7 ms·

This is really, _really_ serious. Even more so that Snowden wasn't even on board, so effectively France, Spain, Portugal and Italy refused airspace to a _presid

• ghshephard 13y ago
  I don't know how serious it is - Bolivia is ranked #93 in the world in terms of GDP, and isn't particularly strategic. They can complain, but, at the end of the day, this won't amount to much.
  • steeve 13y ago
    Indeed, but all the South American countries are outraged by this, so it's getting bigger.
  • yaix 13y ago
    Apart from damaging even more the already quite low international reputation of the US. And one day some country may use this as a precedent for a more damaging action. There are international rules for a reason, and it took us centuries to get them in place and universally accepted.
    • prollyignored5 13y ago
      > Apart from damaging even more the already quite low international reputation of the US. You have never been pig farming, have you ? All that pigs care is eating shit. Swimming in shit. Drinking shit. You can, say ... "Hey piggy, clean up ! Be decent !" But it will throw shit on your face and lick it with glee. The interesting thing is, even if you hit your favorite doubly elected representative with feces, he will get a mexican to clean it and move on, as usual. > international reputation I am such a cunt, I can sit here and comment. I want to reduce reality to a spectacle.
    • paganel 13y ago
      > And one day some country may use this as a precedent for a more damaging action Slightly related, but the 1993 Rwanda civil war was started because of a (let's say) similar incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Habyarimana_and_Ntaryamira http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Habyarimana_an... > The airplane carrying Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down as it prepared to land in Kigali, Rwanda. The assassination set in motion some of the bloodiest events of the late 20th century, the Rwandan Genocide and the First Congo War.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • alan_cx 13y ago
    No idea why you are voted down here. From a US POV Bolivia is nothing. Replies about US reputation are irrelevant. We clearly see that US reputation is irrelevant, since it has the financial and military power force its will.
    • sheri 13y ago
      Because Bolivia is 'nothing' from a US POV, doesn't make it any less wrong. Apart from right and wrong, there are several examples where countries which were 'nothing', are creating several problems for the US. Most of the middle-east, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc are countries which at some point were 'nothing'. It is because of this heavy-handed approach that he was being downvoted.
    • dllthomas 13y ago
      Reputation is extremely important for long term security. We're finding this out, and I think it'll only get worse if we don't start treating others with respect.
    • outworlder 13y ago
      This is a real slippery slope. Just how "big" does a country have to be so that its rights will be respected?
    • ghshephard 13y ago
      I think people are taking my assessment of how "serious" this is to the United States as a indication of my belief as to how just/unjust or reasonable their behavior is. Over twenty or so years, I learned that when it suits their purpose/needs, the US is willing to step on much more important and strategically important countries than Bolivia. And, in this situation, apparently all they were asking for was countries (presumably friendly to the United States) to request a passenger/manifest inspection in return for over-flight privileges. I wonder how many people here are aware that the United States requires this of every single flight from Canada that passes over the united states, in particular, " requires airline carriers to hand over the names, birth dates and gender of all passengers travelling through American air space." regardless of whether they are landing in the US. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/print.main?id=4988025 http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/pr...
  • anu_gupta 13y ago
    That's the attitude that's made your country so despised by so many.
    • ghshephard 13y ago
      I'm not an American. Canadian. And we have a very long history with the United States that has taught us that when it comes to conflicts, the United States always ends up winning, regardless of perceived objective facts of the situation. Google "Softwood Lumber United States Canada" - Basically wiped out (economically) the province I was in (or at least if felt like that in Lumby). Shut down entire towns. Despite trade agreements, and ruling after ruling going against them, The United States was able to arbitrarily decide that the cost of Lumber in Canada was too low, and set tariffs high enough to protect their own industry. This was front page news for 10+ years in BC. I have a gut feeling for what going against the (much larger) United States is like when you are smaller, even if you are a close trading partner and neighbor.
  • InclinedPlane 13y ago
    This is just "might makes right". It's not an ideology that anyone who wants to live in a country or a world that values individual liberty should desire. Consider how few hops it is between "it's ok to violate a country's sovereignty if it is small and powerless" and "it's ok to violate someone's 'rights' so long as they are powerless, unimportant, or poor".
    • rayiner 13y ago
      Not really. There is a principled distinction between the two: people in other countries are not part of the same social pact and thus don't have rights. Its tribalism, sure, but tribalism has historically been pretty effective at maintaining different standards internally versus externally.
      • westicle 13y ago
        Yeah, well maybe the people in MY state are OK, but those bastards one state over are fair game. And don't get me started about the neighbours across the road. Their tribe has no rights in my book.
        • rayiner 13y ago
          The people one state over are part of the same compact (the Constitution) with you. A compact which, by the way, bars you from discriminating against them in commerce, which actually causes a lot of problems in practice. E.g. states that want to enact social welfare programs for their own people have a difficult time doing so at the state level, because of free rider effects (it is unconstitutional to require a citizen of another state to live in your state for say a year before applying for welfare benefits). Trying to get around the free rider effect creates increased demand for solutions at the federal level, which undermines federalism and state sovereignty. At the level of sovereign nations, similar pushes for extending rights across national boundaries creates pressure for trans-national governments. It's no accident that the tearing down of economic barriers between European states went hand-in-hand with the creation of trans-EU legislative and executive bodies. There is a lot of value to trans-national barriers that isn't immediately obvious, especially in a democracy.
  • Buzaga 13y ago
    The more the US make use and abuse it's force, the more it will lose it, the more it will try to keep control, the more authoritarian it will become, the more resistance will grow, the more the US will get alone. Keep thinking like that.
    • outworlder 13y ago
      "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." ―Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin.
  • Vivtek 13y ago
    Sometimes you just have to take a little country and smash it against the wall to show the world who's boss - is that the game you're playing? Americans loved international law as long as it was to our advantage; now it's passé to imagine that anybody but Americans or rich people might have rights endowed by their Creator. I guess it's not so self-evident these days.
  • vadman 13y ago
    Not sure why everybody is downvoting you, especially sicne you don't claim to be happy about the facts, just stating them. Bolivia is, well, unimportant, and their complaints to the US will amount to nothing. There are exactly 2 countries in the world that the US cannot mess with. If it was a Russian or a Chinese plane, do you all think it would be denied airspace entry? (And EVEN IF it was denied entry and still decided to go through, do you think anything would happen to it?) What should be downvoted is the state of affairs when a US whistleblower has to be escorted around the world by Putin himself to guarantee his safety.
    • ghshephard 13y ago
      Well, I'm happy to see the downvotes. It suggests that idealism is alive and well on HN. Ironically, I speak from the experience of being the citizen of Canada, in particular, BC that had a number of disagreements with the United States (Air, Water, Lumber Tariffs) over 10 years. Issues that I'm certain 99.99% of the United States has never heard of, were front page news of the Vancouver Sun on-and-off for a decade. There was a sense of anger, helplessness, and eventually resentment (but, to some degree, acceptance) that when engaging in disputes with much larger countries, you need to avoid going up against them head-on, because you will lose every time. At least we got NAFTA out of it, which has worked out well for some percentage of the Canadian population.
    • Dewie 13y ago
      It's not as if Bolivia and the US live in a vacuum. The rest of the world can see what they are doing, and they might not be so impressed by it.
      • vadman 13y ago
        The rest of the world is the other 2 countries that matter (and shit like that doesn't happen to them), a multitude of countries that don't matter (the USA doesn't give a fuck what their impression is) and a handful of "allies" who are in it with the US. It will take really coordinated efforts of multiple governments for the US to even start caring about "impressions" and so on. Highly unlikely to happen.
• yaix 13y ago
  > _claims_ by the US govt Last time the US gov't claimed some stuff that turned out to be a lie, more than 100.000 civilians died as a consequence. And there are still civilians dying every day, because of that claim.
  • WildUtah 13y ago
    Last time the US gov't claimed some stuff that turned out to be a lie, more than 100.000 civilians Last time? If there were a clock that ticked every time high US government officials lied over matters of state, you could use it as a fan.
    • pvnick 13y ago
      >If there were a clock that ticked every time high US government officials lied over matters of state, you could use it as a fan. I just want to say how brilliant I thought this expression was. I can't believe people don't use it more often
      • kryten 13y ago
        Very true! Awesome expression.
      • swamp40 13y ago
        It comes from an old joke about onanism and the devil.
    • seferphier 13y ago
      brilliant. i'm stealing that expression from you.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    I don't think that was the last time...
  • dhimes 13y ago
    I don't think it is a lie so much as total incompetence. Good thing we can trust them to do the right thing with our private data.
• Svip 13y ago
  For the record, Spain and France are denying that they refused the plane entry.[0] [0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live#block-51d3eba3e4b0e80ab6523aa8 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-a...
  • smegel 13y ago
    Lol i wonder if the nsa hacked the radio freq and sent false transmissions
  • patrickaljord 13y ago
    Also for the record, Evo Morales is insane. Here he is saying that eating chicken makes you gay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT3yCRjEDCI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT3yCRjEDCI
    • pavs 13y ago
      Bush said God told him to invade iraq and other boatload of stupid shit, didn't stop Americans from electing him twice. What does it say about bush and even worse what does it say about americans? The point is, what stupid shit the president said has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
      • patrickaljord 13y ago
        He's making a claim that various countries claim to be untrue (they say his plane wasn't denied). So reminding people that Morales is no stranger to making false claims is relevant IMO. That being said, those other countries could be the ones lying too for all I know. No need to get rude though.
        • andyhmltn 13y ago
          'Two wrongs don't make a right'
          • 13y ago
• antr 13y ago
  It has been officially confirmed that Spain and France did not refuse airspace. It seems that the announcement (by unknown source) was made to disrupt the flight, and create a halo of sovereign support towards limiting Snowden's freedom of movement.
  • smackfu 13y ago
    My guess is that these unnamed officials in Spain and France are playing games with terminology, to confuse matters. Like they didn't "refuse airspace", they just refused to give the plane a flight plan through the airspace.
    • antr 13y ago
      My guess is that the list of countries restricting airspace was said by an Austrian "official" to the Bolivian passengers, including the Bolivian president once they landed. At no point in time I have seen an article stating the "unnamed officials in Spain and France" have closed the airspace to the Bolivian president. What is official is that named French and Spanish officials have denied such statements. Additionally, the plane has landed in Spain to refuel. No questions asked, no plane searched, no restrictions. This should clear many doubts.
      • smackfu 13y ago
        >Additionally, the plane has landed in Spain to refuel. No questions asked, no plane searched, no restrictions. This should clear many doubts. After the plane was already searched in Austria. Doesn't seem to be much risk of letting them land at that point.
        • antr 13y ago
          Like you, I can be a cynic, I can read between the lines, I can speculate. When the news stream is limited, and there is a lot of noise, I don't do any of the above. The real "risk" here is, press and citizens, jumping to false conclusions.
• duiker101 13y ago
  This is the first time I see Italy included in this story where did you get that from?
• reeses 13y ago
  Presidential planes should be relatively free from interference, but they're not sacrosanct. For example, the US Sec'y of State warned Iraq to deny access to airspace to any sovereign countries wishing to aid President Assad. In addition, several congressmen (both houses) have asked for the military destruction of the Syrian presidential plane. Hussein, Gaddafi, Ceaușescu, etc., would have been treated similarly had they made a diplomatic attempt to fly over many countries during the times they were openly perceived as being international criminals. I imagine this would be more than about Snowden. This is one of the first moves to show Morales that he is not in as strong a position now that Chavez is dead.
  • toyg 13y ago
    > This is one of the first moves to show Morales that he is not in as strong a position now that Chavez is dead. If that was the real aim, it's even more misguided: there's nothing better to solidify internal support than a bit of unprovoked foreign aggression. Differently from many other Latin American rulers, Morales' (and before him Chavez's) power is directly linked to oil prices, not to perceived US benevolence.
    • reeses 13y ago
      The US does not have a policy of caring that much about internal support, unfortunately.
      • toyg 13y ago
        And this is why Venezuela will continue to be a sticky point for them. It's not 1970 anymore, you can't think of overthrowing an elected government with the sole support of a bunch of elites, you have to be clever and divide public opinion enough to squeeze in your "preferred choice". Unless, of course, you just bomb it back to the middle ages, but in most cases that's not an option.