U.S. Invents New Foreign Policy "Principle" That Contradicts Law
prin·ci·ple noun \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\:a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumptionLeslie H. Gelb and Dimitri K. Simes, foreign policy honchos in Washington, ask in an NYT op-ed if there is A New Anti-American Axis?b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>
They seem to believe that any cooperation between Russia and China is somewhat anti-American. There is nothing special to that. U.S. foreign policy folks are permanently constructing new boogeymen. But there is this rather weird passage in their writing:
Both Moscow and Beijing oppose the principle of international action to interfere in a country’s sovereign affairs, much less overthrow a government, as happened in Libya in 2011. After all, that principle could always backfire on them.
Since when is there a principle of interference in other countries business? There is none. The principle in international law is NOT to interfere in any sovereign state's local business.
According to international law scholar Richard Falk the principle of non-intervention is even obligatory for any state since it was incorporated into the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted by the UN General Assembly resolution 2625 in 1970. The resolution notes:
The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,..Gelb and Simes are inventing a principle that says the opposite of the real internationally codified one. One that has been part of international law since the Westphalian Peace Treaty signed in 1648.
It seems like every time the U.S. can not get its ways through the application of international law it just tries to invents a new one even when that totally contradicts the exiting ones. Who do these U.S. foreign policy people want to impress with uttering such nonsense? Claiming such fraudulent principles will only encourage Russia, China and other international actors to counter them by ever deeper cooperation.
Posted by b on July 7, 2013 at 11:22 UTC | Permalink
There is nothing new in what Leslie H. Gelb and Dimitri K. Simes are saying
in fact, if memory serves me right, and it usually does
it was all prefigured by Tony Blair (march 2004)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/05/iraq.iraq
(Full text: Tony Blair's speech,Speech given by the prime minister in Sedgefield, justifying military action in Iraq and warning of the continued threat of global terrorism)
selected quote "So, for me, before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. I did not consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy, though I could see the horrible injustice done to its people by Saddam."
so for the past 4 centuries, we have had 1 law to govern international relations
and then along comes you-know-who (aka "The Chosen One")
Posted by: chris | Jul 7 2013 11:45 utc | 2
What can you expect by Leslie Gelb, the same guy who supported invasion of Iraq, Gaza invasion and israeli attack on the aid flottilas amongst other things.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2013 11:50 utc | 3
You wouldn't believe the ingrained ignorance of US foreign policy apparatchiks. There's an ethos of unconstrained creativity - as long as the result justifies US aggression. A US 'expert' will pull any harebrained idea out his ass because he does not know what agreements the US has signed. He does not know what the world has done to codify the Nuremberg Principles. The security business is a bunch of Kaspar Hausers dreaming up their own ABCs.
Posted by: ...---... | Jul 7 2013 12:55 utc | 5
"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."
Thomas Jefferson some 200 years ago.
The US governments and their principles, a long story.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 7 2013 13:03 utc | 6
In all fairness what they presumably mean is the Responsibility to Protect
which has some foundation in UN reports and Security Council Resolutions.
By misusing this principle - which is a principle as you have to help when you see someone in need - in Libya, the US basically killed it. Like they killed vaccinations in Islamic countries and humanitarian help in war zones.
Posted by: somebody | Jul 7 2013 13:09 utc | 7
Obama seems to be building on the Nixon "principle" that what the president (of the US, of course) does is legal because the president has done it. Blair could easily see where his future success and wealth was going to come from...and it wasn't from the vast majority of "the people." So, he got on board with this "principle."
Back in the "innocent" times of the 1970's, Nixon's approach was viewed as unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. He was forced to resign the presidency.
Today? Anything goes, as long as the Corporatist masters approve of what the approved president is doing. Obama is, obviously, an approved president, bearing the Corporatist Seal of Approval. He would never have been promoted and given huge early donations to take out Hillary Clinton otherwise.
Since the Corporate Masters, especially the Banksters, knew that a Dem would win the 2008 presidential election, they had to take Hillary out of the running and get someone in the presidency who would work solely for their interests. Hillary, being somewhat more economically liberal than Obama, was simply unfit for office in the opinion of the Corporatists. So, they backed Obama, who had been groomed for high office since he was clearly in the Corporatist camp and had shown this in repeated actions as a state senator and US senator. Altho' he had only limited time in office, he had done what was necessary, as far as the One Percenters were concerned. He had been vetted by the wealthy and powerful in Illinois and was found to be loyal and dependable. He was a made man.
Bush/Cheney, now Obama, are merely extending the idea of the president, that Unitary Exccutive, to do no wrong (as long as it was OK with the Corporatist master) to include all foreign policy actions...by the US and its approved allies only. This does not cover the actions of any nation perceived by the US to be not wholly in agreement with the US.
With a compliant "free" press, owned by the Corporatists, it is pretty easy to finesse the obvious hypocrisy of US actions. Up is down, as long as the president says it is...and the Corporatist masters agree.
The US is a bad actor when its actions are not tempered by strong alternatives. US hegemony is not good for the people of the US or the world.
Posted by: jawbone | Jul 7 2013 13:37 utc | 8
they seem to have been talking to my father in law who sincerely believes that anything the rest of the world does is out to spite 'us'.
Posted by: heath | Jul 7 2013 13:54 utc | 9
Jawbone @ 8: Yep, that's the USA today. They make their plays, and the rest of the globe reacts.
Posted by: ben | Jul 7 2013 14:14 utc | 10
@somebody (7): The Security Council cannot make international law, nor can 'UN reports'. What happened was that the 2005 so-called World Summit of the UN (a form of General Assembly) endorsed this:
Clear and unambiguous acceptance by all governments of the collective international responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Willingness to take timely and decisive collective action for this purpose, through the Security Council, when peaceful means prove inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to do it.
But its first major application via the UNSC, not counting Darfur as 'major', was Libya in 2011, based on bogus reports of genocide, on which Russia and China abstained, who knows why, and the result was an obvious, complete, still ongoing fiasco. Here's an article saying in so many words that the genocide claims by Obama were bogus. A law that allows such rigged interventions is no law at all. The article ends:
In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.
So I infer from this that R2P is not a 'noble principle' but a piece of dangerous garbage.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7 2013 14:17 utc | 11
@ Knut #4: " Law is for little people. It's might that makes right."
"Clear and unambiguous acceptance by all governments of the collective international responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Willingness to take timely and decisive collective action for this purpose, through the Security Council, when peaceful means prove inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to do it."
The only clear cut case, according to this principle, for intervention would be Palestine. Then, perhaps, Sri Lanka in the governments murderous campaigns against Tamils. Or eastern Congo and Rwanda where the Tutsi government has been ethnically cleansing for fun and profit to the tune of several million dead.
Each of these cases, involving US allies, has been ignored while wars against Serbia and Libya have been justified on the sort of "evidence" that historians will laugh at. Remember the 100,000 massacred "Kossovans" and the viagra crazed black mercenaries poised to rape Benghazi?
The new principle is not simply "If the President does it it must be OK" but "If the government claims it, it must be true (despite the contradictory evidence of the world's lying eyes.)"
Posted by: bevin | Jul 7 2013 14:41 utc | 13
Just a question and a thought: Anti-Americanism; we have many Anti-isms everywhere. What is the word for ‘American-Anti-ism’ (American anti against something/one (Snowden for example although American)/state/Region/Entity/Ideology etc, or does that exist as an definition?
In my view anti-American is complex -Which part are you anti, the people, the bible belt, music, Art, the great works of Poe, Steinbeck’s of Mice and men, the extermination of the aboriginals , the attraction to serial killers, in that, Dexter or Hollywood, the love or need for ‘Gay marriage’ the hate of others, the KKK, a nationalistic view but a salad bowl concept forming it’s very fabric; all so paradoxical; in turn a very complex question.
For me it’s pretty simple, I think US foreign policy is the ‘Killer’ and I don’t use that term lightly. It’s tragic and much like a wife abuser, it batters a weaker opponent when it could coincide and amend, or simply separate. It is vengeful, and can’t see its own madness or faults.
I guess that's what comes of unstoppable power, or a power that can’t stop being a power, but as we all know, the mighty fall, it’s just a matter of time - The question is will the next be any better?
Posted by: kev | Jul 7 2013 14:50 utc | 14
Re # 7/11 (and not the chain). The SC and member states, it's all back door agreements, considering the US is the greatest contributor in funding, one can see the outcome. In that a good book, although outdated and brief is a good insight, and just a surface of the ineffectively as a mechanism/Org with over 100,000 globaly on the payrole. - http://www.amazon.com/The-Gang-Incompetence-Anti-Semitism-Secretariat/dp/0385513194
Posted by: kev | Jul 7 2013 14:58 utc | 15
More on "Might makes Right", and "law is for little people"
The Dark Side of The Force-Economic Foundations of Conflict Theory
R2P really is dangerous nonsense, put 'The Volk' and the nazis would have been all over it.
Posted by: heath | Jul 7 2013 15:16 utc | 17
George Washington stated the princito avoid "entangling alliances".
The central government has become wickedness central. Aside from the War of 1812, the following war with Mexico was called the "wicked war" by 19th century Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, I believe.
The consistently appalling actions of USGov is quicky turning the whole world against it. It might take a little longer as a result of America's soft power, movies, music, food, etc.
But will there be the day, when major movies begin showing Americans as the bad guys?
Will the moment arise when people out of "principle"
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 7 2013 15:21 utc | 18
NBC's Meet the Press was amusing this morning only Egpytian being El Baradi and then usual suspects, namely NBC journos and Tom Friedman flapping their gums on what the Egpytians should be doing.
Posted by: heath | Jul 7 2013 15:23 utc | 19
George Washington stated the to avoid "entangling alliances".
The central government has become wickedness central. Aside from the War of 1812, the following war with Mexico was called the "wicked war" by 19th century Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, I believe.
The consistently appalling actions of USGov is quicky turning the whole world against it. It might take a little longer as a result of America's soft power, movies, music, food, etc.
But will there be the day, when major movies begin showing Americans as the bad guys?
Will the moment arise when people out of "principle" or just plain pride reject this aspect of America too?
America is such a good place, with such nice people it's shame & pathetic the USgov does this.
"Principals"? The principal interest of theirs is simply more power and more greed.
Now I'm done, sorry about before. I pressed the post button by mistake.
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 7 2013 15:26 utc | 20
The principle of non-intervention has been attacked by Human Rightists (NOT only them) who think they get to decide what poor ppl should be protected or massacred, so they can dance around and be noble and also get or keep plum jobs, have foreign adventures, sexy encounters, and generally posture as respectable non-violent warriors for ‘justice’...to go on to work for JP Morgan.
(Yes, humanitarian experience is not only a good CV puff, but sometimes a requirement, for banks. Nepal amongst others runs programs, aka a cottage industry, that delivers such qualifications.)
Still, a principle that some pay lip service to, for what who knows. Nobody paid any attention to that in e.g. Iraq, Lybia. The US in any case has set itself above all, as nobody in the Int’l community objects, denounces, vociferates, or it comes purposely, too weak, too late.
Drones that target and kill civs? Heh...Some investigation is needed.
May 2013:
The UNHRC report published on May 2 seeks a moratorium on the “testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition, deployment and use” of fully or semi-autonomous weapons including drones and robots until an international forum can establish rules for their use. The use of drones violates international law, the report stated.
Christof Heyns, a South African professor of human rights law and author of the report, said the United States, the UK and the Israeli regime in particular have developed killer robots dubbed Lethal Autonomous Robotics (LAR) that can attack targets without any human input.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/03/301542/un-calls-for-end-to-use-of-drones/
> There were reports and objections before, but there is still no official condemnation. not that it would count for anything. See e.g.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/us-drone-strikes-pakistan_n_2883014.html
Here a typical shill: (Jan 2013)
When I think about the covert drones program, we’re focused on the civilian impact,” says Sarah Holewinski of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, which has studied the program. “But nobody really knows! The president doesn’t know, I don’t know, human rights groups don’t know. They’re taking place in remote areas. I’m looking forward to knowing from this inquiry what actually happens when a drone strike occurs.”
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/un-drone-inquiry/
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 7 2013 15:37 utc | 21
Just a question and a thought: Anti-Americanism; ... In my view anti-American is complex -Which part are you anti, the people, the bible belt, music, Art, the great works of Poe, Steinbeck’s of Mice and men, the extermination of the aboriginals , the attraction to serial killers, in that, Dexter or Hollywood, the love or need for ‘Gay marriage’ the hate of others, the KKK, a nationalistic view but a salad bowl concept forming it’s very fabric; all so paradoxical; in turn a very complex question. Posted by: kev | Jul 7, 2013 10:50:00 AM | 14I don't think it's a coincidence that it's so often paired with anti-semitism by the op-ed merchants who use it most. They've built it like an annex onto 'anti-semitism', which it took them a couple of decades to set up just the way they wanted it in the US press, so that 'anti-americanism' comes across along with 'anti-semitism' as reverse racism. This is a massive depoliticisation of international relations. It pretends that nations are like small-town neighbours who have to 'get along'. In fact, it's so perverse that in my own reverse-racist way I can't help feeling it was cooked up by a psywar lab in Israel, specifically tailored as a viral meme to deepen the depoliticised trance of the ZOG. Only jokin', ha ha ha.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7 2013 15:52 utc | 22
@Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7, 2013 11:52:59 AM | 21, it was just a thought and seeing 'Anti-USA' so often and never saw a root to a counter argument in terminology. In one way to be labeled as ‘Anti-Whatever’, one needs a grounds, reason, and outcomes and a histoyu; or so I assume?
The US has many grounds to not like, or to worry about other nations, including outcomes with a history that it has inflicted on others, thus to be 'labeled' as such (Be it legit or self manifested), like ‘Anti-us’ (Double pun). Yet I have not heard a term to that effect, more so a universal one and as it does have a universal (Global) military presence, more so than any other county. The US use 'Anti' all too often, even upon its own, in turn more complicated as a thought.
However you are possibly right, Israel is very much the connect, take ‘Zusa’ as an example, one does not hear or see ‘usrael’ or the likes. The logic in some ways is puzzling, as the aggressor should be called 'Anti' (Something) yet the aggressor uses 'Anti' as sentiment and argument against others.
Possibly I have had too much wine on this one, or I am being just daft?
Posted by: kev | Jul 7 2013 16:30 utc | 23
More decadent claptrap from the US intellectual class. It is truly revolting. No society at any point has ever produced such a dedicated bunch of cheerleaders for unrestrained criminality, theft and murder. Good gig if you can get it I suppose. My thinking is they all belong in the dock along with GWB, Cheney, and now Obama.
The US elite has never lived up to a single promise. Never taken a single slice when it could grab the whole pie. You don't have to go halfway across the globe to ask Russia and China. You can ask the Algonquins and the Cherokee. You can ask the Wal-mart wage slaves and the decimated Detroit auto workers. You can ask the African Americans still waiting for that 40 acres and a mule, or the brave Mexicans who have come to do the hard work of this country for nothing but harassment and a thin stack of ten-dollar bills.
China and Russia made a mistake in Libya. Syria is showing they're not going to make it again. They'll have to do the same with Iran. The rest of the world is not going to survive if it doesn't start to resist the United States.
@1 Rowan "Custodians of the Financial System" That's an excellent point. Was it someone here discussing how Russia cannot even process a single credit card transaction without routing it through the US. And look at the way Iran sanctions rely on these heretofore unknown bank transaction hubs sitting in Belgium.
The BRICS need to extract themselves from this crooked casino asap. The rest of the world should then follow them.
___________
Goddamn! They do love to drag the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact into everything, don't they. Ought to stop. Germany and Russia might be wise to consider something similar in this day and age. The Russians may even be able to restrain themselves from wholesale spying on their partner and ally.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7 2013 16:43 utc | 24
The principle of violence and interference with sovereign nations represents a ridiculous doctrine or assumption, the principle of imperial power. We wouldn't want to end up like Ancient Rome, where the "Axis" lined up against us is the rest of the known world. The threat is implied against anyone who doesn't go along with the idea of a principle which justifies overthrowing countries. Gelb and Simes, in their own way, are delivering the threat on behalf of Uncle Sam, no doubt as Roman scribes once did. China and Russia should be more careful, as should anyone standing in groups of two, or three, or more.
"After all, that principle could always backfire on them."
@ kev, 22: "Israel is very much the connect, take ‘Zusa’ as an example, one does not hear or see ‘usrael’ or the likes." -- As it happens, I regularly use the expression "USrael" on my own blog, but I don't use it to express an opinion of my own (or so I pretend :-)) -- I just use it as an abbreviation, so that whenever a news story or an op-ed says "the US and Israel," I abbreviate it to "USrael.". It's fun, but it does pose problems with the verbs. It looks slightly peculiar saying "Usrael are worried that..." when the whole point is to imply that 'they' are actually just one thing, joined at the hip. But I have also conducted lengthy arguments with myself on my blog about the question; "Which is dog and which is tail? Which is hammer and which is nail?" Insoluble, in my opinion.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7 2013 17:32 utc | 26
Here's a very densely loaded example of the expression 'anti-American':
Israel is a pariah state. When people ask us for something, we cannot afford to ask questions about ideology. The only type of regime that Israel would not aid would be one that is anti-American. Also, if we can aid a country that it may be inconvenient for the US to help, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face not to.
- Statement in a public lecture by Yohanah Ramati, former editor of the Israeli journal The Economist and member of the Foreign Relations Committee during the Likud government (1977-1984), Florida International University, Bay Vista campus, Mar 6 1985.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7 2013 19:14 utc | 27
Obama was preferred over Hillary because she voted for the Iraq War and it turned out badly. She would not have regretted her vote had Iraq been turned into a pro-Israel, pro-American puppet state, even if no WMDs were found. If anything she has been even more hawkish than Obama during his terms.
Posted by: amspirnational | Jul 7 2013 19:37 utc | 28
Another article showing US help in the coup, obvious, useful idiots here, will of course not accept it.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/final-egyptian-coup.html
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2013 21:28 utc | 29
While Russia currently has the ability to interdict zusa attacks on herself and to create denied zones in her near to mid abroad it supposedly still lacks the ability to push and drive back zusa on a gobal scale.
Currently Russia has a massive upgrade and modernization of it's weapons systems and military underway. While this, including its massive navy upgrade and buildup, could still be interpreted as bolstering its current near to mid abroad capabilities, the recently revealed program to build a new class of aircraft carriers that would very favourably compare to zusa systems clearly shows Russias intention to being able to confront and push back zusa globally.
What does this have to do with zusas foreign policy? Very much because zusa freedom of action on a global scale is - and will soon be much stronger - limited by BRICS/SCO.
There are some quite telling sidenotes to Russias military re-build up.
One concerns turkey. Currently the relevant international agreements do expressly forbid aircraft carriers and ships over a certain tonnage to pass Borsporus. This (and not lack of engineering capability as many in zato circles like to propagandize) was the major reason for the design of Kuznetsov class carriers; they were limited in size as well as tactically by those Bosporus related agreements. Not having catapults allowed Russia (then USSR) to declare them non aircraft carriers.
While it might be imaginable that Russia keeps those new carriers out of their black see navy this seems a quite unrealistic guess given the black sea fleets strategic importance. Chances are that sooner or later Russia will - preferably in friendly negotiations - find an agreement with a less zato-friendly turkey to allow for Bosporus passage. This might be the issue over which the issue "turkey" will break open but even today turkey is putting herself in danger by being staunchly zato.
Or, in simple terms, Russia, if really needed, *will* pass Bosporus with or without turkeys OK; turkey would be well advised to consider the question were the vast majority of their economic heart are (Istanbul).
Another angle is both Chinas (very evident) and Brazils (less evident but clearly existing) desire for aircraft carriers. If those three partners with their very considerable means came to agree, probably very discreetly, to combine their efforts in that direction zusa will basically cease to be a major power.
One reason, albeit a rather technical one, for that statement is Russias habit - and capability - to install very considerable self defense capabilities on their aircraft carriers. Unlike zusa carriers who can't dare to travel in small flotillas, the new Russian carriers could and probably would sail in considerably smaller groups yet pack much more punch than larger zusa groups.
Putin declared multiple times his two priorities, namely the recovery and build up of Russia and the establishment of a multipolar world, which directly translates to zusa decline. So far Putin has gone the way and comparing the world in 2000 and today, zusa clearly has brutally lost in pretty every regard while Russia and her friends and partners have strongly grown.
It would evidently be wise for zusa to simply and quietly retreat from the global scene, to focus on much needed repairs on all levels, and to even be allowed to keep a certain weight in the world.
Unfortunately it seems that zusa isn't capable of rational politics and must be brutally beaten and crippled towards an adequate position.
And so it shall happen.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 7 2013 21:39 utc | 30
@28 Can't you at least keep the Egypt stuff in the Egypt threads?
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7 2013 21:52 utc | 31
guest77
Please get off my back. This thread is about US intervention.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2013 22:11 utc | 32
Anonymous@28
This may come as a surprise to you but imperialist governments often back every horse in the race, secure in the knowledge that, when the winner is proclaimed, he will have to do business with the Empire.
Nothing the mondoweiss article tells us is surprising or particularly significant. In the end, on the one hand there is what 90% of 86 million Egyptians want and, on the other, what 1% of 300 million Americans want.
And please, don't call people who think for themselves "useful idiots" Lenin was talking about people who reacted in predictable ways. Do you have a mirror handy?
As to the novelty of the R2P2 doctrine, I cannot think of a single imperialist intervention, in the past five hundred plus years, which did not include, among the justifications for plunder, the claim that the "natives" were cannibals, incessantly at war, tearing each other to pieces, in need of Pax Britannica or some other such nonsense.
The truth is that the Peace of Westphalia only ever was applied to "civilised" (European or Creole) nations. Beyond Europe no state's sovereignty was respected. So there is nothing new about this doctrine except that the entire globe is now in the position that Africa was in: fair game for thieves with excuses.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 7 2013 22:15 utc | 33
bevin
Thats just a way for people (like yourself?) that refuse to accept that US role to say that. Yes 1% rule over the rest on foreign policy, nothing new.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2013 22:23 utc | 34
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Don%27t_feed_the_trolls
Posted by: ahji | Jul 7 2013 22:29 utc | 35
@Anon I'm not going to get off your back. Here bevin has offered you something worth considering, and you've given him a dim-witted, two sentence reply replete with yet another insult and accusation.
It's no wonder most of your posts are your own childish come ons, you obviously don't have a genuinely interesting thought in your head.
Bevin is absolutely right of course. No one is surprised that the US had a role in the coup. No one is surprised that Tony Blair gave it his blessing. If the tables were turned, you'd be hearing the exact same thing because they play all sides.
The only thing we do know for sure, is that those millions of people on the streets were brave Egyptian citizens risking their lives to move their country away from sectarian violence and economic crisis. Not that you're interested in what motivates them.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7 2013 23:05 utc | 36
guest77
Well as I said you say that because you try to justify your position, thats why I used the term "useful idiots", you think you have a anti-imperialist argument, while we see, you have no idea whats going on. However you now admit US having a role, I welcome that.
You should study history, especially how have US approach coup in the past.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2013 23:11 utc | 37
The Nazis did the exact same thing, couching their naked aggression in high-minded wording. The excuses for war and butchery that appear in the New York Times is merely the carefully thought out phraseology for the same brutal policy that Hillary Clinton so vulgarly let slip upon the death of Gadaffi "We came, we saw, he died."
Articles such as these are entirely for consumption within the homeland and for right-wing, pro-US intellectuals abroad. It wouldn't even pass the laugh test anywhere else. Such statements that imply that anyone who considers the United States in decline is "making a mistake" completely flies in the face of current events in Syria, in the Snowden case, in South and Central America, to name a few examples.
The United States is in desperate pep-rally mode at this point. It's my opinion that the only reason the United States appeared so "free" (free press, free speech, especially) was because of it's geographic isolation and it's military supremacy. I think now that those two properties are waning, those of us in the United States can expect to see more such articles praising our strength (in spite of our obvious weaknesses) and extolling our exceptional freedoms (despite the fact that they are daily being reduced to a shadow of themselves) as we watch dissent become less and less tolerated as the United States faces the perils of a strong-but-not-dominant country in the real world.
From now on when you hear of American exceptionalism it will merely be the mad, sad, self-assuring inner-monolouge of the bully who has been popped in the nose and sent packing by his former prey. The reality has been exposed. No longer can the US use a combination of good-will and straight threats to bluff its way into destroying a small countries like Libya or Iraq, despite what those bozo yes-men at the NY Times say about it.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7 2013 23:25 utc | 38
@Anon You can try to mis-characterize this long, long string of posts regarding Egypt so as to imagine yourself as "the smart guy" but other people are also reading this and the record is there.
The writer of your article - who gives into your simplistic interpretation that somehow millions of Muslims were on the streets because they are scared of Muslims - cannot even get his facts correct: "Now the Guardian reports that the announcement of Mohammed ElBaradei as the new Prime Minister has been put on hold due to American pressure."
Nowhere in the article does it say the US is preventing ElBaradei (who only moments ago was your "zionist stooge") from becoming PM. All other reports indicate instead it is the Nour party making that call.
The title of the article is completely disingenuous "US had final say in Egyptian coup". No where does he give evidence that the US had "final say". It rather sounds like the Americans did their best to assure your buddy Morsi a position in the face of military pressure.
My summation would be that the article you link to is as full of shit as you are.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7 2013 23:46 utc | 39
@Anon:
Your mystifying love for the MB runs so deep that you can't see that those Egyptians protesting their government and supporting the overthrow of a scummy sectarian neo-liberal party is not the same thing as supporting military rule and US intervention. Like the Muslim Brotherhood themselves, you've put one sect in Egypt over Egyptians as a whole. That's why they're gone, and you're an increasingly lonely voice here.
Further from the author you link to: "Yet if anyone thinks Egypt’s turmoil is solely an American invention, they should think again. Egypt and the Middle East ruling classes have their own self-interest to protect. Looking outside for the culprit simply delays the reckoning necessary to break the cycle that is devouring the future."
You could learn a thing from reading more than just the first article that fits your world-view, don't you think?
The Muslim Brotherhood should stop blaming America for their problems - especially since they were so quick to suck up to the US themselves - and return to the bargaining table for Egypt's sake. If they are patriots and not sectarian opportunists, that is.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7 2013 23:59 utc | 40
@guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 7:25:46 PM | 36, I remember that quote, themed around "Veni, vidi, vici", but very sure the night before she watched ‘Ghost busters’ and took the line from "We came, We saw, We kicked its ass!" and just ended it with ‘He died’ - It was a crude statement and totally lacking any diplomacy, in fact her delivery was as if she was there - I guess if you lie and lie not only do others start believing, but you believe the lie yourself. Later that quote of hers could be more aptly suited for ‘Stevens’, then it would fit the situation.
Hillary Clinton was doing her part to help the Muslim Brotherhood implement the Turkey Strategy in Egypt when she said military leadership in past days were “clearly troubling, the military has to assume an appropriate role which is not to interfere with, dominate or try to subvert the constitutional authority,” In that, clearly Clinton does not have much to say or comprehend ‘subverting constitutional authority’ when Erdogan the administrations regional ally; jails political opponents, military officers, and journalists and gets the administrations green light.
In that, she lost all credibility with the Stevens event ‘He came, I flapped, he died’, he was also sent as a bad boy posting and to get him out of the hair of some.
She does not conceive foreign policy on the grand scale, she simply follows along, she is just in the shadow of her husband with the administration pushing her on stage with a makeover (Surgery, weight loss and a hair do), but it takes a lot more to make ‘Cigar stain’ vanish and she is venting, the problem is, on others.
So as mentioned, the US will equally just ride the wave and get on board the winning boat, and does not have ‘one rule for all’ approach,( Guest77 -because they play all sides) unless it’s the final blow - ‘Blanket Bombing’.
@Anon, 'I' thought it was just 'me' you parasitically annoyed, but it seems that is your MO to 'all and sundry', feel kinda left out now! Don’t students like you have friends on FB to play with? I am ‘assuming’ now your female, at collage and in the UK, so you should get out more, have some fun, your only young once; Or are you banned as the ‘Sisterhood’ forbids it, thus you do a ‘Hillary’ (Vent on others)?
Posted by: kev | Jul 8 2013 1:25 utc | 41
Anonympus
Guest77, stated that neo-liberal policies like everywhere else are ruining national economies. Especially the economy of the nation state of Egypt. Assad is in a totally different situation, your charges are inaccurate. As usual, we've talked about also how Assad's adoption of these same neo-lib policies, hollowed out his economy to the point that disaffected Sunni living in the countryside became incensed against their Alawi and Shii countrymen. Morsi wanted, before his vacation wished to send more Egyptian Sunnis to die in the meat grinder over in Syria. Not very nice. This was part of the "Jihad" Morsi never actually said but totally meant when he told the mujaheddin to go and smite then wherever they find them.
You are funny Anonympus. Funny like a clown, y'know.
Assad is integral in the survival in the nation-state that is currently Syria. Without him the cannibals, murderers and other assorted criminals would butcher and pillage many Syrians. Much like they did with Francois Murad, a Christian priest whose head was cut off.
The fact that the Coptic Pope & the sheikh of Al-azhar say plenty to me too.
In one ear out the other.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 8 2013 3:11 utc | 42
I meant that the Coptic Pope and The Sheikh of al-Azhar say that they support this constitutional-recall-coup light. That they are on it's side means that they saw the danger revolving around Morsi. If the next government in Cairo, gets it priorities straight and also help lift the siege of Gaza. Then they will definitely at least partially be on the side of righteousness. The brothers over there need all the help they can get.
Anonympus go over to the wall and count to 1,000 please.
The adults are talking.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 8 2013 3:24 utc | 43
No one really has any idea about how this will end in the short term,let alone the medium to long term simply because the islamist factions are too divided and the army/mubarak rump is the decider militarily, if you like but has no ideas in its head apart from having its fingers in the pie. Wonder how long before there is car bombing courtesy of you know who.
Posted by: heath | Jul 8 2013 3:43 utc | 44
guest77
I appreciate you call me smart :)
I have never called El'baradei a "zionist stooge", thats sounds more like your conspiracy-lingo.
Again MB and the liberal opposition support neoliberal acts, dont you understand?
kev
Feel free to insult me if thats what boosts your self esteem :)
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 8 2013 6:25 utc | 45
@Fernando, 43: You can't expect the Army to do anything to relieve the seige of Gaza, as long as Hamas is in control of it. On the contrary, the Army blames Morsi (among other things) for conniving with the most radical elements of Hamas to fill the Sinai with armed Jihadis. What the Army could do, and this would coincide with what I understand that Israel would really like, is to annex Gaza to Egypt, defeating Hamas militarily and dismantling it with international support, on the grounds that it is clearly incapable of self-government, and a menace to man and beast alike.
:-)
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 8 2013 10:33 utc | 46
Rowan #46
Now why would the Egpytian army do that big a favor for the Isrealis? something that would set the whole of the Sinai aflame?
Posted by: heath | Jul 8 2013 11:53 utc | 47
heath
Because both Israel and Egyptian army hate these groups operating in Sinai. Army+Israel are more allied.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 8 2013 12:13 utc | 48
The comments to this entry are closed.
I think they're referring to R2P, which Russia and China have certainly never endorsed, since it is based on nothing in international law and is highly selective in its application. Russia and China do not object to the principle of depriving a 'rogue nation' of a nuclear weapons program not supervised by the IAEA, since it can be logically derived from the original IAEA Treaty; but they do object to R2P, in Russia's case explicitly. The point of the article comes at the end, and it's a traditionally centrist CFR point: the US has to work with rather than against Russia and China in some theaters, but in others it should "stand firm". I'm most intrigued by this:
That phrase, "custodians of the international financial system," is open to direct attack by Russia, China or anybody else who considers it to be bullshit.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7 2013 11:42 utc | 1