> when we discover that the UN is fundamentally compromised and corrupt and is no longer fit for purpose?
> when we realise that Britain’s leaders willfully place international law above British sovereignty and Britain’s real interests, because they signed the country up to making supra-national governance
> when it becomes obvious that unelected, non-sovereign individuals and corporations have assumed powers that they are not entitled to - and that they mean to do grievous harm to individual freedoms and property rights?
Lastly…….war schmaw, there has not been an unequivocally just war since the Falklands in 1982.
All wars - and actions - since have been initiated for national interests not sovereign territory…….often on spurious, manufactured grounds.
Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine you name it - have all been about ‘interests’ hardly any of which have pertained to the citizens of those countries.
The nature of war has changed as well. Kinetic wars in places such as these are ‘tolerable’ - whereas other wars are framed in different dynamics: economic, cyber, societal destabilization and political corruption.
The world has been fracturing into large pieces - like a satsuma orange.
Trump decided that US interests were not served by continued tolerance of Venezuela being colonized by US’s enemies and used as a base for hostile activity.
We should expect more of these nebulous proxy wars US vs China vs Russia vs globalists…….common people will not be party to the angles involved.
The best we can hope for is the preservation of individual nations and the freedoms of individuals.
Britain and EU stand on the cusp of dissolution…….fortunately though, they have no hard power…..and are led by weak, corrupt and depraved fools.
Though largely ineffectual due to the veto gridlock of the permanent members, corruption you say, the Security Council used to be an essential forum for conflict management during the Cold War and beyond. It was a bully pit from which to embarrass your adversaries.
Perhaps the greatest moment of the Security Council was the dramatic days of October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis where the US and Soviet UN Ambassadors, Adlai Stevenson and Valerian Zorin, squared off against each other while the world intensely watched on.
For institutions to function, they need buy-in from their members – particularly the important members. The UN is irrelevant now because the members have largely disrespected it since the end of the Cold War, and also continue to disrespect the Charter which was written to ensure the horrors of WW2 would never be suffered again.
Despite its flaws, the Security Council has had some other great moments:-
UNSC Resolutions 82, 83 and 84, approved intervention in the Korea in 1950 to contain Sino-Soviet Agression (this, however, was only possible because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council for seven months in 1950 in protest at Taipei holding China's permanent seat). The people of South Korea live in freedom today away from the tender mercies of the Kim Dynasty.
In 1991 UNSC Resolution 678 authorised the building up of a US led international coalition to expel Saddam from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Resolution 678, of course, did not authorise interference in the internal sovereignty of Iraq, which was a particularly sensitive issue for Security Council members like China, who called for restraint and diplomatic negotiations after the war, respecting the international legal framework. As such the Bush 1 Administration resisted temptation to topple Saddam's regime, and was constrained by international law, and liberated a UN member - Kuwait.
Nato played a significant role in the road to Dayton by bringing the Serbs to heel in BiH via Operation Deny Flight and Operation Deliberate Force, which was authorised by 5 UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSC 781; 816; 836; 958 and 1031). As someone who lived through those desperate times, Dayton was one of the great achievements of post Cold War diplomacy.
Perhaps the last dramatic moment to take place at the UN Security Council was February 5, 2003, where the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell failed to persuade members that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 concealing his WMD program. After this moment it is fair to say that the Security Council ceased to be of any importance, and is a largely redundant body - at least as regards its current structure. It is, of course, capable of reform but has been largely abandoned by the United States. Its role now is to pass resolutions, agreed by the members, to mop the messes made by one or more member - long after the event has passed.
The UN Security Council had one final swansong. UNSCR 1973 passed in response to the first Libyan Civil War, with Russia abstaining, to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011. Operation Unified Protector reversed Col. Gaddafi's attack on Benghazi and enabled the rebels to seize the initiative resulting in the collapse of the regime, which was greeted with horror in Moscow. They say Putin played and replayed and replayed a recording of the final moments of Gaddafi's death, which had a profound effect. This resulted in 18 vetoes cast by the Russian Federation at the UN Security Council during the Syrian crisis, from the beginning of the conflict in 2011.
We all know Putin sleeps in his bed with one eye open.
P.S. I don't think anyone has any interests at all in Somalia
Resolution ES-11/1 General Assembly March 2nd 2022 deplored the invasion, demanded an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces, and condemned the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Resolution ES-11/2 General Assembly March 24rd 2022 called for protection for civilians, medical personnel, and humanitarian workers, as well as safe passage for those fleeing the war
Resolution ES-11/3 General Assembly April 7th 2022 suspended Russia's membership in the UN Human Rights Council
Resolution ES-11/4: General Assembly October 12th 2022 declared Russia's constitutional annexation of 4 Ukrainian Oblasts (a fiction) as illegal and invalid in international law
Resolution ES-11/5 General Assembly November 14th 2022 approved war reparations for Ukraine and created an International Register of Damage to document claims of loss or injury
Talk shop, maybe, but all of these things are going to eventually come back to bite Russia in the ass.
"...corrupt and depraved fools" describe Trump and his friends perfectly 👍
If Britain and Europe (not just the EU) told US forces to leave I'd be more than happy for this.
The US forces needs Europe more than Europe needs the US. It is a staging ground for operations, and to remove that makes it very much harder for them to operate.
How on earth can you call Trump corrupt, when the Democrats have overseen apocalyptic corruption on a barely imaginable scale - including electoral fraud, and usurpation of the presidential duties whilst Biden was ga-ga?
Secondly, why does US needs ‘to ‘operate’ in Europe. NATO is now a war-mongering organisation - US should leave it.
I have no issue at all with President Trump’s actions, but there is little doubt that it was both illegal and unconstitutional in domestic law, and illegal under international law: I certainly haven’t seen any serious legal commentary to the contrary.
Nevertheless, as Kissinger once said ‘The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a bit longer’.
Law of the jungle is not how the World used to work, or at least not since 1945. There used to be things like post-War institutions and alliances, which acted as checks and balances, which have now either eroded into obscurity, or are in the process of degradation.
These institutions had the power to embarrass or actively constrain powers from foreign adventures and the post-War world was not unique in history. Indeed concepts of containment, collective responsibility; respect; legitimacy and sovereignty, as well as equilibrium and multinational co-operation have been around since Metternich's time.
In our own time, or that of our parents and grandparents, the United States has played a global role since the end of the Second World War. After the Washington Treaty in 1949 it became primus inter pares in a Western alliance built to contain the Soviets.
US ambitions in the ashes of the Second World War was to dismantle European colonial empires in a strategic balance to both achieve economic liberalization via mechanisms like Bretton Woods, but also to try and ensure that Communism and Soviet expansion was contained from expansion into former colonies. As such the 'Western' consensus worked as a partnership: the United States won the argument on decolonisation, but equally the European powers sat at the Nato table as equals - some more equal than others.
The Nato alliance worked as a means of tempering and constraining the awesome power of the United States by seeking a consensus approach to tackle Sino-Soviet expansion. In return the US was not merely a local regional power, but the deference of its allies as first amongst equals made the US a global super power and gave it a unique leadership role in the 'free world', so-called. The US was, and is, a great power with great reach because it is the US and its allies. It is something less without its allies, but freer from the constraint that its allies impose.
The Western alliance was but one leg in the stool of the post-war architecture that constrained the US. The other legs were the emergence of multilateral bodies, the most important being the UN. Dialogue with ideological competitors was publicly exercised within the United Nations Security Council, with the Great Powers (largely the victors of the Second World War) sitting as permanent members, exercising a power of veto to constrain adventurism by any single party.
The Security Council and General Assembly, in enforcing the UN Charter constrained not just the US and its allies, but competitors too. The Charter was a sword for some and a shield for others.
This day the UK is NOT the country of Palmerston and Disraeli - this is screamingly obvious to everyone. At that time Great Britain was a great Empire, growing ever larger, and the World's greatest power. Those days are long gone and since 1945 the UK, shorn of Empire, has hitched its wagon to the US juggernaut as junior partner-in-chief and head interlocutor between Washington and 'Europe'. The problem now is that the 'Special Relationship' itself is pretty redundant in the new Trumpian World. What role is there for London if Washington is an isolationist power, concerned only with its own hemisphere? With the alliance gone, article 5 binned, Great Britain is merely another item on the menu unless it can get its act together.
In the 1950s France and Germany, shorn of Empire, put their eggs into the basket of pooled sovereignty via the EU. The UK proved a cuckoo in this nest and for now the Starmer Government seeks to keep a foothold in both camps. Wither shall we go?????
Ideology and outlook seems to be an important glue that holds alliances together, and international systems in place. Since 1945 Western values commitment to democracy and rule of law, grounded in upholding the Charter, has been the bond that has held the Nato alliance together. There is, however, a new emerging ideology - that of illiberalism and democratic backsliding taking shape. Wither shall we go?????
Well said. European leaders miss another opportunity to get on the right side of the future. The countries will continue to be museums and their power will be limited to the type of cuisine served.
As some apocryphal law professor supposedly said:
"International law doesn't exist, but it's fun to talk about it."
Yes, very much concur.
We have to ask ourselves what happens:
> when we discover that the UN is fundamentally compromised and corrupt and is no longer fit for purpose?
> when we realise that Britain’s leaders willfully place international law above British sovereignty and Britain’s real interests, because they signed the country up to making supra-national governance
> when it becomes obvious that unelected, non-sovereign individuals and corporations have assumed powers that they are not entitled to - and that they mean to do grievous harm to individual freedoms and property rights?
Lastly…….war schmaw, there has not been an unequivocally just war since the Falklands in 1982.
All wars - and actions - since have been initiated for national interests not sovereign territory…….often on spurious, manufactured grounds.
Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine you name it - have all been about ‘interests’ hardly any of which have pertained to the citizens of those countries.
The nature of war has changed as well. Kinetic wars in places such as these are ‘tolerable’ - whereas other wars are framed in different dynamics: economic, cyber, societal destabilization and political corruption.
The world has been fracturing into large pieces - like a satsuma orange.
Trump decided that US interests were not served by continued tolerance of Venezuela being colonized by US’s enemies and used as a base for hostile activity.
We should expect more of these nebulous proxy wars US vs China vs Russia vs globalists…….common people will not be party to the angles involved.
The best we can hope for is the preservation of individual nations and the freedoms of individuals.
Britain and EU stand on the cusp of dissolution…….fortunately though, they have no hard power…..and are led by weak, corrupt and depraved fools.
They cannot win.
Though largely ineffectual due to the veto gridlock of the permanent members, corruption you say, the Security Council used to be an essential forum for conflict management during the Cold War and beyond. It was a bully pit from which to embarrass your adversaries.
Perhaps the greatest moment of the Security Council was the dramatic days of October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis where the US and Soviet UN Ambassadors, Adlai Stevenson and Valerian Zorin, squared off against each other while the world intensely watched on.
For institutions to function, they need buy-in from their members – particularly the important members. The UN is irrelevant now because the members have largely disrespected it since the end of the Cold War, and also continue to disrespect the Charter which was written to ensure the horrors of WW2 would never be suffered again.
Despite its flaws, the Security Council has had some other great moments:-
UNSC Resolutions 82, 83 and 84, approved intervention in the Korea in 1950 to contain Sino-Soviet Agression (this, however, was only possible because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council for seven months in 1950 in protest at Taipei holding China's permanent seat). The people of South Korea live in freedom today away from the tender mercies of the Kim Dynasty.
In 1991 UNSC Resolution 678 authorised the building up of a US led international coalition to expel Saddam from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Resolution 678, of course, did not authorise interference in the internal sovereignty of Iraq, which was a particularly sensitive issue for Security Council members like China, who called for restraint and diplomatic negotiations after the war, respecting the international legal framework. As such the Bush 1 Administration resisted temptation to topple Saddam's regime, and was constrained by international law, and liberated a UN member - Kuwait.
Nato played a significant role in the road to Dayton by bringing the Serbs to heel in BiH via Operation Deny Flight and Operation Deliberate Force, which was authorised by 5 UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSC 781; 816; 836; 958 and 1031). As someone who lived through those desperate times, Dayton was one of the great achievements of post Cold War diplomacy.
Perhaps the last dramatic moment to take place at the UN Security Council was February 5, 2003, where the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell failed to persuade members that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 concealing his WMD program. After this moment it is fair to say that the Security Council ceased to be of any importance, and is a largely redundant body - at least as regards its current structure. It is, of course, capable of reform but has been largely abandoned by the United States. Its role now is to pass resolutions, agreed by the members, to mop the messes made by one or more member - long after the event has passed.
The UN Security Council had one final swansong. UNSCR 1973 passed in response to the first Libyan Civil War, with Russia abstaining, to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011. Operation Unified Protector reversed Col. Gaddafi's attack on Benghazi and enabled the rebels to seize the initiative resulting in the collapse of the regime, which was greeted with horror in Moscow. They say Putin played and replayed and replayed a recording of the final moments of Gaddafi's death, which had a profound effect. This resulted in 18 vetoes cast by the Russian Federation at the UN Security Council during the Syrian crisis, from the beginning of the conflict in 2011.
We all know Putin sleeps in his bed with one eye open.
P.S. I don't think anyone has any interests at all in Somalia
…….and of course NOBODY at the UN has made ANY attempt to develop a peaceful settlement in Ukraine……
……this is all that is needed to prove that the conflict is a globalist’s proxy war. One that will be dragged on and on……
Resolution ES-11/1 General Assembly March 2nd 2022 deplored the invasion, demanded an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces, and condemned the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Resolution ES-11/2 General Assembly March 24rd 2022 called for protection for civilians, medical personnel, and humanitarian workers, as well as safe passage for those fleeing the war
Resolution ES-11/3 General Assembly April 7th 2022 suspended Russia's membership in the UN Human Rights Council
Resolution ES-11/4: General Assembly October 12th 2022 declared Russia's constitutional annexation of 4 Ukrainian Oblasts (a fiction) as illegal and invalid in international law
Resolution ES-11/5 General Assembly November 14th 2022 approved war reparations for Ukraine and created an International Register of Damage to document claims of loss or injury
Talk shop, maybe, but all of these things are going to eventually come back to bite Russia in the ass.
"...corrupt and depraved fools" describe Trump and his friends perfectly 👍
If Britain and Europe (not just the EU) told US forces to leave I'd be more than happy for this.
The US forces needs Europe more than Europe needs the US. It is a staging ground for operations, and to remove that makes it very much harder for them to operate.
Utter BS.
How on earth can you call Trump corrupt, when the Democrats have overseen apocalyptic corruption on a barely imaginable scale - including electoral fraud, and usurpation of the presidential duties whilst Biden was ga-ga?
Secondly, why does US needs ‘to ‘operate’ in Europe. NATO is now a war-mongering organisation - US should leave it.
Lols - thanks for your input - but you're correct in one thing (at the moment) - the US should leave.
Stick to Scaleyback stuff……you’re clearly uninformed about US politics.
Lols again - thanks for your input again - maybe you should find your favourite picture of Trump and toss yourself off over it - again
It took you 5 days to come up with that….?!?
😂😂😂😂
I have no issue at all with President Trump’s actions, but there is little doubt that it was both illegal and unconstitutional in domestic law, and illegal under international law: I certainly haven’t seen any serious legal commentary to the contrary.
Nevertheless, as Kissinger once said ‘The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a bit longer’.
Law of the jungle is not how the World used to work, or at least not since 1945. There used to be things like post-War institutions and alliances, which acted as checks and balances, which have now either eroded into obscurity, or are in the process of degradation.
These institutions had the power to embarrass or actively constrain powers from foreign adventures and the post-War world was not unique in history. Indeed concepts of containment, collective responsibility; respect; legitimacy and sovereignty, as well as equilibrium and multinational co-operation have been around since Metternich's time.
In our own time, or that of our parents and grandparents, the United States has played a global role since the end of the Second World War. After the Washington Treaty in 1949 it became primus inter pares in a Western alliance built to contain the Soviets.
US ambitions in the ashes of the Second World War was to dismantle European colonial empires in a strategic balance to both achieve economic liberalization via mechanisms like Bretton Woods, but also to try and ensure that Communism and Soviet expansion was contained from expansion into former colonies. As such the 'Western' consensus worked as a partnership: the United States won the argument on decolonisation, but equally the European powers sat at the Nato table as equals - some more equal than others.
The Nato alliance worked as a means of tempering and constraining the awesome power of the United States by seeking a consensus approach to tackle Sino-Soviet expansion. In return the US was not merely a local regional power, but the deference of its allies as first amongst equals made the US a global super power and gave it a unique leadership role in the 'free world', so-called. The US was, and is, a great power with great reach because it is the US and its allies. It is something less without its allies, but freer from the constraint that its allies impose.
The Western alliance was but one leg in the stool of the post-war architecture that constrained the US. The other legs were the emergence of multilateral bodies, the most important being the UN. Dialogue with ideological competitors was publicly exercised within the United Nations Security Council, with the Great Powers (largely the victors of the Second World War) sitting as permanent members, exercising a power of veto to constrain adventurism by any single party.
The Security Council and General Assembly, in enforcing the UN Charter constrained not just the US and its allies, but competitors too. The Charter was a sword for some and a shield for others.
This day the UK is NOT the country of Palmerston and Disraeli - this is screamingly obvious to everyone. At that time Great Britain was a great Empire, growing ever larger, and the World's greatest power. Those days are long gone and since 1945 the UK, shorn of Empire, has hitched its wagon to the US juggernaut as junior partner-in-chief and head interlocutor between Washington and 'Europe'. The problem now is that the 'Special Relationship' itself is pretty redundant in the new Trumpian World. What role is there for London if Washington is an isolationist power, concerned only with its own hemisphere? With the alliance gone, article 5 binned, Great Britain is merely another item on the menu unless it can get its act together.
In the 1950s France and Germany, shorn of Empire, put their eggs into the basket of pooled sovereignty via the EU. The UK proved a cuckoo in this nest and for now the Starmer Government seeks to keep a foothold in both camps. Wither shall we go?????
Ideology and outlook seems to be an important glue that holds alliances together, and international systems in place. Since 1945 Western values commitment to democracy and rule of law, grounded in upholding the Charter, has been the bond that has held the Nato alliance together. There is, however, a new emerging ideology - that of illiberalism and democratic backsliding taking shape. Wither shall we go?????
A good analogy for International Law is the League of Nations - both founded on idealism and bound to fail in the real world
Well said. European leaders miss another opportunity to get on the right side of the future. The countries will continue to be museums and their power will be limited to the type of cuisine served.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pimmfox/p/swipe-left-on-the-world?r=56rog&utm_medium=ios
Well said!
Chaps, stop it please! Just move on.
So you agree, there was no effort to look into Russia’s genuine grievances and develop a proper diplomatic settlement.