In a heated interview with CNN, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
inadvertently slighted the nation that has sheltered him from justice.
'Insignificant'
Ecuador Too Intimidated to Respond to Julian Assange's Insult
(El Universo, Ecuador)
"When
the reporter asked him why he would not discuss Ecuador, he dropped the timeless
phrase: 'because Ecuador is insignificant.' ... As of the writing of these
lines, there is no official reaction, which doesn't coincide with the ordinarily
loose tongue of the leader (Rafael Correa) and the agility that usually characterizes
his government's propaganda machine."
"Let's be honest, we have a serious situation here. Whatever
little things occur in small countries are not of a concern" said Julian
Assange, during a now-famous interview from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London
[video below]. Immediately, when the reporter asked him why he would not
discuss Ecuador, he dropped the timeless phrase: "because Ecuador is
insignificant." Just like that: simple and straightforward. With these two
terse sentences, this man could provide plenty of work for semiologists,
who would carefully investigate the colloquial and ethnocentric contents of his
assertion. For something to be worthy of his attention, it would have to occur in
countries that are more than just spots in the map. Such is not the case for
the country that has hosted him for the past five months, whose existence would
only be discovered by appealing to a second rate public official.
At first glance, it seems contradictory that amid the nationalism
in which we live, we in Ecuador would try to justify these phrases. As always,
the argument is that they were taken out of context, which obviously wouldn't hold
anywhere. The interview can be seen unedited in the media, so that it can be
seen and heard as many times as needed to reconstruct the context yourself. If
after this exercise, one isn't convinced that an affront was made against Ecuador,
it will only be because you are suffering from what is normally referred to as
a "double standard," or because by doing so, you run the risk of being
implicated yourself in some way.
The latter may be the explanation for the contemplative
attitude of the national government. (As of the writing of these lines, there
is no official reaction, which doesn't coincide with the ordinarily loose tongue
of the leader [Rafael Correa] and the agility that usually characterizes his
government's propaganda machine).
Posted by Worldmeets.US
It's clear that the only possible reaction would be to
condemn Assange's statement, which would bring several
consequences that the government would surely not want to face. First of all, it
could simply condemn his expressions, but a statement like that would have to
be accompanied by a demand for a retraction. That would bring the risk that the
Australian would say that he didn't mean what it sounded like, and instead could
seek to hide behind being allegedly taken out of context, as his organization
has. That would be a huge snub to the Ecuadorian authorities.
Assange: 'I analyze the big freedoms - not the small ones
of a country so insignificant, that it took the great liberty
Secondly, a condemnation of Assange's
comments would require revising the terms of his asylum in the Embassy. The capacity
to discuss political issues during media interviews or even permission to give
a speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian delegation, are actions that are
totally at odds with the rules governing asylum. Allowing that to continue is to
violate both the written and unwritten conventions of international relations.
It is easy to imagine that the British government is carefully and
unemotionally taking note of these facts, and that this will ultimately influence
their final decision.
The problem is that without an adequate response, all the patriotic,
nationalistic proclamations of the government in slogan, song, and angry declarations,
are undermined.
