Madam President, ladies and gentlemen,
The speeches delivered during the general discussion at this session of the UN General Assembly confirm the fact that international relations are going through a very complex and contradictory historical stage.
Today, we are witnesses to a collision of two opposing trends. On the one hand, the polycentric principles of the world order are growing stronger and new economic growth centres are taking shape. We can see nations striving to preserve their sovereignty and to choose the development models that are consistent with their ethnic, cultural and religious identity. On the other hand, we see the desire of a number of Western states to retain their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders” and to slow down the irreversible move toward multipolarity that is objectively taking place. To this end, anything goes, up to and including political blackmail, economic pressure and brute force.
Such illegal actions devalue international law, which lies at the foundation of the postwar world order. We hear loud statements not only calling into question the legal force of international treaties, but asserting the priority of self-serving unilateral approaches over resolutions adopted by the UN.
We are witnessing the rise of militant revisionism with regard to the modern international legal system. The basic principles of the Middle East settlement process, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme, commitments under the World Trade Organisation, the multilateral climate agreement, and much more are under attack.
Our Western colleagues seek to replace the rule of law in international affairs with some “rules-based order.” These rules, which are made up as political expediency dictates, are a clear case of double standards. Unjustified accusations of interference in the domestic affairs of particular countries are made while simultaneously engaging in an open campaign to undermine and topple democratically elected governments. They seek to draw certain countries into military alliances built to suit their own needs, against the will of the people of those countries, while threatening other states with punishment for exercising freedom of choice in their partners and allies.
The aggressive attacks on international institutions are accompanied by attempts to “privatise” their secretarial structures and grant them the rights of intergovernmental bodies so that they can be manipulated.
The shrinking space for constructive international cooperation, the escalation of confrontation, the rise in general unpredictability, and the significant increase in the risk of spontaneous conflicts – all have an impact on the activities of this world organisation.
The international community has to pay a high price for the selfish ambitions of a narrow group of countries. Collective mechanisms of responding to common security challenges are faltering. Diplomacy, negotiation and compromise are being replaced with dictates and unilateral exterritorial sanctions enacted without the consent of the UN Security Council. Such measures that already affect dozens of countries are not only illegal but also ineffective, as demonstrated by the more than half-century US embargo of Cuba that is denounced by the entire international community.
But history does not teach the same lesson twice. Attempts to pass verdicts without trial or investigation continue unabated. Some of our Western colleagues who want to assign blame are content to rely on assertions in the vein of the notorious “highly likely.” We have already been through this. We remember well how many times false pretexts were used to justify interventions and wars, like in Yugoslavia in 1999, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.
Now the same methods are being used against Syria. On April 14, it was subjected to missile strikes carried out under an absolutely falsified pretext, several hours before international inspectors were supposed to arrive at the site of the staged incident. Let the terrorists and their patrons be warned that any further provocations involving the use of chemical weapons would be unacceptable.
The conflict in Syria has already lasted for seven years. The failed attempt to use extremists to change the regime from the outside nearly led to the country’s collapse and the emergence of a terrorist caliphate in its place.
Russia’s bold action in response to the request of the Syrian Government, backed diplomatically by the Astana process, helped prevent this destructive scenario. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, initiated by Russia, Iran and Turkey last January, created the conditions for a political settlement in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. The intra-Syrian Constitutional Committee is being established in Geneva on precisely this basis. Rebuilding ruined infrastructure to enable millions of refugees to return home as soon as possible is on the agenda. Assistance in resolving these challenges for the benefit of all Syrians, without any double standards, should become a priority for international efforts and the activities of UN agencies.
For all the challenges posed by Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, it would be unacceptable to ignore the protracted Palestinian problem. Its fair resolution is critical to improving the situation in the entire Middle East. I would like to warn politicians against unilateral approaches and attempts to monopolise the peace process. Today, the consolidation of international efforts in the interests of resuming talks on the basis of UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative is more in demand than ever before. We are doing everything to facilitate this, including in the format of the Middle East Quartet and in cooperation with the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Mutually acceptable agreements should ensure the peaceful and safe co-existence of the two states – Israel and Palestine.
Here in the UN that was built on the lessons of World War II we are all obliged to think about the future and not repeating the mistakes of the past. This year is the 80th anniversary of the Munich conspiracy that crowned the criminal appeasement of the Third Reich and serves as a sad example of the disastrous consequences that can result from national egotism, disregard for international law and seeking solutions at the expense of others.
Regrettably, today in many countries the anti-Nazi vaccine has not only weakened, there is a growing campaign to rewrite history and whitewash war criminals and their accomplices. We consider sacrilegious the struggle against monuments to the liberators of Europe, which is going on in some countries. We are calling on UN members to support a draft resolution of the UN General Assembly denouncing the glorification of Nazis.
The growth of radical nationalism and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, where criminals who fought under SS banners are glorified as heroes, is one of the main factors of the protracted domestic conflict in Ukraine. The only way to end it is consistent and faithful implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures that was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. We support the activities of the OSCE mission in Ukraine and are ready to provide UN protection for its members. However, instead of fulfilling the Minsk agreements and engaging in dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, Kiev still entertains the illusion of introducing an occupying force in Donbass, with the support from the West, and increasingly threatens its opponents with scenarios based on force. The patrons of the current Ukrainian authorities should compel them to think straight and end the blockade of Donbass and discrimination against national minorities throughout Ukraine.
In Kosovo, the international military presence under UN Security Council mandate is morphing into a US base. Kosovo armed forces are being created, while agreements reached by Belgrade and Pristina with EU mediation are being disregarded. Russia calls on the sides to engage in dialogue in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1244 and will support any solution which is acceptable to Serbia.
In general, we are against turning the Balkans once again into an arena of confrontation or anyone claiming it as a foothold, against forcing the people of the Balkan nations to make a false choice or creating new dividing lines in the region.
An equal and undivided security architecture also needs to be created in other parts of the world, including the Asia Pacific Region. We welcome the positive developments around the Korean Peninsula, which are following the logic of the Russian-Chinese roadmap. It is important to encourage the process with further steps by both sides toward a middle ground and incentivise the practical realisation of important agreements between Pyongyang and Seoul through the Security Council. We will keep working to put in place a multilateral process as soon as possible, so that we can build a durable mechanism of peace and security in Northeast Asia.
Denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula is among the challenges facing the world community in the key area of international security – the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, serious obstacles continue to pile up on that road. Lack of progress in ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and in establishing a WMD-free zone in the Middle East has been compounded by the unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA in violation of Resolution 2231, despite the fact that Iran is fully in compliance. We will do everything to preserve the UNSC-approved deal.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is being pushed in an increasingly negative direction as the West attempts to turn its Technical Secretariat into a tool for punishing undesirable governments. This threatens to undermine the independent professional status of that organisation and the universal nature of the CWC, as well as the exclusive prerogative of the UN Security Council.
These and other issues related to non-proliferation were discussed in detail at the September 26 Security Council meeting, convened by the US chair not a moment too soon.
We are convinced that any problems and concerns in international affairs should be addressed through substantive dialogue. If there are questions or criticisms, what is needed is to sit down and talk, produce facts, listen to opposing arguments, and seek to find a balance of interests.
To be continued…
I found that Mr. Lavrov´s speech was made in a hurry ( may be so as to not occupy more than the possible reglamentary 15 minutes allowed for each representative…and to not abuse of others´time and patience…) and so, it lacked what would be convenient pauses and changes in intonation….which would had been worth by the important things he was saying…..
Anyway, the way he made his speech, along with the absence of Mr. Putin, who obviously deemed much more important te meeting with with CIS counterparts at Dushanbe, makes me realize that Russia has no much more hopes placed in the role of the UN as body to avoid arbitrariness and injustice in the world, or, as larger and ultimate goal, to avoid global confrontation, since some countries have turned this international unique forum into a circus to, one more time, spread their lies and menaces to the four winds, and to that end, they widely abuse of other´s time and patience, only you have to see the unpunctual appearance of the POTUS, and the ridiculously long speech by Netanyahu where he even confessed illegal activities by Israeli agents on Iranian soil ( such is his impression of impunity…), both abundant in the same lies and threats of the last years….To bore a dead person…
By what reflects the Russian MFA Twitter account, it seems to me that the RF values more this forum of the UNGA to have the opportunity to meet the unending list of representatives of world countries who would wish to meet them or ultimate agreements with them in the sidelines of the manin event than the opportunity to make a speech in itself….since what Mr. Lavrov said, in no way differs from what representatives of the RF have said in the last years at every opportunity…..
NathalieM, you make a very good observation about Lavrov’s demeanor and delivery.
What I observe is this was a “marker” speech. The RF noted each and every “issue” the UN should address, though realizing that entity is powerless to do anything. The real threat to the peaceful hopes of the world come to the UNSC, not the UNGA.
But Lavrov warns that the Hegemon (unnamed but duly indicated in the speech) has run ramshackle over International laws and the 70+ years of post-WWII agreed upon Rule of Law. The US and EU are trying to create their own new set of rules, ex post facto to protect their greed and global ambitions.
He brought clear charges against the Western nations and branded Ukraine in particular for its nazi-worship actions and laws.
Considering the audience, time restraints, the purpose of the speech and Lavrov’s high intellect and reputation, we cannot expect more from this event. (This is a general assembly of bozos, diplomats in name only, for scores of nations). He provided milestones for diplomatic work. He indicated how Russia was moving and offered the invitation for any and all to join in solving all the issues, especially the flashpoint issues.
In other words, he delivered a “briefing”, a SitRep. It was, thus, his demeanor and style that matched the intent.
Drama expected is not Lavrov’s game. He’s a master craftsman, the best in the world, not a visionary architect. If the time was right, Putin would have spoken. Russia laid out their observations. They intended no more than that.
David Ray Griffin’s “The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic?” includes a very clear chapter describing the specific ways the UN was neutralized from the get-go as a force to be reckoned with by the world’s aspiring hegemons, but mainly by the USA—so constituted that it didn’t have any of the powers that the League of Nations lacked. The latter lacks being what made the League of Nations useless to prevent WW2.
Griffin lists the following:
1. No power to tax the world’s citizens, hence, fu;nding held hostage
2. Not given own military force
3. UN could not provide security for the member states, hence, no basis for them to disarm
4. UN had no power to prevent war—which was supposed to be its prime raison d’etre
5. Great Powers gave themselve veto power, hence, not democratic
6. There is no legislature empowered to pass laws; resolutions remain toothless
7. The World Court was given no power.
Griffin wraps up this chapter on the UN:
“Because the three Great Powers decided to retain th eanarchical order, so as to be able to continue to use their power to advance their individual interests, the world reaped (1) the cold War; (2) a nuclar arms race that could easily have resulted in nuclear exteinction, and still may; (3) dozens of hot wars, briinging unspeakable suffering in many countries, including Korea, Vietnam, Central America[n countries Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua], Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria [[add Libya, Yemen, Somalia, don’t forget the Philippines]]; (4) the U.S. drive to replace global anarchy with the tyranny of a global American empire; ;(5) a global ecoloigcal crisis, especially global climate change, whch if it continues wil bring civilization to an end.”
Griffin doesn’t make specific mention (in this chapter on the UN) of Palestine: of how the USA’s use of the UN’s veto “umbrella” has allowed—even encouraged—Israel to oppress the Palestinians and sow increasing disorder in the Middle East with impunity.
Katherine
One of the serious question in the beginning of the UN was the question of bilateral treaty. There was evidently a faction of members who held that such actions were inconsistent with the Charter.
I think it was Dean Acheson who discussed this in his autobiography. Add this claim to the list of “fissures” in the UN, but recall that the UN itself sits on land “donated” by Rockefeller and that the institution is largely a product of the CFR…
Katherine
Re this list of proposed powers for the UN:
1. No power to tax the world’s citizens, hence, fu;nding held hostage
2. Not given own military force
3. UN could not provide security for the member states, hence, no basis for them to disarm
4. UN had no power to prevent war—which was supposed to be its prime raison d’etre
5. Great Powers gave themselve veto power, hence, not democratic
6. There is no legislature empowered to pass laws; resolutions remain toothless
7. The World Court was given no power.
Granting these fantastic powers to the UN means that no nation on the planet would have sovereignty, let alone a shred of independence. The UN would become World Government. It would be based on international theft and it would be totally immoral. It would rapidly enable an empire of wealth extraction and human exploitation of a type and scale only ever dreamed by history’s most cynical and corrupt criminals.
Ask yourself this. Why would you want to be controlled by some faceless, corrupt bureaucrat in New York? Why would you voluntarily pay your hard earned wealth to them, rather than direct it towards you own interests such as YOUR family, YOUR community and YOUR own well-being?
Oh well, at least you would be granted the permission to make a mark on a scrap of paper once every four or five years or so- having your say, being represented….
“Granting these fantastic powers to the UN means that no nation on the planet would have sovereignty”
Yes, that would be exactly the idea.
And no “great powers” would be the only ones with effective sovereignty, as in the current situ.
You must have noticed that sovereignty is under attack *with* the UN as currently constituted.
Your arguments show that you have not really t hought this through, nor have you read the historical background to the idea of world government as presented by Griffin.
Like the concept of globalization (or just about anything else), there is a right-wing totalitarian way it can turn out and there is a left-wing progressive, “for the people” way of looking at it. The Copmmunist International was not called the international for nothing.
Instead of a Communist International we have a World Bank/IMF/NATO/Bankers International. At least since WW2 and actually before, the nations’ “sovereignty” has been a plaything of mainly the USA.
All of your other “fright” scernarios are pretty close to what we have today with a toothless UN that does not have the power to ensure peace, or its own resolutions.
Katherine
PS. Griffin documents how the viabilitly of the UN was undermined mainly by the USA.
In any federation or agreement, yes, some power must be given up. If each member insists of retaining total freedom of action, including freedom to be an oppressive warmongering sanction-imposoing hegemon, then we ain’t gonna move very far in the right direction, eh?
Now, if the current version of the USA were shattered, the UN would most assuredly be able to become a more effectively org. than it is.
Still, it is all the world has . . .
Katherine
Lavrov Trolls Spain at UN, Says Russia ‘Busy Meddling in Catalonia’s Elections’
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201809291068452315-lavrov-meddling-trolling/
“Speaking to reporters at a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Friday, Lavrov was asked a question by a journalist from South Africa about Moscow’s plans vis-à-vis the minority white South African farmers amid fears of land expropriation without compensation.
“At this time, we are busy with meddling with Catalonia’s elections,” Lavrov replied, keeping a straight face, leading to an outburst of laughter in the room.
There was “no time” for this issue, he added, saying South Africa was “too far” away, before moving on to other issues.”
:-D
““At this time, we are busy with meddling with Catalonia’s elections,” Lavrov replied, keeping a straight face, leading to an outburst of laughter in the room.”
Ha ha! Good one.
Katherine
Per the transcript, this seems like an excellent speech (I didn’t watch the video).
Stating the circumstances surrounding multiple situations clearly—and possible consequences of continue current developments and missteps.
Not pussyfooting, but also not using threatening, belligerent, immature bullying language such as that favored by Nicky Haley.
Katherine
Just an observation.
I often find that whenever someone gives a speech that is privy to interpretation that inflection is wasted. Good interpreter’s are rare and are busy just trying to keep up with the speaker to properly convey when the speaker is trying to put emphasis on their points. Speakers should realise this and slow down for greater effect but rarely do.
Well done Saker for publishing this especially since we are not allowed to hear the Russian point of view on corporate western media at all.
I got the feeling from his weary sounding tone not that Mr Lavrov was hurried so much as just sick fed up trying to communicate with the Anglozionist empire which cannot muster a word of sanity or coherence and just covers it’s ears to truth.
Whilst the UNGA provides valuable opportunities for countries to talk to each other “on the sidelines” in reality the UN has been subverted and corrupted by the US and doesn’t even follow it’s own stated principles and charter.
It is therefore surely time for this necessary body to be moved away from the US and located somewhere more “neutral” like perhaps Kazakhstan for example.
A necessary step in the direction of fair international relationships and law must surely be to get the UN away from US control and subversion.
Mr Lavrov’s speech takes place in a context where, as I see it, Russia’s interactions with the US are simply designed to not antagonize them, nothing more being possible.
Priorities numbers 1,2 and 3 for Russia and China are to avoid war, continue on their path with the many real partners they have and let the US rant and rave as it collapses from unrepayable debt levels, loss of dollar status and the increasingly impoverished American people are stuck with a government which has become deeply mentally ill, enmeshed in a psychosis and divorced from reality.
(One example of this was when Trump said that countries which support terrorism should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
A sane person would conclude then that the US, the UK and Israel as the worlds biggest sponsors of terrorism would be getting rid of their nuclear arsenals. But then in the Zionist world everything is inverted – truth is lies and black is white. He was referring to Iran of course a non-nuclear-weapons state which has fought terrorism for decades).
How are normal human beings like Lavrov and Zarif meant to deal with an armed-to-the-teeth regime which says such things.
It’s beyond difficult. It’s impossible.
So is Trump totally deranged? Or more likely simply a fool who gets all his “information” from the CIA/NSA along with a script?
In either case the US is now completely unstable and it’s imperial grip on planet Earth is being removed one region at a time.
That is why Russia/China are buying gold in large amounts.. That’s why the BRI is getting rolled out – to create new customers for China’s factories for the time when the US is no longer their biggest customer and that’s why they are arming up and telling the west what their military strength is so that in their monumental arrogance, the Americans don’t delude themselves into thinking they can attack and defeat Russia/ China.
The Russians and Chinese know what’s coming. They are preparing for it and planning to survive beyond.
Things are moving fast and the level of aggression and sheer malevolence emanating from the US and it’s diminishing gang are, to me, more a sign of how desperate they are because de-dollarization is now well underway globally.
So Mr Lavrov spelled it out using diplomatic language as he must but leaving no doubt who he sees as the problem.
The most surprising bit of good news at the UN was the EU decision to continue trading with Iran outside the dollar.
You’d think such an unprecedented turn of events from the puppets would wake them up in Washington as to the foolishness of their policies, but it won’t. Surely when the puppets start cutting their own strings though, the puppetmaster has problems.
I just read that Trump is now applying tariffs/sanctions on Canada !
Without wishing to be flippant, there is actually a very amusing side to watching the nemesis of the country that Iran correctly labelled as “the great satan” . That was a few years ago but imho they absolutely nailed it with that label.
At some point in the not too distant future the current UN format needs to dissolve. It simply doesn’t function as it should. This speech would seem to outline some of the reasons why. Mainly those which impact Russia, which is logical. Do you guys believe that fragmentation of the UN along the lines of US/Israel and vassals, and Russia China and like minded nations in a separate body ( I read some time ago that a purpose built auditorium? was already available in Beijing – sorry for lack of link) is a likelihood in the short term ? I’m sure such a division would throw up a number of surprises, and highlight cultural differences. Would the latter, in time, attract more and more participants with its adherence to rule of law, and preference for dialogue to settle disputes etc.
Perhaps Beijing would not be suitable. Perhaps a number of venues, in rotation, I don’t know how best to give it credence.
One can hope !
When the Soviet Union collapsed there was a suggestion, offer by Helmut Kohl the German Chancellor to move the UN headquarters to Bonn because it was losing its status a capital of Germany. EDDK Koeln Bonn Airport has a 3200 m long Runway, and Noervenich airbase is nearby. Boon itself as a capital has all the infrastructure to accomodate a large organisation like the UN. Besides I would like to direct the attention of the readers to HR193 stipulating the USA to leave the UN and kick the UN off the territory of the USA.
“International Law” is fine in theory, but it is only viable when ALL the major powers uphold it. The nature of “Law”, at any level, requires someone able to enforce it. Once any but the smallest and weakest of states act contrary to it, the whole concept flies out the window.
The few people who have been hauled in front of the International Court in the Hague are the leaders of essentially impoverished and weak Afrikan states who lack any real allies. The US and its EU/NATO lackeys and the Zionist Orc-Entity run amok in the Middle East and are not called to account. Why not? Because there is no force capable of actually enforcing international law against any but the weakest.
Antoinetta III
About international law : Above and Beyond International Law: George W. Bush as the Austinian Sovereign
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=940519 (you click to download a pdf copy)
what austinian law is: http://www.lawnotes.in/Austinian_Theory_of_Law
Previously it was contract based…like the UN Charter and Treaties generally.
A conflict therefore exists between “revisionist law” and established law…Imperial Decree (Ukase) and Statute/court law.
This conflict is part of the global war and revolution. Just part.
In revolutionary periods this happens…but outfits like MI6 almost always follow the Austinian rule, for obvious reasons… Look up the Miami Showband affair… That intelop worked and ended the unifying phenomenon of music in Ireland then underway. The murders illustrate the differential between two legal principles…and one of the methods austinian sovereigns manage to keep their nasty jobs – they divide to rule.
Brother George has something about that affair: https://www.rt.com/shows/sputnik/439921-miami-showband-ulster-violence/
With wry sarcasim I note, speaking of Law…that the US is not laughing at Lavrov’s jokes…”US could use Navy for ‘blockade’ to hamper Russian energy exports – Interior Secretary ” https://www.rt.com/usa/439967-us-navy-blockade-russia-energy/
Not so different from the Miami Showband, just bigger…divide to rule, sea power v land power…
Compare this speech to any of Pompeo’s and you can see how badly in decline the US is. Pompeo just rants and raves fanatic American nationalism with numerous lies and distortions.
Roreign Secretary Lavrov is a statesman to be proud of. Few have his charisma, choice of words and command of the scene.
I have not in his career seen him set a wrong foot. A true diplomat.
Now Nicky Haley on the other hand, or the US Foreign Secretary, what its name , whats the name of the orc?…
I watched the speech and agree with ideas raised here above, especially the idea that he had the purpose of staying within the time limit and giving the summation regarding objective reality… I myself heard an echo of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence in that a decent regard for men obliges a summation… Some may see similarities..I do.
More deeply, I came away with the impression from his choice of rhetorical style that the mitigation by influences of Diplomacy has lost effectiveness. Many here have said this, and I agree – and think that “diplomacy” will now see a phase change.
The overtures to the Fourth Reich have, it seems, been seen as and judged to be, insufficiently productive. Foreign Relations, if this is true, will now become other than diplomatic.
I presume the new phase of Russian Cathodic Operations will therefore involve trade, finance, and kinetic forces. The period of weapons development by Russ and Chin while the Reich bankrupts itself and destroys the colonial relations with the satraps seems to be over, not that it will stop…the power seems to have shifted – in Russ’s view. (They’re probably right about this, I think)
This is not new, but as diplomacy fails other agencies and means rise to the task.
In a nutshell, Comrade L says to my ears that Russ has decided that the Empire is deaf and intransigent and will respond only to more direct factors…
Now we shall witness what that looks like…
In the sense of what you say, about a change phase on diplomacy, another significant event took place in the sidelines of the UNGA, when Mr. Lavrov gifted Mr. Guterres with the 10 volumes comprising the works of Yevgeny Primakov….the oustanding Russian diplomat whom Mr. Lavrov considers his teacher…..
https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1045205191182749696
Does that not sound as a legacy/testament for the nations of the world in case they, the Russians, could be absent for undetermined time?….I mean, as if it could happen that the Russians may not going to come to the next UNGAs….for whatever reasons they know and we ignore….
I hope that is not so….and really wonder if those volumes would be available to common people….
Yes, it does seem to suggest some sort of “inflection” – it is not unlike some small things I have done myself…like gifting a book on management to a delusional incompetent boss on the day I quit. (which I have done) The military types make the worst bosses I have met, by the way…speaking solely of the officers.
Further, the url for MFA twitter goes from the Lavrov speech directly to Maxim Litvinov in 1938…as the USSR was illegally removed from the League membership..and on to Munich and so forth… This would seem to buttress your implied thesis that Russ may not expect to make use of the UN henceforth, History rhymes.
Litvinov was replaced after Munich, by Molotov – a phase change indicating the realization by Russ that the League was non-capable and that war had become inevitable.
https://twitter.com/mfa_russia
When I say “kinetic” I mean direct force…like the things airplanes drop or the little slugs rifles expel… Of course the problem with violence (kinetics) is the unpredictability of outcomes…
The probable phase change that seems to be implied suggests to me that means to achieve at least kinetic stalemate is now seen by Russ to exist – ie Ivan expects direct conflict creating either stalemate or victory.
So do I. The Empire, or Reich (take your pick) crossed the Rubicon at 9=11 when they cast the die by murdering the people in the Pentagon and the three towers in NYC. They created a zuswang…making war became Policy because they themselves made it so. This marked also the end of Westphalian Order, replacing it with Austinian Law…which is Imperial Decree…
However they extended Austin’s Theories by making laws against named individuals…breath-taking chutzpah, and probably (obviously) “bills of attainder” as prohibited specifically in the USC…
Zionist ideology is closely aligned with Reich Policy…so the pair make war as crypto-alliance.
Thanks for the remark and url…
Thanks to you for your interesting replay…you seem a knowledgeable US military insider….. am I wrong?
You see, I ignore what you refer to Austinian Law ( may be some US government internal legislation? ), but do not worry, I will search about it.
Related to this, and as self-taught in geopolitical matters ( in the few time the occupation with which I earn my living leaves me free ), I really wonder why on Earth the Russians do not make available the works of Mr. Primakov if not in English language, for us people interested who do not count with the contacts required to be recommended to study International Relations at main Universities offering these studies out there, be able to get that knowledge. I would probably be able to read them in English, but it will take me a lot fo time in case I would wnat to get idea even of the slightest detail in defintion and nuances of issues, since I lack the richness of vocabulary required….
One would think that, if Mr. Primakov is considered the teacher of the current Russian Foreign Relations team, being them displaying such mastery on diplomacy today, it would be mandatory to spread that knowledge at least in the most spoken languages on planet Earth, like Spanish, Chinese, and so on….
But, well, I fear, we are late already on difussion of knowledge to avoid war….an error…clearly….
Have a good day, monsieur!
Sir, Your English is far better than my German or French.
I worked for the military for many years. I know them. I observed and experimented to study their character, and managed to also pay my bills and live. In a single word they may be described as “delusional”. Secrets? I saw some things that shocked me.
The original Austinian Law thesis is online…The Province of Jurisprudence Determined.
http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Fontes/AustinJohnTheprovinceofjurisprudencedetermined1832.pdf
There are other legal theories…Austin depends on Imperial Power as his “god”…and that’s logical considering his period… 1830’s… Times change. Evidently Russ has judged that the kinetic pathway with all the economic power (destroying dollar in international trade and so on) combined with military force – this is the next phase.
I think so too.
The very short paper by Ali Kahn is also online, but not so easy to read… I have a copy that I can post, if Moderator permits…
Here:
ABOVE AND BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW:
GEORGE W. BUSH AS THE AUSTINIAN SOVEREIGN
Professor Ali Khan
Washburn University School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor
For centuries, international law has been anchored in the theory of contracts. Treaties are explicit contracts among states, but even customary international law, at least in its formative stages, is founded on consent and is derived from voluntary state practices.
All along, powerful nations have influenced international law. Yet in modern times no single state – no single sovereign – has claimed the authority to make laws for the rest of the world. International law has, since the Second World War, admittedly developed some coercive elements in its genetic structure, but it nonetheless remains, both in its essence and legitimacy, the law of partnership. This jurisprudence might change, however, if George Walker Bush is successful in crowning himself as the Austinian Sovereign.
In 1832, the English legal theorist John Austin articulated his famous concept of the Sovereign, in his celebrated work The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. �Supreme power limited by positive law, � he declared, �is a flat contradiction in terms.� The Sovereign may impose laws and morals on himself, but these �principles or maxims� are mere guides; the Sovereign is under no obligation to be constrained by these self-imposed limitations. The Sovereign has the ultimate authority to “abrogate the law at pleasure.� If the Sovereign is bound to observe the law, Austin argued, he is no longer the Sovereign. On the basis of this logic, Austin concluded, that a departure by a Sovereign from any law is within the domain of his authority, and the inferiors are under a legal obligation to obey the Sovereign.
President Bush has gone to war on Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The question remains whether the United Nations, has now, in the President�s own words, become �irrelevant.� President Bush�s unilateralism has offended many nations, including China, Russia, and France. The President�s departure from the United Nations Charter, however, makes perfect sense in the domain of Austinian jurisprudence, as it does in the realm of power.
In the realm of power, international relations flow from the dynamics of superior military and economic power. In the Security Council, Cameroon has a vote but no power. France has a veto but its power is not the same as that of the United States. Therefore, the logic of power would dictate that permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council submit to the United States might rather than play games with the mechanics of voting. The five vetoes have collapsed into one, recognizing an already well-known reality that there exists only one super-power, the United States of America. In this new realm of power, the �democratic authority� of the majority is confusing, if not outright meaningless. (It was this positivist logic upon which the apartheid in South Africa was established.)
The arguments of power are not always devoid of law. In the domain of Austinian jurisprudence, the matter is even more lucid. George Walker Bush is willing to be guided by the principles and maxims of the United Nations Charter. He would have been pleased to obtain a resolution that supported his option for war. But international law cannot be allowed to restrain his options, for President Bush, as the Austinian Sovereign, is fully empowered to �abrogate the Charter at his pleasure.�
One might further argue that a new norm has been established in international jurisprudence. International law is now subject to the authority of the United States President. International law may still be learned and taught, using the metaphor of partnership. It may still contain elements of the law of contracts. But its fundamental nature has changed. The norms of international law are valid only if the President says so. And if the President says a norm of international law is binding on other nations, it is, even if the same norm is not binding on the United States.
Iraq, for example, must adhere to the Geneva Conventions and treat American prisoners of war accordingly. This is so because the President says so. And no one can question the President (the Austinian Sovereign) as to why the same Conventions do not apply to the prisoners of war detained in see-through cages at Guantanamo Bay.
This analysis is not offered as a jest or satire, but as a serious presentation of a possible development in the theory of international law. One wonders, however, whether President Bush has thought through the consequences of his approach. Does he appreciate that Austinian jurisprudence – in name, or in fact – could not sustain the British Empire, on which the sun has now definitely set? And does he appreciate the irony of the fact that Austin himself was never formally trained in international law, but rather obtained his legal understandings, as the famed English legal historian William Holdsworth has somewhat snidely put it, “by means of undirected reading and discussion”?
Ali Khan is a professor at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas, and is the author of A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History (Kluwer, 2003).
I’d argue that violating the UN Charter as Bush did also violated his oath of office and constituted an Impeachable High Crime. The US Constitution was devised so no president could legally attain sole sovereign power in the Austinian manner. What was absolutely infuriating was Pelosi’s also impeachable offense in not doing her job to raise Articles of Impeachment against Bush and others within his administration for their High Crimes, thus allowing him to act as if he was an Austinian Sovereign. The damage Pelosi did was worse than Bush’s, IMO, but she has yet to pay the price for her gross illegalities.
I agree, more or less. Austinian Theory has zero “authority” under the UN Charter, International Law, the USC, and so forth.
The Bush 43 Kahn writes about was “elected” in direct violation of the USC by the Court…contested election for president is addressed there – and the protocols have nothing to do with the Court. Look it up… Of course Austinian Law is illegal in the US. This is self-evident.
The caution by Kahn is a solid and conservative and polite one… a caution that said:
“One wonders, however, whether President Bush has thought through the consequences of his approach. Does he appreciate that Austinian jurisprudence – in name, or in fact – could not sustain the British Empire, on which the sun has now definitely set? And does he appreciate the irony of the fact that Austin himself was never formally trained in international law, but rather obtained his legal understandings, as the famed English legal historian William Holdsworth has somewhat snidely put it, “by means of undirected reading and discussion”? ”
In-fact the entire notion of Austinian Law is simply toadying to Power…dressed up in a fake “legal theory”
That’s the point. Note that John Austin wrote in 1830’s as a barrister in England. There’s a great “southernism” in American English: “Hokum”… Austin was writing hokum…to the Crown…that’s what lawyers do, generally, represent class conflict, often in favor of the Sovereign…
As we see now in the US…
Thanks for your reply! Hokum is quite apt! It’s what BigLie Media serves up 24/7/365. Unfortunately, there is a power problem within the Outlaw US Empire–it’s unaccountable thanks to the Duopoly. Doubly unfortunate–the problem is historical: The People have never had the ability to hold power accountable except via the ballot box, which doesn’t work at all well as history documents.
Just as Hugo Chavez said that ALCA with Bush was dead, the UN is in a coma 4
The Americans do Not respect themselves, they will never respect anyone else.
Well, some do, some don’t. But to say ‘Americans’ this, and ‘Americans’ that is absurd. It is a huge country with lots of viewpoints. For example, I am an American. I respect myself, and I respect others, and I deeply wish for a multi-polar world. Let’s don’t get into bizzarro totalizing, demonizing rhetoric, OK?