2 ms·
>The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this. Yes, but the US has much bigger guns in the game of diplomatic bargaining than Ecuador - including act
by mistercow 13y ago
>The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this.
Yes, but the US has much bigger guns in the game of diplomatic bargaining than Ecuador - including actual guns. Handing over political refugees would be an unnecessary sacrifice of reputation for the US when there are so many other tools at its disposal. Other nations already mostly do whatever the US tells them to, and when they don't, a minor play like that wouldn't make a difference.
Ecuador does not have such clout, so political refugees are a far more useful bargaining chip.
- schiffern 13y agoSince when is the US "handing over" anyone?
- mistercow 13y agoThey aren't. I think you should reread my comment.
- schiffern 13y agoI did. Several times. I still don't understand what's being "handed over" exactly.
- mistercow 13y agoNothing is being handed over by the US. The US doesn't stand to gain more by handing over political refugees than they could gain by other tools available to them, and they would lose reputation by handing over political refugees. So they don't. They don't hand over refugees because it would hurt them more than it would help them. My point is that that reasoning does not necessarily hold for Ecuador. This is why it's not necessary to suspect that the US is collecting refugees as future bargaining chips, while it is necessary to consider that Ecuador might be. If you still think I'm suggesting that the US is handing over refugees, please point out where I said anything of the sort, and I will clarify.
- schiffern 13y agoAhh, ok. Thanks for the clarification!