#un charter

[tomorrowusa]

Unless Russia abandons its goal of conquering new territory in Ukraine, peace talks have little chance of achieving anything. History shows that appeasement only strengthens and encourages aggressors and that aggressors can be stopped only with force. As the prime minister of Estonia, a frontline NATO country that endured half a century of Soviet occupation, I know what peace on Russia’s terms really means. Russian peace would not mean the end of suffering but rather more atrocities. The only path to peace is to push Russia out of Ukraine.     [ ... ]    What is at stake in Ukraine is not just Ukraine’s existence but Europe’s security architecture, with its core principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and prohibition of the use of force. We cannot allow the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and the European security architecture to be trampled underfoot. For that reason, Ukraine must win, the Russian aggressor must fail, and war criminals must face justice. No peace that is reached before these goals are achieved can ensure anyone’s security.

Prime Minister Kaja Kallas of Estonia, at the journal Foreign Affairs. (archived)

Estonian Prime Minister Kallas knows what she’s talking about. Countries next door to Russia have no illusions about the régime there. Often it’s people in the West who know next to nothing about Eastern Europe who are calling for an immediate negotiated settlement. That’s like trying to reach a “compromise” between a serial killer and an intended victim.

Russia has attacked Ukraine despite previous international agreements such as the 1975 Helsinki Accords and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. And let’s not forget the United Nations Charter. Russia isn’t respecting those treaties and so there’s little reason to believe it would follow any new agreements.

Russia has never given up its colonialist and imperialist ambitions. It’s only when it starts acting like a normal 21st century country that there will be lasting peace in Eastern Europe. Leave the idiotic talk of bothsiderism to Elon Musk, “tankies”, and other brainless dupes of Putin. 

Prime Minister Kallas expatiated on the war and Russia’s responsibility for it in this interview on Australia’s ABC.

[emptyanddark]

https://jacobin.com/2023/03/us-invasion-of-iraq-twentieth-anniversary-history-casualties-politics-protes

March 20 marks the unprovoked, catastrophic US invasion of Iraq - the 21st century 1st Illegal War.

[unitednationsday]

Mark the 75th anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Charter.

Marking United Nations Day, on the 75th anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Charter, Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated his appeal for a global ceasefire "so we can devote all our energies to fighting COVID-19." This year's United Nations Day concert included a prerecorded performance featuring Roberto Bolle, and the Orchestra of Teatro alla Scala, in Milan.

[chriswhodrawsstuff]

Freedom from fear.

I was listening to tax expert Professor in Accountancy Richard J Murphy speak this morning (I am that rock and roll) and he was talking about the notion of ‘freedom from fear’ and how this applies to the United Kingdom’s poor and vulnerable today. It was a concept introduced by President Roosevelt in his ‘four freedoms’ speech in 1941 along with freedom from want, freedom of speech and expression…

[lefemmerougewriter]

...the U.S. treatment of Guam, as the caller describes it, violates Article 73 of the U.N. Charter, about non-self-governing territories. It is even listed, along with 16 others, across Africa, Atlantic, Caribbean, Europe, and Pacific regions, by the U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization, as it has never achieved a “full measure of self-government" - Princess Rapunzel

From my AO3 fic entitled "A Responsibility to Prevent Genocide?: Royalty, Revolution, and Bloody Zionists"

[workersbushtelegraph]

US/Israel/UK - stop killing people

[rivage-seulm]

Thank God for Hamas: The Agent of God’s Revelation

Readings for the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Exodus 22: 20-26; Psalm 18, 2-4, 47, 51; 1 Thessalonians 1: 5c-10; Matthew 22: 34-40 Thank God for Hamas. Yes, thank God for Hamas. There, I said it. And thank God for the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions which enable discerning people of faith to see what Hamas is up to. Hamas is lifting the veil to help us see who’s responsible for…

[jaideepkhanduja]

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Self-Defense and International Law Perspectives

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and deeply rooted issue that has been the subject of intense debate and international scrutiny. The question of self-defense and occupation is at the heart of this ongoing dispute, and it is essential to examine the arguments from both sides within the framework of international law. It is important to note that international law is not monolithic,…

[internationaldayofpeace]

We need Peace.

In conflict, civilians always pay the highest price. War is not the answer. We need peace.

[tomorrowusa]

[P]ressuring Ukraine to accept an agreement against its will would have serious global consequences. Russia would conclude that aggressive warfare should remain in its geopolitical toolbox. After a few years have passed and it has regained its military strength, it might double down and assert new territorial claims in Europe and Eurasia as it continues to stir up conflicts in Africa and elsewhere.

Moreover, an unjust peace would fuel hatred, resentment, and revanchist tendencies in Ukrainian society, hampering reconstruction and reconciliation, while Russian society would once again be spared from having to engage in sorely needed self-reflection. At the same time, tensions in Europe and around the world would remain high, undercutting global economic development efforts as well as international cooperation on other crucial issues.

More broadly, Russian disregard for international law would cast serious doubt on the viability of the twenty-first-century rules-based international order. If a nuclear-armed permanent member of the UN Security Council can invade a sovereign country and unilaterally annex its territories, the existing order will have failed its biggest test.

– Pekka Haavisto, foreign minister of Finland from 2019 to 2023, writing at Project Syndicate. (archived)

The only reasonable lasting outcome of this conflict is for Russia's invasion to be a failure. Russia broke already existing treaties and agreements with its invasion. Only a mental defective believes that Russia would abide by any new "negotiated" agreement that leaves Russia in control of vast swatches of Ukraine.

One of the many agreements which Putin broke is the United Nations Charter. In his article Mr. Haavisto referenced Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Russia has used its veto at the Security Council to prevent any direct UN action against its aggression. So the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" of Ukraine with support of its allies continues – and should continue.

When a conflict is not settled justly and judiciously then the possibility of a subsequent conflict greatly increases. The mess at the end of World War I eventually led to World War II.

If you want long term peace and respect for international law, then support Ukraine in its just fight against an imperialist and genocidal neighbor.

[superpte]

Encourage A Coup In Russia

The United Nations Charter Article 51 gives inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an attack against a UN member state.  UN member Ukraine has been attacked, we have the right to defend it.  The best thing the Russian military, and its elite Wagner PMC, can do, is a coup.  If Russian generals arrest Putin, they will redeem themselves: they will be able to argue…

[amereid1960]

التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011) من هشاشة الأسس القانونية إلى الانحراف بالشرعية الدولية - دراسة قانونية

التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011) من هشاشة الأسس القانونية إلى الانحراف بالشرعية الدولية – دراسة قانونية التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011) من هشاشة الأسس القانونية إلى الانحراف بالشرعية الدولية – دراسة قانونية الكاتب : عمار عنان ملخص: تتناول الدراسة بالتحليل والنقد على ضوء أحكام القانون الدولي مختلف جوانب التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011). سواء تعلق الأمر بقاعدة حظر…

[alewaanewspaper1960]

التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011) من هشاشة الأسس القانونية إلى الانحراف بالشرعية الدولية - دراسة قانونية

التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011) من هشاشة الأسس القانونية إلى الانحراف بالشرعية الدولية – دراسة قانونية التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011) من هشاشة الأسس القانونية إلى الانحراف بالشرعية الدولية – دراسة قانونية الكاتب : عمار عنان ملخص: تتناول الدراسة بالتحليل والنقد على ضوء أحكام القانون الدولي مختلف جوانب التدخل العسكري لحلف الناتو في ليبيا (2011). سواء تعلق الأمر بقاعدة حظر…

[immaculatasknight]

An intellectual war the hegemons can't win

[historyhermann]

National Security and Climate Change: Behind the U.S. Pursuit of Military Exemptions to the Kyoto Protocol [Part 2]

Continued from part 1

An issue "the Pentagon cared most about": Behind the U.S. push for national security exemptions in Kyoto

By Burkely Hermann

In earlier postings, the National Security Archive made available declassified documents which provided insight into the Clinton administration’s climate change policy, including the negotiations in Kyoto and the subsequent protocol. Those documents also highlighted challenges this policy faced abroad from other countries and at home from legislators and business leaders.

This post is reprinted from the National Security Archive website and my History Hermann WordPress blog. Archived here and here.

President Clinton, sitting at a desk on the edge of the Grand Canyon in September 1996, signs a proclamation establishing the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, while Vice President Al Gore stands beside him. Clinton's advisors, including Todd Stern, kept him informed of the push for military exemptions in Kyoto and there are no records that he had any objections to these efforts. (Photo credit: William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum)

The documents in this post expand that story by focusing on the advocacy by U.S. negotiators in Kyoto for national security exemptions during and after the climate change conference. Journalists and commentators have argued lobbying by the United States meant that the Kyoto Protocol gave militaries a large exemption from emissions targets and standards.[1] However, the documents tell a different story, of exemptions which were not as wide as the Pentagon or critics of the agreement would have liked. These provisions exempted emissions from international operations authorized by the United Nations or those described as in accordance with the UN Charter, and bunker fuels from being added to national emissions totals.

© 2022-2023 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.