17 ms·

Evo Morales's plane was not forced to land in Vienna; it chose to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev

by emn13 5y ago

Evo Morales's plane was not forced to land in Vienna; it chose to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident What did happen was that countries caved to US pressure to deny even the possibility of snowden passing through their airspace. While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is... perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious. The fact that the plane even landed in Vienna at all might have been a (successful) PR stunt, since: An audio tape was subsequently released which appeared to be a recording of the flight crew requesting to land in Austria on the grounds they "could not get a correct indication" of their remaining fuel levels." - really? How convenient. In any case it's nothing at all like the current case, except that it involved planes landing where they weren't originally headed for, due to political interference. Of course; superficial resemblances might be enough in the battlefield that is public perception. Edit: and if you read some of the other perceptions here e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03/evo-morales-controversial-flight-over-europe-minute-by-heavily-disputed-minute/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03... - this all sounds like a rather convenient storm in a tea-cup. Given the convenience to Evo Morales, it all looks rather suspicious.

vkou 5y ago
How the pressure was applied is far less relevant than the intent behind it, and the accomplished results. The how only matters to questions of legality, not questions of morality. Yes, or no - should airplanes in flight be forced down so that third-party countries can make political arrests? The EU seems to think that the answer to that question is 'Yes'... As long as it's done by it, not to it.
- emn13 5y ago
  But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It landed under some flimsy excuse about being unclear how much fuel they had. The plane could have simply flown around. It could have returned.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Planes carry only enough fuel to get to their destination, plus a little more. If in the middle of the flight, you are told that you were surprise - banned from flying over multiple countries in your flight plan, you are forced to abort your flight and land, unless you want the plane to run out of fuel and crash in the middle of nowhere. And again - this is a pointless semantics game. Yes or no - is messing with airplanes, in flight, in order to make political arrests acceptable behaviour? You seem to think so (As long as its done in some particular way.) The only difference is that one of the two planes had more options for where it could land. Both had to land at somewhere other than their destination, though, unless the pilots wanted everyone on board to die. I don't give a rat's ass if France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I am asking you if they should do that. Does that seem right to you?
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I think GP has done a fabulous job explaining why this isn't true, so your continued assertions that it is are strange. Perhaps there are differences between these two circumstances after all?
      - throwaway21_ 5y ago
        Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and we are good guys of course) and in another case it was them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun, it has always been like that, us vs them.
        relativ575 5y ago
        In Snowden case the plan weren't forced to land and was free to pick a different path. Ryanair's flight didn't have a choice. Belarus ignored all the convention and put passengers in danger. Not a big difference?
bananabiscuit 5y ago
The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. In the end both the US and Belarus grounded a plane for political reasons, and that’s what makes the situation the same in many people’s eyes. It’s just that one of those countries doesn’t have the clout to make its means look harmless and benign so had to resort to a fighter jet escort.
- smachiz 5y ago
  I also think you have to draw a fairly large distinction between private jet and COMMERCIAL AIRLINER.
  - des1nderlase 5y ago
    Why? For the government they are technically the same.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    I think the distinction is rather "normal" people vs. diplomats.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  > The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. That's a bit silly though. An implicit threat still requires the belief that an act of violence will be carried out. Do you honestly think anyone in Europe believes America will pull back the velvet glove just to find one person? It'd cause the disintegration of NATO.
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    No, I don’t honestly think that, but I do think that the amount of military the US keeps abroad is a good proxy for how much influence they have over the area.
pessimizer 5y ago
> While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is... perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious. I'm glad you've declared this, I was worried that there was a moral component I had to think about.
belter 5y ago
The Portuguese foreign ministry and the Spanish ambassador in Bolivia, ended up officially apologizing for the event to Evo Morales. Brazilian and Portuguese newspapers references below. (In Portuguese but online translators are pretty good these days :-) https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/mundo/2013/07/portugal-pede-desculpas-a-bolivia-por-caso-com-aviao-de-morales-1248/ https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/mundo/2013/07/portugal-pe... https://www.reuters.com/article/mundo-bolivia-espanha-desculpas-idBRSPE96F00820130716 https://www.reuters.com/article/mundo-bolivia-espanha-descul...
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Sounds familiar: do first, apologize later.
  - girvo 5y ago
    Ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>really? How convenient It's almost like a number of countries suddenly refused permission to travel through their airspace, making them need exact fuel measurements rather than relying on preflight planning.
andrepd 5y ago
If you contort any harder you might need to join the circus. Indeed your last sentence makes clear why you think this is no big deal (while the incident in TFA presumably is). Yes, the fuel was a problem since they were were barred from going their intended route! They chose to land in Vienna??
- emn13 5y ago
  Could Evo have landed in Basel? Could he have returned to Moscow? Which airports could he have landed in? To be clear; I'm not saying that the US pressure and European action were anything but petty. But you know; not all pettiness is equivalent to kidnapping a civilian plane. Also, while I'm not willing to assume the best of intentions on the US's part; neither am I willing to assume them on Evo Morales's part. This grounding was in his interest - he had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I doubt he tried to prevent the confrontation, and he may well have even taken actions to enhance the appearance of victimhood - it's always nice, playing a victim; especially if you're not actually suffering any harm.
drzaiusapelord 5y ago
Also this plane had a MiG-29 on its tail, and I imagine it was well armed. Belarus committed state terrorism and obviously so.
bayesian_horse 5y ago
Snowden may be a hero to many, but he is also legitimately accused of breaking laws in a criminal fashion. I don't see anything wrong with interfering with the travel of fugitives from justice. Even if there are doubts about the "justice" getting applied here, just ignoring the US justice system is probably not the right way to go either.
- pseingatl 5y ago
  So was Protasevich, a fugitive from Belarussian justice. So you agree with both hijackings?
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    There is a slight difference between Belarussian justice and US justice, isn't there?
    - Arech 5y ago
      Not so many when you talk about interests of those who in power.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Quite enough so that I would know which one I prefer.
        Arech 5y ago
        May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you are in trouble. Ask Snowden or Manning for details.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences. There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
The only diffference is that Belarus doesn't have the same soft power the US does.
thepangolino 5y ago
>What did happen was that countries caved to US pressure to deny even the possibility of snowden passing through their airspace Hence forced to land in Vienna.

by emn13 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

How the pressure was applied is far less relevant than the intent behind it, and the accomplished results. The how only matters to questions of legality, not questions of morality. Yes, or no - should airplanes in flight be forced down so that third-party countries can make political arrests? The EU seems to think that the answer to that question is 'Yes'... As long as it's done by it, not to it.

emn13 5y ago
But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It landed under some flimsy excuse about being unclear how much fuel they had. The plane could have simply flown around. It could have returned.
- vkou 5y ago
  Planes carry only enough fuel to get to their destination, plus a little more. If in the middle of the flight, you are told that you were surprise - banned from flying over multiple countries in your flight plan, you are forced to abort your flight and land, unless you want the plane to run out of fuel and crash in the middle of nowhere. And again - this is a pointless semantics game. Yes or no - is messing with airplanes, in flight, in order to make political arrests acceptable behaviour? You seem to think so (As long as its done in some particular way.) The only difference is that one of the two planes had more options for where it could land. Both had to land at somewhere other than their destination, though, unless the pilots wanted everyone on board to die. I don't give a rat's ass if France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I am asking you if they should do that. Does that seem right to you?
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I think GP has done a fabulous job explaining why this isn't true, so your continued assertions that it is are strange. Perhaps there are differences between these two circumstances after all?
    - throwaway21_ 5y ago
      Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and we are good guys of course) and in another case it was them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun, it has always been like that, us vs them.
      - relativ575 5y ago
        In Snowden case the plan weren't forced to land and was free to pick a different path. Ryanair's flight didn't have a choice. Belarus ignored all the convention and put passengers in danger. Not a big difference?

bananabiscuit 5y ago

The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. In the end both the US and Belarus grounded a plane for political reasons, and that’s what makes the situation the same in many people’s eyes. It’s just that one of those countries doesn’t have the clout to make its means look harmless and benign so had to resort to a fighter jet escort.

smachiz 5y ago
I also think you have to draw a fairly large distinction between private jet and COMMERCIAL AIRLINER.
- des1nderlase 5y ago
  Why? For the government they are technically the same.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  I think the distinction is rather "normal" people vs. diplomats.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
> The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. That's a bit silly though. An implicit threat still requires the belief that an act of violence will be carried out. Do you honestly think anyone in Europe believes America will pull back the velvet glove just to find one person? It'd cause the disintegration of NATO.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  No, I don’t honestly think that, but I do think that the amount of military the US keeps abroad is a good proxy for how much influence they have over the area.

pessimizer 5y ago

> While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is... perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious. I'm glad you've declared this, I was worried that there was a moral component I had to think about.

belter 5y ago

The Portuguese foreign ministry and the Spanish ambassador in Bolivia, ended up officially apologizing for the event to Evo Morales. Brazilian and Portuguese newspapers references below. (In Portuguese but online translators are pretty good these days :-) https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/mundo/2013/07/portugal-pede-desculpas-a-bolivia-por-caso-com-aviao-de-morales-1248/ https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/mundo/2013/07/portugal-pe... https://www.reuters.com/article/mundo-bolivia-espanha-desculpas-idBRSPE96F00820130716 https://www.reuters.com/article/mundo-bolivia-espanha-descul...

Koshkin 5y ago
Sounds familiar: do first, apologize later.
- girvo 5y ago
  Ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>really? How convenient It's almost like a number of countries suddenly refused permission to travel through their airspace, making them need exact fuel measurements rather than relying on preflight planning.

andrepd 5y ago

If you contort any harder you might need to join the circus. Indeed your last sentence makes clear why you think this is no big deal (while the incident in TFA presumably is). Yes, the fuel was a problem since they were were barred from going their intended route! They chose to land in Vienna??

emn13 5y ago
Could Evo have landed in Basel? Could he have returned to Moscow? Which airports could he have landed in? To be clear; I'm not saying that the US pressure and European action were anything but petty. But you know; not all pettiness is equivalent to kidnapping a civilian plane. Also, while I'm not willing to assume the best of intentions on the US's part; neither am I willing to assume them on Evo Morales's part. This grounding was in his interest - he had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I doubt he tried to prevent the confrontation, and he may well have even taken actions to enhance the appearance of victimhood - it's always nice, playing a victim; especially if you're not actually suffering any harm.

drzaiusapelord 5y ago

Also this plane had a MiG-29 on its tail, and I imagine it was well armed. Belarus committed state terrorism and obviously so.

bayesian_horse 5y ago

Snowden may be a hero to many, but he is also legitimately accused of breaking laws in a criminal fashion. I don't see anything wrong with interfering with the travel of fugitives from justice. Even if there are doubts about the "justice" getting applied here, just ignoring the US justice system is probably not the right way to go either.

pseingatl 5y ago
So was Protasevich, a fugitive from Belarussian justice. So you agree with both hijackings?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  There is a slight difference between Belarussian justice and US justice, isn't there?
  - Arech 5y ago
    Not so many when you talk about interests of those who in power.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Quite enough so that I would know which one I prefer.
      - Arech 5y ago
        May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you are in trouble. Ask Snowden or Manning for details.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences. There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

The only diffference is that Belarus doesn't have the same soft power the US does.

thepangolino 5y ago

>What did happen was that countries caved to US pressure to deny even the possibility of snowden passing through their airspace Hence forced to land in Vienna.