Extraditing Snowden to one of the Bolivarian countries may badly hurt American interests

Four members of the Bolivarian Alliance, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua have offered asylum to the National Security Agency (NSA) leaker, Edward Snowden.

Snowden is believed to be in Russia where he has repeatedly asked for asylum that has not been conceded by the Russian authorities. Meanwhile, Snowden has not responded to the offer by the four Latin American countries. At the same time that the United States was applying pressure on them not to provide the requested asylum, the South American common market (Mercosur) adopted a resolution in support of Venezuela‘s, Bolivia’s and Ecuador’s right to provide asylum to Snowden while rejecting American pressure on these countries not to do so.

The Snowden case has had an impact not just because of the sense that the U.S. is bullying these Latin American countries not to accept Snowden but also because of the espionage activities that the NSA carried out in the continent.

It is important to stress a few important points. If any of these four Latin American countries consent to harbor Snowden, it would constitute a geo-political danger more serious than if the Russians had taken him.

These four countries have an anti-American ideology and resent the fact that Latin American countries were targets of American surveillance. The blocking of Bolivian president, Evo Morales’ plane in Europe, which was forced to land and subsequently inspected amid suspicions that the aircraft might have carried Mr. Snowden, constituted an additional humiliation for these countries. Despite the apologies presented by France, Italy, Spain and Portugal for denying their airspace to Morales, the fact cannot be denied that Morales is viewed as a thug. (Mainly because he has behaved like one).

Indeed the countries of the Bolivarian alliance have developed a relation with overt enemies of the United States that include the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the drug cartels and the nuclear ambitious and arch-terrorist Islamic Republic of Iran. Spying on these countries makes an awful lot of sense even if it sounds ugly to many abroad and here in the United States.

Another important point to stress is that Snowden’s actions are not motivated merely by a libertarian principle or the defense of privacy and civil rights. Without negating the legitimacy of the discussion about the scope and limits of surveillance on private citizens, it is important to point out that Snowden is an ideologue that views national security considerations as unacceptable. Nothing reflects this point more clearly than the interview Snowden gave to the German magazine, Der Spiegel. In that interview,  Snowden discloses Israeli-American cooperation on the Stuxnet computer virus aimed through cybernetic means to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. Likewise, Snowden disclosed American cyber-intelligence activities, particularly against China. He also spoke about numerous other activities aimed at countering China’s cyber-warfare capabilities. In another statement he pointed out that “individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring”.

One has to ask why trying to prevent China’s humongous systematic cyber-espionage program on the United States is in any way wrong. Isn’t it legitimate for a country to resort to these methods in order to try to prevent such activity aimed against it? How exactly is preventing Iran from becoming nuclear a crime against peace? Isn’t it the opposite?  Given Snowden’s choices of possible refuge, it is ironic that he may end up in a country like Russia, Ecuador or Venezuela that are systematic violators of human rights and do not allow their courts to even apply true justice but sacrifice the law in the name of politics or ideology.

Based on my observations Snowden dismisses national security considerations as “crimes”.

Although John Inglis, the deputy director of the NSA, told the House Judiciary Committee that “it’s too soon to tell whether, in fact, adversaries will take great note of the things that (Snowden has) disclosed,” I believe that if Snowden is given asylum and goes to one of the Bolivarian countries, Iran may have access to sensitive information. This could be a serious setback to efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Likewise, China is a political ally of these countries and Snowden may provide sensitive information to this aggressive Asian superpower, that is if he has not already done so.

But this is not the end. Just a few days ago, Panama seized a North Korean-flagged ship that had set sail from Cuba carrying military cargo and ballistic missiles. Although it is not clear what this cargo contained, we know that the captain of the crew attempted to commit suicide and that Cuba cooperated with North Korea to transport undeclared weapons hidden under bags of sugar (the main Cuban national product).

This is more of a reason to consider the region as an area where dangerous activities take place and where those who seek to harm the United States may find in Snowden a great asset. Preventing the asylum of Snowden in one of these countries is definitely a matter of national security.