular processes of the courts. And in this case that is clearly what is happening.

Hague denied there was any "threat" to the Ecuadorean embassy. He said:

This could go on for some considerable time.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, has made it clear that Britain will not give Assange safe passage to South America. He told a press conference:


We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so. The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum.

More when we have it....

A very different perspective from Vaughan Smith, a friend of Assange who put him up for more than a year at his Norfolk residence. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One this afternoon, Smith said:

I'm extremely pleased; I'm absolutely delighted. I'm very pleased indeed.

I think he would like to go to Ecuador; I think that's where he should go. And hopefully we'll be a little bit more tolerant about this. I think we need to consider the fact that the Ecuadoreans are the other people who have really considered the matters they've considered. They've concluded there is a threat to his life. I think we should honour that.

He said that "ideally" Assange should face Swedish questioning, but that the Ecuadoreans had offered the Swedes the opportunity to interview him in the embassy and they had refused.

I think there's a lot of pride involved here... They have interviewed an alleged murderer in Serbia but they choose not to come to London to interview Julian Assange. I think that's very disappointing.

Smith said he feared Assange's passage to Ecuador would only be possible with the agreement of Britain.

I think the journey's only possible if the British authorities agree to it, and I think they should agree to it. We've had an interesting insight into what's been happening behind the scenes with this sort of bullying of Ecuador and this gunboat diplomacy. I think sometimes you should stick your hands up and say we haven't won this one and maybe we're wrong, and I think we are wrong.

British police "cannot just go barging into the embassy", according to the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile.

While criticising the behaviour of Ecuador and Assange, he told the BBC that raiding the embassy under the 1984 legislation would set a dangerous precedent which could leave diplomatic premises around the world- including Britain's- vulnerable.

"I'm afraid we're going to have to be patient," he said, explaining that eventually Assange would have to emerge from the embassy and that, when he did, he would be arrested and sent to Sweden in accordance with the wishes of the UK courts.

The lawyer of two Swedish women who made allegations of sexual assault against Assange has denounced Ecuador's move as "absurd".

Claes Borgstrom told Reuters:

It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture if sent back to one's country of origin. It's not about that here. He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or the death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd.

Assange has not been charged by Swedish prosecutors, but they say they have a case against him. Earlier today, the Ecuadorean foreign minister claimed Sweden had refused to rule out an eventual extradition of Assange extradition to the United States, were it requested.

Despite the drama, little has changed for Assange himself today (he still cannot leave the embassy and the British do not seem poised to raid it any time soon). But the same cannot be said of diplomatic relations, writes Peter Beaumont.

With both sides boxed into their respective corners what is likely in the short term, as legal experts have been quick to make clear, is recourse again to the courts.

What has changed significantly are the diplomatic implications, less importantly for Britain's relationship with Ecuador, than for the fact that London will want to avoid setting an international precedent that might be used one day against one of its own missions abroad. But the British government is facing a catch-22 situation, being equally anxious – as former diplomat Oliver Miles pointed out in the London Review of Books – to avoid setting the opposing precedent of allowing Assange to remain as a fugitive within the embassy in defiance of a European arrest warrant.

The British need to "back off" from efforts to arrest Assange, says Michael Ratner, a member of the WikiLeaks founder's legal team.

On the Democracy Now! website, Ratner says:

What does this mean? Well, what it means first of all is that the British ought to just back off; the US ought to just back off. He has a legal right to asylum. [...]

For the British to say that they're going to go into the embassy and get out someone who's been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention on asylum completely on its head. It's unheard of. [...]

The British are only doing this as bullies, bullies most likely for the United States.

Assange, Ratner adds, has a right to be able to leave the embassy now and get on a flight to Ecuador.

Will the British ever honour that, with the kinds of threats they're making against Julian Assange? I doubt it right now. But that's the law to me. You're given asylum. The British can't pick him up and then send him to a country where he will then be persecuted, and that's what the road is. He'll be going to Sweden, if they pick him up, and then to the United States.

Assange has hailed the "courageous" act of Ecuador and contrasted it with the reluctance of Britain and Australia to help him.

In a statement made earlier at the embassy, he thanked the staff and went on to pay tribute to Bradley Manning, PA reports.

I am grateful to the Ecuadorean people, President Rafael Correa and his government. It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation.

While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented US investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped.

While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days.

The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continues.

The calls to protest the British government's declared intention to arrest Assange are starting to mount up from various, if predictable, quarters.


Michael Moore, the film director, has posted on Twitter urging people in London to demonstrate outside the embassy.

Michael Moore (@MMFlint)

Friends in London-please go 2 the Ecuador embassy now 2 protest your gov't's plan to arrest Assange. Address: 3 Hans Crescent (near Harrods)

August 16, 2012
Michael Moore (@MMFlint)

Protest NOW @ Ecuador embsy London. UK 2 arrest a journalist who published truth on Iraq. Tube 2 Knightsbridge stop mmflint.me/Q2UDYe

August 16, 2012

Meanwhile, my colleague Adam Gabbatt points out that Occupy Wall Street are calling on people to take part in a 24/7 occupation of the British consulate in New York. They write on Facebook:

We applaud Ecuador's decision to protect Assange, and are satisfied with their assurance to do their best to Protect Assange. We move our fight to the clear aggressor here, ie. Britain.

My colleague Ole Alsaker has been at the Ecuadorean embassy.
This clip shows protesters chanting, "We are not a British colony!" outside the building – echoing the defiance of their foreign minister last night.

Sweden has summoned Ecuador's ambassador to Stockholm, calling the granting of asylum to Assange "unacceptable", reports AP. More soon.

The diplomatic row between the UK and Ecuador is really shaping this story today. According to the New York Times, just before the announcement, President Rafael Correa declared:

No one is going to terrorize us!

Assange watched the announcement live on television in the Ecuadorean embassy (presumably from his quarters on the ground floor, which is where he has been living for the past two months).

PA reports that, once the granting of asylum had been confirmed, the WikiLeaks founder walked into a room where staff were watching and thanked them for their support. He said:

It is a significant victory for myself, and my people. Things will probably get more stressful now.

Such is the speculation surrounding quite how Assange would be able to get out of the embassy undetected, I am almost surprised that diplomatic bag is not yet trending on Twitter.

fleetstreetfox (@fleetstreetfox)

Offering him asylum is all well and good but how's St Julian getting to the airport? In the diplomatic bag? Best ask MI6 how that works...

August 16, 2012
Callum May (@callummay)

@jessbrammar He'll actually wear a diplomatic bag. Like a sort of ambassadorial onesie.

August 16, 2012
Ravi Somaiya (@ravisomaiya)

There is a very fast-looking BMW outside the Ecuadorean embassy, with the license plate "1 ECU". Potential #Assange escape vehicle?

August 16, 2012

More from Patiño's expansive press conference earlier.

Reporting from Quito, Reuters reports:

He argued that Assange's personal security was at risk, extradition to a third country without proper guarantees was probable, and legal evidence showed he would not have a fair trial if eventually transferred to the United States.

"This is a sovereign decision protected by international law. It makes no sense to surmise that this implies a breaking of relations (with Britain)."

Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.

Britain will carry out its "binding obligation" to extradite Assange to Sweden in spite of Ecuador's decision, a spokesperson for the FCO has said.

We are disappointed by the statement from Ecuador’s Foreign Minister that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange.

Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian Government's decision this afternoon does not change that.

We remain committed to a negotiated solution that allows us to carry out our obligations under the Extradition Act.

Lunchtime summary

  • Ecuador has granted Julian Assange's request for political asylum. In a high-octane speech in Quito, the country's foreign minister said the South American nation believed the WikiLeaks founder's fears of persecution were legitimate.
  • What happens next, however, is very unclear. Before the announcement in Quito, Britain had said the granting of asylum would make no difference to its position: it still considers itself obliged to arrest Assange and extradite him to face questioning in Sweden. It has said it will not grant him safe passage to Ecuador.
  • The diplomatic row between Britain and Ecuador is growing more heated by the hour. Ecuador today accused the UK of making an "open threat" and pursuing a campaign of intimidation against its embassy in London. The FCO has responded by insisting on its right, should matters reach such a point, to enter the embassy. If it were to do that, it would need to give seven days' notice.

Patiño adds:

We can state that there is a risk that he will be persecuted politically...

We trust the UK will offer the necessary guarantees so that both governments can act adequately and properly respect international rights and the right of asylum.

We also trust the excellent relationship the two countries have will continue.

Asylum is granted

Ecuador is to grant political asylum to Julian Assange, says Patiño.

Patiño says Ecuador has given "extreme and careful consideration" to Assange's political asylum request.

Patiño has reiterated Ecuadorean fury over what it sees as a "threat" issued by Britain yesterday. The document delivered by British embassy officials was a "threat", and Ecuador cannot believe that the UK has been "honest" about its position, he said. Such a move would be totally unjustified under international law, he added.

The Foreign Minister in Quito is about to make a statement on Assange. I'll be live-blogging it now.

My colleague Rajeev Syal has just been at a briefing with Ecuadorean officials inside the embassy. The government of the South American country believes the British government has launched a campaign of intimidation against the embassy, he reports. An official told him:

We are very surprised and disappointed. There was clear intimidation of the embassy. The Ecuadorean government has been clear from the start that we were seeking diplomatic assurances within international law.

The Ecuadorean officials said they had been particularly surprised by yesterday's development because they had been involved in ongoing negotiations over Assange with Britain until that point.

But the letter received in Quito and the arrival of a large police presence at the embassy in Knightsbridge yesterday was a marked changed in approach, they said.

They are still promising a big announcement before 4pm British time.

Greg Callus, a trainee barrister (@greg_callus), reckons he's found an instance in which the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 has been used before by the government: in a bid to remove squatters from the Cambodian embassy in 1988. Take a look here.

Carl Gardner has explored the question of the day: is Britain right in claiming that it is legally entitled to arrest Assange whatever Ecuador decides today?

You can read his full piece here.

A full, translated version of the document presented to Ecuador by British diplomats in Quito has been released. Remember, this is the letter which Quito says represents a clear threat, and which London insists is a mere reminder of the law. Judge for yourself...

We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours, that Ecuador is about to take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to Mr. Assange. The reports quote official sources. We note that the (Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no decision has yet been made.

We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.

As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations.

In that light, and given the statements of the last 24 hours, we hope that you are prepared to continue to engage with the ongoing diplomatic discussions. We continue to believe that a solution is possible on the basis of a jointly agreed text, which would accompany Mr. Assange exiting the Embassy, and leading to his extradition.

We have a further meeting scheduled for Thursday 16th August. Given the statements made in Quito overnight, about an imminent decision, should we take it this meeting will be the final one to agree a joint text?

We have to reiterate that we consider continued use of diplomatic premises in this way, to be incompatible with the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and not sustainable, and that we have already made clear to you the serious implications for our diplomatic relations.

You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.

We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.

We understand the importance to you of the issues raised by Mr. Assange, and the strong public pressure in country. But we still have to resolve the situation on the ground, here in the U.K., in line with our legal obligations. We have endeavored to develop a joint text, which helps both meet your concerns, and presentational needs.

We believe a joint text and a voluntary surrender by Mr. Assange is the best way forward.

Press and media gather outside the Ecuadorean embassy, where Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is staying
Press and media gather outside the Ecuadorean embassy, where Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is staying. (Photo by Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images)

There have been some scuffles between police and protesters outside the embassy. Sky News has some of them on camera.

Demonstrators, some wearing masks, were seen being hauled away by police who were in massed ranks outside the building in central London.

A handful of protesters have gathered outside the embassy enraged by the FCO's threat to arrest Assange come what may. In the meantime, two of them have reportedly been arrested themselves.

(Incidentally, there's a live stream from outside running here, though the camera work is of variable quality...)

Speaking to Press Association, 19-year-old Paul Milligan, from Kentish Town, said:

I heard about this at 1am and walked here to protest. If Britain is essentially about to invade Ecuador, then I want to have a say about that.

If they load him in a police van to try to bring him out, I intend to sit in front of the van and obstruct it in any way I can.

The point about Julian Assange is that he didn't doctor any of the materials - he released the documents and said to the world 'This is the truth, have a look at it and see what you think'.

The idea that somebody can be snatched from the Ecuadorian embassy in London by British police, and sent to Sweden then possibly America, is ludicrous.

A supporter of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shows his support outside the Ecuadorian Embassy
A supporter of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shows his support outside the Ecuadorean embassy in central London, London, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange entered the embassy in June in an attempt to gain political asylum to prevent him from being extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sex crimes, which he denies. (AP Photo/Sang Tan) Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

Amid all the tension, however, someone still seems to have a sense of humour.

According to Twitter reports, several taxis have been turning up at the Ecuadorean embassy with the name "Julian Assange" in the window.

Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky)

According to @skymarkwhite a taxi has pulled up at the Ecadorian embassy with a sign saying Assange in the window... !#ifonlyitwerethateasy

August 16, 2012
Devil's Advocate (@peter_tonoli)

Another taxi for Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy to go to Heathrow - poor drivers...yfrog.com/oc3bptkj #assange #ecuador

August 16, 2012
Devil's Advocate (@peter_tonoli)

Taxi driver just left the embassy - not a happy guy #assange #ecuador

August 16, 2012

The Foreign Office does not appear to be backing down on its threat, saying this morning the UK has a legal duty to extradite Assange to Sweden even if he is granted political asylum.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman is quoted by Press Association as saying:

It [the granting of asylum] does not change our position. Our legal position is not changing at all.

Our position is that we have a duty to extradite him, even if he is granted political asylum.

Unsurprisingly, the FCO's interpretation is not shared by WikiLeaks. The organisation has issued an angry condemnation of the document, calling for William Hague's resignation and accusing the UK of trying to "bully" Ecuador into refusing Assange asylum.

An edited extract of the (lengthy) statement reads as follows:


This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador’s imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies.

WikiLeaks condemns in the strongest possible terms the UK’s resort to intimidation.

A threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not
proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum seekers worldwide [...[

We remind the public that these extraordinary actions are being taken to detain a man who has not been charged with any crime in any country.

WikiLeaks joins the Government of Ecuador in urging the UK to resolve this situation according to peaceful norms of conduct. [...]

We note with interest that this development coincides with the UK Secretary of State William Hague’s assumption of executive responsibilities during the vacation of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Hague’s department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has overseen the negotiations to date with Ecuador in the matter of Mr Assange’s asylum bid.

If Mr Hague has, as would be expected, approved this decision, WikiLeaks calls for his immediate resignation.

Julian Borger, our diplomatic editor, has some interesting background on the "threat" issued by Britain. He writes that, after reports that Ecuador might consider giving Assange asylum, a British diplomat from the embassy in Quito went to the foreign ministry and delivered the UK position, leaving an 'aide-memoire' with the main points on it. This is the letter Patino is talking about, says Borger.


The document raises British concern about the reports that the president is considering offering asylum. It says London's preferred course, even if asylum is offered, is to continue discussions on a mutually acceptable outcome.

However the note did point out that the foreign secretary had the power to go to court to seek the right for UK police to enter the Ecuadorean embassy to arrest Assange. He would have to prove that international law had been broken and that Ecuador was in contravention of its Vienna Convention obligations in harbouring Assange.

The foreign office is confident these conditions would be met. It says the embassy would have a week's notice of the action and the police would not look at or remove any embassy documents and the diplomatic immunity of Ecuadorean diplomats would not be affected.

A foreign office spokesman said that the UK government realised this would be a serious step, but added 'it is not as serious as ending diplomatic relations'. He said the UK saw its paramount obligation was the legal duty to extradite Assange.

This video gives a pretty good idea of how high diplomatic tensions between Britain and Ecuador are. In Quito yesterday, Ricardo Patiño fumes:

We want to make it absolutely clear that we are not a British colony, and that the times of the colonies are over.

Fifty-eight days after he first walked into the Ecuadorean embassy in London seeking “diplomatic sanctuary and political asylum”, Julian Assange finds out today if his bid has been successful. At 1pm, President Rafael Correa is expected to declare whether or not his country will grant Assange's request.


Even by itself, this announcement would warrant significant interest – from Assange's legion of supporters, from Sweden (where he is wanted for questioning in connection with accusations of the rape of one woman and sexual assault on another in August 2010, which he denies) and, of course, from the US (where the government has opened a grand jury investigation into the passing of hundreds of thousands of secret US embassy cables to WikiLeaks).

But the brouhaha accompanying today's decision has ratcheted up the speculation even further. The Ecuadorean foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, yesterday hit out at what he said was a “written threat” to attack the embassy in London. The UK Foreign Office, he said, had delivered him a letter through a British embassy official in Quito saying that it would have a legal right to “take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy". Such a move, raged Patiño, would be seen by Ecuador as “a hostile and intolerable act and also as an attack on our sovereignty”.

So, all in all, it looks likely to be an eventful day. And we'll be bringing you all the latest on this blog.