- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
International leaders have condemned Ecuador after police in the country’s capital broke into the Mexican Embassy to arrest a former vice president who had been granted political asylum.
The raid late Friday prompted Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador, while his government’s foreign relations secretary said the move will be challenged at the World Court in The Hague.
Police broke through the external doors of the embassy in Quito to arrest Jorge Glas, who had been residing there since December. He had sought asylum after being indicted on corruption charges and it had been granted hours earlier.
The break-in was widely condemned.
The Organization of American States in a statement reminded its members, which include Ecuador and Mexico, of their obligation not to “invoke norms of domestic law to justify non-compliance with their international obligations.”
I don’t really have sympathy for mexico’s government officials.
Aren’t most of them in bed with cartels that rape and murder children?
Oh no! The repercussions!!
I’m a bit uneasy on how this system works. Are there no consequences for allowing fugitives to escape a country? Why should a country respect another country’s embassy borders if they accept fugitives?
I’m not sure about this, but I think this is all that will come of this, and it might be ok
Would you invade another country to seize said fugitive?
The US damn sure would. Osama Bin Laden, for example
-
I didn’t agree with us invading Afghanistan to look for a bunch of saudis that were hiding in Pakistan.
-
Are this guys crimes on the equivalent of leading a terrorist attack? Aren’t they corruption charges?
Sorry Central and South America all just started popping off in the last few years and especially in the last year so I might be getting confused here
So it’s cool to raid another country if you feel the crime is sufficient?
See point 1
-
I’m not the type to invade anything, so no.
I’m not saying it’s an ok move to make, but in this world today this isn’t what I think are big violations of international law. And I don’t think much will come from it
I would love to fight against you, but I have recently tried to make a habit of not arguing with people who are right
He get asylum because Mexico authorities see his charges as political persecution. There is a trend in Latin America of bogus corruption’s trials against left wing politicians, as Lula, Kirchner and Morales cases show.
Always remember that the tribunals are not that just and independent at all, and condemnations can be made up.
Nice - Mexico as the moral high ground.
deleted by creator
I get that international law states this, but I’m not sure it works the same in real life. Will be interesting to see if Mexico answers to the invasion of their country with more than words.
Making an exception to international law for “real life” is just violating international law…
There are consequences for doing that, such as none of your allies ever trusting you again.
Yeah - it’s gonna be real harsh for them going forward now. Unlike Russia and Israel, who both seem to handle breaking international law without dire consequences
Edit: typos
Actually it’s a breech of international law more than anything. A cause for war is a bridge too far.
Had he had a warrant for his arrest, he wouldn’t have been granted asylum. There was only a warrant issued after asylum had been granted. It’s comparable to Assange, but instead of the British waiting him out the Ecuadorians decided to storm the embassy