SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
this can't be F**king happening...Rules-based order? What the F**k is Blinken talking about? The US makes its own rules. Sometimes the hypocrisy of the US government, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, is just too much to let pass. The latest example of this is the Ukraine crisis, where the US pretty much stands all alone (unless you count Britain’s embattled and embarrassed Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who parrots US policy like a trained bird), accusing Russia not just of preparing for an “imminent invasion’ of Ukraine, but of violating international law and “rules-based international order,” as Secretary of State Antony Blinken likes to put it. The Biden administration’s top diplomat has made repeatedly blasted both Russia for threatening Ukraine with an invasion by moving troops and equipment to its border and to the border between Ukraine and Belarus, Russia’s ally to the west, and China for its threats to Taiwan and for a rights crackdown in Hong Kong, a Chinese Special Administrative Region that had been promised 30 years or “no change” but was put under new stricter national security laws following violent student protests and university occupations in 2019-20. But how can the US make such accusations against the Russians and the Chinese governments when the US for nearly eight years, has been bombing, launching rocket and drone attacks, and sending troops, under both CIA and Pentagon control, against both ISIS and Syrian government troops and aircraft — even attacking and killing Russian mercenary troops at one point, who, unlike the US, were in Syria at the request of the Syrian government. US military actions in Syria are completely outside of any “rules-based international order.” International rules, when it comes to warfare, are crystal clear, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which is an international treaty signed and ratified by the US government along with most other nations of the world and incorporating all the laws of war. The primary law, violation of which is described as the gravest war crime of all “because it contains with in it all other war crimes.” Called a Crime Against Peace, it states that no nation may attack another except if that nation faces an “imminent threat” of attack. There are no codicils expanding on or getting around that proscription. The US has committed that Crime Against Peace countless times, in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Haiti, in the Dominican Republic, in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, in Cuba, in Niger, in the Congo, in Panama, in Grenada — indeed in so many places I’m sure I’m not remembering them all. Suffice to say that my whole life (I was born in 1949), my country has been a violator of the UN Charter’s ban on launching illegal wars. Rules-based order? What the F**k is Blinken talking about? The US makes its own rules. In fact, whenever the US launches some illegal invasion or air attack against a country, the biggest complaint we hear in the US is that the president has ordered up and launched a war “without Congressional approval” The implication is that if Congressional approves an illegal war or act of war, that makes it legit. It doesn’t. What makes it worse when the US makes such accusations against Russia and China is that it is accusing two countries which, as objectionable as their actions or threats might be, at least have a better argument for their legality than does the US. Let’s start with China. The government in Beijing stands accused by Blinken and the US government under a series of presidents, with threatening Taiwan, an island that historically was a part of China, but became functionally independent in 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party won its revolution on the mainland, founding the People’s Republic of China, and the remnants of the Nationalist Party and its army fled to Taiwan, murdering tens of thousands of local Taiwanese and Hakka Chinese people, and establishing a brutal dictatorship under Nationalist leader and major domo Chiang Kai-Shek. China has never acknowledged the independence of Taiwan, which for 50 years prior to the end of World War II had been a colony of Japan, a spoil of victory in the China-Japan War won by Japan against the Ching dynasty in 1895. The US initially recognized Taiwan, after the Chinese Communist revolutionary victory in 1949, as an independent country, but Richard Nixon, in a slick realpolitik maneuver masterminded by his National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in order to recognize China and drive a wedge between that country and the Soviet Union, agreed to cease recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, removed the US embassy from the island, and set one up in Beijing. In other words, at that point, from the US point of view at least, Taiwan’s status became an internal affair of China’s, not an international affair. The same applies to the Chinese crackdown on rights in Hong Kong. Since July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be a British colony and reverted to being part of China. Now it’s true there were negotiations between the Beijing government and the departing British government. During those years of transition, Hong Kong’s appointed colonial Governor Chris Patten, former head of the British Conservative Party, carefully avoided allowing Hong Kongers to obtain long-sought universal suffrage to elect all members of the territory’s legislative council, Legco, before the British departure (a move which would at least have left the Beijing facing a local government that actually represented all the people of Hong Kong, instead of Legco representatives representing various business sectors like banking, the legal profession, the retail industry, property owners, etc). China agreed during those negotiations to gradually increase the number of Legco members elected from geographic constituencies, and to leave basic freedoms of speech, press, etc. untouched “for 30 years.” But when students rose up to protest the arrests of Hong Kong residents and their deportation to face trials in China, it set in motion a confrontation between democracy advocates in Hong Kong and authoritarians in Beijing, and ultimately to a new Beijing-imposed national security law for Hong Kong that has turned the city into essentially just another bit of China. But again, while it was certainly a draconian over-reaction to legitimate local protests, that action by China is not a violation of international law — just violation of an agreement between a departing (and loathed) colonial power, a legacy of the European Opium War against China, and a new vastly more powerful China. It’s a bit like the US’s brutal crackdown on immigrants at the Mexican border or on Native defenders of water rights in North Dakota. Disgusting, and perhaps criminal under US law, but hardly a violation of some kind of “rules-based international order.” As for Russia, even the plebiscite in Crimea, some 97% of the population there voted that they wanted to leave Ukraine and return to being part of Russia, as the peninsula had been until 1954, when new Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, as a gift to the region where he had grown up, transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet to the Ukrainian Soviet, which the US has criticized as somehow fraudulent (Crimea is about 85% ethnic Russian). With 85% of eligible people voting, that plebiscite provided Russia with the justification for reclaiming jurisdiction over Crimea. Russia’s action, criticized by the US as “aggression,” is less of a violation of democratic norms though than the massive disenfranchisement of blacks and other people of color in Republican-run “red” states of the US — a process that is now being accelerated to warp speed with the approach of the 2022 off-year Congressional elections. If the Biden administration really cared about justice and democracy it would be laser-focused on defending voter rights, not on shipping deadly weapons to Ukraine. If the US government cared about following a “rules-based international order,” the it would pull all US military forces out of Syria, pull the US Navy out of the Persian Gulf, stop using drones to kill people in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, stop sending US Special Forces wherever the president wants to send them, and rejoin the World Court and respect its adjudication of violations of international rules and laws. Then we wouldn’t have to listen to all the hypocritical crap uttered by Biden, Blinken and their ilk. Someday, I’m sure there will come a reckoning, when US leaders will finally be held to account for their long record of crimes against humanity. Until then, we will have to endure all this epic hypocrisy.
|
User login |
a “new era” ...
By James O’Neill
On fourth of February 2022 an important meeting took place in Beijing., China between the leader of China Xi Jin Ping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Putin was in China at Xi’s invitation to attend the opening of the Winter Olympics. The reason for his visit however, went far beyond celebrating the opening of a major sporting occasion. The two men signed a series of economic and political agreements that strengthened the already close ties between the two Asian neighbours.
One of the most important agreements signed that day was for a 30-year deal with which Russia agreed to supply China with gas, to be delivered via a new pipeline built for the occasion. In one of the most important signals in the signing of the deal, the two men agreed that China would pay for the gas in Euros. It signalled another break from the United States dollar whose importance in international trade has been steadily declining.
Following the meeting, the Chinese and Russian governments issued a joint statement that ran to more than 5000 words in length. The statement declared a “new era” under which the two men proposed a new international political model, one that was designed to leave behind the United States dominated unipolar world.
“The world is going through momentous changes and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation” the joint statement declared. In this “new era” China and Russia and their allies in the global South were determined to build a different system from that which the United States and its Western allies had dominated for so long.
Russia and China made it abundantly clear that they foresaw a new world order. The alternative they were proposing “condemned the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other states for geopolitical purposes.” Instead, the two countries sought to establish “a just multipolar system of international relations.” They called on NATO to “abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, and to respect the sovereignty, security and interest of other countries.”
The two powers made it clear that they oppose the obvious United States ploy to overthrow the government of both countries and replace it with a system of government that would not challenge the United States desire to rule the world. The Americans have made no secret of their ambitions in this regard. In 2021 the Atlantic Council, which functions as a think tank for the western United States alliance, published a document called The Longer Telegram, an obvious reference to The Long Telegram published many years earlier by George Keenan, a man known for his hatred of both the Russian and Chinese system of government.
The 2021 document declared that President Xi must be replaced and for Beijing to “conclude that it is in China’s best interests to continue cooperating within the United States led liberal international order rather than building a rival order.” The arrogance of the United States demands is breathtaking. The Atlantic Council undoubtedly reflects the views held in Washington.
The Russian and Chinese governments are undoubtedly aware of these views. The joint statement they released on fourth February may be interpreted as their response to the incredible hubris being shown by the Americans. The joint statement made the disagreement with the United States view abundantly clear. The two leaders instead called “for the establishment of a new kind of relationship between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation.” The contrast between the two worldviews could not be starker.
Their joint statement requested de-escalation of global tensions, of which the extraordinary US behaviour in and around Ukraine is the current best example of unilateral single mindedness. The joint statement instead emphasised “the need for cooperation, not confrontation.” The West should be under no illusions however, of the determination and ability of the two great Asian powers to defend themselves, should the Americans be crazy enough to actually mount an attack on either or both of them.
Their joint statement made it abundantly clear that Washington’s policies of unilateralism and interference in the affairs of others had to end. That part of the statement is worth quoting:
“Some actors representing but the minority of the international scale continue to advocate unilateral approaches to address international issues and resorted to force; they interfere in the internal affairs of other states, infringing their legitimate rights and interests, and incite contradictory differences and confrontation, thus the development and progress of mankind, against the opposition from the international community.”
There is no doubt that the Russian and Chinese view is widely shared in the so-called South. Just taking those countries that have signed up to the Chinese inspired Belt and Road Initiative as one example, its co-signees now represent nearly three quarters of the worlds countries, and an even greater share of the world’s population.
Another important part of the joint statement referred to the need
“to protect the United Nations driven international architecture in the international law based world order, seek genuine multipolarity within the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and continuing role.”
The declaration used the phrase “the international law-based world order.” It is an important emphasis to draw attention to. The United States and its Western allies have for some time been attempting to substitute the international law-based order with its own much vaguer and self-serving phrase of a so-called “rules based international order.” This is a system the United States and its allies have been seeking to impose on the world for some time. It is dangerous and must be opposed.
There is infact only one international system in the world and it has the United Nations at its core. That system is one of international order and is the one underpinned by international law. The United Nations Charter is the central document governing relations between nations. The so-called rules based international order is in attempt to replace international law with the dictum of a small group of countries who have an obvious motive in undermining international law.
In the past, the rules based international order has been an excuse for intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations, being continually used by the United States government to justify its intervention in the sovereign affairs of states. The joint statement issued by the Chinese and Russian governments firmly rejects the United States version of international law. Theycondemned the “abuse of democratic values interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights”. Besides urging other countries to accept the United Nations as the proper vehicle for the resolution of international disputes, both China and Russia made it clear that they are not waiting for things to happen.
Instead, the aim is to “comprehensively strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and to further enhance its role in shaping a polycentric world order based on the universally recognised principles of international multilateralism, equal, just, indivisible, comprehension and sustainable security.”
The two men clearly see the future in cooperation and unity between the BRI, the Greater Eurasian Economic Partnership and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It is one of the main vehicles for promoting greater connectivity between the Asia Pacific and the Eurasian regions.
After the meeting, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a statement summarising the main points of the meeting. The Chinese statement read:
“the two sides have taken an active part in the reform and development of the global governance system, following true multilateralism safeguards and the true spirit of democracy and served as a bulwark in mobilising global solidarity at these trying times and upholding international fairness and justice.”
The overall message emerging from the Chinese and Russian meeting spells out clearly that the old order is dead. The world was now in a new era with an international order based on multi polarity and the fundamental principle but no State should ever interfere in the affairs of another State.
It is not a message that will be well received in western capitals, especially Washington that for 70 years has written rough shod over the world in pursuit of his own interests. China and Russia have made it clear that in their view that era has long ended. The world for the first time in a very long time has a clear alternative. The majority have made their choice. It is unlikely that United States will except that reality.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
READ FROM TOP.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
unfortunately...
The cartoon by Cathy Wilcox in today's (16/02/2022) SMH misses the point. All along Vladimir Putin said Russia had no intention to invade Ukraine. And this was the point that the Western media refused to see.
Even the Ukrainian president made a US$500 million pledge to "keep the skies opened" above Ukraine to keep commercial airlines flying. Analyse this. If Zelensky thought that Russia was about to invade Ukraine, he would not have made this pledge which placed airliners at risk. May be it was Zelensky's aim to make sure commercial airlines would end up as a protecting shield above Ukraine, but don't believe this for a minute. It takes five minutes to divert a plane — and Russia could have given 30 minutes for any commercial airliners to disappear from the skies of Ukraine, should Russia be about to "invade Ukraine".
Russia has terminated the exercises on its own soil and armies have returned to bases, but its navy is still on high alert as US submarines are taunting the bear in Russian territorial waters...
Now this is a dumb cartoon... It misses the crux of the matter: NATO BELLIGERENCE:
wilcox
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW......