Guillaume Long - Foreign Minister, Ecuador HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk, with Zeinab Badawi. It is four years since

Julian Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to

avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault charges, which he

denies. Mr Assange claims that he could end up being sent to the

United States and put on trial for espionage, on the grounds of the

publication of thousands of classified military and diplomatic

documents on his website, WikiLeaks. But how can Ecuador claim to uphold

transparency and freedom of expression when its own government

stands accused of systematically violating press freedoms at home? My

guest is Guillaume Long, the newly appointed Foreign Minister of

Ecuador. THEME SONG PLAYS. Guillaume Long,

welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. TU believe Julian Assange will leave

the embassy in London soon -- do you. I would like him to. I fear for

his health. He has been there for four years. A very long time. We

have been arguing and Ecuador has been pushing the view that it should

be resolved swiftly. We think it is possible. We need a few guarantees

to make sure there is no political persecution and he can be on his

way. The Swedish prosecutor has said she is willing to have him

questioned inside the embassy. The UK has given its permission. We are

waiting for a response from Ecuador. Why not? That is a very recent

development of the last few weeks. We have been asking this for four

years. Over 1400 days of asking this. Isn't a few weeks enough time?

We're working on it with our lawyers. We are happy we have this

request at last. There is a major game-changer ahead of the UN

resolution that establishes Julian Assange... It has been held for four

years. He has been held under arbitrary detention. This has major

repercussions. A highly respected UN body is calling on the British and

Swedish authorities to respect this. It says that Mr Assange is being

held arbitrarily. That is the UN report you are referring to. Just to

reiterate, will you allow Mr Assange to be questioned inside the embassy?

The initial intention is just that. But just as the Swedish state, this

is a judicial matter. A decision for the Attorney General to take. It is

not a light decision. It has just arrived. We have been waiting four

years for it. We will take a decision in the coming days based on

the global judicial case, it including the UN resolution. You say

you fear for his integrity and his health he has been in your embassy

for four years and so on, yet, you have the ability, the authorities in

Ecuador, to bring a resolution by allowing him to be questioned. You

are sitting on this. We aren't sitting on it at all. It arrived a

few days ago. We have been waiting four years for this. Ecuador has

systematically said we can resolve this through having the guarantees

he will not be extradited. That is what you are waiting for. Your

predecessors that is the guarantee he from the Swedes and Britain, that

he will not be extradited to the US. That is what... That is what you are

saying? What we have been saying for four years is the Swedes can

interrogate him in our embassy. They have done this many times. 44

requests in the time he has been in our embassy to interrogate different

people in different. -- contexts. It is a major game-changer. In January,

the US has said he was being held in arbitrary detention. A resolution by

the UN in this case is not a minor issue. There are lawyers and they

are lawyers. You have different opinions. The Executive Director of

the global outfit based in the UK says, of the UN working report, it

is important to maintain a adherence to make sure that individuals have

to abide by legal rulings. -- adherence. It is surprising to think

he could be extended from those principles. The ruling by the UN

panel is not binding by British law. The irony is that Sweden and Britain

have called in other countries to abide by this ruling. In this case,

because it affects their behaviour, they are saying it is not binding.

He has nothing to do with the British government. He is a lawyer.

There are lawyers and there are lawyers. I have spoken to many

authoritative voices that they it is a paradox and ironic that this UN

ruling... Britain and Sweden have called on its many times do I buy --

abide by. Suddenly it is a nonissue. It is ironic. The UK, let's not

forget, it is on the UN council of human rights. Into that an ethics,

in order to be elected on this council, they said we pledge our

full commitment to abide by any human rights ruling. -- in 2006,. It

isn't just the UK, it is Sweden. It isn't just these countries

disobeying these principles. You are talking about two countries that are

mature democracies with judicial use and so on. -- judiciaries. When a UN

spokesman says Julian Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by

the UK, he is in fact avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain

in the Ecuadorian Embassy. This is a serious debate. The accusation of

rape is still outstanding and a European Arrest Warrant is in place.

That is the British government's position. When you talk about the

law, there is international law. You cannot just say I agree with this

ruling so I will abide by international law or the opposite.

Year is wanted for questioning over serious allegations. And we have

never had a problem with that. -- he is wanted. We have always said we

won't stand in the way of any case in Sweden. You say he won't be

extradited to the US. You are obstruct injustice in a way. --

obstructing. It is serious. He didn't just reveal the cable leaks,

he revealed massacres in Iraq. This isn't a minor thing. Rape

allegations! I am not saying whether he is guilty or not. That is not the

purpose of this interview. But an a serious matters? They are extremely

serious. That is why we don't have a problem with the Swedish case. This

has nothing to do with the rape allegations, not extraditing him.

And the interview in our embassy. That has taken four years to

materialise. It takes a few days in other countries. Have finally had a

request in the last few days and we will deal with it. Obviously, it is

a legal matter, just like the Swedes say. Your position is clear. You say

that you fear for the health and integrity of Julian Assange. That is

right. If this was the other way around and Ecuador was in breach of

ruling it would be eight scandal. You would be asking me why I did

this... I wouldn't say that. Why do you fear for his health? Four years

in a very small space! He has... A number of medical doctors have been

analysing the situation. I mean, this is a really inhumane... That is

why the UN called it arbitrary detention. That is a serious matter.

His health. He is OK but he has a problem in his arm and he has

deteriorating health. He needs hospital treatment? Does he need

me to decide. But, yeah, we are me to decide. But, yeah, we are

concerned about his health. He doesn't have access to good old

care. That is clear. We are very worried about this. -- healthcare.

Do you know how much it cost to maintain security at the embassy?

Are they getting fed up? Very fed up. It is an embassy under siege. It

is probably one of the most spied on embassies in the whole world. It is

difficult for those working there. It isn't an easy decision. We took

this decision based on our humanitarian principles because we

believe he is physical integrity is at risk. This is a human right.

OK... With the number of states, the UK, Sweden, obviously, a big part of

it, but also the United States. It is difficult to sustain for Ecuador.

But we took the decision to ask for guarantees for him not to be

extradited. With no regrets? We cannot confirm or deny, from the

Foreign Office of the United States, we cannot confirm or deny whether

there is an extradition request. This could go on for a long time. I

think time has proven us right. So you have no regrets. Some would say,

your critics would say, Ecuador is saying it is a champion of freedom

of speech and transparency, when there have been many criticisms of

freedom of speech, expression, and all that, in Ecuador. The editor of

in Ecuador newspaper says they have granted asylum to Julian Assange

because he defends freedom of speech, but the country doesn't have

freedom of speech itself in the press. I disagree with that

completely. I disagree with that media campaign. Ecuador has absolute

media three expression. The press is, by and large, in Ecuador, in the

hands of private media. About 90%. There is a much smaller media sector

than in in this country. -- in. There are many very right-wing and

aggressive... That is the point. There is no censorship, though. We

have a regulatory body that didn't exist before, like in this country.

If there is racism or sexism, or hate... That is normal. It didn't

exist before. There has been some backlash on behalf of our press for

what has happened. You have critics. Censorship. Reporters Without

Borders. The UN's Frank LaRue has said of this you have just brought

up that some of the laws' revisions are unacceptable. He says he regrets

it wasn't brought up to a larger debate. That is a serious criticism.

The law was extremely positive. It was approved through Congress. It is

legitimate. It is very similar to European laws where you have a

regulatory body. You have a freedom of debate criticism here, the

tapping of phones, the same serious issues in Ecuador. The thing is, in

Latin America, there has been no regulation. There has been no

history of this public accountability of the press in

society. And, the media, let's not forget, there is the context in

Ecuador of a close tie to 19th-century foundation Ellies, they

aren't happy with the reform process in Ecuador. -- elites. They have

become a political opposition. Instead of bringing politicians to

account ability, which is what the media should do, they have become

politicians themselves. -- accountability. You are saying that

the UN working report on Julian Assange use great and now... -- is.

There is a meeting of the UN council next week which will have a binding

finding on the freedom of expression in the case of Ecuador. We can talk

after that. Right now this is an opinion.

He is highly respected that they are UN bodies, international law is

international law. Let me give you some examples of why people say that

press freedom is really constrained in your country. A magazine in

September 2012 published an article which advocates a no vote against

President Correa. It was to do with the referendum. And what happens? Is

fined $80,000. I will give you another example, the website

Republican, an online publication in June 2015, all broadcast live

footage of social protest and their websites were disabled for several

hours. That's not true, but in this country... You can't just a that.

The media get find all the time. You have libel cases all the time in the

United Kingdom. It is very similar to what happens in Ecuador. This

didn't happen before. So the media are obviously surprised that very

suddenly they are held to account. They are held to account for libel

and defamation. That's exactly what we are talking about, those kind of

phones are exacted what we are talking about. You have President

Correa regularly tearing up newspapers. He did one in 2015, most

recently, denouncing what he calls the corrupt press. Well, there is a

corrupt press and he denounced at there has been no censorship. But on

his national broadcaster. You have to differentiate a political

conflict between our government and some extreme right-wing press that

spends its time criticising us, that has very aggressive headlines, a lot

of racist, sexist, hate headlines, that would be fined in this country.

Racist and sexist would be fined, but not criticism of the government.

This is nothing to do a criticism of government. It is very aggressive

press and then you have President Correa, who fights back. Now, the

media are not used to this. By tearing up newspapers? By saying

they are lying, by saying this is wrong, by saying this is completely

unacceptable, but certainly not by censoring. There is a difference.

You can answer the media, which is very different from having

censorship. There is no censorship in April. You will see all the

newspaper but saying very nasty things about the government without

any consequences. As I said, there are opinions within and outside

Ecuador that beg to differ with you. Not only is the critics about the

press freedom, you also have now protests, anti-government protests

in Ecuador, particularly from Indigenous people. The very people

whom President Correa says he championed when he first came to

power about a decade ago. That is very serious for you. You have got

them saying water rights have been violated. I will give you one

example, the president representing one group of people says of water

rights the water is in the hands of multinationals that commercialise

bottled water. You have people protesting against oil exploration

rights in a remote part of the Amazon rainforest that has been

given to the Chinese. These are your natural constituency, you are

alienating. With whom we got 65% of the vote in the first round. The

Indigenous people are a huge majority of Indigenous people

supporting our government. The last British euro 30 were in June last

year. Kayak sleeping in a European context they are much more frequent

and much more large-scale protests. The large protests were in June...

But the nature of the process? They were basically middle-class protest

against tax reform. They went Indigenous groups. That was part of

it, you had lusty, as you said, thousands blocking roads in six of

the country's provinces, a year ago. -- that was year. Raising real

estate levies, but you also had poor people protesting against

reductions, proposed reductions, in welfare payments. No, not at all.

With the poor? Are they going to be reductions in welfare payments? If

you have a look at the demonstrations last year in June,

they were very violent, there was a number of police officers that were

wounded, over 110, there was a police officer that was kidnapped,

kidnapped and tortured. Imagine what that would mean in a European

context. But I would say by and large obviously there were thousands

of people out on the street protesting these taxes. So there was

a wide array from all different aspects of society. But by and large

if you look at those protest they were middle class and upper-class

protests. The oil exploration, though, that Indigenous people are

annoyed about. I have just said, the Indigenous people, we do well. We do

very well, I'm sure there are some Indigenous people that are in

favour, some people are up against. Indigenous people shouldn't be

romanticised as this kind of entity where they all agree with each other

and all that together. No, you have Indigenous people that vote right

wing, Indigenous people that vote left wing... He is popular, but his

ratings are going down. From the beginning of January last year to

December 2015 he saw a drop in his poll ratings from 60 to 41%. Well,

different pollsters would have different results. The last polls I

saw he was still about 60%. President Correa has been... That

was a whole year. I think what is surprising here is how... Well, next

Burbury, so 9.5 years and what is surprising in the story is how

consistent his popularity has been over ten years. It might go down

now, though, because the economy is really taking a hammering. Oil

prices going down, use the US dollar which is quite strong regionally

which means your exports are going to be much more expensive and your

imports, you know, are easier but your exports, you are going to

suffer trying to diversify your economy. I think we have gone

through the worst. Oil prices are on the rise and think we handled it

very well. This is an important point, I think this collapse of the

oil price which happened 15 or 20 years the situation would have been

disastrous. Let's not forget that Ecuador, before our government, had

seven presidents in ten years. Sure, sure. Famous in the world are being

very unstable, massive economic crisis etc. This hasn't happened.

What we're seeing is Ecuador dealing quite well with the fall in oil

prices. We even grew last year, very marginally. We are used to growing

5% year and unfortunately we grew 0.5%, which was unfortunate, but in

the past we would have... It would have been chaos, Keech teachers

would not have been paid, police officers and the army wouldn't have

been paid. This didn't happen. Why? Because we are diversifying our

economy, moving away from oil, we are taking the right steps. You

still rely on oil for 50% of your exports. Yes, you can't change that

overnight. Foreign Minister, the fact is when you look at the region,

Progressive governments of the sort you support, are hugely under

pressure, especially in Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro took over, look at

what is going on. Medicine is in short supply, food shortages,

hospitals running out of soap, inflation lusty was 180%. The

progressive left are really not being able to deliver economic

benefits to the people. The very people who put them into power.

Dimension inflation, in the case of Ecuador there is no inflation.

Progressive governments are under pressure, aren't they, including

yours? There is an effort to present regressive government is a failure,

because now there are some electoral changes, some right-wing governments

have come into power. Like in Peru. The President. In Peru there is a

new president, although I don't know if the previous government was part

of the progressive wave but the truth is the last ten or 15 years

these regressive governments have been very successful at reducing

inequality, reducing poverty, at giving political stability to these

governments and because this is Democratic game, and absolutely

legitimate democratic game, you have changes. You have new governments,

some more right, some more centre, coming into power. In the case of

Ecuador, the coming February which is the coming presidential

elections, will see a new victory on the progressive front. And those

coming presidential elections the Constitution has been changed so

that actually there is no limit on presidential terms. Yes, there is,

only tee terms. Yes, but after the next elections, so President Correa

can't run in the next elections, but after four years he could run again.

Yes, just like in Brazil, in Argentina, in Russia... He could,

couldn't he, after four years? This is a question you would have two ask

Raphael Guerrera, because it is a personal decision. I don't know if

he will do that. -- President Correa. You have a French mother and

Venezuelan father, can you really identify with support? I was in

Ecuador when I was 19, he have lived most of my life in Ecuador. All my

life has been... Can you really feel what people experience? I lived in a

lot of places in Ecuador. I have been a political militant all my

life. I wasn't always in government. I was a long time in opposition,

working with a very Indigenous groups you are talking about, so I

can empathise and that is why we are involved in this process. Foreign

Minister of Ecuador, Guillaume Long, thank you very much indeed for being

on HARDtalk. Thank you.