4 ms·
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
by 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.
- mpyne 13y agoAnd economic treaties are diplomatic tools. They always have been part-and-parcel of diplomacy and it's silly to act like that has suddenly changed in 2013.
- resu_nimda 13y agoRight. I interpreted the original question as "what, ideally, would be the right thing to do?" as opposed to "what would you expect them to do?" It's not really about the mere involvement of an economic treaty, that can certainly be a part of the negotiations. It's just that, in this particular situation, it's a blatant attempt to use our economic muscle to bend a smaller entity to our will on a completely unrelated matter. (Again, I don't find it surprising or unexpected in any way)
- mpyne 13y agoWell I'd argue the minimum proportional response to achieve the ends (i.e. there's some carrot/stick combinations that would not be 'right', or worth the international outcry... and even in that window why go for overkill?) The problem is that I don't think the U.S. has a lot of carrots at any given time (what are we going to do, lodge a formal protest?), and you'd certainly not want to start off with the stick.