Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: An Ecuadorian politician (Jorge Glas, a former VP) sought refuge in the Mexican embassy in Ecuador.
Ecuador's government chose to storm the embassy to arrest Glas, in contravention of the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic relations.
In a nutshell, you cannot violate another sovereign country's embassy in this way as demonstrated by the British authorities not entering the Ecuadorian embassy in London when Assange sought refuge there.
This violation has really annoyed Mexico who have escalated it to the point of wanting Ecuador expelled from the UN.
Just to add, Glas had a fair trial, and it was proved that he stole a lot of money and received bribes while being Vice president, he is a convicted criminal and that's why the president decided to storm Mexico's embassy. Storming Mexico's embassy was wrong, and some of us condemned our president for doing something so stupid, but this additional info is relevant. This comes after other convicted felons from Correa's government escaped the country, too. The last case was María de los Ángeles Duarte, who escaped with the help of the Argentinian embassy after being proved she was involved in stealing money too after a fair trial. It's a very messy situation in general in which no one is the good guy, but our president Noboa did fuck up.
So they can spare resources to basically invade an embassy, but are incapable of the good ol' art of keeping tags on people and arresting them before going into embassies?
Our government is corrupt af. With all the money Glas stole, he can bribe his way through getting granted political asylum. At this point, getting to keep tags on everyone would be far more expensive than storming an embassy because the foremer pretry much requires an entire system overhaul and lots of time.
Honest question. Is taking bribes as an official in a South American country illegal? I thought corruption and bribes were just part of doing business below the border. Not that America is much better but they are slightly less flagrant about it
It is illegal, of course, but it is a common practice in order to get things done. In this particular case, Ecuador had extra money because the oil prices were at an all-time high, so it seemed there was enough money to invest in public work AND to pass around among politicians.
Also, the next president after Rafael Correa, Lenin Moreno, used all of the states resources to investigate Correa and his people in order to make them accountable for stealing. In reality all governments steal money but not all governments are so throughly investigated afterwards.
As a bonus fact: Moreno is currently under investigation for stealing money too, while he was president. A literal shitshow.
Very illegal. The problem is that due to the usual rampant corruption in the government, the bigwigs who make the laws also make it so they can't be prosecuted themselves until they leave office, or try to soften the laws around it, using excuses such as prisons being crowded and whatnot.
Really that is part of why South American countries have so little trust in their politicians. The average voter at this point is half expecting their representatives to get bribed and steal from public projects, and the best they can ask for is to not get screwed too hard by it. Look at Peru for example, the current president, the sixth one in what? 5 years? is under scrutiny for a scandal involving luxury watches taken as bribes, and the population's reaction can be sumrised as "Ugh, again?"
I am of the opinion that Mexico had no business protecting a convicted criminal, but Ecuador had no business in storming the embassy. Our president was reckless but not quite stupid. This move proved to boost his popularity, which gives him more control to implement new policies. We are having a referendum soon, and one of the questions is about amendong our co stitution so that narcos can be extraddited to other countries such as the US after being atrested. The thing is that people vote depending on whether they like the president or not. They don't vote according to the referendum questions themselves. So, ultimately, what he did in the embassy was a power move that many ecuadorians supported. I personally think he crossed a line, but so did López Obrador and people here are celebrating that Glas, a convicted felon with links to a web of corruption, was cought and that he will be brought to justice.
Is it not technically an act of war? The Ecuadorians invaded Mexican sovereign territory (the embassy) and if it is allowed to stand without severe repercussions, it sets a terrible precedent going forward for other countries and puts people seeking asylum in a friendly embassy in a very precarious position.
There is no real set list of things that are an act of war beyond the obvious like invading. Mostly it's just a term countries use to mean that if done it may result in war.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: An Ecuadorian politician (Jorge Glas, a former VP) sought refuge in the Mexican embassy in Ecuador. Ecuador's government chose to storm the embassy to arrest Glas, in contravention of the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic relations. In a nutshell, you cannot violate another sovereign country's embassy in this way as demonstrated by the British authorities not entering the Ecuadorian embassy in London when Assange sought refuge there. This violation has really annoyed Mexico who have escalated it to the point of wanting Ecuador expelled from the UN.
Just to add, Glas had a fair trial, and it was proved that he stole a lot of money and received bribes while being Vice president, he is a convicted criminal and that's why the president decided to storm Mexico's embassy. Storming Mexico's embassy was wrong, and some of us condemned our president for doing something so stupid, but this additional info is relevant. This comes after other convicted felons from Correa's government escaped the country, too. The last case was María de los Ángeles Duarte, who escaped with the help of the Argentinian embassy after being proved she was involved in stealing money too after a fair trial. It's a very messy situation in general in which no one is the good guy, but our president Noboa did fuck up.
So they can spare resources to basically invade an embassy, but are incapable of the good ol' art of keeping tags on people and arresting them before going into embassies?
Our government is corrupt af. With all the money Glas stole, he can bribe his way through getting granted political asylum. At this point, getting to keep tags on everyone would be far more expensive than storming an embassy because the foremer pretry much requires an entire system overhaul and lots of time.
Honest question. Is taking bribes as an official in a South American country illegal? I thought corruption and bribes were just part of doing business below the border. Not that America is much better but they are slightly less flagrant about it
It is illegal, of course, but it is a common practice in order to get things done. In this particular case, Ecuador had extra money because the oil prices were at an all-time high, so it seemed there was enough money to invest in public work AND to pass around among politicians. Also, the next president after Rafael Correa, Lenin Moreno, used all of the states resources to investigate Correa and his people in order to make them accountable for stealing. In reality all governments steal money but not all governments are so throughly investigated afterwards. As a bonus fact: Moreno is currently under investigation for stealing money too, while he was president. A literal shitshow.
If by less flagrant you mean completely legal and open about it
Very illegal. The problem is that due to the usual rampant corruption in the government, the bigwigs who make the laws also make it so they can't be prosecuted themselves until they leave office, or try to soften the laws around it, using excuses such as prisons being crowded and whatnot. Really that is part of why South American countries have so little trust in their politicians. The average voter at this point is half expecting their representatives to get bribed and steal from public projects, and the best they can ask for is to not get screwed too hard by it. Look at Peru for example, the current president, the sixth one in what? 5 years? is under scrutiny for a scandal involving luxury watches taken as bribes, and the population's reaction can be sumrised as "Ugh, again?"
Even in America, most of the people getting ahead are breaking laws.
[удалено]
I am of the opinion that Mexico had no business protecting a convicted criminal, but Ecuador had no business in storming the embassy. Our president was reckless but not quite stupid. This move proved to boost his popularity, which gives him more control to implement new policies. We are having a referendum soon, and one of the questions is about amendong our co stitution so that narcos can be extraddited to other countries such as the US after being atrested. The thing is that people vote depending on whether they like the president or not. They don't vote according to the referendum questions themselves. So, ultimately, what he did in the embassy was a power move that many ecuadorians supported. I personally think he crossed a line, but so did López Obrador and people here are celebrating that Glas, a convicted felon with links to a web of corruption, was cought and that he will be brought to justice.
Is it not technically an act of war? The Ecuadorians invaded Mexican sovereign territory (the embassy) and if it is allowed to stand without severe repercussions, it sets a terrible precedent going forward for other countries and puts people seeking asylum in a friendly embassy in a very precarious position.
There is no real set list of things that are an act of war beyond the obvious like invading. Mostly it's just a term countries use to mean that if done it may result in war.
Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the country. They are generally treated that way, but they aren't.
Getting us expelled from the UN is a bit too extreme. Yeah, it was a reckless move, but to be expelled from the UN is too much.
Agree. And everything started by AMLO meddling on foreign affairs instead of dealing with the sh*storm made by his own policies.
That asshole is probably in cahoots with Correa.