“Humanitarian Intervention” And The New World Order, Part 2

16-02-19 12:50:00,

Authored by Vladislav Sotirovic via Oriental Review,

Read Part 1 here…

It is a very fact that modern Public International Law strictly prohibits either any threat of armed force by any sovereign political entity (state) or use of armed force by any state acting without the authorization of the UNSC on the foundation of the VII Chapter of the UN Charter. In other words, the use of force, including an armed (military) intervention, is possible only under the umbrella of the UN Charter but after the authorization by the UNSC in accordance to the idea of collective security. Here, two questions arise: What is Public International Law and What is collective security?

International law is also known as Public International Law to distinguish it from Private International Law, which does not deal with relationships between states. Public International Law is understood as a system of rules that are binding on states, and thus define the relationships between states and/or other political entities and subjects in international relations and world politics. Law is a set of public and enforceable rules. In the case that there is no world legislature, international law draws on a number of sources like treaties, custom, generally accepted principles, and the practice based on the decisions by the international courts. Public International Law is usually seen as the best means of establishing order through respect for moral principles and, therefore, Public International Law makes possible the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. In general, Public International Law is a system of law regulating the interrelationship of sovereign states and their rights and duties with regard to one another.

Who has the right of power to determine disputes relating to Public International Law? International Court of Justice or The World Court. This court at the Hague is consisting of 15 judges elected for 9-year terms of office and was set up by the UN in succession to the Permanent Court of International Justice, and all members of the UN are automatically parties to the Statute of International Court of Justice. This court as well as can give advisory opinions (advisory jurisdiction), which do not bind the parties but are of great persuasive authority.

United Nations Security Council meeting at its headquarters in New York

The idea of collective security is an integral segment of Public International Law based on the notion that aggression can best be resisted by united action taken by a number of states but covered by the international law at least to a certain extent.

 » Lees verder

“Humanitarian Intervention” And The „New World Order“: Violation Of The International Law (I) | OrientalReview.org

14-02-19 08:57:00,

The term „humanitarian intervention“ is the American political neologism (newly coined word) to morally cover a new format of  Washington’s global imperialism at the time of the post-Cold War’s „New World Order“ in which the USA feel very comfortable to play a role of a global policeman. Theoretically, according to the Western conception of „humanitarian intervention“, one or more states (the USA and the NATO) have a moral (quasi) obligation and/or right to intervene into the internal affairs of other state, if this state (according to the self-evaluation by Washington) does not respect commonly accepted principles of humanitarian law but in particular if the task of such military intervention is to save the lives of a particular group of people (minority) which the state’s authorities, to be intervened against, either threatens or is incapable of protecting. Here it is not of any importance whether such a group is of domestic or foreign origin (citizens).

Nevertheless, tensions between the state’s rights and human rights became very acute since 1990 due to the growth of so-called „humanitarian intervention“. The Great Powers assumed the right to intervene militarily in the inner affairs of other (sovereign) states in order to protect their citizens from abuse and possibly death, often at the hands of their own Government. However, on another hand, the question arises why has „humanitarian intervention“ been criticized?

The term „humanitarian intervention“ is composed of two words/terms: „humanitarian“ and „intervention“. The first word means being concerned with the interests of humanity, specifically through a desire to promote human welfare or to reduce human suffering. The second word means forcible action taken by one (sovereign) state against another (sovereign) state but without the latter’s consent. In a combination of these two words, „humanitarian intervention“ is, by scholarly definition, „military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives“.[1]  However, the term became very contested and deeply controversial at least from the very point that military intervention cannot be of any humanitarian kind, i.e. to be legitimate and defensible just as it is labeled as „humanitarian“.

U.N. peacekeepers drive tank as they patrol past deserted Kibati villageU.N. peacekeepers drive their tank as they patrol past the deserted Kibati village near Goma in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, August 7, 2013. A 17,000-strong U.N. force, known as MONUSCO,  » Lees verder

“I Oppose Intervention, But…” – But Nothing! Don’t Be A Pro Bono CIA Propagandist

03-02-19 11:19:00,

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

In a recent interview with The Corbett Report, the Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams spoke disdainfully of those ostensibly anti-interventionist libertarians who picked this moment of all times to loudly and aggressively condemn Venezuela’s president Maduro, just as the US power establishment is ramping up its campaign to topple the Venezuelan government.

“All of a sudden now there are millions of Venezuela experts in America, and many of them could not point Venezuela out on a map five days ago,” McAdams said.

“And everyone has to have this disclaimer, ‘Well, I know it’s probably worse than North Korea, but the US government shouldn’t get involved.’ It’s cowardice, because once the war starts, they can say ‘Hey I never called for US intervention!’ No, but you’re a conveyor belt for propaganda. You’re a conveyor belt to get the machine ginned up for war. And so you’ve got to stand up and take responsibility.”

McAdams has for years consistently operated in the hub of one of America’s most forceful and effective branches of opposition to US interventionism, and he is absolutely correct here. On both sides of America’s political divide, the primary objections you will see to this administration’s campaign to delegitimize and topple the Venezuelan government are prefaced with a strong condemnation of Maduro followed by some feeble equivocations voicing vague objections to Trump’s actions, if that.

Even more often, what you will see is excuses made for the US government’s aggressive attempts to control who runs Venezuela, followed by some mumbling along the lines of “I don’t want us to go to war, though” dribbling out of the corner of their mouths. Some silly, arbitrary line in the sand saying that Trump’s current ongoing starvation sanctionsCIA covert ops and premeditated campaign to delegitimize and overthrow Venezuela’s government is fine, and hey, maybe arming some right-wing militias via Columbia would be fine too, but don’t send American troops to do the killing or we’ll be a tad upset.

All these wimpy, wishy washy “I oppose US interventionism sorta kinda but not really P.S.

 » Lees verder

Argentina – Is the IMF Intervention helped by HAARP? | The Vineyard of the Saker

26-01-19 11:22:00,

By Peter Koenig for The Saker Blog

HAARP – the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program – was initiated as an ionospheric research program, established in 1993 in Gakona, Alaska and operated by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It was and is funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Its alleged purpose “was to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance. HAARP is a high-power, high-frequency transmitter used for study of the ionosphere.”

That is the official version. HAARP was supposed to be shut down in May 2014, but then it was decided that the facility would be transferred to the University of Alaska. In reality, this sophisticated research project, owned by the military, and most probably with CIA hands in it, is continuing in some secret location, working on “ionospheric enhancement technologies”, to be used to influence weather patterns – in fact, to weaponize weather.

The first known occasion when the US air force used high power, high frequency transmitters, was to influence the intensity and duration of the monsoon during the Vietnam war in the 1960s. The idea was to render the transition of the Vietcong from North to South Vietnam on their jungle paths more difficult or impossible through extended heavy rains. To what extent this attempt was successful is not known.

However, since then, research has evolved and it is now possible to influence weather patterns throughout the world. In other words, to create droughts, floods, storm, hurricanes – wherever such weather phenomena are convenient for the purposes of empire and its vassals. Talk about man-made climate change. Imagine the amount of money that can be generated by such unsuspicious weather modifications – let alone the amount of human suffering, famine, despair – chaos, economic collapse – eventually entire segments of populations can be wiped out. And all will be attributed to ‘climate change’, which are claimed to be man-made due to our civilization’s excessive CO2 emissions. Man-made – indeed!

—–

Extensive and prolonged changes in weather patterns can have devastating economic impacts. The Pampas, stretching over some 750,000 km2, is one of South America’s most fertile region,

 » Lees verder

Talk of Western Intervention in the Black Sea Is Pure Fantasy – Global Research

17-01-19 05:16:00,

Crimea is essential to Russia strategically and economically, but speculation over Ankara helping to boost the US presence in the Black Sea is far-fetched given Turkey’s energy deals with Moscow

***

A power struggle over the Black Sea between Russia and the US plus NATO has the potential to develop as a seminal plot of the 21st century New Great Game – alongside the current jostling for re-positioning in the Eastern Mediterranean.

By now it’s established the US and NATO are stepping up military pressure from Poland to Romania and Bulgaria all the way to Ukraine and east of the Black Sea, which seems, at least for the moment, relatively peaceful, just as Crimea’s return to Russia starts to be regarded, in realpolitik terms, as a fait accompli.

After a recent series of conversations with top analysts from Istanbul to Moscow, it’s possible to identify the main trends ahead.

Just as independent Turkish analysts like Professor Hasan Unal are alarmed at Ankara’s isolation in the Eastern Mediterranean energy sphere by an alliance of Greece, Cyprus and Israel, Washington’s military buildup in both Romania and Bulgaria is also identified as posing a threat to Turkey.

It’s under this perspective that Ankara’s obstinance in establishing a security “corridor” in northern Syria, east of the Euphrates river, and free from the YPG Kurds, should be examined. It’s a matter of policing at least one sensitive border.

Still, in the chessboard from Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Crimea, the specter of “foreign intervention” setting fire to the Intermarium – from the Baltics to the Black Sea – simply refuses to die.

Ukraine Russia map

‘Russian lake’?

By the end of the last glacial era, around 20,000 years ago, the Black Sea – separated from the Mediterranean by an isthmus – was just a shallow lake, much smaller in size than it is today.

The legendary journey of Jason and the Argonauts, before the Trojan war, followed the Argo ship to the farther shore of Pontus Euxinus (the ‘Black Sea’) to recover the Golden Fleece – the cure for all evils – from its location in Colchis (currently in Georgia).

 » Lees verder