>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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
> * 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.
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.
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?
> (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|12 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
> (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).
[+] [-] melling|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Roboprog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|12 years ago|reply
But when Ecuador does this preemptively, it's an astute move?
[+] [-] dspillett|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fspeech|12 years ago|reply
[edit] Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field
[+] [-] diminoten|12 years ago|reply
When do I stop getting excited when someone hurts my country?
[+] [-] consonants|12 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] drawkbox|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] roc|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] znowi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mordor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpursley|12 years ago|reply
Going point.
[+] [-] gscott|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cpursley|12 years ago|reply
As an American, I have to agree.
[+] [-] gscott|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A__MJ|12 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] mynegation|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joonix|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antoko|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] GFischer|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] resu_nimda|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kcorbitt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scaredbythensa|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capex|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] utnick|12 years ago|reply
Heck, journalist alone will probably spend a million over the next several years following Snowden around
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|12 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] tootie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dnautics|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quantumpotato_|12 years ago|reply
Has anyone seen an Ecuadorian press release?
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lhnz|12 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/obama-edward-sno...
[+] [-] muyuu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueprint|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbvb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saosebastiao|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ender89|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackmaney|12 years ago|reply