Time and again, RT presenters and hosts ask me what I make of the U.S. selectively applying international law. Why is secession of X perfectly acceptable, while secession of Y is wrong and condemned? Why is territorial integrity of Z not up for debate, but Q can be carved up, and is?
One can analyze the details of each particular case, examine the legality of each actor and action, and still be none the wiser. Not because the pattern does not exist, but because those details are, quite frankly, irrelevant to it. The answer is in understanding how the West thinks.
In a particularly ironic turn of history, the political class in "the West" has internalized Lenin's "logic" of Who/Whom. According to this way of thinking, the "what" does not matter, only "who" does it to "whom". If Washington is carving up a country, that's fine (e.g. Yugoslavia, then Serbia). If Washington is backing a coup ("color revolutions"), that's fine too. If Washington is invading and occupying countries on made-up pretexts (Iraq, Libya) or fomenting civil wars (Syria), or waging undeclared drone warfare (Yemen, Pakistan) that is likewise fine. Washington, and its clients, can do anything, because they are by (their own) definition the "good guys."
Anyone else, however, is a different matter. (U.S. clients) Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina seceding from Yugoslavia is OK, but Serbs seceding from them is "aggression." Croatian and Bosnian borders are sacred, and cannot be changed, but borders of Serbia can and should, because ethnic Albanians (U.S. client) want to claim the province of Kosovo as their own independent state. And then the borders of "Kosovo" become sacred, and cannot be changed.
Not only was Serbia denied the right to defend itself from the armed Albanian rebellion, it was attacked by NATO in a clearly illegal war of aggression. NATO occupied Kosovo, and in 2008 recognized the illegal declaration of independence that clearly contravened the UN resolution (1244) upholding the territorial integrity of Serbia. It doesn't matter what the Albanians have done, or what the Serbs have not - the Serbs are a priori wrong.
Just to make sure, Washington installed a quisling regime in Belgrade that said all this was perfectly acceptable, and even muscled the World Court to redefine the question in order to make the land grab appear legal.
To summarize: it is an article of faith in the Atlantic Empire that Washington and its clients (EU, etc.) can do no wrong, while their victims can do no right. Once you understand that as their sole guiding principle (for lack of a better word), all the other pieces fall into place.
One can analyze the details of each particular case, examine the legality of each actor and action, and still be none the wiser. Not because the pattern does not exist, but because those details are, quite frankly, irrelevant to it. The answer is in understanding how the West thinks.
In a particularly ironic turn of history, the political class in "the West" has internalized Lenin's "logic" of Who/Whom. According to this way of thinking, the "what" does not matter, only "who" does it to "whom". If Washington is carving up a country, that's fine (e.g. Yugoslavia, then Serbia). If Washington is backing a coup ("color revolutions"), that's fine too. If Washington is invading and occupying countries on made-up pretexts (Iraq, Libya) or fomenting civil wars (Syria), or waging undeclared drone warfare (Yemen, Pakistan) that is likewise fine. Washington, and its clients, can do anything, because they are by (their own) definition the "good guys."
Anyone else, however, is a different matter. (U.S. clients) Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina seceding from Yugoslavia is OK, but Serbs seceding from them is "aggression." Croatian and Bosnian borders are sacred, and cannot be changed, but borders of Serbia can and should, because ethnic Albanians (U.S. client) want to claim the province of Kosovo as their own independent state. And then the borders of "Kosovo" become sacred, and cannot be changed.
Not only was Serbia denied the right to defend itself from the armed Albanian rebellion, it was attacked by NATO in a clearly illegal war of aggression. NATO occupied Kosovo, and in 2008 recognized the illegal declaration of independence that clearly contravened the UN resolution (1244) upholding the territorial integrity of Serbia. It doesn't matter what the Albanians have done, or what the Serbs have not - the Serbs are a priori wrong.
Just to make sure, Washington installed a quisling regime in Belgrade that said all this was perfectly acceptable, and even muscled the World Court to redefine the question in order to make the land grab appear legal.
To summarize: it is an article of faith in the Atlantic Empire that Washington and its clients (EU, etc.) can do no wrong, while their victims can do no right. Once you understand that as their sole guiding principle (for lack of a better word), all the other pieces fall into place.
1 comment:
Not a comment, just a FYI as I notice antiwar.com doesn't even have anything on its front page about this. It is regarding the killings of the two Turkish soldiers and a policeman. Turkey has arrested the culprits. They three ethnic Albanians who were returning home from fighting in the Syrian war. The source I link here is Macedonian but there are Turkish and other sources.
Two Albanians, Kosovan arrested in Turkey terror attack http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/24930/46
Post a Comment