Why us furrrners get upset at some US foreign policy etc

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

Yes. France and Portugal ought to be shunned internationally for this.

But seriously, why are you blaming the U.S. here? It's something France could easily have stood up to the U.S. on. That they helped the U.S. possibly corner a political dissident for, probably, future concessions on selling their wine or something, is a fault of France, not of the U.S.

Many would argue that the State has overstepped its bounds, and the zealotry they've shown for Assange, Manning and Snowden while letting heads of spy agencies arguably break the laws and lie to congress is too much.

The State has undoubtedly overstepped its bounds with all the domestic spying. With respect to the diplomatic flight, though, the problem is not so much the U.S. as with European nations all too eager to help suppress freedom.

You say "It's something France could easily have stood up to the U.S. on", which I suppose is true, if unlikely. However, in saying that, you are agreeing with rEv that the US was attempting (and in fact succeeded) to interfere with the international flight of a foreign leader, using 3rd party intermediaries. That is well and truly outside the bounds of normal behaviour by a nation state; it is arrogance and aggression personified. Sometimes I wonder how little the US understands the affect such actions have on the opinions of the international community. People in the past who would have dismissed attacks on the US for being aggressively imperialist as leftist propaganda are now seriously reconsidering.

[Sean Hayden]

It's depressing to read things like that Jim.

[JimC]

It's depressing to read things like that Jim.

And I am by no means virulently anti US or anti capitalist on principle - slightly left of centre, no more...

But, from all I glean from perusing the world media, the trend is there...

[Warren Dew]

This, however, is little by little the increasing picture of the US that many in the world (including former allies) have today. And I suspect that many US citizens simply do not understand the increasing fear and distrust of their country by people far removed from Russia, China or islamic jihadists...

For the record, I think Seth is alone or in a small minority in considering granting asylum in this case to be an act of war. The U.S. grants asylum all the time to people whose home countries consider them traitors, without declaring war.

You say "It's something France could easily have stood up to the U.S. on", which I suppose is true, if unlikely. However, in saying that, you are agreeing with rEv that the US was attempting (and in fact succeeded) to interfere with the international flight of a foreign leader, using 3rd party intermediaries. That is well and truly outside the bounds of normal behaviour by a nation state; it is arrogance and aggression personified. Sometimes I wonder how little the US understands the affect such actions have on the opinions of the international community. People in the past who would have dismissed attacks on the US for being aggressively imperialist as leftist propaganda are now seriously reconsidering.

To the contrary, it's entirely within the bounds of normal behavior on the part of a nation state, as evidenced by the fact that Portugal and France had no problem taking the even more drastic step of actually closing their air space to the flight. Closing air space, to specific flights or to all flights from a nation, is pretty routine behavior. Given that Bolivia is no friend of the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised if we had a standing request to close air space to Bolivian presidential flights at all times; the unusual behavior is that France and Portugal actually acceded to the request for this flight.

The U.S. has a standing request to embargo Cuba, and France has no problem ignoring that. Why is it so unlikely they would ignore this request as well? As I read it, the only reason they acceded to the request is that they also regard Snowden as a threat to France, or rather to the French political establishment, since he may have information on spying done by France, as well as on France.

As for negative views of the U.S., anyone who thinks a request to close air space is a more serious matter than, say, drone assassinations outside of war zones has seriously messed up priorities. The fact is, you guys have been giving Obama a free pass for far too long; if you had realized earlier that he was running the most repressive U.S. government since WWII at least, maybe the things you object to now wouldn't be happening.

[JimC]

Find me one example of the closing of airspace to an international flight by the leader of another country since WW2...

And, even mentioning "Bolivia is no friend of the U.S" as an excuse is the height of arrogance. It is saying that we, and our lackey states, can do this if you piss us off in any way. It is bullying, pure and simple, something that people in the US just don't seem to get... And sure, the drone strikes are another example. No need to harp on the Obama thing - as far as I'm concerned, from the outside, it is the US as a paranoid, aggressive international bully I'm seeing - I dont give a shit what the name of the president is, that's your business...

Closing airspace in general is not the issue - it is the utter disregard of long-standing international diplomatic protocols when it is applied to a foreign leader...

[Collector1337]

It's depressing to read things like that Jim.

And I am by no means virulently anti US or anti capitalist on principle - slightly left of centre, no more...

[Warren Dew]

Find me one example of the closing of airspace to an international flight by the leader of another country since WW2...

For an obvious example, the U.S. has long closed its air space to flights by Castro.

And, even mentioning "Bolivia is no friend of the U.S" as an excuse is the height of arrogance. It is saying that we, and our lackey states, can do this if you piss us off in any way. It is bullying, pure and simple, something that people in the US just don't seem to get... And sure, the drone strikes are another example. No need to harp on the Obama thing - as far as I'm concerned, from the outside, it is the US as a paranoid, aggressive international bully I'm seeing - I dont give a shit what the name of the president is, that's your business...

You personally might not, but the vast majority of you "furrrners" do.

Incidentally, Australia is far more of a lackey state to the U.S. than is France.

[JimC]

It's depressing to read things like that Jim.

And I am by no means virulently anti US or anti capitalist on principle - slightly left of centre, no more...

Well, I know that Genghis Khan is a suspect pinko to you and Seth...

You need to develop a realistic perspective on where people truly are on the political perspective. Most of us in the broadly centrist category are in favour of free enterprise, with some caveats, and find Marxist economic theory laughable, and the examples of it being put into practice tragic.

Now go back to fondling your guns, that's a good lad, the grown-ups have things to talk about...

[JimC]

Find me one example of the closing of airspace to an international flight by the leader of another country since WW2...

For an obvious example, the U.S. has long closed its air space to flights by Castro.

And, even mentioning "Bolivia is no friend of the U.S" as an excuse is the height of arrogance. It is saying that we, and our lackey states, can do this if you piss us off in any way. It is bullying, pure and simple, something that people in the US just don't seem to get... And sure, the drone strikes are another example. No need to harp on the Obama thing - as far as I'm concerned, from the outside, it is the US as a paranoid, aggressive international bully I'm seeing - I dont give a shit what the name of the president is, that's your business...

You personally might not, but the vast majority of you "furrrners" do.

Incidentally, Australia is far more of a lackey state to the U.S. than is France.

1. An example involving the US is not a good defence, in this issue... In any case, it was moot, since no flight by Castro was ever diverted, to my knowledge, by the US or its fellow travellers. A laughably inept assassination attempt, sure...

2. I quite agree. Australia has a very dependent relationship with the US, for very understandable reasons, stretching back to WW2. I have no real objections to a defensive alliance with the US. Basically, it says that, if Australia is attacked by a foreign power (e.g. Indonesia), the US will come to our support. The quid pro quo is murky, but interesting. Basically, it involves Oz sending troops to support various foreign wars of the US and its allies. Some, IMO, can be justified; Korea, the first Gulf war, the initial Afghan deployment. Others, not so much... One of our prime ministers, in the Vietnam war days, was quoted as saying "All the way with LBJ", which kind of says it all. In addition, there are several important intelligence and communication bases in Oz which are a vital component of the ability of the US to listen in to global events. We pay the piper, and have to accept the consequences of the tune...

Having said that, I doubt whether domestic political opinion would allow an Australian PM to bar our airspace to the aircraft of a foreign leader at the behest of the US...

[pErvinalia]

I really struggle to believe that this wasn't done under the request of the US authorities. It's been reported (although, unsourced) that they have been pressuring countries to not grant asylum to Snowden. And witnessing the zealotry that they have shown in regard to Snowden, and Assange and Manning before him, I really find it hard to believe that they are not pushing as hard as they can "diplomatically" to get this guy. After all, if they allow first Assange, and then Snowden to escape their net, that's a trendline and will embolden future whistleblowers/spies/whatever to take a crack. If they US can nail one of these guys hard, then they will surely send a clear message that you don't cross the State and hope to get away with it.

Of course it was done at the request of the U.S. However, a request is just that: a request. It can be turned down, and those who don't like how the U.S. behaves should get used to turning the requests down.

Yes, in conservative world, everything is that simplistic. In the real world, there are consequences for actions. They may be free to ignore the request or accede to it. But if they ignore it, they surely know there will be repercussions. And in fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some of the repercussions where explicitly stated.

[JimC]

From the Age today:

Just days after the US President’s claim that he would not ‘‘be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker’’, the Obama administration was accused of doing precisely that.
Bolivian leader Evo Morales had his presidential aircraft hounded through different sectors of European airspace on Tuesday – in the apparent belief that Mr Morales was smuggling US mega-leaker Edward Snowden to asylum.
We want to express our displeasure because this has put the president's life at risk

Furious Bolivian officials, backed by their equally voluble Venezuelan counterparts, accused France and Portugal of ‘‘putting at risk the life of the [Bolivian] president’’ in what Bolivian Defence Minister Ruben Saavedra described as a ‘‘hostile act by the US State Department which has used various European governments’’.

The leaders of the two South American countries had been attending a conference on natural gas in Moscow, which was completely overshadowed by the Snowden affair.

There had been speculation at press conferences in Moscow that either Mr Morales or his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro might invite the marooned Snowden to fly back to their homelands with them – and though Lisbon, Paris and Washington were refusing to comment on Tuesday’s diplomatic air scramble, it appears that the Americans might have taken a South American bait.
Running low on fuel, Mr Morales’ flight was diverted to Vienna after France and Portugal withdrew pro forma permission for it to travel in their airspace.

Even before the flight had taken off, Portugal had mysteriously withdrawn pre-issued permission for it to refuel at Lisbon ahead of the long haul across the Atlantic.
In-flight drama
The aircraft was in the air and within minutes of its scheduled entry into French airspace when Paris followed suit.
‘‘We don’t know who invented this lie,’’ said Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca. ‘‘We want to denounce to the international community this injustice with the plane of President Evo Morales.
‘‘They say it was due to technical issues, but after getting explanations from some authorities we found there appeared to be some unfounded suspicion that Mr Snowden was on the plane.’’
As Mr Morales cooled his heels at a Vienna airport, Austrian officials told reporters that indeed Snowden was not on the presidential aircraft.
Meanwhile, Mr Morales’ flight crew faced challenges in finding a route home to Bolivia – Italy was now denying permission for the flight to transit its airspace.
In recent days it has been President Vladimir Putin who had been having fun at the expense of the furious Americans. But as the Russian leader became more serious, setting conditions that would make it impossible for Snowden to remain in Russia, the two South Americans started acting up.

And more comment:

In keeping with the absurd tenor of much of this saga, Snowden’s father Lon Snowden responded to a message from his son that he should keep quiet – reportedly relayed by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through Snowden snr’s lawyer – by publishing an open letter in which he praises his son and defends him as a modern day Paul Revere, ‘‘summoning the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one-branch government’’.
But Snowden jnr (who turned 30 during the recent week of transit turmoil) had more pressing issues to deal with – it emerged that the more countries in which he seeks refuge, the more knockbacks he gets.
Throughout Tuesday, the rejections came thick and fast. All but two out of 21 capitals to which Snowden had applied hung him out to dry – only Venezuela and Bolivia seemed to offer him a chance to break free from the limbo of a Moscow transit lounge.

At the same time, the Russians keep repeating two things – one of which seems to be believed more than the other. First, they will not go into the transit lounge and snatch Snowden for the Americans; and second, their intelligence services are not trying to bleed Snowden or his four laptops of all they know and/or contain.
The language of some US reporting on the Snowden case is intriguing. Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times reports: ‘‘The US has engaged an array of countries that have considered granting [Snowden] asylum, making clear that doing so would carry big costs.’’
Oddly, the word ‘‘threat’’ does not appear in such reports.
On Tuesday, a State Department spokeswoman responded to the bullying allegations thus: ‘‘I’m not sure what the basis for those claims are.’’
Doesn’t quite amount to a denial, does it?

"The US has engaged an array of countries that have considered granting [Snowden] asylum, making clear that doing so would carry big costs."

Arrogant arseholes.

[pErvinalia]

Warren Dew wrote:

Yes. France and Portugal ought to be shunned internationally for this.

But seriously, why are you blaming the U.S. here? It's something France could easily have stood up to the U.S. on. That they helped the U.S. possibly corner a political dissident for, probably, future concessions on selling their wine or something, is a fault of France, not of the U.S.

Many would argue that the State has overstepped its bounds, and the zealotry they've shown for Assange, Manning and Snowden while letting heads of spy agencies arguably break the laws and lie to congress is too much.

The State has undoubtedly overstepped its bounds with all the domestic spying. With respect to the diplomatic flight, though, the problem is not so much the U.S. as with European nations all too eager to help suppress freedom.

You say "It's something France could easily have stood up to the U.S. on", which I suppose is true, if unlikely. However, in saying that, you are agreeing with rEv that the US was attempting (and in fact succeeded) to interfere with the international flight of a foreign leader, using 3rd party intermediaries. That is well and truly outside the bounds of normal behaviour by a nation state; it is arrogance and aggression personified. Sometimes I wonder how little the US understands the affect such actions have on the opinions of the international community. People in the past who would have dismissed attacks on the US for being aggressively imperialist as leftist propaganda are now seriously reconsidering.

Yep.

I think the political reality in the US, despite changes in the governing party leading to some variation, is that broadly speaking they follow a principle of "might is right" and "manifest destiny". They truly believe that what they do is morally more right than other actions, and they have the means to manifest those actions. And they are more or less right, while ever they are the dominant super power. The problem is, two-fold. One, can they maintain that dominance, and what happens if they fall from grace; and two, in an arguably more open world, pissing off large numbers of people all over the world backfires on their own populace who have to suffer more and more draconian state interventionist policies to maintain their safety from all the people in the world they piss off. Of course, there's some who would say that this suits the elites fine, as a more police-like state is easier to control than an open free state. I dunno if there's a conspiracy of those sorts. But if there was, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hey, did the British complain when their consuls were detained by the USN after leaving Cuba in 1897?

[pErvinalia]

It's depressing to read things like that Jim.

And I am by no means virulently anti US or anti capitalist on principle - slightly left of centre, no more...

For you education, Collector, the "center" of politics in the US is considered the Right in most of the rest of the developed world. The Democrats are a centre-right party. The Republicans wouldn't exist in most of our countries, outside of perhaps a tiny number of members, due to them being batshit fruitcake insane racist homophobic sexists.

[Babel]

In keeping with the absurd tenor of much of this saga, Snowden’s father Lon Snowden responded to a message from his son that he should keep quiet – reportedly relayed by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through Snowden snr’s lawyer – by publishing an open letter in which he praises his son and defends him as a modern day Paul Revere, ‘‘summoning the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one-branch government’’.
But Snowden jnr (who turned 30 during the recent week of transit turmoil) had more pressing issues to deal with – it emerged that the more countries in which he seeks refuge, the more knockbacks he gets.
Throughout Tuesday, the rejections came thick and fast. All but two out of 21 capitals to which Snowden had applied hung him out to dry – only Venezuela and Bolivia seemed to offer him a chance to break free from the limbo of a Moscow transit lounge.

At the same time, the Russians keep repeating two things – one of which seems to be believed more than the other. First, they will not go into the transit lounge and snatch Snowden for the Americans; and second, their intelligence services are not trying to bleed Snowden or his four laptops of all they know and/or contain.
The language of some US reporting on the Snowden case is intriguing. Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times reports: ‘‘The US has engaged an array of countries that have considered granting [Snowden] asylum, making clear that doing so would carry big costs.’’
Oddly, the word ‘‘threat’’ does not appear in such reports.
On Tuesday, a State Department spokeswoman responded to the bullying allegations thus: ‘‘I’m not sure what the basis for those claims are.’’
Doesn’t quite amount to a denial, does it?

"The US has engaged an array of countries that have considered granting [Snowden] asylum, making clear that doing so would carry big costs."

Arrogant arseholes.

No, no, it's only a request.