Ecuador’s Relationship with the US

Ecuador’s departure from the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance constitutes a step toward a policy of permanent distancing from the United States. Of course, it is not about criticizing this decision on its own in particular, which can be justified in and of itself, given the new geopolitical context of Latin America, but about protesting the absence of a clear relationship strategy with a country that is an enormously important trade partner to the Ecuadorean economy. Nevertheless, the only thing that has been seen from the chancellery is an anti-American posture, surrounded by permanently critical rhetoric toward that country. When speaking about Ecuador’s departure from the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, Chancellor Patiño said the decision was made because the treaty constituted “an obsolete instrument in service of hegemonic interests that never served to defend our country, but only to abuse us.”

This is not about Ecuador’s isolated decision in relation to the United States. A few weeks ago, it cut ties with the U.S. Agency for International Development; beforehand, it turned away, very lightheartedly, the tariff benefits for a series of important products that Ecuador sells to the North American market. A challenging attitude toward the U.S. always accompanies the decisions, as if it affirms national sovereignty by putting each one of these decisions on display and pronouncing every word. If Ecuador’s departure can be justified by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance effectively being an outdated security aid, the path the citizens’ revolution has chosen in order to affirm national sovereignty can be criticized as antiquated as well.

The current government makes thinking about sovereignty obligatory, which is very good, but it does so through what could be called leftist infantilism: challenge, hostility and the affront of the small against the mighty. On the one hand, it would have to be argued that this manner of declaring and defending sovereignty consistently results in defending the country’s interests. On the other hand, that same attitude does not translate as a complex ideology projected over a national one, belonging as it does to those who are not capable of thinking of international relations in terms of mutual respect and who believe that affirmation against an empire necessarily requires insolence. Therefore, it has to be called leftist infantilism because it lacks the maturity required to deal with all countries through terms of dignity and mutual respect. It becomes absurd to affirm national dignity at the cost of national interests.