Putin makes many arguments against a US attack on Syria that
are familiar from other authors.
In the role of defender of international law and order, he writes
one such argument as follows.
The law is still the
law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.
Under current
international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision
of the Security Council.
Anything else is
unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of
aggression.
If Putin takes the matter seriously enough to publish in the
leading American newspaper, should not Washington take more seriously not only these
arguments but also the Russian president’s previous warnings that his country
will stand up for Assad?
People insisted on playing globo-chicken in 1914 despite plenty
of warnings on all sides, and the result was The Great War.
The League and its successor, the UN, were founded precisely
to prevent such a thing happening again.
Though it will deeply offend their pride, the denizens of DC
should listen carefully and heed Putin’s warnings.
It makes no sense for the US to carry out an attack for no
purpose whatever except to vindicate an international norm when the attack
violates more important international norms and is not sanctioned by the only
licensed defender of international order and agent of the international will,
the United Nations.
I am not saying there are not plenty of reasons to question
membership in the UN and even to consider eventually abandoning it and
rejecting its claims to authority.
But so long as the UN continues to play a sufficiently helpful role in maintenance
of international peace and order, and so long as the Security Council veto
permanently assigned the world’s leading powers is essential to that role, we
have to hope our government is very loathe to undertake a military attack of
choice and not plain necessity without an OK from that body and, indeed, when
consent from that body would clearly not be granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment