Has Pandora’s Box been opened?
Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian General Staff, reasserted Russia’s right to strike terrorists anywhere in the world.
“As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases, we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world,” Baluyevsky told reporters.
Baluyevsky made his comments during a joint news conference with NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, Gen. James Jones, after talks on Russia-NATO military cooperation, including anti-terror cooperation.
European Union officials reacted cautiously to Baluyevsky’s comments, with spokeswoman Emma Udwin saying she could not be sure whether they represented Russian government policy.
Taken to the extreme, imagine Bassajev or his AQ allies are rumored to be training militants in the rebel-controlled sections of Iraq (or elsewhere in the ME). Would Putin try to bomb the suspected camps? Or a more likely scenario, would he simply level whole regions in Chechnya? What are the limits of this position and on what grounds would the US try to stop them?
Or a more likely scenario, would he simply level whole regions in Chechnya? What are the limits of this position and on what grounds would the US try to stop them?
On what moral ground would the US try to stop them? This is, after all, the new world order – no accountability, and no rule of international law as long as it can be justified as in the interest of the nation involved in the security action. Russia could simply point at the 12,000 or so Iraqi civilian deaths and say “This is what you are willing to do in order to protect your security.”
Hard to argue with.
Hard to argue with.
It wasn’t before the Bush Doctrine was put into action. Then a little thing called International Law helped keep such rhetoric in check. That and the shared sense that strikes on sovereign nations are best pre-approved by the UN Security Council.
“This is, after all, the new world order – no accountability, and no rule of international law as long as it can be justified as in the interest of the nation involved in the security action.”
“It wasn’t before the Bush Doctrine was put into action. Then a little thing called International Law helped keep such rhetoric in check. That and the shared sense that strikes on sovereign nations are best pre-approved by the UN Security Council.”
Excuse me? International law stopped what? The Security Council did what? Back to history class for you both. Please feel free to research the following: China–The Cultural Revolution, China–Tibet, USSR–the gulag, USSR–freaking Eastern Europe, Cambodia–The Khmer Rouge, the undead state of North Korea and its constant torture of its inhabitants, Rwanda, the Sudan right this very second.
Arghhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Oh, speaking of invading soveriegn nations I heard that international law didn’t stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan either.
Sorry Seb, lost you in some static there. What was your point? We were speculating on what moral justification could be used to prevent Russia from unilateral action in violation of international law, and somehow the Chinese Cultural Revolution got mentioned.
Oh, speaking of invading soveriegn nations I heard that international law didn’t stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan either.
Is your point that because the USSR broke international law, then there is no purpose to accountability?
Yeah Sebastian…the question was whether it was “hard to argue with,” not whether International Law would actually stop it.
We justified the Bush Doctrine in the face of International Law. That same justification could be used by Russia now and we’d have no moral leg to stand on in arguing with them about it.
None of this has anything to do with what nations will decide to do on their own. And it’s probably about time to stop equating Russia with the Soviet Union. Just a thought.
I’m not saying that the USSR=Russia. I’m saying that big countries do what they want. International law is far more fiction than fact. The don’t need US justification for anything. If we had not invaded Iraq, that wouldn’t change the Putin/Chechenya situation one iota.
See also, economic stability pact and the EU. Enforced against Italy and Spain, ignored by Germany and France.
I’m saying that big countries do what they want.
Governments that value international co-operation, diplomacy, stability and who fear the results of political isolation do not do what they want without being concerned about the consequences.
Do you think that there are perhaps some negative side effects to ignoring the opinion of the majority of the world regarding the US’ activities in Iraq?
If there were still close and cordial relations with the EU, do you think that there might be a little bit more influence in the politics of Russia/Iran/the Koreas, etc, etc?
“If there were still close and cordial relations with the EU, do you think that there might be a little bit more influence in the politics of Russia/Iran/the Koreas”
Nope, see what happened under Clinton–unless you don’t think we had more close and cordial relations then? Korea gained nuclear weapons then. Iran had a nuclear program and was being helped by the Russians then. Russia was killing Chechens then.
So perhaps you should ask yourself why you believe the answer would be yes.
So perhaps you should ask yourself why you believe the answer would be yes.
Mostly because Iran is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons, which probably has a less than desirable effect on US foreign policy, yet the US is incapable of mounting a significant military threat because it’s a bit tied up in Iraq, and no-one will lift a (military) finger to help. I imagine that if alliances were in place, Iran would be less willing to thumb their noses at the US.
Yeah, nice one, Sebastian.
Except most of those examples are irrelevant. The conversation is about nations striking other sovereign nations, and how the UNSC could work to restrain them: we’re not talking about how the UNSC should make everywhere in the world a shiny happy place.
Now, let’s go through your list:
Please feel free to research the following: China–The Cultural Revolution –
Chinese killing other Chinese in China. Tragic, but irrelevant to the Security Council.
China–Tibet. OK, I’ll grant you that one.
USSR–the gulag – At its height in the 1930s, before UN was founded. In any case, Sovs killing (mostly) other Sovs in the USSR. Tragic but irrelevant.
USSR–freaking Eastern Europe – which they invaded in 1944-5. Again, before the United Nations was operational.
Cambodia–The Khmer Rouge – Cambodians killing other Cambodians in Cambodia.
the undead state of North Korea and its constant torture of its inhabitants – North Koreans killing other North Koreans in North Korea. Tragic, but irrelevant. (Don’t forget it was the UN that stopped them taking over South Korea as well.)
Rwanda – Rwandans killing other Rwandans in Rwanda. Tragic but irrelevant.
the Sudan right this very second. Sudanese killing other Sudanese in the Sudan. Tragic but irrelevant.
So, your argument is “The UNSC is utterly worthless because it didn’t stop China invading Tibet.”
True, that was a grievous inaction. But consider this. In the 19th century, basically every country in the entire world came under attack and/or occupation by another sovereign nation. Compared to that, the UN seems to have done pretty well.