Why The Denial of Airspace To Heads of State Is Never A Good Idea

 A recent decision by the United States to deny airspace to the President of Venezuela on his trip to China should again raise serious concerns about the direction of U.S. foreign policy.  Actions which start out as one-sided often end up spinning wildly out of control.   What happens, for example, if a Head of State's plane on a U.S. 'blacklist' flying through a neutral corridor should veer significantly off-course because of instrument failure or bad weather?  What will happen if, because of communications failure, it fails to heed requests of U.S. intercept fighter planes?; will it be shot down?; what will be the profound implications of such an act-in the eyes of world public opinion-despite any excuses or denials of involvement by the United States?; what will be the implications if a Head of State's 'blacklist' plane is forced down and he or she is 'arrested' or 'taken' into U.S. custody?; or how will the world perceive the United States if, for example, China or Russia should publicly announce decisions to provide military fighter 'cover' to certain visiting dignitaries on the U.S. airspace blacklist as their planes fly through neutral corridors?(actually, China does not currently have logistical long-haul capability nor expertise but certainly Russia does); how will the world perceive this and will other countries react with their own airspace blacklists?; how will this affect ordinary Americans traveling abroad? (the very few who bother to travel abroad these days); are they too likely, through no fault of their own, to find themselves by virtue of their passport, on a country's retaliatory blacklist?; in the reverse,what happens if a plane carrying U.S. dignitaries (diplomatic or other senior representatives or senior executives on some countries 'blacklist') should veer off course for the same reasons given above?  These measures can start off as punitive and end up as something quite different - for the whole world.   I often think that today U.S. foreign policy is being made on the hoof with no depth of thought being given to long-term implications.   Policies appear to be very short-sighted with no discernible goal-orientated objective-other than, in this example, being punitive.     The President of Venezuela, for example, is not charismatic as was his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.   He is weak politically and more than likely will be replaced in the natural course of democratic process by a party which is favorable to U.S. foreign policy interests.   An incident like this, if Nicolás Maduro milks it, will only likely prolong his stay in Office as Venezuelans will see such action as an affront to their national sovereignty and anyone supporting the opposition branded as 'enemies' of the Venezuelan people.  Again there appears to be a thinking within the State Department that they have no 'rights' to 'national emotional feelings' of their own.   What I am saying is that policy makers are failing to perceive the world in anything other than short-termism - and through their own perceptions with no thought for anything other than very narrow very short-term and very selfish interests.   As with the recent cancellation of The President of Brazil's State visit to the United States (canceled by Brazil, for entirely different reasons), such denial of airspace to Venezuela will only deepen and intensify relations between opposition forces in Latin America and intensify their campaigns against American interests in the region.   This at a time when most socialist models are proving to be monumental failures in Latin America - with only time itself required before their total democratic collapse - no push required in any way from Washington - they will collapse of their own volition.   Brazil is the best example of this.   It is wrongly hailed as a resounding economic success by such business networks as CNN,CNBC.   None will dare to tell you that Brazil has been hovering on the brink of revolution and social chaos for a very long time (as was South Africa under apartheid) - as 99.9% of it's Black Brazilians (who form over 75%, perhaps much more of the population, as African-Brazilian race origin statistics ceased to be honestly documented for over two decades for fear of revolution) are economically disenfranchised and outrageously impoverished, reminiscent of South Africa under apartheid-but in a more subtle and glaringly dishonest manner.   Brazil is rife for revolution - it has been for a very long time.   When it happens, it will be on a monumental scale (ironically predicted for South Africa-but which never happened thanks to the then wisdom of British-U.S. foreign policy and lawmakers.)     Anybody who tells you Brazil or Venezuela or Ecuador are stable democracies is either being highly selective with information or are themselves ill-informed.      What actions like denying airspace will do will be to enable anti-democratic forces within these countries to capitalize on this unexpected 'political lifeline' thrown to them, inadvertently, by Washington.  

People often ask 'is there intelligent life in Outer Space?'; I now ask, 'is there intelligent life anywhere in the U.S. State Department? '       Perhaps we can ask the NSA to direct their much-talented listening operations towards Washington, for signs of intelligent life?

 

Patrick Emek

September 20th 2013