This whole thing is such a farce. Ecuador doesn't care about human rights, and the US doesn't care that its enemies know that it's spying on them. It's diplomacy in the service of directing embarrassment.

It seems that way to me too. What worries me is, once Ecuador has Snowden, how they might respond if the US tries using the carrot instead of the stick. It seems like Ecuador has every incentive to show that they can't be bullied (and grandstanding about human rights is a great medium for that), and also every incentive to show that they can be bribed.

Of course, they might try to hold out and see if they can get some more high profile refugees first, but given that they don't seem to actually care about human rights, I'm not sure I see the downside to cashing in at some point, from their perspective.

My biggest hope right now is that since Snowden seems to be extraordinarily on the ball regarding world politics, he has a better idea of the situation than I do.

I am withholding judgement as I don't know what to think after watching Oliver Stone's "documentary" South of the Border (free on YouTube) which constrasts directly with the content of Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

(I spent two months in Ecuador this year)

If you are interested in the South American situation just let me recommend you "Our brand is crisis". Might give you some further context for the situation and the role of Morales and it is a fascinating case study on steering public opinion.

Ecuador's president came from Foro de Sao Paulo. If you don't know what Foro de Sao Paulo is you know nothing about Latin America politics.

This reaffirms my belief that the US chasing Snowden is a bad idea solely because it demonstrates the lack of soft & hard power the US has on the international stage these days.

While people may not notice this small act I feel it's kinda what the US deserves in this instance.

America has spent too much hard power to have that much soft power left.

Agreed, although they're not mutually exclusive. Just happens the way America has exercised it's hard power has diminished its soft power. We've been a hammer since World War II but nobody else has even been using nails.

They're not mutually exclusive, but soft power relies on having the appearance of not needing your hard power. Soft power is when you arrive to someone's office dressed up really nice; have a lovely conversation with them over coffee and pastries about what they're going to do this year; and at the end you look at your business companions and casually remark, "I don't even know why I brought these huge, muscled-looking ex-mobsters with me at all."

I recall there were quite a lot of nails in postwar USSR.

Fair. I guess my statement was way too generalized, but was meant to be reflective about a slower shift over time. There's still nails around today but also many other moving parts & sometimes it feels like the approach hasn't fully adapted.

If Assange or Snowden were Ecuadorian and would have exposed ecuadorian secrets, they would be in jail. Our government does not pratice what it preaches!!! Granting asylum to people like Assange and Snowden is just good publicity for them and distracts attention from what really is going on here.

Previous discussion

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952176

Title is misleading: Ecuador merely _offers_ to donate $23M.

Fun fact: Ecuador is one of the few Latin American countries to use the US dollar as their standard currency.