Friday, 17 August 2012


I always believed that embassies were places which were considered to be part of the country which owned them and were. therefore, sacrosanct. The safety of diplomats around the world has depended on this understanding. So it comes as no little surprise that we, the British, are threatening the Embassy of the Ecuadorians in Kensinggton with the violation of their territory  to arrest a man who has sought refugee status in their Embassy which has now been granted.. Whilst, so far, no action has been taken on the little known law, quoted by the Home Secretary, to justify such an action I believe that by threatening to do so so we put into jeopardy the safety of our diplomats in many unstable countries who, in the past, have respected the status of Embassies. If it is alright for the British to ignore the status of Embassies others can argue that it is alright for them to do so. Or could it be the case, that as Ecuador is a small country we feel we can ride roughshod over them with no consequences?

1 comment:

  1. It's probably the same mentality that invents evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" as the pretext for invading a sovereign state (however reprehensible) in order to secure "regime change". But it is done only against a country with significant oil resources, and not one in southern Africa where a lunatic holds sway but there is no oil.