I keep getting the feeling that Snowden has something else that he hasn’t leaked yet.
So what? Do you want to play a numbers game, because most Americans think he should be prosecuted as a criminal. I think he’s a low level bureaucrat in over his head.
Agreed. Powerful people aren’t fond of leakers. I should have been more precise about that.
FWIW this doesn’t violate any diplomatic immunity concepts. While normal commercial flights have presumptive permission to move over airspace from one country to another; head of state flights are actually their own thing and have always been subject to specific permission requirements. When we fly Air Force One over any other country we specifically get permission each and every time, and they can say no just as we or any other country can say no.
I’m not even seeing strong evidence most of this even happened. I’ve heard from several sources, as mentioned here in the Washington Post that this whole thing may be made up. The Austrians are saying Bolivia specifically asked if they could land their plane in Vienna in order to refuel, which they granted. France is saying there was never any prohibition on Morales using their airspace, and Spain is saying the same thing–and that he was also given permission to refuel on the Canary Islands. Portugal is the only country that is saying they denied permission for Morales plane to land, but they did so a full day in advance of his leaving Moscow and state that it was for technical reasons.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me, you have four countries lying on one hand or maybe another anti-American imbecile from South American lying to stir up the forces of anti-Americanism? Who knows.
I’d read that suggestion somewhere else. To what conceivable purpose? Good old fashioned rabble rousing? An preemptive excuse to help the guy?
Where does it say that in your cite?
Oh, it really happened. And now it’s looking like the Snowden rumor came from former CEO of Carlton Capital Group, major Obama donor, and now current US ambassador to Austria William Eacho
We’re always the bad guy.
Glad I got all my South American Tourism behind me years ago. :smack:
I don’t doubt that any country with as much power as the United States would act similarly. Doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be condemned.
Bolivia lost it’s seacoast to Chile in 1871. Bolivia still maintains a navy and a claim to its “Litoral” province - which is still represented in national imagery. Bolivia’s “landlocked” status is a sore point even today - and Bolivian leaders have long blamed the country’s economic woes on this loss of the coast.
I just bring this up to point out that Bolivia is perhaps more sensitive to this type of situation than any other country I can think of. There are plenty of landlocked governments of states like Switzerland, Slovakia, or Paraguay that do not see themselves as having been “cheated” of maritime access. This just add to the narrative that Bolivia gets no respect from the outside world.
If you’re able to read the article, I don’t actually understand why you’d ask this question. It stated that France and Spain both said Morales always had permission to fly over their airspace, which would suggest someone is either incorrect or lying.
France has now apologized for the situation, which suggests they probably did deny his plane airspace. But the French President is saying they changed that when they realized it was Morales plane…which makes the whole thing sound like some sort of epic fuckup if they had said the plane couldn’t fly over but didn’t realize it had Morales on it.
There’s also no real evidence the United States had any involvement in this whatsoever. I do agree that President Obama has basically fumbled the ball repeatedly on foreign policy issues. There is a large aligned bloc of South American blow hard leaders with anti-democratic and dangerously foolish economic ideas that all hate America just as much now as ever. Russia and China have created networks of influence around the world and Russia in particular strengthens many of our worst enemies just to weaken us. While he rode a wave of optimism in Europe he’s now probably ruined our free trade agreement with the EU and created a fumbled away any improving of relations with Europe that he had established in the wake of Bush.
So:
-
The Spanish foreign minister says Spain and other European countries were told that Snowden was on Morales’ plane.
-
He doesn’t say who the tip came from.
-
He says that the decisions of European countries were based on the tip.
-
France has sent a letter of apology to the Bolivian government. (The story doesn’t say what they specifically apologized for, though.)
The theory that the Bolivians made the whole thing up is looking like quite a stretch if you ask me.
ETA: I see Martin has already mentioned the French apology.
And how often does it happen that a head of state is denied permission to overfly a country that commercial flights of other nations routinely overfly? Regardless of the protocols for requesting permission, I’d bet this happens approximately never. You don’t go messing with the heads of state of other countries. You know how ambassadors have diplomatic immunity? That’s because they represent the head of state of their country. This logic applies even more so to the actual head of state.
It’s happened occasionally, actually. And sometimes Heads of States will not even ask permission to go over certain countries and will go longer routes to avoid them.
The thing about diplomatic immunity is it is based on a two way street. We don’t just air drop ambassadors in and they proclaim, “Ah ha!!! I have diplomatic immunity!” Instead we announce well in advance the new ambassador, who arrives and typically meets briefly with the Head of State of the country in question and receives his official credentials as Ambassador representing us to that country.
So Head of State travel basically mirrors that, it’s not a presumption of being allowed to travel so much as it is a formal request/approval process. It’s almost never disapproved, but it isn’t against diplomatic norms because the whole reason for the request/approval process is so the sovereign country can say no if they have a reason to do so.
I see your edit, but I just want to reemphasize I was simply posting a Washington Post article that reflected things I’d read elsewhere: that as of that moment Portugal, Spain and France were all saying they had never denied Morales use of their airspace, or in the case of Portugal that they did so well in advance because of technical problems. I wasn’t affirmatively arguing anything happened, I was just saying until I heard more information actually confirming this happened I wasn’t jumping to any conclusions.
With France offering an apology it seems it did happen, but strangely it seems like they denied air space to a Bolivian plane believed to have Snowden on it but somehow they didn’t know it contained the Bolivian President? That part is weird to me.
Nice, but when do actual heads of state have to present their credentials? They are their own credential.
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of a presumption.
Sure, but like you say, it’s almost never disapproved, which means it’s a pretty serious breach of diplomatic norms to do so. You can’t do it on a whim or a rumor and expect the offended country to, well, not be offended.
As it is, it looks like much of Latin America is pretty pissed at us about this, which is understandable, given the American habit over the decades of regarding the sovereignty of Latin American countries as so much tissue paper when it suits us. I’m sure that to many of them, this looks like just one more data point in that long and sorry sequence.
Bolivia is one of the most irrelevant countries on Earth so fortunately Morales being upset doesn’t impact America at all and certainly none of the European countries involved. Much the same can be said for all of Latin America, which has formed itself an “Axis of the Stupid” in the past few decades that seems to revolve around massively mismanaging their economies while electing guys who whine about the United States as a part time job.
In the grand scheme of things it’s irrelevant how many countries in Latin America dislike the United States, it’s not like they actually do anything about it–we still maintain healthy trade relations which is all that really matters when talking about minor countries. They aren’t a Russia or China where there are strategic geopolitical concerns at play.
Axis of stupid? Remember Bush?
No, it’s more like you read something into the story that wasn’t there. Early on, there were conflicting quotes from various parties. Not a surprise. That doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen, and the Washington post story did not “mention that this whole thing may have been made up”. Otherwise, you could have simply quoted the section that “mentioned” that. SOP around here to ask for quotes poster’s cites to back up claims they make about those cites.
The thing that bothers me about the whole affair isn’t the arrogance, it’s the stupidity. And the pettiness. I really thought the Obama administration was better than that, and for the most part, it has been. But this stupid, arrogant cock-up just stinks of Dubya-era dumbness. It makes me wonder if there is something endemic in the way the State Department works that makes for stupid, petty, arrogant actions whoever the President is.
It’s not the State Department, it’s the culture of (Imperial) exceptionalism that permeates every presidency.