WHY ECUADOR IS SNOWDEN'S BEST CHANCE OF EVADING US JUSTICE
President Rafael Correa of Ecuador (pictured) embraces his role as a thorn in Washington's side, railing against US imperialism and giving WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange refuge in his nation's embassy in London.
But nothing Correa has done to rankle the United States is likely to infuriate as much as granting the asylum being sought by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who faces espionage charges back home after revealing details of two highly secret surveillance programs.
Both Cuba and Venezuela previously had been rumored as possible destinations for Snowden, although they now appeared more likely to be only transit points on the way to Ecuador.
'Correa may find it hard to resist the temptation to get increased attention and seize this opportunity to provoke and defy the U.S.,'
said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank.
'Correa is confrontational and relishes fights. Should he ultimately grant Snowden asylum, one hopes that Correa has thought through the likely consequences of such a decision.'
Taking in Snowden would increase Correa's popularity among those who see him as a champion of open information, help him counter criticism of a new media law that some call an assault on freedom of speech in Ecuador and cement his name as a leading voice of opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
But it could threaten preferential access to US markets for Ecuadorean goods under the US Andean Trade Preference Act, and strain already shaky ties between two nations that only last year re-established full diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level.
However, giving Snowden asylum for leaking secret information would be 'illegal' in both the US and Ecuador, former Ecuadorean diplomat Mauricio Gandara said.
'It would be an illegal act, because what he has done is a crime in both the United States and Ecuador,' said Gandara, who was Ecuador's ambassador in London. 'It is a confrontation with the people and government of the United States and both (political) parties. It is an unnecessary conflict.'
.