Troubling times in South Africa

30 killed in clashes between Police and striking miners

Amid the news overload in the UK about the Olympics and the pantomime of recent days concerning Julian Assange, a story started to emerge on UK News Channels yesterday, which is of much concern.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19292909

Judicial Cat does not know the details of the strike; however, the news has very sad echoes of the pre-1994 South Africa and the sort of news, which those of us of a certain age remember watching nightly during the worse years of apartheid. This is a country of particular interest to your blogger, having visited no less than twelve times in the past eight years. It seems hard to imagine any sort of circumstances were this sort of Police reaction can even begin to be justified. One only has to consider the historical significance of events such as the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 and the Soweto uprising of 1976 to appreciate why these current events are, probably, sending a "chill down the spine" of many people living in modern day South Africa.

1994 had many hopes but are things now starting to deteriorate?

Your blogger first stepped foot in South Africa in July 2004. Ten years had elapsed since the end of apartheid and a new visitor found a country apparently at ease with itself celebrating a decade of democracy. To the visitor there is much to offer and the overall beauty of the nation cannot be underestimated. However, having travelled the length and breadth of that nation there is an unpleasant side, which appears to be getting worse. Make no mistake about the poverty experienced by the vast majority of South Africans. You can't escape race in that country so let's not "beat about the bush", the vast majority of non-whites still live in informal settlements (townships). Unemployment, even with the daft government policy of affirmative action, is still endemic. There is a middle class doing very well; however, that is the exception rather than the "norm". It is hardly any wonder that strikes occur. That being said whatever possessed the South African Police to open fire with live rounds? Let's not forget South Africa is a democracy with (in theory) some of the most stringent human rights laws on the planet. It is despicable that Police Officers, some of whom would have been subjected to the same treatment by the apartheid era police, have opened fire on their own people. This can only lead to a "slippery slope" of political violence.

The warning from "next door": - Zimbabwe

The current government led by the African National Congress ("ANC") have been in power since the end of apartheid in 1994. The ANC hold office in the majority of the provinces. An exception being the Western Cape under the administration of the Democratic Alliance and Premier Helen Zille. It can be argued that the government has failed to deliver on many of the promises made at the various elections held in the democratic era. Unfortunately, when a political party is virtually guaranteed power (and make no mistake the ANC fall into this category) a certain complacency creeps in. With no real accountability to the electorate a nation effectively becomes a one party state. What incentive is there for those in power to actually tackle the problems of poverty and unemployment, as well as exploitative work practices if they know that come the next election they will be back with an overwhelming majority! Unless the ANC start to address corruption, incompetence, and their own complancey then your blogger fears South Africa will have gone the way of Zimbabwe within the next fifteen years. That would be a sad indictment on that nation and a betrayal of everything that people such as Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Helen Suzman, and others fought for over many years!

Julian Assange: - UK Government in dramatic warning!

UK Government warns Ecuador of "power" to revoke diplomatic status of Embassy and thus "march in" and arrest Julian Assange

Of all the many things that have troubled your blogger since 11 September 2001, attempts to increase pre-charge detention to 90 days, stop and search without any need for reasonable suspicion, shooting dead an innocent person going about his daily business in July 2005, last night's news about a supposed warning to Ecuador to revoke the diplomatic status of the Embassy in Knightsbridge, London, has the potential to destroy the remaining international credibility the UK has in a way many have never known.

The Assange saga: - quick recap

Julian Assange runs Wikileaks. In 2010 thousands of diplomatic cables and other communications were leaked. Most, if not all, related to intelligence gathered by the various government agencies of the United States. Around the same time, and very coincidentally, Sweden requested the extradition of Assange to be questioned in connection with alleged sexual offences. A long legal battle in the UK reached the Supreme Court earlier this year and Assange's arguments were dismissed. In the circumstances Assange is liable to be extradited to Sweden. The Assange "camp" state that if extradited to Sweden it is likely the USA would demand his onward extradition over the Wikileaks saga. In June 2012 Assange sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador and applied for political asylum. Your blogger makes no comment on the merits of either the case in Sweden, or Assange himself. Judicial Cat is concerned with the "threat" made by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office ("FCO") to Ecuador. The summary of the "threat" being that the UK could invoke little known legislation passed in 1987 to revoke the diplomatic status of the Embassy and thus allow the Metropolitan Police to go inside using their normal police powers to arrest Assange.

Embassies are the "territory" of another country aren't they?

Many lay persons understand the concept that an Embassy or Consulate is in effect the "soil" of another country. In simple terms it is understood that, for example, the French Embassy in London would be France. That is a common misconception. In strict legal theory the embassy remains part of the territory of the host nation; however, it is subject to the concept of extraterritoriality. This means that the Embassy or Consulate is outside the jurisdiction of the host nation. The international legal framework governing all this is known as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The United Kingdom is an original signatory. In, "pounds, shillings, and pence", this means (in broad terms) that the law enforcement agencies of a host nation can't simply walk into an Embassy etc because they wish to arrest a suspect or carry out another law enforcement activity.

The siege of the Libyan People's Bureau in London: - April 1984

In April 1984 an event took place in St James's Square, London, which continues to have diplomatic repercussions to this very day. During a protest outside the Libyan People's Bureau (Embassy) shots were fired from inside the building and WPC Yvonne Fletcher was killed. A siege followed for a number of days; however, the Police were unable to enter the building and arrest the suspect(s) due to diplomatic conventions. Eventually diplomatic relations were broken and the Libyan Diplomats ordered out of the country. A few years later in 1987 Parliament passed a little known law, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. It is this law, which is the focus of the diplomatic, legal, and political row that is now "brewing". In summary the UK government believe they could use the provisions of that Act and revoke the diplomatic status of the Ecuador Embassy.

So can the government actually do this?

Judicial Cat believes that the government would be on very uncertain legal territory. Section 1 of the Act appears to give the Secretary of State such power and, on the wording (to the layperson) it seems all so simple! The fact is the provision is a discretionary power and must be exercised in accordance with normal public law principles. So any decision would need to be reasonable, exercised for a proper purpose, and proportionate. Section 1 (4) explicitly states that any decision has to be exercised in accordance with international law and Section 1 (5) gives some examples of the sort of circumstances, which may give rise to the exercise of the power. If the Foreign Secretary exercised the power it would be unprecedented in modern diplomatic history. Your blogger takes the view that, in these circumstances, it would almost certainly be unlawful due to the provisions of the Vienna Convention and the fact that the United Kingdom and Ecuador retain diplomatic relations. Without doubt the case would be heading for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and probably international courts. However, the political ramifications would be enormous. It would set a very dangerous precedent. If the government of the United Kingdom can just overturn diplomatic conventions and protocols then what is there to stop any nation doing similar to UK diplomatic missions overseas? Make no mistake if China had marched into the Embassy of the United States a few months ago when a chinese dissident was taking refuge, their would have been meetings of the UN Security Council called, sanctions imposed, and goodness knows what else! It seems to Judicial Cat that the stance taken by the UK Government is nothing more than a good old fashioned attempt to bully a "small" nation.

For what it's worth your blogger does not believe that the UK Government will violate the Ecuador Embassy; however, the silly letter containing the "threat" is bad enough! As a nation the UK will lose respect and be seen as the "poodle" of foreign governments. Further, in terms of proportionality, such actions would be absurd. If the UK Government were to take such action then it risks making the UK the sort of international pariah, the UK accuses nations such as North Korea and Iran of being! As a UK citizen your blogger would be ashamed of any such behaviour.