The Venezuelans claim the shipment included “cartridge devices, detonator fuses, rocket motors and pliers,” as well as 80 kilograms of chicken, none of which had gone through customs as required by law. The U.S. admits there were motors for aircraft injection seats, which the Venezuelan air force had requested, but denied there were any other weapons.
Even in light of the strained relations between the two countries, why would the U.S. be smuggling weapons into Venezuela? There is no insurgency against Chavez’ government, and not likely to be one either. For whom could such weapons have been intended?
Maybe some of the legal beagles around here know about this, but I always thought that siezing and searching diplomatic baggage was a definite no-no…like act of war type no-no. At least, in the spy novels I’ve read in the past the Soviets were always getting all kinds of stuff out of the country that way and the US always had to sit by and watch, powerless.
I don’t think you are getting the point. There probably WERE no weapons…it was an excuse to further strain relations by Venezuela, probably for propaganda purposes (a two-fer…show they can stand up to big bad America while showing that the US is supposedly smuggling in weapons to overthrow the government in diplomatic bags).
Read the article. The Venezuelan gov’t is claiming that this stuff wasn’t part of the diplomatic pouch:
Honestly it just sounds like a bearaucratic snafu to me, someone didn’t fill out the paperwork, and now hotheads in both countries will make a bigger deal out of it then is really justified.
Seems a big jump to me. And if Venezuela was gonna make stuff up, you’d think they’d come up with something better then pliers and chicken. Fuses, rocket motors etc. aren’t really weapons anyways, they are however, something I imagine one would use in ejector seats, which rather fits with what else was in the shipment. Again, I think the US embassy was lazy in their paperwork and just said ejector seats when they meant “ejector seats and related materials”, then the Venezualen gov’t jumped on it.
No, I didn’t notice. Do yo uhave a cite that Bush decided there was no such thing as international law, or that the US no longer acknowledges treaties and conventions?? Because I must have missed it.
Uhuh. I’m sure that would be cold comfort to anyone who decided to start playing real games with diplomatic immunity conventions…especially with the US. After all, I would think the US diplomatic retaliation would sort of take all the fun and taste out of the sauce. YMMV.
Seems that this OP was much ado about nothing. Seems foolish (to me) that Venezuela would continually try and irritate the US. I mean, if they so fear a US invasion and all ( :dubious: ), it seems to me that this kind of thing would be the last thing you would do. We are supposed to be the big bad evil empire after all, ready and willing to invade every nation on earth at a moments notice with no reason except profit and gain…and Venezuela has lots of that oil stuff. I can see that the prospect of the US invading has them shaking in their boots…
*The Bush Administration has now at least partially repudiated its notorious “torture memos” – suggesting the President need not heed the Geneva Conventions. Yet a series of events over the past few weeks indicates that this repudiation hardly suggests an intent on the Administration’s part to begin complying with international law.
To the contrary, these events - like many others that have occurred over the past five years – reveal the Bush Administration’s core view of international law: In the Administration’s eyes, it is a purely political, and therefore, fluid, system. It does not impose fixed rules and responsibilities; to the contrary, the President can choose to ignore it - including treaties the U.S. has signed - at will.
Click here to find out more!
In sharp contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly noting the importance of international law and opinion.*
*ABOVE AND BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW:
GEORGE W. BUSH AS THE AUSTINIAN SOVEREIGN
Professor Ali Khan
Washburn University School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor
For centuries, international law has been anchored in the theory of contracts. Treaties are explicit contracts among states, but even customary international law, at least in its formative stages, is founded on consent and is derived from voluntary state practices.
All along, powerful nations have influenced international law. Yet in modern times no single state - no single sovereign - has claimed the authority to make laws for the rest of the world. International law has, since the Second World War, admittedly developed some coercive elements in its genetic structure, but it nonetheless remains, both in its essence and legitimacy, the law of partnership. This jurisprudence might change, however, if George Walker Bush is successful in crowning himself as the Austinian Sovereign. *
What most people are overlooking is the cost of a pair of military pliers. Why, this alone might cover our trade deficit this year. Can you imagine what would happen if we sent them a toilet seat?
I agree that President Bush has sometimes shown a lack of respect for international law. But President Chavez cannot afford the same casual attitude. The bottom line is that if international law gets thrown out, the new principle will be “might makes right” and it’s a foregone conclusion who’ll win in a confrontation between the United Atates and Venezuela under that rule. So Chavez should be the world’s number one advocate of the sanctity of diplomatic rights because he’s the one that needs that shield.
What would Bush use for an excuse this time? The old WMD trick won’t work again. No nuclear weapons development going on. Ah they opened a diplomatic pouch! Look for a friendly US aircraft carrier to be steaming south soon.
While I am aware that diplomatic baggage can be an entire 40’ container, and that it is very likely that small arms will be sent in them, I don’t quite see what Chavez is making a fuss about.
Possibly the best thing the USA could do is publish the exact contents, and suspend diplomatic pouch privileges for Venezuela. That might cause a minor shortage of Coke on the diplomatic circuit, but if handled lightheartedly it would defuse things.
It strikes me as a bit baffling that the US is supplying ejector rockets to the Venezuelan airforce - possibly someone is indulging in a bit of private enterprize.
