6 ms·

You really don't see the difference between telling a flight that it does not have permission to fly through a given airspace (but is otherwise free to do what

You really don't see the difference between telling a flight that it does not have permission to fly through a given airspace (but is otherwise free to do what it wants) and telling a flight it must land a certain airport under the false pretense of a "security threat"? The Bolivian plane was not forced to land anywhere (it could have returned to Russia if it wanted), it simply wasn't given permission to overfly certain countries.

farss 5y ago
The Morales incident wasn't simply one country choosing to deny airspace. It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries, and then having the plane boarded and searched before it was allowed to take off again. Belarus's version is a weapon of the weak to the same or very similar end.
- JshWright 5y ago
  Your argument relies on the fact that the plane "had" to land where it did. It did not. There was nothing preventing the plane from returning to its origin (which is what I would guess the actual intent was).
- newacct583 5y ago
  > It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries Adjectives aside, that sounds very much like you're admitting that this was basically diplomacy. "You may not fly Snowden through our airspace", says NATO[1]. So Morales landed in Austria instead, proved Snowden wasn't aboard, and flew on. At no point were NATO military or law enforcement on his plane, and no one was arrested. Belarus just forced down an Irish airliner after (1) granting transit under false pretenses, (2) lying about a "bomb threat", (3) forcing a landing with military assets, (4) forcing an evacuation of the aircraft, searching it, and arresting five people who never intended to enter Belarus legally at all. And you really don't see the difference? [1] Strictly France, Spain, Germany and Portugal. This wasn't a NATO action, but it was leveraging exactly that alignment of interests.
  - farss 5y ago
    The methods used are somewhat apples to oranges, but they're comparable in that both the United States and Belarus used pretty brazen measures to go after the political crime of unwanted journalism. Faking a bomb threat and intercepting a civilian plane is more serious in a way; blocking off a sovereign leader's path en route & then boarding his plane is arguably more serious in another.
    - JshWright 5y ago
      The "blocking" is the only thing the US arranged. The "boarding" was a PR stunt. The plane could have just flown back to Russia, but made up a pretext for why they had to land in Austria (claiming they "couldn't tell how much fuel they had", and yet they were originally intending on flying across the Atlantic).
      - farss 5y ago
        I haven't seen evidence that it was merely a stunt. But in any case, the sovereign head of state was effectively detained for 12 hours, based on lies and coercion. That itself is outrageous. Belarus used a fighter jet pilot to deliver the lie about a bomb threat and convince the pilot to land, while U.S. lied to Western European governments through diplomatic channels about who was on the Bolivian plane. Both cases are a serious breach of international norms and rules in order to conduct rendition of a political criminal.
        JshWright 5y ago
        How is it anything other than a stunt? There was nothing stopping the jet from returning to Russia. The only reason the plan landed was because the pilots claimed they were "unable to get a correct indication of the fuel level". So either it was a totally innocent technical failure that forced the plane to land, or it was a pretext to land in Austria. 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... I don't disagree that the US should not have pressured countries to deny overflight, but that is _very_ different from sending a military jet to intercept a commercial airliner and force it to land at a specific airport for the purpose arresting a journalist (where he faces a potential death sentence for "terrorism").

farss 5y ago

The Morales incident wasn't simply one country choosing to deny airspace. It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries, and then having the plane boarded and searched before it was allowed to take off again. Belarus's version is a weapon of the weak to the same or very similar end.

JshWright 5y ago
Your argument relies on the fact that the plane "had" to land where it did. It did not. There was nothing preventing the plane from returning to its origin (which is what I would guess the actual intent was).
newacct583 5y ago
> It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries Adjectives aside, that sounds very much like you're admitting that this was basically diplomacy. "You may not fly Snowden through our airspace", says NATO[1]. So Morales landed in Austria instead, proved Snowden wasn't aboard, and flew on. At no point were NATO military or law enforcement on his plane, and no one was arrested. Belarus just forced down an Irish airliner after (1) granting transit under false pretenses, (2) lying about a "bomb threat", (3) forcing a landing with military assets, (4) forcing an evacuation of the aircraft, searching it, and arresting five people who never intended to enter Belarus legally at all. And you really don't see the difference? [1] Strictly France, Spain, Germany and Portugal. This wasn't a NATO action, but it was leveraging exactly that alignment of interests.
- farss 5y ago
  The methods used are somewhat apples to oranges, but they're comparable in that both the United States and Belarus used pretty brazen measures to go after the political crime of unwanted journalism. Faking a bomb threat and intercepting a civilian plane is more serious in a way; blocking off a sovereign leader's path en route & then boarding his plane is arguably more serious in another.
  - JshWright 5y ago
    The "blocking" is the only thing the US arranged. The "boarding" was a PR stunt. The plane could have just flown back to Russia, but made up a pretext for why they had to land in Austria (claiming they "couldn't tell how much fuel they had", and yet they were originally intending on flying across the Atlantic).
    - farss 5y ago
      I haven't seen evidence that it was merely a stunt. But in any case, the sovereign head of state was effectively detained for 12 hours, based on lies and coercion. That itself is outrageous. Belarus used a fighter jet pilot to deliver the lie about a bomb threat and convince the pilot to land, while U.S. lied to Western European governments through diplomatic channels about who was on the Bolivian plane. Both cases are a serious breach of international norms and rules in order to conduct rendition of a political criminal.
      - JshWright 5y ago
        How is it anything other than a stunt? There was nothing stopping the jet from returning to Russia. The only reason the plan landed was because the pilots claimed they were "unable to get a correct indication of the fuel level". So either it was a totally innocent technical failure that forced the plane to land, or it was a pretext to land in Austria. 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... I don't disagree that the US should not have pressured countries to deny overflight, but that is _very_ different from sending a military jet to intercept a commercial airliner and force it to land at a specific airport for the purpose arresting a journalist (where he faces a potential death sentence for "terrorism").