NL-Aid is an example of an advanced blog with many visitors: 1200-1500 unique visitors every day, 15,000 a month. Every day, 4,000 article were opened, 30,000 every month. On a top day, we had 4,500 unique visitors. I thank all of them.

I would like to invite you to read my last article on Monday, October 15, 2012.
NL-Aid will end with a big bang.

All best,
Hans Sluijter
Administrator and owner of NL-Aid

AUTHOR: Hans Sluijter
URL: www.NL-Aid.org
E-MAIL: info [at] www.NL-Aid.org

Hina Rabbani Khar

“Mr. Gomes must be appreciated on taking a principled stand, exposing Such mischief makers. Hats off to you Mr.Gomes” – S.M.K Durrani

The recent series of news on so called love affair between Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar and co-chairman of Pakistan People’s Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is perfect example of propaganda covertly packaged as credible news without sufficient transparency concerning the news item’s source and the motivation behind its release is very defamatory.

The news propaganda by salah uddin shoaib choudhury has violated the ‘ideal’ mission of journalism.

What Salah Uddin Shoiab choudhury has done in criminal law it is clear a fraud and is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual and very clearly defamatory in type.

Salah Uddin Shoiab choudhury engaged in borderline defamatory conduct, spreading innuendo about so called love affair between Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar and co-chairman of Pakistan People’s Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari that injured reputations of high profile politicians.

People from all around the world has condemned the yellow journalism of Salah Uddin Shoiab choudhury. Thanks for information about yellow Journalist.Hina Rubbani Khar are married with my friend and she will ignore all baseless reports.
Regards
Syed Zafar

Mr Williams has written a very good rejoinder; But I am sorry none has come our friends in Pakistan. Hina is an honourable woman, who has proved to be an excellent foreign Minister. This is just to let her down. Mr William Thanks once again
Muhammad Shahbaz Thuthaal
EME CHS
Multan road,Lahore

Mr. Gomes must be appreciated on taking a principled stand, exposing Such mischief makers. Hats off to you Mr.Gomes
S.M.K Durrani

Mr Gomes thank you for exposing the riff raff that destroy the image of the press. The foreign minister is of impeccable character and to strike her unfairly in this preposterous manner was repulsive to say the least. .
Best
Imran Husain

Dear All: Irrespective of the stories being published in the foreign and local press with regard to the so called affair of Bilawal Bhutto and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, our journalists must always remember that great nations always keep high the considerations of their fame in the comity of the nations and esteem of their leaders; and that their great profession strictly warranted full compliance of the popular norms of professional ethics and our moral values. Ironically enough amid mushroom growth of the media industry in Pakistan the professional standard is fast on the decline wherein even the so called leading anchorpersons and editors have no capability to distinguish between the vicious propaganda and hard information; and that as to how such information could be useful for the public at large and its potential to pollute the patriotic sentiments of the nation especially the youth which is the future of Pakistan. In Britain the periodicals and dailies which are notorious for such filthy stuff is called gutter press; but in Pakistan even the so called big shots of our media have mixed up serious and gutter press; it is the high time for all and sundry to come forward to help rebuild the foundations of moral values and ethics of our noble profession.
ASLAM BUTT

I do not know Hina Khar personally, but professionally, what I have noticed about her is that she is a very sensible, level-headed young woman who has been doing quite a commendable job as Foreign Minister of our crisis-ridden country. She, perhaps, has more substance in her than all the rest of our bloated Cabinet put together. I am sure she has more sense than to be carrying on with an immature boy, but even if she is having an affair with Bilawal Bhutto, it is her own business and the business of her husband, NOT of gutter journalists who have nothing better to do than to wallow in the filth created in their own dirty minds. Let the poor woman do her work in peace. She already has more than enough on her plate…!!! Sheree Sardar
Senior Producer, Reuters Television (Pakistan)
Thomson Reuters

I fully agree to Sheree…there are few examples in MEN’s tribe who simply cannot see any woman going ahead of the parameters ,THEY,define for her…and if happens so…THEY launch character assasination move…It is so unfortunate
Rashida Sohail

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Hina Rabbani Khar

Yellow journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has recently propagated falsehood against foreign minister of Pakistan Hina Rabbani Khar.

He claims that Weekly Blitz is a tabloid newspaper published in Bangladesh every Wednesday but in reality it is not available in the market.

Yellow journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has cheated many people among them two women who came in public and flashed his criminal face.

Brenda West wrote “Choudhury operates a shady website called Jethro Conglomerate, for which a scam alert has been posted by an organization that regulates the business dealings of the commodities Choudhury sells. (In case you are curious or are impressed with Choudhury’s interest in things Jewish, Jethro is the Hebrew word for Choudhury’s preferred moniker, Shoaib.) Choudhury states on the Jethro Conglomerates website that he represents a company called Noca. Noca itself does not seem legitimate. It is not licensed. It provides no information about who owns or runs the company. The representatives they do list could be of interest to law enforcement. The Noca site says it is located in Canada but it gives an unpublished Nevada phone number. There is an odor of mobster activity connected with this enterprise, as well as Choudhury’s involvement in it. As we shall see in Choudhury’s published resume, Choudhury worked closely with the indicted mobster, Aziz Mohammed Bhai, who fled Bangladesh in 2009 to avoid imprisonment for various charges, including murder.”

Brenda West wrote “In June 2011 Tass (info@itar-tass.com) spokeswoman Lora Potopova confirmed in an email and subsequent phone conversation with this reporter that the wire service never had a bureau in Bangladesh, and had no record of employ for Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury — as a stringer or otherwise. Potopova reported that her thorough search of all Tass branches found no trace of Choudhury or a Tass office in Bangladesh. “

Using the banner of media outlet Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is running his criminal business for years.
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has coined the falsehood. Weekly blitz is a part of a syndicate of Hindustan times. The propaganda was subsequently reported by Hindustan times and other India media.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury became successful in his plan when it was published in India and then he started lobbying with the friends in Bangladeshi media to get it reported in different media outlets.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is deliberately running this falsehood against Hina Rabbani Khar and Bilawal Bhutto to be discussed by international media to use that discussion for further criminal business.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

According to Faisal Hasan, PhD President of ISOC Bangladesh, “Muslims around the world are deeply shocked by the violence that is being erupted by few of the videos. The footages of seeing killing innocent lives as well as by the fact that the content is still available at the source has made the government banned youtube. There should be a global consensus about the content that fuels deadly violence. Content that has been flagged by thousands of people should be removed, immediately considering social grounds.”

AUTHOR: Shreedeep Rayamajhi
URL: http://www.rayznews.com
E-MAIL: weaker41 [at] gmail.com

Aseem Trivedi

There are essentially few nuggets of wisdom that the arrest and subsequent release of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi has brought into limelight. They need to be discussed as it is difficult to take positions in such cases as each theme is ridden with contradictions.

Before we go into the ideological debate on freedom of speech lets know the nature of latest controversy. Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi in one of his work shows Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist of 26/11 Mumbai attack, as a dog urinating on the Indian Constitution.

In another cartoon, Trivedi depicts India’s national emblem, the four Sarnath Lions of King Asoka, as blood thirsty wolves inscribed with the motto “Bhrashtamev Jayate” (long live corruption). He modified the original word “Satyamev Jayate” (truth alone triumphs) to give a punch.

Trivedi’s cartoons on campaign against corruption was on display during Anna Hazare‘s anti-corruption fast at Mumbai’s MMRDA Grounds in December in 2011. The Mumbai Police had to ban his cartoons following complaints. It was on the basis of such complaints that police had arrested Trivedi and slapped sedition charges. The cartoonist was later released following the public uproar.

Now how do we take positions on Aseem Trivedi’s case? One way would be to follow the conservative position that anyone who dishonors the constitution and the national emblem is guilty of misconduct. There is nothing bigger for the country then its national symbols and any attack on the foundation of the nation cannot be tolerated.

This is the same argument that currently Muslims are advancing against the trailer of the film “Innocence of Muslims.” Their world wide protest comes out from the same ideological position. We have seen similar unrest sometime ago against the Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet of Islam that enraged the Muslim sentiments. Muslims argued there are certain symbols that are sacrosanct and its sanctity should respected and any caricature of them falls in bad taste and should be avoided.

A similar case was laid out against M.F Hussain for drawing controversial images of Hindu gods and goddesses. The Picasso of India had to face the wrath of the hurt feelings of the Hindu’s and was compelled to live in exile till his death.

The case of Bengali writer Taslima Nasreen too falls under the same bracket. Her anti-Islamic writings invited the wrath of Bangladeshi Muslims and she had to live in exile in Sweden that granted her citizenship. She came to live in Kolkata due to cultural proximity but she defied her guest status and indulged in anti Islamic writings that forced the government to take stern view on her.

The latest controversy surrounding cartoonist Aseem Trivedi falls under similar category. In his case it’s not the religion that is targeted but the symbols of the nation. The reaction from the conservatives is on similar lines as it were in the cases mentioned.

The other dominating theme around Trivedi’s case is the liberal position on the freedom of speech. This argument take cue from rationalist who wants the societies and nations to take liberal stand even on sensitive issues like nationalism and religion. They argue that when the ‘world has become flat’ and globalization has become order of the day, modern day livers cannot be regulated under the fetters of religion or nationalism. Their other argument is freedom of speech is fundamental right and such freedom should not be regulated. They appeal to the conservatives not to become hyper on such issues and accept such creative work with a grin or broad smile.

Notwithstanding the facts, these two positions are the dominant themes that run in cases related to freedom of speech. It’s very difficult to take positions on this without hurting the sentiments who are opposed to it. In the end, it’s individual judgment that settles such issues.

The third nugget about Trivedi’s case was his controversial arrest under the sedition charges. This sparked separate debate whether sedition charges is valid in independent India. Some argued that sedition law was British legacy and should be scrapped. Further, sedition charges can only be slapped in political cases and in Trivedi’s case, there was no such intention. As such his arrest under non-bailable clauses was flawed.

This is something that has to be settled amongst the practitioners of the law, but the fundamental question remains whether Trivedi’s arrest was right? Again, the same old ideological debate for and against freedom of speech comes into play, with same logic for and against applies to his arrest. As far police is concerned, it acted on specific complaints and after investigation found Trivedi to be erring and deserved to be arrested. It’s court to decide his innocence.

This rises to another question why Trivedi was released so swiftly. This was perhaps because it was public and media pressure that paved the path of his release. As long as he remained inside the jail, he would be attracting media attention and his detention would unnecessarily give him mileage that he certainly does not deserve.

There is another nugget that is salient in all such controversies. The protagonists deliberately create such controversy and take refuge under the cloak of freedom of expression and drive mileage out of it. We have seen how Salman Rushdee’s controversial novel ‘Satanic Verses’ with high flavor of anti- Islamic tone was masquerader as flight of imagination of a novelist. Similarly, the life of MF Hussein has too been a series of publicity stunts. The list is long who have take mileage from the freedom of expression controversy.

In case of Aseem Trivedi, well who knew him before his arrest? He was unknown character till his arrest on the sedition charges. He became a national celebrity because his arrest centered on freedom of expression issue. This is an old age method adopted by crisis ridden personalities seeking publicity by courting controversies. Trivedi too hogged the momentary limelight in the similar way. His arrest and subsequent release created a storm in the teacup and he became a celebrity for the time being.

Last but not the least, the debate between conservatives and the liberals over the freedom of expression issue is quite hackneyed. The liberals want the conservatives to leave their position and accept their point of view, the conservatives on the other wants the liberals to refrain from being iconoclast and refrain from disturbing the social harmony. The history of this debate is pretty old. And who s winning and who is losing this debate remains inconclusive.

AUTHOR: Mujtaba Syed
URL: http://mujtabas-musings.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: syedalimujtaba [at] yahoo.com

South Park’s “Super Best Friends.”

Moderate Christians, especially those living in Western nations, are always shocked when they are reminded that Muslims, so unlike them, do not turn the other cheek when their religious symbols are attacked. Mocking Islam is tantamount to hugging a killer bees hive; the reaction is almost always homicidally violent. Muslims have become so predictable that, in our overly interconnected world where information, intellectually enlightening or idiotic and eroding, can equally spread in an instant, it has become a trend among anti-Islam activists to draw the ire of Muslims and lure them into violence by denigrating their religious symbols. They use it as bait to draw media attention to their platform and enlist new supporters. Muslims, especially Arabs, have become a giant billboard for the likes of Terry Jones and those involved in the production of the besmirching amateur movie to promote their apocalyptic bigotry whilst “revealing” the feral nature of Islam. With a prim scowl, they point an accusatory finger at the raging mobs burning buildings of consulates and embassies and say: “look! Didn’t we tell you these Muslims are inherently murderers, naturally terrorists?” Such violent responses allow racist politicians like Michel Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Lynn Westmoreland, Trent Franks, and Thomas Rooney to mobilize voters and radicalize Americans against Muslims, even those whose American lineage is a few generations deep. To build a constituency for the November congressional election, Gabriela Mercer, a Republican candidate, herself a Mexican immigrant, is quoted saying:

“If you know Middle Easterners, a lot of them, they look Mexican or they look like a lot of people in South America: dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes. And they mix, they mix in. And those people, their only goal in life is to cause harm to the United States. So why do we want them here, either legally or illegally? When they come across the border — besides the trash that they leave behind, the drug smuggling, the killings, the beheadings — you are seeing stuff: it’s a war out there.”

I saw the 14-minute trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” on youtube. Like millions of people around the world, I wouldn’t have known of it were it not for the demonstrations. The advocates of the movie couldn’t have hoped for a better promotion. No critical insight is needed to see the movie, that allegedly cost five million dollars, is a diarrheal burst of preposterous blasphemy and ribaldry wrapped in buffoonery and delivered in abominably bad acting. There is no point in its depiction of the prophet Mohammed beyond sheer provocation, giving Muslims a metaphorical wedgie.

The question many Westerners are struggling with is whether such divisive speech can be protected; whether it would be counter to our American principles to censor opinions masquerading as boorish irreverence. It is understandable that many Americans would be loath to restrict speech and curtail opinion. After all, you don’t see Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists violently demonstrating every time Jesus, Krishna, or Buddha is ridiculed. A Wall Street Journalist commenting on the Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” wrote: “Making fun of Mormons in front of a Broadway crowd is like shooting trout in a demitasse cup.” No copies of the WSJ were burnt in Salt Lake City the next day. No movie theaters or British embassies were attacked when Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” came out. Nobody took umbrage at “Bruce Almighty,” where god, played by Morgan Freeman, gives his powers to Bruce Nolan, played by Jim Carrey. Criticism of such work was limited to op-eds and opinion articles.

As soon as an uncomplimentary opinion of the prophet Mohammed comes to light, worldwide riots erupt, fatwas are issued, flags and effigies burnt, businesses and official buildings ransacked, people killed. In Sudan, a middle-aged British teacher was jailed for allowing one of her pupils to name his teddy bear “Mohammed.” In September of 2006, The Deutsche Oper Berlin canceled performances of Mozart’s “Idomeneo, re di Creta ossia Ilia e Idamante” because the depiction of Muhammad’s severed head in one of the scenes represented an “incalculable risk” and would endanger its employees and audience. Yale University Press refused to include the controversial Jyllands Posten cartoons in Professor Jyette Clausen’s book about the controversy, “The Cartoons That Shook the World.”  When Trey Parker and Matt Stone, South Park’s creators, tried to parody the Danish cartoons by scripting an animated appearance of Mohammed in one of their episodes, Comedy Central management blacked out the cameo. In subsequent episodes of South Park, Parker and Stone, true to their comedic nature, depicted the prophet Mohammed wearing a mascot’s costume and talking from inside a U-Haul trailer. It hasn’t always been like this; two months before 9/11, “the Muslim prophet with the power of flame” stood next to Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Joseph Smith, and Lao-tse, the South Park episode titled “Super Best Friends,” to help Stan, one of the show’s main characters, demystify the magician David Blaine.

Why should the world knuckle under to threats of violence when the subject of Islam is broached? Why should there be an exception in deference to Islamic sensitivities?

Well, there isn’t! It turns out that the Danish newspaper that published the affronting cartoons of Mohammed rejected earlier that month cartoons of Christ explaining to the artist who submitted them that they would provoke an outcry. No American film director today would produce a work similar to D. W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation.” And even if it were, no theater would show it lest the African American community would violently protest. Disney would not release its 1946 musical “Song of the South” for home viewing fearing it would offend minorities. In today’s America. we camouflage censorship with political correctness and no longer allow derogatory epithet like the word “nigger” opting instead for the ““N” word.” Suggesting the Holocaust never happened is a crime in Germany and Israel. The idea that all speech is protected denotes a simplistic understanding of the law. In Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, the court wrote:

“ There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

The Muslim people’s outrage is most certainly justified, but the violence is absolutely not. If Muslim nations aspire to democracy, aspects of Islam should be openly questioned and objectively criticized without the fear of being accused of heresy, or apostasy, or subjected to grievous harm or death. This is not only a matter of judicial reform; it requires an honest self-examination at the level of the individual citizen and a willingness to accept the skepticism even of those holding antagonistic opinions.

AUTHOR: Ahmed T. B. / Cabalamuse
URL: http://cabalamuse.wordpress.com/
E-MAIL: cabalafuse [at] hotmail.com

Manish Harijan, said, “People have misunderstood my art. With every painting there is a caption symbolizing a certain meaning and if it’s read then you will know the true meaning of the art and I have not made fun of the culture or tradition. I have just tried to express and adapted the art to a newer level or the new generation style. As currently the new generations are overlooking the values and tradition so this was just an effort to bring it in their notice, other than that I have no other objective. ”

According to the Hindu Federation, “This is a mockery of our culture; there is a thin line in between expression and making fun of something. This is ridiculous in comparing our gods and cultural values in the name of modernism. Our culture is our respect and it cannot be made fun of or compared to westernization.”

AUTHOR: Shreedeep Rayamajhi
URL: http://www.rayznews.com
E-MAIL: weaker41 [at] gmail.com

Nguyễn Tấn Dũng

Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Re: Vietnam: Immediately release of 17 Vietnamese social activists and bloggers and the withdrawal of all charges

Dear Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I have been informed by Human Rights watch regarding seventeen Vietnamese social activists, including bloggers and citizen journalists have been in jail for up to a year.

I came to know about the situation from a joint letter written by HRW and other human rights organizations requesting the Immediate Release of 17 Vietnamese Social Activists and Bloggers.

I do agree on the with their demand, individually I add my voice on the raised concern expressed on the letter.

Most have not even been brought to trial. These seventeen individuals have been arbitrarily detained because of their work as citizen journalists, environmental advocates, anti-corruption crusaders and human rights defenders.

Over the last year, the international human rights community has gotten to know their names: Dang Xuan Dieu, Ho Duc Hoa, Paulus Le Van Son, Nguyen Van Duyet, Nong Hung Anh, Nguyen Van Oai, Chu Manh Son, Dau Van Duong, Tran Huu Duc, Nguyen Xuan Anh, Ho Van Oanh, Thai Van Dung, Tran Minh Nhat, Ta Phong Tan, Tran Vu Anh Binh, Nguyen Dinh Cuong, and Hoang Phong.

These individuals have simply sought to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association guaranteed under international law. What they have in common is a passion for social justice, religious freedom, and involvement in the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.

Unfortunately, they have been detained pursuant to vague, ill-defined statutes under the Vietnamese penal code: Article 79, which effectively restricts freedom of association and Article 88, which essentially limits freedom of speech. The recent petition filed by Stanford Law School’s Allen Weiner to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention argued very well that their continued detention violates international law.

On March 12, 2012 nine international NGOs (ACAT France, Access, ARTICLE 19, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Front Line Defenders, Index On Censorship, Media Defence South East Asia, Media Legal Defence Initiative, Southeast Asian Press Alliance) sent you a letter which called for their immediate release and access to legal counsel. Since then, their situation has not improved but rather worsened: Four of these activists have been unjustly sentenced to prison terms and the remainder are being held without access to a lawyer. Blogger Paulus Le Son was transferred to Hoa Lo jail in Hanoi which is known for its harsh prison conditions. Another citizen journalist, Dang Xuan Dieu, has not been allowed a single family visitation over the last year.

I respectfully remind you of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s obligations under international law to protect the rights of its citizens when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These rights are also protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is a matter customary international law. Therefore, freedom of association, freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial are basic rights which should be protected under Vietnam’s legal system and not unjustifiably curtailed.

I believe Vietnam as a country would benefit from greater respect for the civil liberties of its citizens and Vietnamese society would be richer with the contributions of all its citizens. I urgently call on your government to withdraw all the charges against those who are held pending trial and for those who have been sentenced to be unconditionally exonerated.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Any customer with an Orange SIM and mobile internet enabled phone will be able to access Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopaedia in the world, through their mobile browser. They can access the Wikipedia encyclopaedia services for as many times as they like at no extra charge as long as they stay within Wikipedia’s pages.

According to Telkom Kenya – Chief Executive Mickael Ghossein, Orange is keen on creating and raising awareness on the benefits of Wikipedia to the more than 70 million Orange customers in Africa and the Middle East (the AMEA region).

This move is the result of a major partnership signed in January this year between the Orange Group and the Wikimedia Foundation.

The partnership will see Orange customers in the Group’s affiliate countries easily access information from the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopaedia with nearly 500 million monthly unique visitors.

“Our subscribers can access Wikipedia services for as many times as they like at no extra charge, as long as they stay within Wikipedia’s pages,” said Ghossein, adding that the mobile phone remains the most preferred and convenient means of accessing the internet while in transit.

Users of this innovative service will also freely browse the millions of articles available on Wikipedia in the languages most widely used in Africa.

“In countries where access to information is not always readily available, we are making it simple and easy for our customers to use the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopaedia in both Kiswahili and English”, Said Mickael Ghossein.

By sponsoring the cost of data for its customers, Orange is supporting the Wikimedia Foundation’s initiative of spreading free knowledge to the billions of people around the world, whose primary opportunity to access the internet is via a mobile device, as the global brand bolsters its image through value added service as its strong differentiator.

Kenya becomes the second country in Africa after Uganda to benefit from this major partnership signed in January between the Orange Group and the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia also plans to enable a functionality soon that will notify users when they log on to the paid up pages.

AUTHOR: Henry Neondo
URL: http:// www.africasciencenews.org
E-MAIL: neondohenry [at] yahoo.com

Ecuador has similarly asked the US for assurances that it would respect the human rights of Assange and follow international law and not deny him due process; in other words not treat him like a Guantanamo Bay terrorist. The US has refused any cooperation with Ecuador, placing government privileges to secrecy above human rights, due process, freedom of the press, or freedom of speech. In a surprising move, the UK boldly threatened that it would capture Assange, violating international law and falling into the trap of a double-standard, given that UK has been an outspoken defender of embassy compounds as integral parts of the sovereign nation they represent.

Why would Britain commit such a blunder, given that so many former UK diplomats argue this is not the way to proceed? Why would Britain knowingly risk Ecuador mobilizing the friendly nations of Latin America and others around the world against it? Why would Britain be so blatant about such a high-profile matter when it really does not impact its national interests in any manner other than the fact that Assange is in London? Even if the UK intended to storm the Ecuadoran embassy or capture Assange on route to the airport, why not just do it; why make an announcement about it and give both domestic and international critics time to mobilize and place the entire strategy in doubt?

1. Did the Foreign Office acted in such a direct manner in order to bring the issue out into the open and take the pressure off itself, while proving to the US that it ‘really tried’, knowing all along that it cannot possibly violate international law without consequences down the road? After all, the UK has many enemies that can easily use this case to storm embassy compounds around the world.
2. Did the Foreign Office issue a imperialist style warning to a small Latin American nation that is close to Venezuela so that it can ‘fish out’ the level of international support, including US and Swedish reaction? Ecuador immediately appealed to its Latin American neighbors, placing the US in a very difficult position, because an extra-continetal power has in essence threatened to violate the sovereignty of an OAS member. The US is obligated by treaty to vote with Ecuador on this issue, but it cannot, thus finding itself in a defensive position with the rest of its neighbors.
3. Did the Foreign Office act on orders from Washington, or at least in consultation after it had an agreement with Sweden to test the waters of violating international law? If so, was this intended to force the government in Quito to negotiate a solution before giving asylum? Even after Ecuador announced its decision on Assange, the Foreign Office remained committed to a negotiated settlement – in theory, while unofficial sources hint at no change in UK policy, until further notice as domestic and international mounts against London.
4. Did the UK deliberately choose this confrontation, knowing that Russia and specifically Vladimir Putin’s circle would use the case to argue that the West is guilty of a double-standard and must be condemned for not respecting human rights, freedom of speech, due process, or international law? Would not other governments not so friendly to the West not do the same and with justification? Can one imagine the US or UK trying to make a human rights case against China or Iran? Would the West have any moral authority to say a word about the behavior of any government violating international law and human rights, if it is also guilty of the same crimes?

There may be other scenarios and eventually some truth will surface. For now, what we have before us is a case of a small nation accusing a former colonial power of behaving like a neo-colonial bully. Disrespecting international law, human rights, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, while resorting to force reflects poor judgement on the part of the Foreign Office, assuming the threats were in earnest and not in essence intended to rid the case by undercutting the position of the US in a sly way. That there has been such an immediate and immense outcry against the handling of the case by former UK diplomats, to say nothing of the media that is leaning more toward Assange and less toward the Foreign Office only helps Ecuador that has stood up to the UK and US that appear to want to violate international law but insist the rest of the world must not do so. The larger question is the one of a double-standard, or as they say in the US ‘EXCEPTIONALISM’ in policy – policy only applies to the smaller and weaker nations, while the great powers are exempt!

AUTHOR: Jon Kofas
URL: http://jonkofas.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: jonkofas [at] yahoo.com