CIA Look to Swamp Correa 311

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 With Correa replaced by a pro-USA President, Assange’s asylum will be withdrawn, the Metropolitan Police invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the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.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

311 thoughts on “CIA Look to Swamp Correa

1 9 10 11
  • duqu

    Flashback here.
    Cannot out here, a member of Flashback that outs another member in flashback, or in another blog, gets permanently banned from Flashback (rule 1:06).

    But if you want more of Rudling, read some of Mary Rose eleonore engs:s stuff, it shows clearly how Rudling in an early attempt, tried to move inside the wikileaks organisation, but was rejected. That explains his eager to use material from Flashback that he took to the police, and then got an ticket to London to be a witness. Rudling blew all fuses when Mary wrote a little to much on her wordpress account and he got very upset.

    You find a lot of details here ( be aware of a very complex person…) and then scroll on:

    You don´t need an account to only read Flashback,you need it if you want to write, and it takes 3 days to get accepted from the time of application.

    If someone near Craig, could give him a “hint” that the sms is of a big interest in Sweden, we would be very happy, especially for JA himself, and a kick in the but on the swedish judical system…

  • John Goss

    Thanks for that explanation Duqu. I’ve had a look before at Ms Eng’s blogspot which as you say reveals a complex person. I’ll take another look.

  • John Goss

    Arbed, I sent that letter with my own covering letter to Mr Anders Perklev, with copies to Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, et al, and never got a single acknowledgement from any of them. People are so rude.

  • john

    As a 12 year resident of Ecuador, and having watched and learned about the political game since November 63, I am impressed with Correa’s regime to the extent that it is the one government that I have ever felt inclined to actually cast a vote for.
    Like Chavez there is strong media manipulation of popular support figures, for the coming election.
    I can certainly understand that there are the kind of people who would be the usual suspects in any country who see with horror efforts by Correa to wrest control of the country from them. Apparently they also have such little imagination that the accusations of dictator and corruption are only self mirrors of the accusers. Corruption has always been a problem here, and it is particularly those that hate Correa that have been the ones benefiting from this practice, until recently. People here are not as anxious to bend the rules as before, And it is by example from the top that the new mores are based. The comments from Daniel above are classic.

  • Arbed

    Duku, Wtfuk or any other Flashbackers – if any of you are reading here – I’ve left messages for you guys on the “Why I’m Convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar” thread. Comments 838 to 942. Thanks.

  • Raul

    Do not forgat that the money is so powerfull, actually betwen oposition politics ecuadorian inescrupulous, and poors of ideals, so US focused that politics ever, or sutil ways of assucks.

1 9 10 11

Comments are closed.