That's not an anecdote... though it may, possibly, be an aphorism.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Serbia
Griz, let me post this for you again. From paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document:
"we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."
There it is... a document signed by nearly all heads of state at the UN where everyone affirmed that they will take military action if necessary to prevent genocide carried out by a country's own government. Not sure why you couldn't just click the link before and this has dragged on so long, but there you go.
You've told me there are rules, and I showed you how those rules are not rules, because they are only followed when convenient, and there is no punishment if they're violated. Call it what you will, but I call that anarchy, or the lack of rules. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, and for some reason you don't seem to understand what everyone else does. "While the three classic schools of thought in international relations theory and their neo-counterparts (Realism, Neorealism, Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Constructivism) agree that the world system is anarchic..."
No use yelling past each other in a “look at my link!” war…you do you.
Last edited:
Exactly! And did the UN get involved there? Yes, they did. As I have noted throughout, there are rules and they are followed by most civilized nations.
My god…don’t even joke about WWIII ?
So the UN did something once, and your conclusion is the international community is rules-based, even though I've pointed to many many instances where nothing was done?
You know, you might be on to something, though. It's not often everyone in a field agrees on something the way international relations experts agree the international system is anarchic. That means there is room for you to start your own theory and maybe get something new published.. maybe even name it after yourself.
I’m not trying to change your mind, it appears to already be closed. But you haven’t named an instance where “nothing was done.” You just keep referencing “genocide.”
Damn tractor seat
I haven't named an instance where nothing was done, but I referenced genocide?! What are you smoking? How about nothing was done over the genocides in China and Africa? Is genocide not one of the international no-no's? That's literally why I keep mentioning genocide... Are you trolling?
How about the military coups overthrowing elected governments we've seen recently? How about our repeated disregard for the sovereignty of other (weaker) countries? Or our overthrowing of legitimate foreign governments in South America? Or our invasion of Iraq because we suspected they had WMDs? All things I mentioned already. I could list 100 more, but I don't suspect it will matter.
But something was done. The U.S. called for a UN investigation and the UN Human Rights Commission voted against it, as I noted earlier, for economic reasons. Even then the US and allies in Canada, Britain and the European Union placed sanctions on several Chinese officials alleged to have links to what U.S. officials say is a genocidal campaign against Uyghur Muslims. In fact, recent sanctions are expected to put a dent in EV battery production. Did the UN fail…yes they did. Did the UN try…yes they did. There is no unilateral overlord at the UN to force action so the rules are followed and in this case they let the world down. Even then, however, independent nations applied sanctions and continue to leave heavily on China.
As for Africa, the UN has deployed peacekeepers about 26 times to slow or stop conflict that often leads to genocide. Currently there are six on-going UN PKF missions in Africa. Recently there have been five coups in Africa and the UN has tried to respond to each but has been blocked by either China or Russia - a failure in the system we both agree upon - but individual nations have responded including the US.
As for Iraq, I clearly remember the US envoys sitting in front of the UN presenting WMD information and intelligence…in keeping with the rules. Sure, it is easy to look back and scream….”It was all a lie!” but that can be said about any faulty intelligence (and there has been plenty).
As for Central America, with the exception of JFK, each military (or clandestine action) was preceded by a signed presidential finding as required by the Hughes–Ryan Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 and based on….ready for it…internationally known and accepted rules of armed conflict. Even before 1974 US leaders followed a rules-based approach to conflict. When Panamanians rioted against U.S. control of the Panama Canal Zone, Johnson dealt firmly with the violence, but after it ended, he agreed to negotiations that eventually culminated in the return of the Canal Zone to Panama in 1999. Even in what many consider to be LBJs greatest hemispheric error, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, he was quick to replace US troops with those of the Organization of American States. Perhaps the “dirtiest” US move in Central America, the 1973 U.S. supported coup in Chile, is harder to know as much of it remains classified (likely to protect the “guilty”) but is worth noting that the result was so messy that Hughes-Ryan act was put in place to make sure the “rules” are followed.
The world is not the free-for-all orgy of nation-state violence where the strong do what they do to the weak. That said, each nation has an obligation to look after their own best interests within the structure of accepted international law. I’m not arguing that mistakes have never been made, I am simply noting that most international actions are based in some legal and moral rationale. That said, I’ll leave the group with a simple graphic to support my argument…the number of deaths from conflict over contemporary times - looks like the rules are working to me.
So... by your comments I gather you understand that:
-In China, the "rules" were not upheld because the UN is broken.
-In Africa, the "rules" were not upheld because the UN is broken.
-In Iraq, the UN said Iraq must allow inspectors in, but never authorized any sort of war, which we subsequently carried out unilaterally.
-in SA, you claim we followed a rules-based approach because our president unilaterally signed a document saying it was ok. I'm sure Putin did that with Ukraine, too. That doesn't mean we get carte blanche "legally" to overthrow foreign governments because we don't like their current one.
So, if the rules are repeatedly broken and not enforced, how do you consider them rules the world lives by?
You say that each nation has an obligation to stay within international law. Says who? Who obligates them? Who smacks them if they don't? The UN? Unless you know something every international relations student and expert knows, there is no higher international authority than the nation-state. They answer to nobody, except the more powerful nations that might smack them if they do something they don't like. Any "legal and moral rationale" is just how the leaders justify the actions to the public and other states. They are not bound by any higher power to do anything by any legal code.
Lastly, your graphic is one of the worst non sequiturs I think I've ever seen. The fact that fewer people have died in war since WW2 is absolutely not because of the UN or whatever "rules based order" you think it represents. It is because the largest, most powerful countries have nukes, and aren't stupid, with a few smaller contributing factors like globalization. That is obvious to anyone who has studied this stuff for even a minute, which I know you have. I'm baffled.
Not sure what you expected given that the Russians had months to prepare for the eventual attack. Perhaps the greatest modern example of a defense in depth designed to attrite attacking armor is only 400 kilometers ENE from Kiev - the 80th anniversary was this summer.
In the context of the last few centuries of Russian history, what makes Putin’s actions insane in comparison?
As a sidenote, one of the items that I think being overlooked is the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline and the effect on Europe’s economy in general and Germany’s in particular. That cheap natural gas provided both electricity and the feedstocks for the petrochemical industries. Without it, how much will Central Europe de-industrialize?
Perhaps AMBD can expound upon the cost differential between the previous piped natural gas and the LNG that Germany will receive.
