Venezuela siezes U.S. diplomatic baggage

Great Debates
1

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?

2

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Chavez is no fool. After all, he’s been warned:

[QUOTE=Donald Rumsfeld]
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
[/quote]

3

Pliers? Pliers? My God, what were we thinking? WMDs (well-made devices) are banned by International Law! Oh, the humanity!

4

Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team:
Specialists in the ‘dirty wars’ of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez

5

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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?
[/QUOTE]

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).

-XT

6

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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.
[/quote]

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.

7

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Somehow this story seems like it should end with a note to the Venezuelan air force: “Use thawed chicken.”

8

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Somehow this story seems like it should end with a note to the Venezuelan air force: “Use thawed chicken.”
[/QUOTE]
Very good!

9

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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?
[/QUOTE]

What weapons? Replacement parts for ejection seats are not weapons.

Chavez seems determined to do everything he can to irritate the United States, which plays well with certain segments of the public in Latin America.

Nobody is indispensable.

10

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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.
-XT
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t you notice that Bush decided that there was no such thing as International Law- the US can do what it wants despite Conventions and Treaties.

What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. :slight_smile:

11

Oh, well done Terrifel. Link for those who can’t quite find the handle of the reference: here.

12

[QUOTE=Pjen]
Didn’t you notice that Bush decided that there was no such thing as International Law- the US can do what it wants despite Conventions and Treaties.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Pjen]
What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.
[/QUOTE]

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…

-XT

13

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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.
-XT
[/QUOTE]

*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.*

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew104.php

*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. *

and follow the links on Google:

or look at Phillipe Sands’ book, Lawless World:

14

And you really shouldn’t have need a cite for that, xtisme, not if you haven’t spent the last six years in a coma.

15

Will no one think of the chickens?

16

[QUOTE=silenus]
Pliers? Pliers? My God, what were we thinking? WMDs (well-made devices) are banned by International Law! Oh, the humanity!
[/QUOTE]
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? :frowning:

17

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.

18

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

19

Why not? After all, we found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq just like Bush said we would, didn’t we? (Cite)

20

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.