America cannot pick and choose when to follow international law

[luv2fly]

Opinion
America must be consistent. It cannot pick and choose when to follow international law
Peter Beinart Thu 10 Mar 2022 06.09 EST

Last December, as Russian forces encircled Ukraine, the Biden administration and its allies delivered a stark warning to Vladimir Putin: “Any use of force to change borders is strictly prohibited under international law.” In January, as Russian troops massed even in even greater numbers, Secretary of State Antony Blinken added that “the inviolability of frontiers” was among the “guiding principles for international behavior.” Last month, after Russia’s parliament recognized the independence of two self-declared republics Moscow had cleaved from eastern Ukraine, Blinken called this infringement upon “Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” a “gross violation of international law.”

All this is indisputably true. Remaking borders by force violates a core principle of international law. Which is why the Biden administration must do more than resist Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. It must stop violating that principle itself.

In 2019, the Trump administration made the United States the only foreign country to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 War. Tel Aviv University Law Professor Eliav Lieblich noted that the decision – which contradicted a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution supported by the US itself – constituted a “significant departure from the bedrock legal prohibition of unilateral annexation.” Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway called the move “outrageous and potentially destabilizing to the postwar international order.” The Russian government called it an “indication of the contempt that Washington shows for the norms of international law.”

After Trump’s move, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to explain the legal difference between Israel’s annexation of the Golan and Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, which had led the US to impose sanctions. Pompeo replied that “there’s international law doctrine on this very point. We don’t have time to begin to go through it today. But [I’m] happy to have a team go over and walk you through that.” When journalists followed up, the State Department cited no international law doctrine at all. To the contrary, a department spokeswoman declared, nonsensically, that “The US policy continues to be that no country can change the borders of another by force.”

More at

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/10/america-ukraine-russia-international-law

[DanieRains]

1. Laws Don't Apply To TFG

Everyone knows that.

[fescuerescue]

2. Unfortunately it does and has been doing It for over a century

Even the Presidents that we like have done this.

[The Magistrate]

3. And People Wonder Why We Can't Have Nice Things, Sir

Is some country doing something abominable?

Well. quick, lets find something, anything, the United States did, and we can talk about that instead.

In fact, unless the United States is criticized too, it's just flat wrong to criticize anyone else.

Hell, lets go all the way, and find some way to blame the United States for the bad thing that other government is doing.

So we get a man actually making the argument that the United States putting its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem gave Putin the green light to invade Ukraine. That's right, the author here maintains that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was so corrosive to international norms that Putin saw nothing to prevent his massing a couple of hundred thousand troops and invading Ukraine. And further, the author maintains that unless the United States moves its embassy from Jerusalem, it, and by extension the whole of NATO, hasn't got a leg to stand on when it accuses Putin of violating international law when he invades Ukraine.

I don't defend the movement of the embassy from Tel Aviv, but in comparison with the present hostilities would rate the action as a hang-nail by compare to the guillotine amputation above the elbow Putin's invasion would rate.

And I am absolutely certain, more certain than I am the sun will set in the west tonight, that not once during Russian planning and preparation over several years for invading Ukraine did anyone mention the whereabouts of the United States embassy to Israel, in any connection whatsoever.

[Coventina]

4. Thank you!! n/t

[harumph]

5. Thank you - this "whataboutism" is weak tea.

[redgreenandblue]

6. It would still help if the USA did what it could to strengthen international norms.

For instance, it would be nice if we could prosecute Putin for war crimes. Unfortunately, the USA doesn't recognize the authority of any legal entity that would be able to do so.

[Zeitghost]

10. If we could prosecute Putin

What stops Putin from prosecuting Biden?

Despite its obvious drawbacks, I'd prefer we stick to US law in this country.

[EndlessWire]

15. But Ukraine does.

It submitted to the ICC after Russia stole Crimea.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. You laid it out far better than I could.

Thank You.

[luv2fly]

8. I don't see how it is wrong to expect more

The author's criticism points out the tRump administration's errors and asks that the Biden administration correct and not repeat them. How is that wrong?

From the article: "Since taking office, the Biden administration has reversed neither of these Trump decisions. To the contrary, the US continues to provide Israel almost $4 billion in military aid per year absent any human rights conditions even as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International allege that it is practicing apartheid. The Biden administration has also boosted arms sales to Morocco even though the US-based democracy watchdog Freedom House reports that people in Western Sahara enjoy fewer freedoms than people in China or Iran."

The atrociousness of any one calamity around the world at any given time as compared to others isn't the issue. It's righting past wrongs, and I'm sure as the "leaders of the free world" we ought to want to ensure we lead by example, right?

[The Magistrate]

9. Because At The Moment, Sir

It is about as stupid a political line as anyone might attempt to press. It's like urging attention be paid to a spotted window in the classroom door after the fire bell's gone off, and there's smoke filling the halls. It is damned near the silliest, least consequential tu quoque I have ever heard.

[Hortensis]

11. Agree. I'd never have posted this facile excuse to smear Biden.

Anyway, as long as there is democracy there is the danger of people electing heads of state who violate national principles, and international laws. Those who follow have to deal with the messes handed off from administration to administration, and just sweeping the daily oatmeal up off the floor and into bowls will only sometimes be a best choice. Might just provide an opportunity to "build back better," but with a lot of nations to bring together for it...

[luv2fly]

17. Other people's opinions can make us uncomfortable

I like to know what reasonable people think though, so I appreciate the author's take on how America can do better.

[Hortensis]

18. Of course. We should always consider true things. I just don't think this

author's approach is honest. "America must be consistent." A transparently shallow and contrived clickbait vehicle delivering the accusation that Biden has not reversed what tRump did. Which we know.

I could just as well announce this author "must be consistently honest." But we can pretty safely assume that won't happen either. Direct and thoughtful discussion of this subject has been published many times by others who bring more knowledge to the discussion, including discussions of future possible actions.

Sorry, I shouldn't have let the author irritate me. But...no Pulitzer in the offing here.

[luv2fly]

16. I disagree but we can do that here

Your labels and analogies don't convince me the author doesn't have good points. Again, it's about righting past wrongs and that is a good thing.

[Bettie]

12. Thank you

for making sense.

[gratuitous]

22. Perhaps I read a different article

The excerpt in the original post talks about U.S. recognition in 2019 - alone among the countries of the world - of Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. This recognition by the United States contrasted badly with the reaction by those same United States to Russia's purported annexation of Crimea in 2014. When the former guy's administration was questioned about the disparity of the two actions, Secretary First In His Class Pompeo airily waved away any difference with a mealy-mouthed promise that an explanation would be coming later. In this case, "later" should be read as "never."

The word "Jerusalem" doesn't even appear in Beinart's piece, and there isn't any argument advanced that moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been used as an excuse or a justification either way.

[SoonerPride]

13. Of course we can. George Bush should have been hauled before The Hague.

We violate international law and commit war crimes all the time.


As much as I wish we were nation of laws, we simply aren't.


We are a brutal fascist police state war mongering bloodthirsty gun addled lunatic asylum.


Sorry, buy them's the facts.

[Elessar Zappa]

20. You've obviously never lived in an actual brutal police state.

The US isn’t even close to it.

[SoonerPride]

21. Ask any person of color how free we are.

It is a fascist state for black and brown people.

Stop and frisk innocent people walking down the street because they were black.

[maxsolomon]

14. good point.

one solution: ONLY ELECT DEMOCRATS.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. New international law is...

You can do it if you've got nukes.

That's the practical reality.