WikiLeaks helps move Snowden on
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
I suppose if we stretch the limits of what 'democratic' means, then I guess Venezuela technically counts as one. I know Venezuelans who has left the country because of how terrible Hugo Chávez was. And I am not sure it has gotten much better under the new guy.
Neither Ecuador nor Venezuela are exactly countries with high ratings when it comes to press freedom. And I doubt either country is protecting these two men (Assange and Snowden, respectively) for some sort of higher moral purpose, but more a simple 'stick it to the US' purpose.
I don't blame either Assange and Snowden for making use of the fact that these countries wants to stick it to the US, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves to suggest that either country is the beacon of civil rights.
ECUADOR:
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...)
(http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/ecuado...)
(https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador)
VENEZUELA:
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...)
(http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/venezu...)
Remember that the US propaganda machine has good reason to call itself democratic while calling actual democratic nations dictatorships. Say it enough times and people will believe it.
[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/why-us-d...
For instance, when Hugo Chávez first tried to change the constitution so he could be president for life, his change was struck down by the voters. He might have been popular, but he wasn't that popular. Unfortunately, Latin American countries have copied the presidential republic system a bit too much from the USA, and given the president quite a range of power, that probably gives them a flair of dictatorship.
But let's not kid ourselves, Hugo Chávez was hardly a nice man and I seen little evidence that things have gotten better in Venezuela since he took power 14 years ago.
The mixture the place offers is enough to protect Wikileaks and hopefully it will protect Snowden.
It is nice to look at this from the perspective of people before principles. If he is safe there then that is good.
With that in mind, this is hardly the story you should be using to project the United States as champion of democracy. Not only because the American people have been kept ignorant of what is being done in their name for no good reason (and those who try to stop this seem to end up either char-grilled or jailed), but because part of the fallout from Snowden's allegations has been the surfacing of direct evidence that the United States security apparatus is actively engaged in anti-democratic propaganda campaigns worldwide.
I am not sure who exactly in the United States gave informed consent to this, but perhaps you can hold off on denigrating other countries until your government stops trying to actively undermine their rights to open democratic debate and honest self-governance.
And besides, I am not American.