What did happen was that countries caved to US pressure to deny even the possibility of snowden passing through their airspace.
While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is... perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious.
The fact that the plane even landed in Vienna at all might have been a (successful) PR stunt, since: An audio tape was subsequently released which appeared to be a recording of the flight crew requesting to land in Austria on the grounds they "could not get a correct indication" of their remaining fuel levels." - really? How convenient.
In any case it's nothing at all like the current case, except that it involved planes landing where they weren't originally headed for, due to political interference. Of course; superficial resemblances might be enough in the battlefield that is public perception.
Edit: and if you read some of the other perceptions here e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03... - this all sounds like a rather convenient storm in a tea-cup. Given the convenience to Evo Morales, it all looks rather suspicious.
The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking.
In the end both the US and Belarus grounded a plane for political reasons, and that’s what makes the situation the same in many people’s eyes. It’s just that one of those countries doesn’t have the clout to make its means look harmless and benign so had to resort to a fighter jet escort.
> The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking.
That's a bit silly though. An implicit threat still requires the belief that an act of violence will be carried out. Do you honestly think anyone in Europe believes America will pull back the velvet glove just to find one person? It'd cause the disintegration of NATO.
Absurdly more of a threat than the US military is its economic means, backed of course by the said army. Also the underground capabilities. You don't get to anger someone who has all sorts of ways to cripple you, personally or at a national level.
The US has an unimaginable amount of soft and hard power. There's plenty of softer retaliation before carpet-bombing, which you can use (or the threat thereof) to make countries toe the line.
No, I don’t honestly think that, but I do think that the amount of military the US keeps abroad is a good proxy for how much influence they have over the area.
They did not ground the plane. France and Italy (and some less relevant countries) denied usage of their airspace (though the french sorta-kinda dispute that?), then Evo Morales's plane chose to land in Austria instead of turning back. It could have chosen to land in any number of countries, or flown back. Portugal didn't even close airspace, merely denied landing permissions for a refueling stop - and while that's not entirely reasonable, it's at least comprehensible they didn't want to get involved in the Snowden drama.
Notably, it was in Evo Morales political interest to appear to be "sticking it to the man", so undoubtedly he had no problems with making the impact appear greater than it was. Not to mention his TV interview the very day before can be read as a kind of dare to do just this. Had he really been carrying Snowden with intent to protect him, he surely would not have played this brinkmanship game in the first place, but even if he did, he did not need to land where he did.
In other words, the US got played by Evo Morales who successfully demonstrated that the US can be pretty unreasonable at times. But the US did not take his plane hostage, not even via its allies; the situation is entirely unlike the Belarusian case at hand. Seriously: is being offensive to a diplomat that's knowingly playing a game of brinkmanship somehow equivalent to abducting a civilian plane?
The Portuguese foreign ministry and the Spanish ambassador in Bolivia, ended up officially apologizing for the event
to Evo Morales. Brazilian and Portuguese newspapers references below.
(In Portuguese but online translators are pretty
good these days :-)
https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/mundo/2013/07/portugal-pe...
Snowden may be a hero to many, but he is also legitimately accused of breaking laws in a criminal fashion.
I don't see anything wrong with interfering with the travel of fugitives from justice. Even if there are doubts about the "justice" getting applied here, just ignoring the US justice system is probably not the right way to go either.
Yes and there is also a difference between the way US justice operates and let's say Scandinavian. They do not turn their countries into prison planet where collusion between government and private enterprise encourages large scale abuse.
Even with all the problems with the US justice system, I'm pretty sure most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all.
And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services. There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. I'm not even entirely convinced that Russia had no role in his actions prior to his defection, or that he really intended to go some place else.
> most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all.
This is a terrible defense for forcing down the planes of people taking political asylum. The choice is not between disrespecting asylum or not having any justice system whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to suggest so.
> And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services
Ah yes, the classic strategy of defecting to Russian intelligence services by leaving Russia to go to Bolivia.
I have not defended forcing down planes in the case of Belarus. More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too.
Snowden said he wanted to go to Bolivia... There is no proof he actually intended to go there or that the Russians wouldn't be waiting to work with him there.
Regardless of Snowden's original intentions, he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services. At the very least, he has been trotted out for propaganda reasons like a trained pony. So in essence, yes, he ultimately defected by not standing trial.
> More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too.
And other nations disagree with. Is this not the same as in the Belarusian situation?
> he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services
I don't think it is true that Snowden has no leverage whatsoever. Moreover, what is the evidence? What is the evidence that he is being trotted out for propaganda reasons? What is the evidence he has leaked all this information to the FSB?
It's naive to believe the FSB (or others) wouldn't use him however they wanted. Snowden has absolutely zero leverage. He can be deported to the US at any time, and Putin has proven he isn't above killing virtually anyone, no matter the public profile.
And I remember that fake Q&A session with Putin were Snowden asked a question about surveillance of their own people and Putin basically said that the Russian state would never ever do such a horrible thing. It's almost funny.
Just wanted to note that the phrase "most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all" is a classical example of false dichotomy. Nobody proposed to destroy justice system in this thread, isn't it? Then why do you employ a false dichotomy?
> There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them.
There's always a way. They were already in great position just having him there.
And regarding the latter, there must be very serious investigation following Snowden's actions and if what you say is true, it's extremely hard to believe the investigation has found nothing about it. But it seems so.
If you don't propose to destroy the US justice system, you seem to have an enormous confidence in your ability to determine when exactly it should be just ignored. Maybe there are courts and legislative bodies in a democratic system, who are supposed to rule on such things?
Oh yes, sure Snowden could refuse. And the Russian intelligence services will, out of the goodness of their hearts, just stop asking.
Any connections between Russia and Snowden may have been investigated, but the results would not have been made public. That can wait until a trial, at the very least. But again, Snowden didn't stand trial, he defected to Russia...
>"That is one BS argument... most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all."
That is one BS answer. Where did you see that the choice is between what the US have and "not at all".
>"And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services."
Nobody cares what you'd rather see. He did something that he believes was a right thing to do (many other people believe the same). He does not owe it to anyone to give himself up to rot the rest of his life in prison.
For some people it's indeed a better choice to "rot the rest of their life in prison" rather than defect to an enemy country, help them with their propaganda and intelligence gathering, and be at their mercy for the rest of their - probably not that long - life...
And no, for me it is no legitimate choice to selectively ignore laws if they don't suit someone. In a democracy there are well defined systems, which are of course imperfect, to adjudicate and modify those laws. Manning went through that system, and despite all the outrage at her treatment, she got out quite well. Much better than what Snowden might face if he irks Putin...
And that's the choices they make ( assuming they are in position to make it at all). I am not going to judge either.
>"she got out quite well..."
You do not know what she would do given a choice. Also she's been sentenced to 35 years. The only reason she's out is that Obama had commuted her sentence. Otherwise the life for her will be over.
So in other words, "the system" worked for Manning to some degree, right?
She wouldn't have gotten the pardon if she didn't have some legitimate claim to being a whistleblower.
Of course, a sentence of 35 years sounded ridiculous in her case, but there are legitimate ways to change those laws or ameliorate the consequences. And there is also an argument why disclosure of secrets should carry hefty prison terms, as it can result in casualties. Probably even did, in her case.
I'm not saying she is a terrible person or even that she deserved to be in prison for seven years. I'm just stating that her actions were clearly illegal and had a lot of unambigiously negative consequences. Same thing for Snowden, though he lost a lot of my sympathy by defecting to an enemy state...
May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you are in trouble. Ask Snowden or Manning for details.
Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences.
There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.
We're in the loop here, b/c from lukashenko's (as well as putin's, btw) point of view, *exactly the same* rules applies to journalists.
Which means that either you have to review you thoughts and change them, or you are fine with killing journalists and any other dissidents (who obviously "broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers"). You just can't bet on two sides of a coin.
"And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be -
then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification. "
I believe in the necessary secrecy of some state organisations - but only if they are trustworthy and play by the rules set by the democratic institutions.
And Snowden showed that they don't do this and cannot really be trusted. And he tried the proper way to report and it did not worked.
So he became: a whistleblower
And a hunted man by the law breaking agencies whose cimes he unveiled.
So why is your conclusion, there should be only consequences for him?
That is indeed some black and white thinking! The US executive is a whole lot more trustworthy than most others. In fact, your very prosperity and freedom depends on this truth to a larger degree than you might want to admit.
And it is not clear that Snowden tried "the proper way". He says so, but he doesn't want to prove that in court. Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services. And yes, he did defect and cooperate, the only question is what exactly he did (and still does) and how much of all of this was his intention.
The crimes Snowden committed, if any (it's not clear he could even be convicted), are absolutely legitimate. Publishing secrets you were sworn to keep secret has to be punishable. If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences.
On the other hand, protecting whistleblowers is essential for honest, transparent government, no matter their crimes. And the US simply does not do that, not even close.
Unfortunately, the crimes Snowden revealed may well not have seen the light of day without him, which suggests we don't have enough whistleblowers. And beyond that - even the bits of PRISM, XKeyscore and whatnot that were legal are simply not authorized by a democratically elected government; you cannot claim electoral legitimacy while keeping essential parts of your program not only secret, but even publicly paying lipservice to principles in opposition to your very own secret programs. To the extent various US administrations participated in creating these programs they thus necessarily acted without a democratic mandate; after all, they lied about it in public. That's not democracy; that's conspiracy.
Had the programs been discussed at least in general terms, or the quandaries of trading which freedoms exactly for security been acknowledged by the US government, you could make the argument that the technical details must remain secret, but the principal was supported by the electorate. But as is; the whole thing - up to and including the participating judiciary - is no more legitimate than any other stolen election won by lies, propaganda, and misdirection - the kind of principles the US clearly rejects (e.g. https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-free-and-fair-ele...).
I mean: I completely agree that likely snowden is a criminal. There's little reason to assume otherwise. However, that's kind of besides the point, isn't it? Much, much more important than any one criminal is the responsibility a government, especially one that claims to uphold the ideals of democracy to actually protect its subjects as it claims to. For a sense of scale - consider the fact that governments routinely accept the legality of war, despite the fact that it's essentially akin to accepting mass murder. And I'm not trying to make the case that extreme pacificm is the way to go; but rather the opposite - if we acknowledge that even some of the most serious of crimes are potentially acceptable in the defense of proper governance, then clearly, clearly mere whistleblowing should be a no-brainer, even if that means overriding normal laws.
So the question isn't whether Snowden is criminal, it's why is he criminal? I'd say the party at fault here is the democratically elected US government, not Snowden. The law on this matter is wrong, and should be fixed.
I don't disagree that Snowden had a better justification than most for his crimes.
Manning actually faced a trial, and the system even granted her some leniency. Snowden might have found leniency too, but he probably gave that up by defecting to an enemy state.
An enemy state that routinely commits worse crimes against its citizens, than the US has even been accused of. But in Russia, protection of Whistleblowers isn't even a subject worth talking about...
> While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is... perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious.
I'm glad you've declared this, I was worried that there was a moral component I had to think about.
If you contort any harder you might need to join the circus. Indeed your last sentence makes clear why you think this is no big deal (while the incident in TFA presumably is).
Yes, the fuel was a problem since they were were barred from going their intended route! They chose to land in Vienna??
Could Evo have landed in Basel? Could he have returned to Moscow?
Which airports could he have landed in?
To be clear; I'm not saying that the US pressure and European action were anything but petty. But you know; not all pettiness is equivalent to kidnapping a civilian plane.
Also, while I'm not willing to assume the best of intentions on the US's part; neither am I willing to assume them on Evo Morales's part. This grounding was in his interest - he had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I doubt he tried to prevent the confrontation, and he may well have even taken actions to enhance the appearance of victimhood - it's always nice, playing a victim; especially if you're not actually suffering any harm.
It's almost like a number of countries suddenly refused permission to travel through their airspace, making them need exact fuel measurements rather than relying on preflight planning.
How the pressure was applied is far less relevant than the intent behind it, and the accomplished results.
The how only matters to questions of legality, not questions of morality.
Yes, or no - should airplanes in flight be forced down so that third-party countries can make political arrests? The EU seems to think that the answer to that question is 'Yes'... As long as it's done by it, not to it.
But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It landed under some flimsy excuse about being unclear how much fuel they had. The plane could have simply flown around. It could have returned.
Planes carry only enough fuel to get to their destination, plus a little more.
If in the middle of the flight, you are told that you were surprise - banned from flying over multiple countries in your flight plan, you are forced to abort your flight and land, unless you want the plane to run out of fuel and crash in the middle of nowhere.
And again - this is a pointless semantics game. Yes or no - is messing with airplanes, in flight, in order to make political arrests acceptable behaviour? You seem to think so (As long as its done in some particular way.)
The only difference is that one of the two planes had more options for where it could land. Both had to land at somewhere other than their destination, though, unless the pilots wanted everyone on board to die.
I don't give a rat's ass if France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I am asking you if they should do that. Does that seem right to you?
The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic; it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. If Snowden had been on board they would indisputably have done so. The choice to land in Austria was a political decision.
The Dassault Falcon 900EX doesn't have enough range to get from Moscow to Bolivia. It might've had enough fuel to get across the Atlantic, but only if they were planning on refueling in the US or Canada after making a large deviation from the direct route. I think it's most likely they were planning on making a fuel stop somewhere in the old world and were carrying an amount of fuel commensurate with that.
edit: Yep, according to Portugal they initially requested a fuel stop in Lisbon before they were grounded. When they ultimately left Vienna they refueled at the Canary Islands.
Even Lisbon to La Paz is pushing it at 8670km. Their plane doesn't have winglets, so its range is max 8300km. Not sure if that's fully loaded or best-case scenario. Good thing they went to the Canary Islands.
A more plausible Portuguese refueling stop could have been the azores, those are sort of close to half-way between moscow and la paz, and both legs of that journey are well within the 900EX's range.
> The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic
Maybe to Canada or USA, but their presence over Austria was already inoptimal for that. I suspect they were planning on a european tech stop anyway.
The long range Dassault version with the extra winglet option can do 8800km. Moscow to La Paz is 12500. A stop in Lisbon would just barely let them make it direct to Bolivia. Otherwise they'd have to stop in Gander or NYC. Definitely not Miami.
What was their flight plan? I can guess why it was necessary to interrupt them while over landlocked Europe if they really wanted to search the plane. If you let them get to Portugal or Spain and then denied them landing/passage, they could always exit to Africa.
>it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia.
We can never really know if they legally could because we don't know if they would receive transit approval back over Austria's neighbours or just remain trapped in an obviously coordinated program to deny passage.
He may well have been heading to the Azores, which are in range to both La Paz and Moscow, and would explain the bits of the story about the Portuguese denying a refueling stop.
If Evo Morales wanted to fly back to Moscow, they would have requested clearance to return, and that would have been part of the scandal. He did not ask. Also, don't forget that being victimized by imperialist forces is pretty much exactly what Evo Morales wanted; it supports his political persona perfectly. And indeed, he used the incident to his political advantage. Incidentally: just because it's plausible this was a set up by Evo Morales doesn't diminish the impropriety of denying overflight; but it does mean I'm skeptical of all the speculation beyond that; it's just too convenient. Frankly, it's rather convenient that apparently American intelligence agencies thought Snowden was on the plane in the first place - and given Morales statements beforehand on national Russian TV, it's at least conceivable even that was an intentional misdirection.
I mean, make no mistake - the hounding of Snowden for exposing US hypocrisy is a travesty; and the lengths to which the US was willing to go to recapture him too. But just because the US actions were the opposite of noble does not somehow mean Evo Morales was entirely on the level.
What the pilot chose to do in the situation has no bearing on what France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain did, and whether they should have done it.
I will ask again - do you think it is appropriate for countries to disrupt third party, commercial air travel, in order to force travelers down into a jurisdiction where they can make political arrests? It's a very simple, yes, or no question.
Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board). Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest. So your simple question is not relevant to the situation.
You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent.
So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do?
Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn?
> (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board)
Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were.
> Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest
Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette?
[1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.
> I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent.
Why does it matter that the intent is the same? Victim of a crime obviously intends to punish the criminal, but there is much difference between taking the matter in one's own hands and relying on the justice system. Can't you see the difference?
> So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight?
You accused the GP of speculation, yet you're doing exactly that here. How do you know that Morales incident was to capture Snowden? It could have been just a political message to deter those who were thinking of harboring Snowden, especially if they weren't sure he was onboard. They weren't forced to land in Vienna. The plane could have come back to Russia. Perhaps they did what they did for their own PR game.
Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and we are good guys of course) and in another case it was them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun, it has always been like that, us vs them.
In Snowden case the plan weren't forced to land and was free to pick a different path. Ryanair's flight didn't have a choice. Belarus ignored all the convention and put passengers in danger. Not a big difference?
Passengers were in danger in a same way passengers are in danger over New York if pilot refuses ATC directions.
Yeah, Morales's pilot could choose a different path provided there's air refueling available. Otherwise it had to land somewhere, and then airplane was searched. I'm pretty sure there are conventions that forbid that kind behavior against diplomatic personal.
So, in the end, we are again at the same place - when we ignore conventions that's perfectly fine, and when they do the same it's a completely different.
btw read first article of Chicago convention, then check what sovereignty means.
According to Morales, no Viennese authorities boarded to plane, and in any case it's a bit of a moot point - after all Morales may well have cooperated well beyond what was required; after all, he had no reason to prevent transparency here, and indeed it's a PR win for his anti-imperialist cause if he can demonstrate the US and its allies are essentially bullies.
Assuming he intended to fly to the azores to refuel, he should have had enough fuel to fly back to Moscow too. The austrian air traffic control did not induce him to land; he chose to do so when portugal refused refueling rights and a small number of countries did not immediate grant permission to fly over their territory (but according to France, once it became clear it was Morales's plane they did, so... somebody is being economical with the truth there).
In any case, even without air refueling it would have been extremely unlikely that the 900EX only had enough fuel for the around 3000km to Vienna as opposed to the 8000km it could carry when the overall trip is around 15000km. Almost certainly Morales had his pick of airports to land at, including Moscow, Basel, perhaps Turkey or Egypt or who knows where.
There is clear evidence Morales' plane could not follow its original flight plan nor fly without any refueling all the way to La Paz; but there is no evidence he couldn't have chosen to avoid landing in the EU if he had wanted to. But... he didn't want to avoid that; he wanted to make the point that the US is imperialist.
And that's fine! I don't begrudge him that. But it's just an entirely different story to the Belarusian abduction of a journalist by temporarily kidnapping an entire civilian plane. Those aren't at all the same, and claims in this discussion thread to the contrary seem like strained attempts at whataboutism; presenting the US government as not just having its own flaws, but having equivalent flaws to Belarusian dictatorships' flaws. At that point, it seems like people are living in some kind of alternate reality they've imagined to suit their predetermined world view.
It surely was forced to land... somewhere. However, this plane is capable of crossing the Atlantic, and surely wasn't going to make unnecessary refueling stops. And indeed, they didn't make the implausible claim that they'd run out of fuel; they made the only slightly less implausible claim that they weren't sure of the fuel situation. And several European countries dispute the chain of events. The plane in question was a dassault falcon 900ex - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/fab-001 - that has a range of 8,340km; it would have needed only 1 refueling stop between moscow and la paz. The fact that portugal refused a refueling stop is perhaps relevant, because that stop may well have been planned for the azores - those are slightly further from Vienna than Moscow is; making the story about fuel yet more implausible.
Finally, consider the motivations of its owner - Evo Morales. While I have no objection to his political aims; it is nevertheless wise to consider that he does have political aims. And as it so happens, he's a populist, anti-imperialist, anti-US political leader. For him, seeking this confrontation would have been a pure win; and furthermore being seen as the victim of imperialist oppression would have been the cherry on top. As such, it's just not reasonable to assume that his actions were aimed to defuse the situation; if he could appear to be victimized by imperialist forces, that's to his benefit.
So it's entirely plausible for him to choose to land in Vienna instead of return. It's not very plausible fuel was running low. Additionally, there are about a dozen other countries very close by he could like have chosen to land in, even if fuel was scarce - he wasn't in some inescapable box.
What did happen was that countries caved to US pressure to deny even the possibility of snowden passing through their airspace.
While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is... perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious.
The fact that the plane even landed in Vienna at all might have been a (successful) PR stunt, since: An audio tape was subsequently released which appeared to be a recording of the flight crew requesting to land in Austria on the grounds they "could not get a correct indication" of their remaining fuel levels." - really? How convenient.
In any case it's nothing at all like the current case, except that it involved planes landing where they weren't originally headed for, due to political interference. Of course; superficial resemblances might be enough in the battlefield that is public perception.
Edit: and if you read some of the other perceptions here e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03... - this all sounds like a rather convenient storm in a tea-cup. Given the convenience to Evo Morales, it all looks rather suspicious.