At this point one has to ask the question: who's afraid of the big, bad USA? And the answer more and more seems to be "Everybody".
From Putin emphasising that Snowden stops hurting "Our friends the Americans", to the whole of Western Europe succumbing to their outrageous demands, not to mention the reversal of Ecuadorian President's change of stance after a talk with Biden.
Is this the States showing off it's true colours or is it the administration failing badly at handling this embarrassing situation? I honestly hope it's the latter.
Agreements between these countries exists to allow them to call on the other signatories to deny specific planes airspace. Portugal could ask the USA to deny a specific plane airspace into the USA, if it felt so inclined.
I doubt this is pressure, but rather standard diplomatic channels.
To follow your parallel, let's imagine it's not the plane of the Bolivian President, but say, Airforce One, flying over South America with Barack Obama on board towards Washington. Let's say Spain has suspicion that someone that broke Spanish law is on board.
Please, honestly, tell me you believe that The President's plane would be grounded?
As funny as that would be, I'd doubt it. Though in particular because I doubt Spain would risk calling for the closing of airspaces for Air Force One in the first place, because it would eventually mean Spain would have to face a massive diplomatic incident between them and the USA, and possibly wouldn't risk it.
It's ridiculous if the USA does not have to apologise following this incident.
It does give off the smell that the US thinks it rules the world, doesn't it? (Not that it hasn't been an unspoken idea in everyone's minds for the past 50 years, but it's still weird to see it played out in the open.)
Generally no-one really cared that the US ruled the world because, despite our flaws, we were the good guys.
9/11 changed that. We started torturing people. We started targeted killings. We started invading countries that hadn't lifted a finger.
Now we spy on our citizens in secret, silence journalists, and we hunt-down the whistle-blowers who put it out in the open.
And the rot is spreading. Selective application of the law is happening at all levels - HSBC launders billions, and pay a 300 million dollar fine, no jail time for anyone involved. But the DoJ defends its request for a 7 year felony jail sentence for Aaron Swarz for downloading academic journal content because, simply "he broke the law". Bank of America defrauds tens of thousands on their mortgages, and nothing. Snowden breaks the law to reveal systematic abuse of governmental power, and not only do our elected leaders (with a few exceptions) not come to his aid, but denounce him as a traitor and redouble their efforts to "hunt him down". At the local level, it seems that not a day goes by without some new evidence of abuse of local law-enforcement, such as that marshall who arrested a young woman for claiming that he'd harassed her, to a judge who didn't even acknowledge her existence.
Osama bin Laden, looking up at us from hell, is laughing. With three planes and a few thousand deaths he managed to move the US, a country with over 300 million residents, toward the path of the Taliban: selective application of justice, system-wide corruption, amoral acts of torture and indefinite detention, system-wide abuse of our freedoms, and violent, ferocious pursuit of those who bring these abuses to wide-spread attention.
We do rule the world, and for that reason I fear for us all.
According to AP, it turns out Bolivia's president was not denied entry into France and Spain, officials say.[0] As to why Bolivia would make such a claim, they did not comment.
Could it be that the US is trying to spin this by pressuring France and Spain to delete the radio record and say that Bolivia made it up? Do we know of any third-party pilots or ground stations who would have heard and recorded the radio comms?
According to the article, it is not nearly that clear.
Regarding France:
'French government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said "France ended up authorizing the flight over its airspace by Mr. Morales' plane."
She said the plane "was authorized to fly over French territory" but wouldn't explain whether there had been an initial refusal Tuesday night amid the rumors about Snowden's presence on the plane.'
It is funny how language use always gets so murky in these situations. It would be very easy for them to say "We did not refuse the flight last night. Here are the recordings of conversations with air traffic control that proves it". But apparently they can't even confirm whether or not they authorised the flight before or after it had turned back to Vienna...
Regarding Portugal:
'The Portuguese Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday that Portugal had granted permission for the plane to fly through its air space but declined Bolivia's request for a refueling stop in Lisbon due to unspecified technical reasons'
"Technical reasons"? I somehow doubt that Lisbon does not have sufficient capacity to handle an extra plane. And it gets rather academic to grant permission for them to fly through knowing they won't be able to safely continue without knowing they have somewhere to refuel...
Regarding Spain:
'Bolivia said Spain agreed to allow the plane to refuel in the Canary Islands—but only if Bolivian authorities allowed it to be inspected. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo denied Wednesday that his country demanded an inspection of the Bolivian plane.
Speaking in Berlin, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said authorization was given for the plane to stop and refuel in Spain's Canary Islands but that it was important Snowden was not aboard. He said the debate was "a little artificial."'
So, they were allegedly "allowed" but with some murky, unclear comments that served no purpose unless they are implying there were terms attached. Morales further claims he was approached by the Spanish ambassador in Vienna who allegedly wanted to come aboard the plane with him, and that Morales interpreted it as an excuse to inspect the plane. Makes the whole thing sound to me like Spanish authorities might not technically have refused, but may for example have strongly suggested that "problems" with permits to continue in the right direction might occur if Bolivia did not voluntarily allow someone on board to have a look, or something to that effect.
Everyone involved seems to be very concerned about using language that leaves lots of room for them to have actively obstructed the flight, even in their supposed "denials".
So now they've upped the ante for Snowden-transport; probably the only feasible solution would be a warship. Maybe the other option would be a chartered jet with in-air refueling, flying solely over international waters (or sovereign countries, like Russia and maybe China).
You can charter a military transport (capable of refueling) from a bunch of companies, like RUS Aviation. Actual refueling services are harder, probably would need to be a military, although there are a few operators of contract aerial refueling service (e.g. Omega) -- unfortunately they have big military contracts, usually with the US, and thus wouldn't be willing to participate. You could probably take a military transport, fill it with ferry tanks, and make a decent go at it, but the problem is most of the cheap-to-charter aircraft are old inefficient aircraft like the IL-76. I guess with new engines it wouldn't be horrible, but something like a 737 in ferry mode would be better. A 777-200ER or 777-200LR would probably be the best. A 747SP is the only thing I actually know how to charter which has crazy long range (7600nm), which is almost as much as the 777-200LR (which is new, and thus highly utilized). A 7600nm range aircraft is just enough to stay in Russian airspace and then come in through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, down the Atlantic, to Caracas. The total cost of that mission would be far less than the $23mm Ecuador was willing to give up, but well in excess of $1mm.
A warship would probably be a lot easier, although you'd probably want to go to the Russian Far East to avoid bottlenecks -- assuming a fifth rate power like Ecuador, there could easily be "this area closed due to a military exercise" or other tricks to block it otherwise.
(Aside from the issues of Bolivia being landlocked since the War of the Pacific in 1879...)
Per the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Article 95 of UNCLOS: Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.
Article 96 of UNCLOS: Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.
1) An interesting case came up: Argentina's frigate (well, a historical tall ship, but it was technically the flagship, like the USS Constitution) the ARA Libertad was seized in Ghana related to the $100b sovereign debt default of 2001, and a NY federal district court judgment for one of the bondholders against Argentina.
2) The whole point of a warship is that you can't detain it; if it fails to be able to prevent detention, it's not really very good as a warship, is it?
Do you think America cares what some little treaty says? We effectively own the UN and can freely flout any agreements we've made through it. I doubt anyone would be even slightly surprised if America - either is military, a government agency, or by some other means - decided to raid foreign vessels looking for a suspect. All in a day's work when you're the world's self appointed arbiter of justice.
The US generally hasn't violated the physical sovereignty of embassies or of warships on the high seas. Those are from the Congress of Vienna or even before, not de novo from the UN.
Or just get safe travel through Russia to China and take a large passenger aircraft from China to South America since they can make they flight direct.
I estimate the deviation on SVO-CCS to avoid UK would be about 2000 km, tops.
"Direct", in an airline sense, is not meaningful -- that just means it doesn't change plane enroute. Direct flights can still make technical (refueling) stops, or take on passengers (e.g. Caracas to Damascus to Tehran was in fact direct Caracas to Tehran service.) "Non-stop" means it doesn't land. "Does not overfly a US ally" is complicated, ex-China too, due to the first and second island chain problem (if Portugal will deny overflight, I'm sure Japan would too...)
Direct flights from Asia to South America have historically had a stop in the US, so every passenger needed a US transit visa ($130 and hard, if not from a visa waiver country). So, they've largely been discontinued. Tokyo to Tijuana sort of happens, but still overflies US territory, so they need to report passengers to the US under APIS. And Mexico is both in North America and closely tied to the US, so it's a non-starter for Snowden.
The only direct flights which don't touch the US are Shanghai-Madrid-Sao Paolo, and on Emirates, Shanghai - Dubai - Sao Paolo. The former is obviously out, and the latter I think transits enough US allies (plus, UAE itself) to not work.
Does any one else thing the US is cashing in a hell of a lot of diplomatic good will to get one single man?
Yeah, I get the US gov want Snowden, but this seems so over the top, like it almost feels personal. Has Snowden got something on Obama personally or something? I have never seen this scale of action from the US for a mere whistle blower. Bin Laden and his ilk, fine, I understand that that. But even though IMHO, the leaks show the USA to be very badly behaving, most countries dont seem to care that much. Internationally and diplomatically, it seems very quiet.
I dunno. But I do find the response strangely disproportionate.
There's more to come. And Obama wants to make sure Snowden's the last one to ever try it. So it's about a lot more than trying to stop or get one single man.
Exactly. This is the modern-day equivalent of a public crucifixion: a warning that you never, ever want to do something like this yourself.
What's interesting--and a little disconcerting IMO--is that the public opinion of Snowden seems generally favorable. So the US .gov needs to attack him publicly while not making it TOO public because it is not generally a healthy thing for a government to move in opposition to its people. That's how "unrest" starts. Probably not with Snowden, but if it's the beginning of a trend... look out.
> But I do find the response strangely disproportionate.
It may be that the people directly involved are "overly invested" in the situation. Making mountains out of molehills because they don't have enough metaphorical distance from the events to realize how their actions are perceived by regular on-lookers. After all there is roughly $50B/yr on the line, a lot of people have a lot of money at risk.
Also, fantastic fodder for hollywood. I wouldn't blame Snowden one bit if after it all settles out, he figured out how to sell the rights to his story to hollywood for a couple of million dollars.
27 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 84.5 ms ] threadFrom Putin emphasising that Snowden stops hurting "Our friends the Americans", to the whole of Western Europe succumbing to their outrageous demands, not to mention the reversal of Ecuadorian President's change of stance after a talk with Biden.
Is this the States showing off it's true colours or is it the administration failing badly at handling this embarrassing situation? I honestly hope it's the latter.
I doubt this is pressure, but rather standard diplomatic channels.
Please, honestly, tell me you believe that The President's plane would be grounded?
It's ridiculous if the USA does not have to apologise following this incident.
9/11 changed that. We started torturing people. We started targeted killings. We started invading countries that hadn't lifted a finger.
Now we spy on our citizens in secret, silence journalists, and we hunt-down the whistle-blowers who put it out in the open.
And the rot is spreading. Selective application of the law is happening at all levels - HSBC launders billions, and pay a 300 million dollar fine, no jail time for anyone involved. But the DoJ defends its request for a 7 year felony jail sentence for Aaron Swarz for downloading academic journal content because, simply "he broke the law". Bank of America defrauds tens of thousands on their mortgages, and nothing. Snowden breaks the law to reveal systematic abuse of governmental power, and not only do our elected leaders (with a few exceptions) not come to his aid, but denounce him as a traitor and redouble their efforts to "hunt him down". At the local level, it seems that not a day goes by without some new evidence of abuse of local law-enforcement, such as that marshall who arrested a young woman for claiming that he'd harassed her, to a judge who didn't even acknowledge her existence.
Osama bin Laden, looking up at us from hell, is laughing. With three planes and a few thousand deaths he managed to move the US, a country with over 300 million residents, toward the path of the Taliban: selective application of justice, system-wide corruption, amoral acts of torture and indefinite detention, system-wide abuse of our freedoms, and violent, ferocious pursuit of those who bring these abuses to wide-spread attention.
We do rule the world, and for that reason I fear for us all.
I'm certain people would take care of him financially.
Not that I want him to be trapped but he seems more free there in the sense that he can write what he wants.
A) fuck with the states of the worland B) provide cover for the real escape when it comes.
I wonder what's going on in the President's mind, he definitely is handling this situation with positive attitude, always smiling in front of cameras.
[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-a...
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-a...
Regarding France:
'French government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said "France ended up authorizing the flight over its airspace by Mr. Morales' plane." She said the plane "was authorized to fly over French territory" but wouldn't explain whether there had been an initial refusal Tuesday night amid the rumors about Snowden's presence on the plane.'
It is funny how language use always gets so murky in these situations. It would be very easy for them to say "We did not refuse the flight last night. Here are the recordings of conversations with air traffic control that proves it". But apparently they can't even confirm whether or not they authorised the flight before or after it had turned back to Vienna...
Regarding Portugal:
'The Portuguese Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday that Portugal had granted permission for the plane to fly through its air space but declined Bolivia's request for a refueling stop in Lisbon due to unspecified technical reasons'
"Technical reasons"? I somehow doubt that Lisbon does not have sufficient capacity to handle an extra plane. And it gets rather academic to grant permission for them to fly through knowing they won't be able to safely continue without knowing they have somewhere to refuel...
Regarding Spain:
'Bolivia said Spain agreed to allow the plane to refuel in the Canary Islands—but only if Bolivian authorities allowed it to be inspected. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo denied Wednesday that his country demanded an inspection of the Bolivian plane. Speaking in Berlin, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said authorization was given for the plane to stop and refuel in Spain's Canary Islands but that it was important Snowden was not aboard. He said the debate was "a little artificial."'
So, they were allegedly "allowed" but with some murky, unclear comments that served no purpose unless they are implying there were terms attached. Morales further claims he was approached by the Spanish ambassador in Vienna who allegedly wanted to come aboard the plane with him, and that Morales interpreted it as an excuse to inspect the plane. Makes the whole thing sound to me like Spanish authorities might not technically have refused, but may for example have strongly suggested that "problems" with permits to continue in the right direction might occur if Bolivia did not voluntarily allow someone on board to have a look, or something to that effect.
Everyone involved seems to be very concerned about using language that leaves lots of room for them to have actively obstructed the flight, even in their supposed "denials".
You can charter a military transport (capable of refueling) from a bunch of companies, like RUS Aviation. Actual refueling services are harder, probably would need to be a military, although there are a few operators of contract aerial refueling service (e.g. Omega) -- unfortunately they have big military contracts, usually with the US, and thus wouldn't be willing to participate. You could probably take a military transport, fill it with ferry tanks, and make a decent go at it, but the problem is most of the cheap-to-charter aircraft are old inefficient aircraft like the IL-76. I guess with new engines it wouldn't be horrible, but something like a 737 in ferry mode would be better. A 777-200ER or 777-200LR would probably be the best. A 747SP is the only thing I actually know how to charter which has crazy long range (7600nm), which is almost as much as the 777-200LR (which is new, and thus highly utilized). A 7600nm range aircraft is just enough to stay in Russian airspace and then come in through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, down the Atlantic, to Caracas. The total cost of that mission would be far less than the $23mm Ecuador was willing to give up, but well in excess of $1mm.
A warship would probably be a lot easier, although you'd probably want to go to the Russian Far East to avoid bottlenecks -- assuming a fifth rate power like Ecuador, there could easily be "this area closed due to a military exercise" or other tricks to block it otherwise.
Per the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Article 95 of UNCLOS: Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.
Article 96 of UNCLOS: Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.
1) An interesting case came up: Argentina's frigate (well, a historical tall ship, but it was technically the flagship, like the USS Constitution) the ARA Libertad was seized in Ghana related to the $100b sovereign debt default of 2001, and a NY federal district court judgment for one of the bondholders against Argentina.
2) The whole point of a warship is that you can't detain it; if it fails to be able to prevent detention, it's not really very good as a warship, is it?
3) Ragnar Danneskjøld
http://www.aircalculator.com/flightplan.php?from=HKG&to=CCS 16354 km
http://www.aircalculator.com/flightplan.php?from=PVG&to=CCS 15279 km
http://www.aircalculator.com/flightplan.php?from=SVO&to=CCS 9908 km
http://www.aircalculator.com/flightplan.php?from=VVO&to=CCS 13705 km
http://www.aircalculator.com/flightplan.php?from=LED&to=CCS 9391 km
I estimate the deviation on SVO-CCS to avoid UK would be about 2000 km, tops.
"Direct", in an airline sense, is not meaningful -- that just means it doesn't change plane enroute. Direct flights can still make technical (refueling) stops, or take on passengers (e.g. Caracas to Damascus to Tehran was in fact direct Caracas to Tehran service.) "Non-stop" means it doesn't land. "Does not overfly a US ally" is complicated, ex-China too, due to the first and second island chain problem (if Portugal will deny overflight, I'm sure Japan would too...)
Direct flights from Asia to South America have historically had a stop in the US, so every passenger needed a US transit visa ($130 and hard, if not from a visa waiver country). So, they've largely been discontinued. Tokyo to Tijuana sort of happens, but still overflies US territory, so they need to report passengers to the US under APIS. And Mexico is both in North America and closely tied to the US, so it's a non-starter for Snowden.
The only direct flights which don't touch the US are Shanghai-Madrid-Sao Paolo, and on Emirates, Shanghai - Dubai - Sao Paolo. The former is obviously out, and the latter I think transits enough US allies (plus, UAE itself) to not work.
Yeah, I get the US gov want Snowden, but this seems so over the top, like it almost feels personal. Has Snowden got something on Obama personally or something? I have never seen this scale of action from the US for a mere whistle blower. Bin Laden and his ilk, fine, I understand that that. But even though IMHO, the leaks show the USA to be very badly behaving, most countries dont seem to care that much. Internationally and diplomatically, it seems very quiet.
I dunno. But I do find the response strangely disproportionate.
Probably yes. NSA spied on Obama in 2004
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nsa-spied-on-barack-obama...
What's interesting--and a little disconcerting IMO--is that the public opinion of Snowden seems generally favorable. So the US .gov needs to attack him publicly while not making it TOO public because it is not generally a healthy thing for a government to move in opposition to its people. That's how "unrest" starts. Probably not with Snowden, but if it's the beginning of a trend... look out.
It may be that the people directly involved are "overly invested" in the situation. Making mountains out of molehills because they don't have enough metaphorical distance from the events to realize how their actions are perceived by regular on-lookers. After all there is roughly $50B/yr on the line, a lot of people have a lot of money at risk.
Also, fantastic fodder for hollywood. I wouldn't blame Snowden one bit if after it all settles out, he figured out how to sell the rights to his story to hollywood for a couple of million dollars.