7 ms·

Nice! That's a classy move right there. Edit: further context: >Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, promised Wednesd

by pvnick 13y ago

Nice! That's a classy move right there. Edit: further context: >Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, promised Wednesday that he would block renewal of the pact should Snowden be granted asylum. >"Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior," he said in a statement, following other lawmakers who have spent years saying that the pact should be allowed to lapse, partly down to the country's links with Iran. [1] If my tentative understanding of events is correct, this economic act of aggression (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) was the main form of likely retaliation the US would have pulled in response to Snowden being granted asylum. Preempting this move by giving up the preferential treatment is, IMO, a very astute move by the Ecuadorian government, and puts America in a position of not having that leg to stand on. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-security-snowden-congress-idUSBRE95P1DR20130626 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-security-sn...

mpyne 13y ago
Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. > (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) There are two sides to that particular story bub, and only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. So what you're basically saying is that Ecuador has decided to harm their own innocent civilians in order to head toward granting asylum to a U.S. citizen to poke their thumb in Uncle Sam's face (again).
- lucian1900 13y ago
  They are standing up against the bully that is the US. That is a service to their own citizens and those of various other countries around the world.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    In what sense? If a member of the Ecuadorian opposition party infiltrated their government and stole classified information, then fled to the United States, wouldn't they demand to get him back?
    - antoko 13y ago
      The US didn't demand him back (and he isn't even there yet). They are threatening to remove some economic benefit that is completely unrelated to the issue at hand to coerce the Ecuadorean government to fall in line. That's pretty obviously bullying, and the Ecuadorean government has simply called uncle sam's bluff.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        "Economic benefits" are generally not free. Why should the U.S. reward a country that has shown a willingness to embarrass them on the world stage (twice, now) when there are a hundred other countries that would be just as deserving (not to mention the millions of Americans here at home who could benefit from a bit of largesse)?
        eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        your best friends are the ones that are allowed to tell you what you are like. the people who don't do that, they are not your best friends.
        mpyne 13y ago
        If I believed for a second that Ecuador's government had genuine friendship-based concern for the U.S. and its actions I think I'd agree with you. But that's not what this is.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        That doesn't change the fact that the more any entity relies on threats, the less it can have have real friends. This is like the physics of relationships and just how it is. Wether or not it applies here doesn't even matter for it being generally true, and the US seems to threaten friend and foe alike, if in doubt. Why, it even treats its own citizens like subjects quite often.
- corresation 13y ago
  Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. Ecuador hasn't yet taken in Snowden. So no, your analogy doesn't fit: They are rejecting bullying outright.
  - atwebb 13y ago
    Also, it's often not better to say that.
    - TallGuyShort 13y ago
      Agreed - but a better parallel to this situation is if you suspect you will be fired soon, to leave with dignity of your own accord beforehand.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It feels satisfying to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" but it's usually a bad idea. Removing a point of leverage before its attempted use is a slightly different scenario, though.
- jeremyflores 13y ago
  > only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. A meaningless technicality. You can't seriously be arguing that the US' continued hegemonic paternalism toward Ecuador isn't a major source of their population's problems.
dspillett 13y ago
> * which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?* There own innocent civilians? Generally yes, though they consider them all to be potentially not at all innocent. Other country's innocent civilians? Not unless it is politically or industrially/commercially expedient to seem to care. This has always been the case, and is the same for any other power.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
I'm ashamed to say that Menendez is my ass of a senator. For the American people, this is also adding insult to injury. This punishment doesn't only hit the Ecuadorian people, it also hits Americans. Not only are we being spied on, but in the government's fight for its authority to spy, it's also now forbidding Americans from purchasing products that they want (or forcing us to pay higher prices). Menendez either (a) doesn't understand economics well enough to understand that in trade both sides profit; or (b) really does view this as a war [of the US government] against the American people. Personally, I think it's likely that both are true. I'll be writing him another letter, this time saying not only that isn't PRISM and other domestic spying unacceptable, but that the necessary remedy is, at a minimum, the repeal of USA PATRIOT and of the AUMF. EDIT: clarify third paragraph
- blueprint 13y ago
  What result do you expect from writing such a letter if he is participating in a war against you?
  - johneth 13y ago
    > or (b) really does view this as a war against the American people I think CWuestefeld meant that the senator thinks that Ecuador's snub to the US regarding Edward Snowden is the 'war' - not that he and the US government is waging war against the American people.
    - samstave 13y ago
      Well, I am of the opinion that the USG is at war wit the American people.
    - CWuestefeld 13y ago
      No, I really do view this as the American government at war against the American people.
      - johneth 13y ago
melling 13y ago
How should the US punish Ecuador? Assume you are in the government and your job is to try and get Ecuador to hand over someone? Clearly going to war is off the table. By the way, Ecuador is a cool country. It's quite poor and they use the US dollar. I spent several weeks in Quito and everyone was quite friendly.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Why should the US punish Ecuador? When did the US become the worldwide punishment police?
  - melling 13y ago
    Saying "I wouldn't do anything" isn't an answer. You are running a country and you want a "crimminal" returned to the US for prosecution. This isn't the first time in history that this has happened. And the US isn't the only country that does stuff like this. If this happened in China, the UK, Russia, France, etc., I think they'd want their guy back too. From the WSJ: Mr. Obama said he hasn't called Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping concerning Mr. Snowden, who has been charged by U.S. authorities with stealing and passing on government secrets. President Barack Obama dismissed the idea of using the U.S. military to pursue NSA leaker Edward Snowden. "I shouldn't have to," Mr. Obama said, addressing a question raised during a news conference with Senegalese President Macky Sall. "This is something that is routine."
    - resu_nimda 13y ago
      Well, you asked what they should do. They should make their case diplomatically and non-threateningly, and hope that they can persuade Ecuador to agree. If they can't, they should respect that this "criminal" is outside of their jurisdiction and there's nothing they can do. They should not attempt to leverage their size and muscle to force compliance, like a bully or tyrant. Of course, as you noted, it never works like that, here or anywhere else.
      - 13y ago
Roboprog 13y ago
It's too bad Snowden didn't go to China. The parallel would be funny: China - we don't care about our favored trade/tariff status! (as if); US Govt - up yours, import taxes then! (as if).
diminoten 13y ago
When does it become a not classy move? What if he kicks out all currently present US nationals from his country? What if he shuts down the US embassy in Quito? What if he takes military action against the US? When do I stop getting excited when someone hurts my country?
- malandrew 13y ago
  I think a better question to ask is what is reasonable and fair to expect my country to do on my behalf. I'm all for the USG to try to improve the position economically and politically in the world so long as they respect certain bounds of decency while doing so. Spying the the politicians and citizens of other countries in order to gain advantage is not decent or fair, the same way you wouldn't want your boss or your co-workers to spy on you to keep you from a raise or promotion. The US, China, Russia and the UK are among the biggest sociopaths insofar as countries interacting with other countries go. I'm not proud of that, and I would hope we could meet with other countries and their leaders on a fair playing field and discuss things as adults instead or resorting to bullying.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Regardless of what the US does, it's not, in my opinion, something to cheer or be excited about when another country acts aggressively towards the US (to a citizen, anyway; feel however you want about it if you're not a citizen). What it crosses to me is the boundary between loyalty to one's leaders and loyalty to one's country. Obama is going after Snowden, and I can either support or not support that action, that's my right as a citizen. But when another country takes action against my country, that suddenly becomes an act of agression directed at me, and every other citizen of the US. That's not "nice", or "classy" at all.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      And what is your opinion of the act of aggression of the NSA towards you and every other US citizen by surveilling you without a warrant? Ecuador is providing protection to a whistleblower that is trying to help you question an unconstitutional program and reign in abuses. In a way that makes Ecuador a greater defender of the US Constitution than the USG. I don't know about you, but my loyalty is to the system of governance and rights laid out by the Constitution before some amorphous geographic shape determined by natural boundaries and history. I see Ecuador as helping the person that is helping protect the Constitution. I don't necessarily know their motivations or agree with the reason they may be acting the way they are, but I do know that the World needs more people like Snowden, and people willing to go to bat for Snowden, if we are going to be able to defend the Bill of Rights and other documents/policies outlining basic human rights. P.S. Threatening economic sanctions isn't "nice" or "classy" either. The US is as guilty as Ecuador for making this into an adversarial tete-a-tete.
brown9-2 13y ago
So when the US severs these ties, it's an "economic act of aggression" and it "hurt[s] innocent civilians". But when Ecuador does this preemptively, it's an astute move?
- tankenmate 13y ago
  It's a wise man that gives up what he cannot hope to keep for something he can't lose.
consonants 13y ago
> (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) No. This is a standard tactic the US has used to economically intimidate Latin/South America for political, but usually economic reasons. After the disaster in Haiti, the government decided to raise taxes on gas/oil exports(forget really) to help recovery, but that would affect our profit margins so we threatened them economically into submission. I believe something similar happened with raising the minimum wage by a few cents for textile workers in Haiti, but there was no way in hell we'd have that.* Menendez represents me. Not that I'm surprised that he'd protect his monied interests over the welfare of innocents or anything. *edit: found the source http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/us-haiti-wikileaks-minimum-wage-petrocaribe/38579/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/us-haiti-wik...
fspeech 13y ago
Ecuador's fight against Chevron is likely the largest obstacle to the renewal of the trade preference, not Snowden. Ecuador likely opted to retain the claim for potential billions instead of the trade privilege allegedly worth $23 millions. [edit] Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field

by pvnick 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. > (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) There are two sides to that particular story bub, and only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. So what you're basically saying is that Ecuador has decided to harm their own innocent civilians in order to head toward granting asylum to a U.S. citizen to poke their thumb in Uncle Sam's face (again).

lucian1900 13y ago
They are standing up against the bully that is the US. That is a service to their own citizens and those of various other countries around the world.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  In what sense? If a member of the Ecuadorian opposition party infiltrated their government and stole classified information, then fled to the United States, wouldn't they demand to get him back?
  - antoko 13y ago
    The US didn't demand him back (and he isn't even there yet). They are threatening to remove some economic benefit that is completely unrelated to the issue at hand to coerce the Ecuadorean government to fall in line. That's pretty obviously bullying, and the Ecuadorean government has simply called uncle sam's bluff.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      "Economic benefits" are generally not free. Why should the U.S. reward a country that has shown a willingness to embarrass them on the world stage (twice, now) when there are a hundred other countries that would be just as deserving (not to mention the millions of Americans here at home who could benefit from a bit of largesse)?
      - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        your best friends are the ones that are allowed to tell you what you are like. the people who don't do that, they are not your best friends.
        mpyne 13y ago
        If I believed for a second that Ecuador's government had genuine friendship-based concern for the U.S. and its actions I think I'd agree with you. But that's not what this is.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        That doesn't change the fact that the more any entity relies on threats, the less it can have have real friends. This is like the physics of relationships and just how it is. Wether or not it applies here doesn't even matter for it being generally true, and the US seems to threaten friend and foe alike, if in doubt. Why, it even treats its own citizens like subjects quite often.
corresation 13y ago
Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. Ecuador hasn't yet taken in Snowden. So no, your analogy doesn't fit: They are rejecting bullying outright.
- atwebb 13y ago
  Also, it's often not better to say that.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    Agreed - but a better parallel to this situation is if you suspect you will be fired soon, to leave with dignity of your own accord beforehand.
dllthomas 13y ago
It feels satisfying to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" but it's usually a bad idea. Removing a point of leverage before its attempted use is a slightly different scenario, though.
jeremyflores 13y ago
> only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. A meaningless technicality. You can't seriously be arguing that the US' continued hegemonic paternalism toward Ecuador isn't a major source of their population's problems.

dspillett 13y ago

> * which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?* There own innocent civilians? Generally yes, though they consider them all to be potentially not at all innocent. Other country's innocent civilians? Not unless it is politically or industrially/commercially expedient to seem to care. This has always been the case, and is the same for any other power.

CWuestefeld 13y ago

I'm ashamed to say that Menendez is my ass of a senator. For the American people, this is also adding insult to injury. This punishment doesn't only hit the Ecuadorian people, it also hits Americans. Not only are we being spied on, but in the government's fight for its authority to spy, it's also now forbidding Americans from purchasing products that they want (or forcing us to pay higher prices). Menendez either (a) doesn't understand economics well enough to understand that in trade both sides profit; or (b) really does view this as a war [of the US government] against the American people. Personally, I think it's likely that both are true. I'll be writing him another letter, this time saying not only that isn't PRISM and other domestic spying unacceptable, but that the necessary remedy is, at a minimum, the repeal of USA PATRIOT and of the AUMF. EDIT: clarify third paragraph

blueprint 13y ago
What result do you expect from writing such a letter if he is participating in a war against you?
- johneth 13y ago
  > or (b) really does view this as a war against the American people I think CWuestefeld meant that the senator thinks that Ecuador's snub to the US regarding Edward Snowden is the 'war' - not that he and the US government is waging war against the American people.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Well, I am of the opinion that the USG is at war wit the American people.
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    No, I really do view this as the American government at war against the American people.
    - johneth 13y ago

melling 13y ago

How should the US punish Ecuador? Assume you are in the government and your job is to try and get Ecuador to hand over someone? Clearly going to war is off the table. By the way, Ecuador is a cool country. It's quite poor and they use the US dollar. I spent several weeks in Quito and everyone was quite friendly.

nitrogen 13y ago
Why should the US punish Ecuador? When did the US become the worldwide punishment police?
- melling 13y ago
  Saying "I wouldn't do anything" isn't an answer. You are running a country and you want a "crimminal" returned to the US for prosecution. This isn't the first time in history that this has happened. And the US isn't the only country that does stuff like this. If this happened in China, the UK, Russia, France, etc., I think they'd want their guy back too. From the WSJ: Mr. Obama said he hasn't called Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping concerning Mr. Snowden, who has been charged by U.S. authorities with stealing and passing on government secrets. President Barack Obama dismissed the idea of using the U.S. military to pursue NSA leaker Edward Snowden. "I shouldn't have to," Mr. Obama said, addressing a question raised during a news conference with Senegalese President Macky Sall. "This is something that is routine."
  - resu_nimda 13y ago
    Well, you asked what they should do. They should make their case diplomatically and non-threateningly, and hope that they can persuade Ecuador to agree. If they can't, they should respect that this "criminal" is outside of their jurisdiction and there's nothing they can do. They should not attempt to leverage their size and muscle to force compliance, like a bully or tyrant. Of course, as you noted, it never works like that, here or anywhere else.
    - 13y ago

Roboprog 13y ago

It's too bad Snowden didn't go to China. The parallel would be funny: China - we don't care about our favored trade/tariff status! (as if); US Govt - up yours, import taxes then! (as if).

diminoten 13y ago

When does it become a not classy move? What if he kicks out all currently present US nationals from his country? What if he shuts down the US embassy in Quito? What if he takes military action against the US? When do I stop getting excited when someone hurts my country?

malandrew 13y ago
I think a better question to ask is what is reasonable and fair to expect my country to do on my behalf. I'm all for the USG to try to improve the position economically and politically in the world so long as they respect certain bounds of decency while doing so. Spying the the politicians and citizens of other countries in order to gain advantage is not decent or fair, the same way you wouldn't want your boss or your co-workers to spy on you to keep you from a raise or promotion. The US, China, Russia and the UK are among the biggest sociopaths insofar as countries interacting with other countries go. I'm not proud of that, and I would hope we could meet with other countries and their leaders on a fair playing field and discuss things as adults instead or resorting to bullying.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Regardless of what the US does, it's not, in my opinion, something to cheer or be excited about when another country acts aggressively towards the US (to a citizen, anyway; feel however you want about it if you're not a citizen). What it crosses to me is the boundary between loyalty to one's leaders and loyalty to one's country. Obama is going after Snowden, and I can either support or not support that action, that's my right as a citizen. But when another country takes action against my country, that suddenly becomes an act of agression directed at me, and every other citizen of the US. That's not "nice", or "classy" at all.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    And what is your opinion of the act of aggression of the NSA towards you and every other US citizen by surveilling you without a warrant? Ecuador is providing protection to a whistleblower that is trying to help you question an unconstitutional program and reign in abuses. In a way that makes Ecuador a greater defender of the US Constitution than the USG. I don't know about you, but my loyalty is to the system of governance and rights laid out by the Constitution before some amorphous geographic shape determined by natural boundaries and history. I see Ecuador as helping the person that is helping protect the Constitution. I don't necessarily know their motivations or agree with the reason they may be acting the way they are, but I do know that the World needs more people like Snowden, and people willing to go to bat for Snowden, if we are going to be able to defend the Bill of Rights and other documents/policies outlining basic human rights. P.S. Threatening economic sanctions isn't "nice" or "classy" either. The US is as guilty as Ecuador for making this into an adversarial tete-a-tete.

brown9-2 13y ago

So when the US severs these ties, it's an "economic act of aggression" and it "hurt[s] innocent civilians". But when Ecuador does this preemptively, it's an astute move?

tankenmate 13y ago
It's a wise man that gives up what he cannot hope to keep for something he can't lose.

consonants 13y ago

> (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) No. This is a standard tactic the US has used to economically intimidate Latin/South America for political, but usually economic reasons. After the disaster in Haiti, the government decided to raise taxes on gas/oil exports(forget really) to help recovery, but that would affect our profit margins so we threatened them economically into submission. I believe something similar happened with raising the minimum wage by a few cents for textile workers in Haiti, but there was no way in hell we'd have that.* Menendez represents me. Not that I'm surprised that he'd protect his monied interests over the welfare of innocents or anything. *edit: found the source http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/us-haiti-wikileaks-minimum-wage-petrocaribe/38579/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/us-haiti-wik...

fspeech 13y ago

Ecuador's fight against Chevron is likely the largest obstacle to the renewal of the trade preference, not Snowden. Ecuador likely opted to retain the claim for potential billions instead of the trade privilege allegedly worth $23 millions. [edit] Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field