Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Rules-based

"PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Blundering Biden Team". 

"The 'Rules-based international order' is dead & unless West finds new way to accommodate Russia & China, it will reap a whirlwind" (Diesen):

"From the Western perspective, a rules-based order requires the West to uphold liberal values and thus become a “force for good”. Blinken cautioned that “the alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winners take all”. For China and Russia, the unipolar era has been one where might makes right and liberal values has merely legitimised unilateralism. For example, witness how Moscow's concerns about Western military adventures in Iraq, Syria and Libya, all of questionable legality under international law, to various degrees, were ignored.

Liberal hegemony as a value-based international order contradicts the concept of a rules-based order. A rules-based system infers the consistent application of international law, while a values-based system endows the liberal hegemon with the prerogative of selective and inconsistent application of international laws and rules.

The system of liberal hegemony demonstrates that values and power cannot be decoupled. Western states, like all other nations, formulate and pursue foreign policies based on national interests, and values are adjusted accordingly. In Kosovo it was decided that self-determination was more important than territorial integrity, and in Crimea it was decided that territorial integrity was more important than self-determination.

While democracy and human rights should ideally have a place in international relations, the application of these values are always aligned with power interests. Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny is nominated for the Nobel peace price, while Julian Assange rots away in a British cell without such accolades. Washington’s abandonment of a four-decade long One-China Policy in terms of Taiwan, claims of “genocide” in Xinjian and support for the Hong Kong riots are also evidently motivated by geoeconomic rivalry. A rules-based system does not entail mutual constraints, but a system where the West as the political subject will police China and Russia as political objects."The same rules don't apply to everybody, equally. It's "asymmetrical," not symmetrical. So, when Russia intervened in Syria at Damascus' request and the US entered Syria, without Syrian or UN permission, Moscow was judged to have broken the rules."

"The Failure of Huff and Puff Foreign Policy" (Bandow).

It would be a lot easier if the Assholes didn't believe their own bullshit, but they do, so the 'norms' and the 'rules' are going to continue to get in the way of sanity, and will almost certainly lead directly to a disaster.

"Biden Backs Revival of His Brainchild: Plan Colombia 2.0 Set to Begin Next Month" (MacLeod).  Just a few years ago it seemed Colombia was on the verge of turning the corner, and losing its status as the world's most shithole country.

"More Evidence the US Fought WWII Against Great Britain" (Roberts).  Makes perfect sense.  The British Empire was finished off by WWII.  The British Empire was the colonial power in Palestine, and needed to be taken out so the Khazar genocide and land theft could proceed.  It was also in the way of the Assholian Empire.  Germany popped back to be even stronger, and is noticeably and oddly always supporting the Khazar genocide and land theft. 
blog comments powered by Disqus