"The circumstance is paradoxical, since a new Communications
Law has been passed that has been criticized both here and abroad, precisely
because it could be used as an instrument of censorship and silence, thereby compromising
free expression. This is the same freedom that serves as an argument for defending
Snowden, who has certainly made very serious revelations that have left the
rest of the world stunned."
Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, on a visit to Vietnam yesterday, tells reporters that his government is analyzing an asylum request from Edward Snowden.
A
year after granting diplomatic asylum to Australian Julian Assange, Ecuador has
returned to the front pages of the world. This time, a similar request has been
made by U.S. citizen Edward Snowden, who is fleeing from an order of detention
made by the United States, after he revealed espionage work being carried out
through Internet networks to prevent alleged acts of terrorism.
It
is a request that places Ecuador in an utterly uncomfortable position,
considering that at stake are diplomatic relations with the United States. The
circumstance is paradoxical as well, since a new Communications
Law has been passed that has been criticized both here and abroad, precisely
because it could be used as an instrument of censorship and silence, thereby compromising
freedom of expression. This is the same freedom that serves as an argument for
defending Snowden, who has certainly made very serious revelations that have
left the rest of the world stunned.
This
inconsistency in political decision making is what should draw the attention of
the government. One policy is to shape the thinking of outside actors, and the
other is for those acting at home and contrary to the official will. For these people,
the full weight of the law will apply, imposing punishments that appear
excessive considering the actions being judged. That is the current
standard applied by the government, which is completely contrary to the understanding
and tolerance that it preaches internationally to explain why Ecuador has
become the principal refuge of those who have violated government security laws to unveil practices that are certainly irregular.
Ecuador
is therefore at a crossroads. Our leaders should remember that their first
responsibility is to govern the country on behalf of its citizens and to accurately
measure the consequences of decisions that may result in harm to their
constituents.
This
also demands consistency. One cannot proclaim to the four winds a global
campaign for free expression, while at the same time adopting a domestic
Communication Law that contains articles that were never even debated, such as
one that refers to "media lynching."
[Editor's
Note: Article 26 of the Communications Law prohibits what it described as
"media lynching," or the "dissemination of information in a
coordinated and reiterative manner ... with the purpose of discrediting or
harming the reputation of a natural or legal person." The fear is that if one
accuses a public official of corruption, he or she could just as well accuse
the media outlet of "media lynching."]
This
country cannot continue to issue these messages. If it actually wants to
spearhead a struggle for defending essential rights, the example must begin at
home. That way, we would form a common front at home to strengthen any decisions
taken in the international arena.
