-Analysis-
BUENOS AIRES – Asylum, the inviolable right of diplomatic premises, expulsion of diplomats and severed ties: There are multiple international-relations principles at the heart of the diplomatic spat between Mexico and Ecuador.
Just to briefly resume the events: on Friday April 5, Ecuadoran police burst into Mexico’s embassy in the capital of Quito to arrest the country’s former Vice President, Jorge Glas, who had been staying there under diplomatic protection. Glas had been sacked in 2017 and later convicted twice on charges relating to financial corruption. He left prison in November 2023, yet Ecuador continued to look into his affairs, issuing another arrest warrant for him in December.
That prompted Glas to take refuge in the Mexican embassy.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
It should be said here, Ecuador’s new, conservative government is little inclined to be lenient with a former, leftist politician; while Mexico, currently governed by the socialist Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has been projecting itself as the region’s new beacon and protector to leftist leaders. Much to the irritation of some governments.
Relations between Ecuador and Mexico further deteriorated after Glas sought refuge at the embassy, and Ecuador declared Mexico’s ambassadress, Raquel Serur, persona non grata in response to critical declarations made by López Obrador (which might fairly be interpreted as meddling in Ecuador’s affairs).
Mexico reacted by granting Glas political asylum, and asked for Ecuador’s permission to take him out of Ecuador. The government of President Gustavo Noboa not only refused, but decided to order his arrest. The head of the Mexican embassy’s chancery, Roberto Canseco, sought to stop the police, which proceeded to manhandle and threaten the diplomat with their weapons.
Assange example
Diplomatic asylum is a practice that was born in Latin America. In this case, Mexico had given asylum to Glas, refusing to hand him over to the authorities. In principle, the embassy is inviolable, as a means to help facilitate obtaining a safe-conduct pass from the country.
While diplomatic asylum is not a universally accepted norm or principle, the diplomatic premise’s inviolability is enshrined in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 22). It is the principle that allowed Julian Assange to stay at Ecuador’s embassy in London for seven years.
The United Kingdom would not grant a safe conduct to leave the country but did not enter the embassy.
The Quito incident is thus an unequivocal violation of international law — though not of Mexico’s sovereignty, as President López Obrador has claimed.
Diplomatic relations are, like any relation, dependent on being nurtured by the respective sides, and occasional glitches are inevitable. When a crisis occurs, diplomatic law envisages incremental responses to avoid escalation, such as recalling an ambassador for consultations or summoning a foreign ambassador (for a talking to at the foreign ministry). A country might even withdraw its ambassador to convey graver discontent, while allowing the embassy to pursue its work under the more limited authority of a chargé d’affaires.
Dangerous precedent
In extreme cases, a country may sever diplomatic ties, which can be a unilateral decision. That is what Mexico has done, also urging respect for Inter-American treaty norms and reiterating its request for Glas to be allowed to leave. It may also take legal action against Ecuador with the International Court of Justice at The Hague and with regional bodies, for violating international law. Meanwhile it wants the security of its staff and families assured as they leave the country.
Ecuador’s move risks setting a grave precedent to be vigorously rejected as a violation of universal diplomatic norms, regardless of the reasons given. The diplomatic crisis might threaten Ecuador’s political stability but its impact extends across the region, if only for affecting states’ perceptions of Ecuador and Mexico and influencing future diplomatic conduct.
But now others may be tempted to flout the regional principle of embassy asylum, and this should be closely watched. In the meantime, one can only hope for a swift restoration of ties and of the longstanding tradition of friendship between both states.
