Is it settled now that Evo Morales was forced to land by various European countries?

[BlueCheese]

... and not due to some trouble with his plane?

Our resident polymath, Catherina, can probably answer this more definitively. However, it looks to me enough official sources have confirmed that Morales' plane was essentially forced to land by obstacles placed in his flight path-- even if one completely discounts what the Bolivian government says.

We have the French officially apologizing for initially denying overflight permission (after first denying they had done any such thing):
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130703-708369.html

We have the Spanish foreign minister saying that Spain and other countries were told that Snowden was on board. Of course, he didn't say who told them that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/european-states-snowden-morales-plane-nsa

More circumstantially, we have the U.S. State Department steadfastly refusing to make any comment as to whether we had anything to do with this, though we are in touch with a "broad range of countries" about Snowden (h/t Catherina):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023161704

Right now it appears that there are two competing theories: 1) that Morales' plane was forced to land when France and other countries made its original flight path impossible, either by denying airspace, or refueling stops, etc., or 2) that Morales' plane had some technical problem (perhaps with its fuel gauge) that needed repairs, and that the French denial of airspace, and Spanish discussions of Snowden's presence on the plane were simply astonishing coincidences that arose independently; and further, that the U.S. is for whatever reason refusing to simply tell the truth and say that we weren't involved.

One of these sounds much more plausible to me than the other.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. His plane was forced down by lack of fuel

He wasn't told to land. He wasn't able to fly over or land just anywhere and his Cessna Piper was running low on fuel.

[BlueCheese]

2. Okay...

That's true. But why wasn't he able to follow his original flight plan?

[snappyturtle]

5. Then why didn't the plane just refuel and take off? And, why was the

Spanish ambassador so eager to get on board Morales' plane?

BTW your slip is slowing.

[magellan]

38. It's amazing how lack of fuel, or a gauge problem, was never mentioned by the Austrian FM

...nor any of the reporters, as the cause of the landing. It's a silly mistake to be sure, under-fueling a plane, but for some reason several EU officials wanted to talk about plane searches and Snowden instead.

[sabrina 1]

54. Really? Then Chile's president is correct, they endangered his life, which makes this even more

serious. Why if a plane is running out of fuel, ANY plane, would they force it to keep flying? I hadn't heard this story until now.

[djean111]

3. I believe that some are saying the plane was not forced to land because

there were no jets scrambled to force it down or something like that.
Disingenuous.
We won't ever know what really happened, I think, because evidently everybody involved has a different point of view or else feels that lying is warranted or that it is none of our plebeian business.

[HappyMe]

4. Honestly, I don't think

we will ever know what really happened.

[brooklynite]

6. Countries that DID NOT block access to Morales' plane...

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Serbia, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland...

The notion that Morales was in some way "hemmed in" and "forced" to land in Austria is ridiculous.

[dawg]

7. Poland!

Don't forget Poland!

[brooklynite]

10. Um, first on the list...

[dawg]

14. Sorry, I guess you don't get the reference.

[BlueCheese]

11. Australia, New Zealand, Thailand...

I don't see why being able to fly over Romania would help Morales in this case. (Also, is access something that is on or off by default? If off, Morales probably didn't have permission to fly over those countries, given that he never intended to and thus never asked.)

Morales' flight plan called for a refueling stop somewhere in Spain, Portugal, or the Canarys or Azores (as I understand it). He had a limited amount of fuel. Once his original flight plan was made impossible, he had no choice but to land elsewhere in Europe.

[brooklynite]

17. The claim is that he was "forced" to land in Austria...

...I would say he had a wide range of places to land that may not have responded to a US arrest warrant.

[BlueCheese]

19. Okay, I see your point.

Apologies for my somewhat snarky reply above.

However, I'm not sure there are any European countries that wouldn't have responded favorably to our requests. Also, note that I didn't ask if he was forced to land in Austria, simply that he was forced to land.

[flamingdem]

13. Portugal wrote an official note that the Bolivians were told not to refuel in Lisbon

and they had 48 hours to refile a flight plan. That had nothing to do with any US request.

Then the Bolivians tried to go there anyway.

They were refused but told to go to Las Palmas in the Canary Islands (Spain).

But they went to Austria probably due to being unsure if they could get that far, it was a small jet.

So what I never understood is if they were given clearance at that time in Las Palmas.

I think they were.

So that means if the plane had a bigger tank none of this would have happened, also if they had refiled the flight plan nothing would have happened.

In Austria some right wing Spanish politicians showed up probably on his own accord to get in on the action and follow through on some nefarious direction from the right. Here on DU this is described as evil American empire drags ex Bush pal into forced down plane incident.

Yet there's some reason Morales felt confident in summoning all the leaders over this. So we'll see

[magellan]

40. All that fuss over not having enough fuel

And not one official, from the Austrian FM on, so much as mentioned it!

Morales must have a Uri Geller ability to get everyone talking about closed airspace and Snowden instead of a simple lack of fuel.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Of course it was from a US request

Airports don't just refuse refuelling 48 hours in advance for no reason. Especially to a head of state.

The jet did have enough range (about 5000 miles) to get to the Canaries, if it was allowed a straight flight path. It was not. France denied it, and have admitted that. Looking at the flightpath it did follow, it seems correct Italy denied it too - it was going straight at Italian airspace, then turned slightly so that it would have gone over Swiss then French airspace, and then it turned 180 degrees to go to Vienna.

"In Austria some right wing Spanish politicians showed up probably on his own accord" - for fuck's sake, it was the Spanish ambassador. And the Spanish have said they 'were told' Snowden was on board. The country that cares about Snowden is the USA. The country that spies on everyone, and thus would be believed if they claimed their spies knew he was on the plane, is the USA. The country that has by far the biggest military in the world, and sometimes likes to throw its weight around in the world, is the USA. It's obvious to the entire world that the USA is the prime suspect for organising this plot. You really should stop stick your head in the sand and pretending the USA is some innocent actor on the world stage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. The basic point is that France and Italy did block access

and that alone makes it very difficult for anyone to take a south west route from Russia (and I'm assuming my own UK would have blocked them too - my government is proud of spying with the NSA, and does what it's told). If Spain and Portugal then dicked around with airspace or landing rights, it gets worse. If they did this after takeoff, the plane would have had little option but to land in Austria, or a nearby country.

The unbelievable part is that they did this to a head of state.

[brooklynite]

24. or flown to Morocco?

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Around Italy?

If Croatia, Greece etc. had given permission (smaller countries - even more likely to be bullied by the USA), they'd have needed to know ahead of time that Italy was denying the Bolivian head of state access. If that didn't happen until they were on the journey, they might not have been able to reach Morroco.

It would have been just as much of an insult if they did deny access ahead of time, of course. Arguably more so - because then you can't blame it on some ignorant guy who hasn't understood it's a head of state's plane he's forbidding.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Austrailia, NZ, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Uzbeckistan, etc.

Uh, there was no point in blocking Morales flight by countries he didn't need to overfly. The countries that blocked his flight were ones he needed to overfly to reach a fueling stop in the Canary Is. Strange that none of those countries blocked his flight on the way TO Moscow....

[mitchtv]

8. I d like to be a fly on the wall

Morales has summoned the ambassadors from Fr, Sp, Por ,and ITL. To explain .

[Recursion]

9. No

But don't let that stop you.

[BlueCheese]

12. Please elaborate.

What is your theory as to what happened? (I mean that sincerely. I think the two of us have had fruitful conversations on this board before.)

[Recursion]

16. The fuel gauge broke and they had to land

Once they were down, mid-level Austrian and French officials made stupid decisions that were countermanded by their higher-ups.

During this whole time, Morales used his genius for sensational statements to great effect. The denial of airspace was largely non-existent, the only country that seems to have done that is France, and it's not clear the person who denied it actually had that authority. But this is the guy who keeps saying we killed Chavez, so...

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to jetlag and poor staff work.

[byeya]

25. That doesn't come close to passing the laugh test.

[Recursion]

29. Where do you see a problem with it?

That's what's been reported by everyone involved except Bolivia.

[magellan]

41. Except no one was talking about low fuel or a broken fuel gauge at the airport

Not even the Austrian FM, who spent several hours there with Morales. You really have to wonder why, if it was that simple.

[Recursion]

43. Err... I'll take the word of Morales's pilot, personally

That's what he said happened.

[magellan]

44. So you don't think it's odd that over the course of 14 hours

...with reporters everywhere, the Austrian FM never mentioned this as the reason why Morales was stuck there?

Illogical.

[Recursion]

45. It's what the pilot himself said when he asked for permission to land

I have yet to hear anybody come up with a reasonable explanation for that other than mine. Please feel free to try.

Why would the President of Austria care about the technical details of Morales's plane?

[magellan]

47. Yes, I know all about the low fuel/bad fuel indicator

What you're failing to explain is why all the fuss at the airport afterward. If they really did turn around and land simply because of low fuel or a faulty gauge -- the plane was simply under-fueled or the gauge went south -- it really isn't a story to keep reporters and the Austrian FM there all night, is it? Never mentioning fuel at all, but talking instead about Snowden and closed airspace? How do you explain the Austrian FM being annoyed with Spain for granting overflight permission the next morning only on condition the plane was searched?

[Recursion]

48. Well clearly somebody told Austria "Snowden is on that plane"

So when it landed, they wanted to inspect it. It's still not clear whether they did or not. That has nothing to do with why it landed.

[magellan]

49. If Snowden didn't have anything to do with why it landed, you'd think someone would've said so

It's a strange coincidence that the plane would have this problem, forcing it to land, only for Morales to then be asked, "By the way, can we search your plane for Snowden?"

[Recursion]

51. Someone did: the pilot, who landed the plane

That says a lot to me.

[BlueCheese]

50. I don't think English is the pilot's first language.

Still, his command of it seems pretty good.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that they had enough fuel to make it to their refueling stop. Once they were turned away by France, they had to land somewhere relatively quickly. The pilot's statement about not being able to get a fuel indication might be (1) misspeaking, when he meant they were low on fuel, or (2) a bit of a fudge to explain why he needed to land at all-- he probably didn't want to say, "We were told not to fly through France because someone thinks we have Snowden aboard."

Otherwise, one has to believe that this plane-- one of great importance, that was suspected of carrying a fugitive-- conveniently happened to develop trouble that required it to land. I suppose that's not impossible-- coincidences do happen-- but it sounds like France really did deny airspace at one point, and the Spanish government (and others, they say) were informed that the plane was carrying Snowden.

It's possible other facts will come out. There have been a lot of conflicting stories about this, up to whether the plane was searched in Vienna.

[magellan]

52. I agree

They were circling for a good 15-20 minutes over Vienna, waiting for landing clearance. My original thought was that everyone on board was worried Vienna would deny them. And if that happened, getting to yet another airport where they might just be denied again would become a real possibility. So the fuel problem was relayed and voila -- please land.

I don't know where this writer gets his information from, but he seems to be the only one with a clear idea of Morales's flight plan and what happened that also makes sense:

July 2, 2013

The Bolivian presidential plane finally left Vienna Airport July 3, 2013, at 5:30 a.m. (Bolivian time), after 14 hours during which President Evo Morales was literally kidnapped and his plane interrupted in mid-flight without explanation, putting Bolivian president’s life in danger.

Four countries – France, Spain, Italy and Portugal – revoked flight permission while the plane was taking Morales and other officials home from an energy conference in Moscow.

The original route was Moscow, Lisbon (Portugal) to refuel, Guyana, and then La Paz. With no explanation, a few hours before departure time from Moscow, Portugal revoked the landing permit.

Therefore a second route was chosen going from Moscow to the Canary Islands (Spain) to refuel, then to Guyana, and La Paz. With this route the plane had to fly over France then Spain, but one hour before crossing into French airspace, and while the plane was in the air, French authorities denied the use of its airspace, and Italian authorities did likewise.

Too low on fuel to continue on its journey, the plane and the entire crew was put into danger. Finally it got permission for an emergency landing in Vienna.

Bolivian diplomats accused France, Portugal, and Spain on Tuesday of acting under American pressure to revoke permission for President Evo Morales’s plane to traverse their airspace or land on their airports on the way back to Bolivia.

http://www.t.grupoapoyo.org/node/202

This squares well with the bits and pieces we know of the flight plan and its interruption, including the low fuel and emergency landing. It also happens to line up with the FlightRadar24 record of the flight that shows the plane turned around shortly before it would have entered Italian airspace (while still in Austrian airspace).

To reach the Canary Islands a day later, it crossed from Austria over Italy, then France, then Spain, then Portugal. (I watched it live on FlightRadar24 until it reached the Islands.)

So the closing of the French and Italian airspaces the day before would certainly have impeded its ability to reach its planned refuel stop in the Canary Islands.

I see no reason not to believe Morales when he says his plane was forced down. He's not talking about a fuel or gauge problem, but the closing of the airspaces that forced them to either come up with a fuel problem, or experience a real one. Either way, shabby treatment of a state leader.

[BlueCheese]

33. The Spanish FM says that they and other nations were told that Snowden was on the flight.

Just a coincidence?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

34. Thank you for your first-hand account

Wait, what...

[Catherina]

15. The unbelievable show continues

See my thread here: OAS meeting: Spain, Italy, France and Portugal deny responsibilities in #Morales diplomatic incident

They are taking a break now until 4pm DC time.


France and Spain's weasel apologies stand.

Bricio Segovia ‏@briciosegovia 31m

#Spain apoligizes at the #OAS for the behavior of his ambassador in Austria towards Evo #Morales BUT adds he acted "in good faith". #Snowden

Bricio Segovia ‏@briciosegovia 27m

#France at #OAS: It was a technical error. Planes were mistaken at the administrative service. It wasn't a political act. #Morales #Snowden

Bricio Segovia ‏@briciosegovia 17m

#Italy at #OAS: we had nothing to do w Evo #Morales' incident. It is #Bolivia that should apologize for having involved us in this. #Snowden

[struggle4progress]

18. "Everybody except Morales is a lying liar who lies lying lies"

[Recursion]

30. That's basically what you have to say

Never trust politicians unless they are Latin Americans.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

37. In other words

(Your words) trust every one but Latin Americans.

[Downwinder]

20. What goes up comes down.

Latin American Presidents have a historical problem with airplanes.

[reformist2]

22. Yes. But it's still Morales' and Bolivia's fault, somehow.

[treestar]

32. It is.

They left for Portugal with no permission to land there.

[NoPasaran]

23. He flew too close to the Sun and his wings melted

[Scurrilous]

35. LOL

[cthulu2016]

27. Nope. I believe my Bible, thank you very much, and it was the fuel gauge

[treestar]

31. Nope

They did not make a proper flight plan. They knew they were denied refueling in Portugal. Tried to go there anyway. Then had to deal with the fact they could not land there

[malaise]

36. Was it ever in dispute?

Oh wait.

[jazzimov]

39. no, this whole thing just "smells wrong" to me.

I keep waiting for more evidence to appear one way or another, but it seems very slow to do so.

Something tells me that this is just Morales looking for "exposure". Especially the way that he made such a big deal out of it.

But I so far have very little evidence of that, so I can't really argue it. All I can argue is that we don't have enough evidence to argue any point of view.

Which would be consistent with Morales wanting to "spread doubt".

But can anyone tell me for sure - what was the reason that they pilot radioed to the Austrian airport that they needd to land? Was it a lack of fuel, or was it "technical problems"?

[Recursion]

46. The pilot said "We need to land because we cannot get a correct indication of the fuel indication"

Control tower: Do you need any assistance?

Pilot: Not at this moment. We need to land because we cannot get a correct indication of the fuel indication so as a precaution we need to land.

Now, maybe the pilot was lying, I don't know. But that's what he said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Oddly enough, there are those that assure us that the whole thing is a matter of no consequence.

Whereas, the NSA/State Department/White House are turning into a slapstick comedy by frantically pouring CYA brand kerosene on the fires they started.