Snowden’s Worst-Case Scenario: What if No Countries Take Him?

  • Share
  • Read Later
The Guardian / Getty Images

Edward Snowden, the U.S. leaker who’s been holed up so long inside the transit zone of a Moscow airport that reporters and pundits are drawing comparisons to The Terminal, the 2004 comedy-drama starring Tom Hanks, wants out.

After Russia insisted that Snowden could stay only on the condition that he muzzled himself and stopped “harming” the U.S, the whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks announced on July 2 that Snowden filed 21 requests for asylum around the world, signaling his intent to find a more permanent home.

It’s an interesting list (below, which we’ll update as more country statements come in). But after just mere hours, more than half the countries responded. Some gave a flat-out “no” (Brazil, India, Poland) while others said Snowden would have to physically walk onto their soil in order to properly file (Ecuador, Ireland, Norway). The rest are taking their time to reply.

Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of international refugee law at Oxford University and former legal adviser to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, says politics is the dominant factor in Snowden’s case. International law allows him to apply anywhere he wants, but it’s up to individual countries to accept him. Many of those he has reportedly approached have existing bilateral extradition treaties with the U.S.; others may simply not want to sour ties with Washington by sheltering a fugitive whistle-blower.

They may also be hung up on his status. Snowden is a U.S. citizen but now refers to himself as “stateless” since the U.S. revoked his passport. “There may be some confusion here, even amongst the states themselves, about whether this is an issue of refugee status or an issue of asylum,” Goodwin-Gill says. “They may as well find it actually convenient to confuse these two because it is politically embarrassing.” Don’t be surprised, then, if a number of countries stall on making a decision.

That means Snowden’s best choice for asylum is a country that’s prepared to ruffle American feathers, like Ecuador. Last week, the South American country renounced its trade pact with the U.S. because the agreement had become “a new instrument of blackmail” involving Snowden’s fate after he requested asylum there. Yet Ecuador President Rafael Correa later said helping Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong to Moscow was a “mistake.”

So until someone takes him, he’s at the behest of Russian authorities. “A transit zone is, of course, always part of the territory of the state in which it’s placed. It’s a myth that it is somehow not part of the state. It’s very often the case that states will establish these transit zones in order to reduce the legal rights and entitlements of individuals in transit,” says Goodwin-Gill. “All states play these little games with jurisdiction.”

Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, an international-law professor at Cornell Law School, thinks Snowden will be in Moscow “for a long time.” But, he says, Snowden may find help in Article 28 of the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status Refugees, which specifically requests that member states give “sympathetic consideration” to those who can’t obtain the necessary documents from their home country.

As the you’re-not-welcomes stack up, here’s his worst-case scenario. “The Russian Federation could expel him since he is currently in the transit area without a valid travel document. They could expel him back to the country that he came from,” says Douglas McNabb, an international-criminal-defense attorney who specializes in global extradition. That’s Hong Kong, the Chinese Special Administrative Region where Snowden originally sought aid after leaking a trove of NSA surveillance documents.

In March, the High Court in Hong Kong ordered its government to establish review procedures for asylum applications. That’s not yet in place, meaning that applicants can stay there indefinitely until that process is set up and they’re accepted or denied. But that would place Snowden in Hong Kong illegally and, for two reasons, not bode well for him. Hypothetically, McNabb says, Hong Kong authorities could grab him after he disembarks but before he has the opportunity to apply for asylum, then hand him over to the U.S. as a courtesy. Alternatively, if Moscow expelled him back to where he came from last, then Hong Kong could do the same, which would theoretically put him back in the U.S.

“If I were representing him, I would suggest that he submit more asylum requests,” McNabb adds, on the assumption that Snowden wouldn’t heed his advice to first return to the U.S. “I would blanket the world.”

The List (So Far)
Austria: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Austrian soil, said Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner.

Bolivia: Will consider. “If there were a request, of course we would be willing to debate and consider the idea,” said President Evo Morales.

Brazil: No. Brazil will not grant asylum to Snowden and will leave the request unanswered, according to a Ministry of External Relations spokesman.

China: No official response. China does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S.

Cuba: No official response.

Ecuador: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Ecuadorian soil, President Correa told the Guardian. Ecuador, which shelters WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in its London embassy, was previously considered a prime destination for Snowden, but Correa’s government has since backtracked on its support.

Finland: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Finnish soil, said Jorma Vuorio, director general for the migration department of the Interior Ministry.

France: No official response.

Germany: No official response, but Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has been quoted as saying he “could not imagine” the request will be approved.

Iceland: No official response.

India: No. “Following careful examination we have concluded that we see no reason to accede to the Snowden request,” Syed Akbaruddin, a spokesman for the Ministry of External Affairs, said on Twitter.

Italy: No official response.

Ireland: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Irish soil, according to a spokesman for the Department of Justice and Equality.

The Netherlands: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Dutch soil, said Security and Justice State Secretary Fred Teeven.

Nicaragua: No official response.

Norway: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Norwegian soil, according to Deputy Justice Secretary Paal Loenseth.

Poland: No. Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the request did not meet formal application requirements. “Even if it did, I will not give a positive recommendation,” he said.

Russia: Snowden withdrew his request for asylum after President Vladimir Putin said asylum was possible only on the condition that Snowden stop releasing U.S. secrets. Russia does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S.

Spain: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Spanish soil, Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo told reporters in the Spanish parliament.

Switzerland: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Swiss soil, said Valentina Anufrieva of the Swiss embassy in Moscow. Switzerland does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S.

Venezuela: Will consider. President Nicolás Maduro, visiting Moscow this week, says his country has not received a request for asylum, but he said Snowden “deserves protection under international and humanitarian law.”

— With reporting by Jacob Davidson / New York City

526 comments
DanSlaby
DanSlaby

The real benefactors of Snowden's disclosures are the criminal hackers who will be able to circumvent NSA monitoring of their efforts to access financial and corporate trade information; the whole whistleblower cover will be exposed as a fraud as the consequences of Snowden's actions and blackmail of US security unravels. Snowden did a snow job on human rights advocates because espionage is not a protected human right. Snowden admitted he intentionally sought employment as a contractor of NSA to access and steal NSA information. I cannot view him as nothing more than a crook and traitor.

StevenBelsky
StevenBelsky

__ IF __ he is a whistle blower (to me it means "informing the public about things that a group of

  people   do (COMPANY, ORGANIZATION) that (A) puts them in danger of serious injury / bleeding,

    (B) harms health (smoking, carcinogens). (C) infringes on privacy, (D) in-dangers civil liberties)

THEN he 1. NOT BE PROSECUTED AS A CRIMINAL __ BUT __ 2. SHOULD BE IS A SECURE 

SITUATION SO THAT OUR ENEMIES CAN NOT USE HIS KNOWLEDGE TO HURT US.


My suggestion   see  https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-belsky/the-second-amendment-__-must-__-be-repealed/10151494390217864

FIND    "SPECIAL GUEST"

SORRY ABOUT FORMATTING   I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS WRONG.

klynn
klynn

Snowden may not end up anywhere except back here in the US. After the comments he made against the Obama administration, it'll be interesting to see which of those countries will actually grant asylum. Anyway, I was searching around for more info on this case, and stumbled on this early recap: http://www.asecurelife.com/nsa-data-mining-prism-snowden  I guess we'll see how it all unfolds.

Sibir_Russia
Sibir_Russia

Snowden human rights activist. In the United States systematically violate human rights.
The death penalty violates him right to life. He cannot return home. His passport is not valid.

NizarAhemmed
NizarAhemmed

USA doing ass drilling job, Snowden can left to North Korea

ApollosLair
ApollosLair

its simple, if no one takes him, Holder and Obama will have him killed or put away at Gitmo forever...3 meals a day, free internet and plenty of wood for woodshop....

Overview
Overview

Snowdon has a place to go...Leavenworth. Since when is it okay for an a "trusted" individual to divulge America's secrets. You may wish that we had no secrets - that everything is transparent. That is just not the way reality works. He's nothing more than a criminal or as one wag put it, "Just another 30 year old who thinks he knows more than everyone else."

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

Darn liberal should've kept his mouth shut! Just like all these liberal fktards! MURICA!

MatrixRealty
MatrixRealty

@TIME @TIMEWorld Government security issues are complex, beyond the grasp of a 30 yr old. He needs to be made an eg of. Don't mess with USA!

MatrixRealty
MatrixRealty

@TIME @TIMEWorld without applying consequential thinking, he broke the fundamental pact of employment confidentiality & must face the music.

GCL1
GCL1

They've basically handed all of Latin America to Snowden on a platter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/bolivian-president-morales-latin-america

The smart thing for Russia and China to do now (along with Bolivia) is to internationalize this incident (which is what Putin would have wanted in the first place), and move some kind of motion in the UN, and make Snowden less toxic in the global community's eyes; even the UN General Secretary has shamefully taken sides on this matter and made unsolicited, inappropriate, and less than even-handed statements about an individual and over a matter he has no direct knowledge of, presumably under US pressure and persuasion. The US government and administration have completely dictated the narrative on this story, and that must first be changed; Evo Morales's forced airplane detour, detention, and security check provides Snowden supporters an excellent opportunity to do exactly that.

rcgaard
rcgaard

they were looking for astronaughts to go to mars , with no return....a perfect candidate 

JonathanAgo
JonathanAgo

curious, why he didn't go to switzerland...

BarbaraJean777
BarbaraJean777

@TIME Snowden, a man without a country. Poor traitor. He would be better off coming to USA and face the piper.

jim_l
jim_l

People who use the logic that if you have nothing to hide so who cares are being very ignorant to the past and to the future. What is an accepted more and norm today may be heresy, unethical, and possibly criminal in the future. 

The Paula Dean fiasco is a current example. What she said 30 or so years ago in the South was considered the norm by many in her circle of peers. I am sure many Southerners used the 'N' word in the past, freely and openly! Today though, three or four decades later, her once acceptable language is now considered an act of hate. She has now been fired and lost multiple revenue streams, for something she did at a time when it was not so bad to do. Times changed (and rightfully so).

Think of you own life. Imagine something you champion today, say Pro-Choice or Pro-fracking. Maybe you've even written a comment or two in blog posts, here at Time, or sent a few emails discussing the 1% or freeloading Welfare Queens. Fast forward thirty or so years and now some of the topics you discussed and were not afraid to be identified with have become  taboo and maybe even illegal: "Only evil people are Pro-Choice" or "It is treasonous American's who support contaminating our Countries greatest natural resource: water."

What will you have to say then when some corporate government agency starts combing the database looking to "out" the rebellious supporters of <-Insert Cause Here-> and one of your ancient correspondence is discovered. Maybe the revelation costs you a job, a promotion, or you are denied a student loan because your parents once questioned the government's audacity for charging Apple for price fixing eBooks. Maybe, just maybe it is worse and you are arrested and you and your family are sent to the ghettos - for life.

If you do not think it COULD happen, you do not know history; because it has happened in the past and it can happen again in the future. Heck, it is probably already happening to some degree today! 

Times change. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. If you support the government collecting and storing billions of conversations, emails, texts, for indeterminate amounts of time, you better hope that times turn out for the better!

DanSlaby
DanSlaby

@Annette_Valmont @TIME @TIMEWorld Snowden is another Lee Harvey Oswald; this time his benefactors are cyber criminals seeking to access your bank account - invite him into your purse. Snowden has done a snow job on human rights advocates with his cover-up whistleblower ruse.

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

"Beyond the grasp of a 30 yr old." LOLOLOLOL so everyone he worked with was 50+? Exactly at what age does one understand the "complex" issues of government security? Go back to playing bingo and watching fox news gramps! :)

JorgeEngel
JorgeEngel

@jim_l

First, the Paula Deen case is not about her using the racially insensitive language, it's about her and her brother creating a hostile work environment for employees by being physically and mentally abusive. The reports are she was video taped doing so.  Her contract was not renewed with the Food Network and she lost her sponsors because her public image is no longer profitable. 

Second, yes you are correct that social norms change as time goes.  Slavery, prostitution and opium use was the norm many years ago and is now illegal.  However, if the blogging becomes illegal tomorrow, we won't become criminals.  Laws need to go through the regular process and public will be made aware. As for anything that happens in the past, the statue of limitations protects individuals.  


Third, the electronic surveillance doesn't monitor your conversations or emails word for word.  It searches for keywords and tries to make connection with those suspected/related to terrorist activities.  To purge through the trillions upon trillions of data to understand every minute detail just wouldn't be possible. 

Fourth, per the Patriot Act, the data is used solely for ant-terrorism activity. 

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

There is only one MURICA!! South of course. But not too south or else you start running into those smelly wutbacks!! MURICA!!

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

You're right though, don't mess with MURICA!

JorgeEngel
JorgeEngel

@joseferna @BarbaraJean777 @TIME
The U.S. government did not break any laws. The surveillance program was legal under the Patriot Act. 

cszell
cszell

@JorgeEnglish @jim_l Such an NSA program can let a cabal of people blackmail senators and judges, and they can slowly subvert the democratic process.

 The thing stopping further use of the data, as Snowden said, is policy, not law, and policies can be changed easily.

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

Just realized gcl is the only one who took me seriously. Good eye grayvy! Although my green skin is more dry than oily ;)

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

I love how you mates think I'm serious. I'm the "typical conservative", pretty good eh? Lol happy 4th brother(s)

Kinggrayiv
Kinggrayiv

@GCL1 @MuricanBob  

GCL...Just because you can't see the bridge he lives under, doesn't mean you shouldn't recognise him for what he is. notice the oily green skin... just saying...

JorgeEngel
JorgeEngel

@AndrewReece@JorgeEnglish@cszell@BarbaraJean777@TIME
If you live in an apartment complex I'm sure you signed a lease.  Within that lease I'm sure there's clause stating that you have responsibilities for the rented unit and activities conducted within that said unit. If you burn the apartment down or flood your area, the owners of complex can come to you for damages. Third Party companies can be search as part of the Patriot Act  within the guidelines of discovering terrorist activities.

Also, as I responded to your previous post, the surveillance program does not go through your e-mails or phone conversations for all details. It's not the same as investigators breaking into someone's home and searching through someone's basement.  If you send a patent for a time machine, unless there are details for a time machine that will blow up Kansas, under the Patriot Act that information is of no use.  Picture all the time and resources needed to weed through every bit of and comprehend summarized details.  It would be impossible. Instead keywords searches are used to make connections.

I understand your concern.  Nobody likes eavesdroppers and nobody wants unintended recipients to read one's e-mail. However this is more like looking up "appendectomy" in an index, as oppose to reading an entire medical textbook. 

AndrewReece
AndrewReece

@JorgeEnglish @cszell @BarbaraJean777 @TIME I live in a 'Third Party' apartment complex, I don't own the apartment, but still expect a warrant if someone to search or seize anything of my belongings.  My emails and my phone convos are my intellectual properties, I expect a warrant for the Feds to search those as well.  If someone suspects that I committed a crime,  they can get a flipping warrant...it's not that hard...simple as that.

JorgeEngel
JorgeEngel

@cszell@JorgeEnglish@BarbaraJean777@TIME
Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

E-mails and other electronic messages are transmitted through third party means.. unless you own the internet servers..you don't own what's on them. 

Patriot Act also allows for searches of business records and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups