The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Think of it this way. The US undoubtedly possesses the military strength to annex portions of Mexico - let's pretend there was some discovery of significant oil reserves off the shores of Baja California, and since our current regime is in the mood to drill like madness, such reserves would be tempting to exploit. With a good propaganda effort, the current US regime could even make this annexation appear to be a plausible "popular" move that reflects the "will" of the residents of Baja California. Would that be acceptable? We could game out similar scenarios regarding Canadian territory. Would a US annexation of those territories be acceptable? Would you be willing to write those off as "independence movements" on the part of those annexed?
Where do we draw the line - especially when it comes to the rights of the neighbors of a major regional power or world power with regard to managing their own internal affairs without fear of interference? I don't know if I have much of an answer, but I do think it is a fair question to be asked.
"There are no innocents. There are, however, different degrees of responsibility." -- Lisbeth Salander
The answer to specific and general causes of such action (intervention, interference, invasion) by foreign states, eg. Russia, UNSC, USA, &tc, is, no. World history is littered with justifications (alliance, "just war", R2P). This should explain why political dissents in one nation-state frequently request and receive material and financial aid from another nation-state in order to prosecute civil wars.
As a practical matter, you need not trust that Russia did not start civil wars in Ukraine and Georgia. Or that constituents in both nations had rejected their governments' bureaucracies and especially torrid corruption of their heads of state before requesting foreign "aid" -- be that billions-EUR-USD IMF debt, peace-keeping patrols, munitions or "technical" training.
The more interesting question is, which states do not expect invasion? It's a short list of OEMs.
Finally, the applicability of the "rights" of a sovereign government is intended by unscrupulous politicians to be a problematic test of their personal legitimacy and constituents' appetites for profiteering adventures elsewhere. Ideally and regardless of government form, a nation-state constitutes itself in sui generis origin of "rights" granted to or withdrawn from its constituents, citizens. For a nation-state acquires, or incorporates, supreme authorities from no other source but manifest obedience of the people to that authority. When that obedience evaporates, who generated the most advertising to promote civil war or generate donor funding for civil war counts for nothing but future sales.
Isn't it strange that by all accounts, Russia has posted poor returns on its "meddling & interference" by comparison to its peers.
Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 35 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 274 comments
by Oui - Sep 2612 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 242 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1335 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 126 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2
by Oui - Sep 1190 comments
by Oui - Aug 315 comments