Ecuador offers U.S. rights aid, waives trade benefits

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-usa-security-ecuador-idUSBRE95Q0L820130627

by dllthomas • 13 years ago

296 148 13 years ago

pvnick• 13 years 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-sn...

mpyne9• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

corresation• 13 years 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.

dllthomas10• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

dspillett3• 13 years 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.

CWuestefeld2• 13 years 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

blueprint3• 13 years ago

What result do you expect from writing such a letter if he is participating in a war against you?

melling3• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Why should the US punish Ecuador? When did the US become the worldwide punishment police?

Roboprog• 13 years 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).

diminoten3• 13 years 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?

malandrew2• 13 years 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.

abraininavat• 13 years ago

my country? I wish people would grow up and stop thinking in terms of these stupid imaginary lines.

brown9-22• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

consonants• 13 years 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-wik...

fspeech• 13 years 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

joonix2• 13 years ago

Right, screw over thousands of merchants and workers in your country so a few at the top can make names for themselves as "rebels" ... does that sound like leftism or being "for the people?" What exactly does giving up all this to house Snowden do for the average Ecuadorian? It increases the profile of the leadership, but that's about it.

pessimizer• 13 years ago

Why have values when preferential treatment is at risk, right?

dllthomas10• 13 years ago

There are markets other than the US.

scaredbythensa• 13 years ago

Since all our freedom is for sale, right?

antoko5• 13 years ago

You seem to be assuming that if the US doesn't buy those flowers then no one will and they'll just rot. That seems unlikely. Given that they've also offered $23m for Human Right's training It seems likely they can afford to lose the $23m since they're effectively doubling that 'loss'.

Is it grandstanding? sure, but if you agree with human rights it is exactly the right kind of grandstanding.

Also, I have no problem with people considering themselves humans before they consider themselves members of a nation-state, even government officials of a nation-state.

gwern3• 13 years ago

You seem to be assuming that if the US doesn't buy those flowers then no one will and they'll just rot. That seems unlikely.

At the margin, it seems incredibly likely. You don't cut yourself off from the largest wealthiest market in the hemisphere and continue to sell exactly as many flowers as before at exactly as high a price...

_delirium• 13 years ago

It's possible some of the flower growers will switch to other crops. My understanding is the reason flower export was included in this agreement in the first place is that the U.S. hoped to increase the market size of alternative export cash crops, so coca growers would have something to switch to.

Which makes the move even less sensible from the U.S. side, because the U.S. program is not only some kind of selfless charity, but an attempt at reducing drug trafficking. Placing tariff barriers on legal exports like flowers and fruits just shifts the curve of how economically attractive illegal exports like coca look in comparison.

brown9-22• 13 years ago

Given that they've also offered $23m for Human Right's training It seems likely they can afford to lose the $23m since they're effectively doubling that 'loss'.

Why do you assume this money is set aside and actually exists when it sounds like a simple stunt?

GFischer6• 13 years ago

Is it really good for Ecuador to trade with a country that bullies its way like that?

China and others have their own set of problems, but they might make for better trade partners than the U.S., and China in particular is really lobbying itself as an option... lots of multibillion dollar government works and stuff that usually went to U.S., Europe, Japan or Korea by default are going to China now.

And Ecuador is now selling its oil to China, not the U.S.

The U.S. is losing control of its "backyard", which used to be economic colonies.

However, Ecuador is uniquely tied to the U.S. by having adopted the dollar, and the U.S. still imports twice as much as China, so yes, this will hurt.

tome4• 13 years ago

Do you think China will refrain from bullying if it is ever in its leaders' interests?

Spearchucker• 13 years ago

Maybe to a lesser degree, given economies of scale, market size and so forth, but it will hurt the US too. Trade agreements aren't altruistic. There's mutual benefit, or there'd be no point.

mikevm• 13 years ago

The US routinely bullies other countries to get what it wants, as evidenced by some of those diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks.

capex• 13 years ago

Following a principle has its costs, but that shouldn't become a barrier towards doing the right thing.

resu_nimda3• 13 years ago

Cynically, yes, it's a big media ploy. But, what should they do instead? Would it be better for them to immediately crumble when big ol' capitalist America tries to tighten some screws?

Maybe it provides morale for the average Ecuadorian, some faith and pride in their government. I wish ours would sometimes take a stand on human rights in the face of a more economically convenient option. However, I'll admit I'm not very familiar with Ecuador's political climate, it very well could be a hollow scheme.

utnick• 13 years ago

I bet this exposure brings more than 23 million $ in tourism to the country.

Heck, journalist alone will probably spend a million over the next several years following Snowden around

tootie3• 13 years ago

I bet it doesn't.

kcorbitt• 13 years ago

I know a number of Ecuatorians living abroad, and they're very proud of what their government is doing regardless of the short-term economic consequences. I don't know who's right and who's wrong here, but there's a huge if often intangible benefit to taking a principled stance and sticking with it.

joonix2• 13 years ago

Ecuadorian expats working professional jobs abroad, or emigrants who left the country for greener pastures long ago, aren't really who matter here. Like I said it's the merchants and workers who rely on these export dollars who will suffer.

mynegation• 13 years ago

Ecuador will have no problem finding buyers for oil, its main export. But flower and fruit merchants will suffer consequences.

toomuchtodo• 13 years ago

Correct. More sales to Canada.

schiffern3• 13 years ago

I don't know about you, but I'm calling flower merchants and buying Fair-Trade Ecuadorian flowers.

Facebook needs some "Made in Ecuador" stickers methinks.

znowi• 13 years ago

If western countries had enough balls to stand up against the US demands, maybe it would not turn into such a bully. It's our indifference that led us to wars, drones, surveillance, etc. Not a single country would be allowed to act this way.

Mordor• 13 years ago

Oh, they won't bother when it's clear they need China more than the US.

cpursley2• 13 years ago

" Not a single country would be allowed to act this way."

Going point.

gscott2• 13 years ago

Apparently we are sharing data with Australia and Britain so likely many others too. They don't need to spy on their populations when we will do it for them and give them the data.

ewbuoi2• 13 years ago

Apparently this has been common since at least the cold war.

andrewcooke• 13 years ago

great. now the us is going to find a way to fuck up another south american country.

drawkbox• 13 years ago

Would have it just been easier to pardon Snowden, bring him back home, never allow him to work with a security clearance again or do we just have to be that hardline that we just caused lots of anguish? Has the non-pardoning/hardline caused more damage here? If he truly has more damning information, as the state department, wouldn't you want to contain that by bringing him back without fear of being detained?

Unless in some parallel Snowden is still in the CIA and we wanted to check HK, Russia and now Ecuador regime with a spy that would be excused due to the leaks (might also learn more about WikiLeaks).

In the end, our enemies knowing we track everything hasn't really hurt them, it just let them know the long arm is longer than they expected or they knew it already. The only people it hurt were innocent Americans that now have assurance everything is being tracked, US cloud business trust and now poor farmers in Ecuador.

Seems it could have been handled better.

roc2• 13 years ago

The US Government's concern is that if Snowden gets off light other whistleblowers will step forward. That's the root logic behind the 'war on whistleblowers'. Which strongly suggests "we ain't seen nothin yet."

That's a big part of why Manning was treated so horribly and without any sense of proportion to what he did. It simply wasn't (all) about him. It was about the people who might be thinking of following in his footsteps.

Joeri• 13 years ago

Astute point you're making that if they're this concerned about additional whistleblowers, then there must be a lot out there that is worse than what we've heard so far. This isn't just about wiretapping, because that aspect couldn't be worse than we've heard so far.

vijayr2• 13 years ago

why is everything a "war" - war on drugs, war on this, war on that ...

dllthomas10• 13 years ago

Which is exactly why we need to lean hard on our government to pardon Snowden. Whistleblowers are the only real oversight these programs have[1], and the more we cow and break them the more abuses we will see.

Sign the petition if you haven't (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow...), and don't stop there: write letters, make phone-calls, visit your officials' offices, get involved at the party level and see about pushing things there, give money to organizations like the EFF. If anyone else has other suggestions (or more details about how to do any of the above, or interest in coordinating any of the above), please add!

[1] Congressional oversight is a joke when money is so important in politics and the only people who will know about the decision are the contractors who will be contributing to your or your opponent's campaign next cycle based on whether you let them keep the contract.

mark_l_watson2• 13 years ago

I agree. BTW, I was very surprised to read an article this week (sorry, couldn't find the link) about how much harsher anti-whistle blower laws are in the USA than in other countries.

A__MJ• 13 years ago

The best part:

"In a cheeky jab at the U.S. spying program that Snowden unveiled through leaks to the media, the South American nation offered $23 million per year to finance human rights training."

quantumpotato_• 13 years ago

Where is this offer for human rights training? Googling only shows me references to the Reuters link.

Has anyone seen an Ecuadorian press release?

lhnz• 13 years ago

This plus this [0] point towards the US having given up trying to get Snowden. Maybe Wikileaks has won this one.

[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/obama-edward-sno...

tootie3• 13 years ago

Just browsing wikipedia, it seems that the man riding in on his white horse has sent journalists to prison for writing unflattering editorials about him.

dnautics• 13 years ago

that's why he said "mercantile interests" and not "political interests". It is such an odd choice for the president, while the US does engage in blatant and unethical mercantile coercion around the world, the snowden case is one where the US' sins are almost purely political, and its actions are coming at a cost to its economic position.

jackmaney• 13 years ago

muyuu• 13 years ago

Bold and classy of them not to cave in to American terror.

blueprint3• 13 years ago

As a citizen and long-time resident of US, I hereby accept Ecuador's offer for human rights aid.

gbvb• 13 years ago

A personal check would be appreciated, but I can use with bags of them as well. :)

blueprint3• 13 years ago

If only justice could be bought.

saosebastiao• 13 years ago

Forget the Ecuadorean response, WTF with the US response to the Ecuadorean response? Trade is mutually beneficial, idiots.

grecy3• 13 years ago

Great!

Many countries have bowed to US demands in the last years due to threat of losing trade benefits.

After the Australian Prime Minister agreed to (illegally) send troops into Iraq with Dubya, 16 US Trade Negotiators came to Australia within a week and negotiated previously unseen trade deals to benefit Australia. When questioned directly about this, the Australian Prime Minister shrugged and said "What was I going to do?"

After living in South America for a year, I'm very excited to see those countries develop more and more, and reject US rule and meddling more and more.

cpursley2• 13 years ago

"...and reject US rule and meddling more and more."

As an American, I have to agree.

gscott2• 13 years ago

Likely other countries came forward to replace the 23 million in trade making this possible.

mark_l_watson2• 13 years ago

I just tried going to Amazon.com and searching for "Ecuador crafts". I have several birthday presents to buy over the next few months, and I am thinking that craft items from Ecuador might be things people will enjoy.

I consider myself a patriotic USA citizen, but our government's cracking down on whistle blowers in the last 4 or 5 years has really gone too far. Our laws + punishments for whistle blowers is way out of whack with the rest of the world (I think the crimes Snowden is accused of carry a maximum sentence of 2 years in the UK, and less in most other European countries).

ender89• 13 years ago

I kind of love Ecuador for that move.

Ecuador offers U.S. rights aid, waives trade benefits

Related Stories