Obama Stops Saudi Intervention In Bahrain

Cook

Banned
How much did the Kosovo War, which was not approved by the U.N. Security Council and was not even approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, undermine international law, all American treaties, etc?
NATO intervention in Kosovo was authorized under Chapter VII of the UN charter and by UN Security Council resolution 1199. The United States did not have any alliance with Serbia, nor had they signed any leasing agreement with Serbia. It did not undermine international law because it complied with International Law and it did not undermine US alliances, and in fact reinforced the alliance structure because it was acting in concert with its NATO alliance partners.

The concept of the OP is simply that America duplicate the Soviet action in Afghanistan in 1979, where the Soviet Union justified intervention and invasion on the basis of the agreement with the Afghan government to provide military instructors. It was a clear breach of international law that cost the Soviets in both political and economic terms. It did not harm the Soviet’s alliance structure because theirs was an imperial alliance network; they had bases only in nations whose governments they controlled, once that control weakened in late ‘80s their network of alliances collapsed. The United States has a far broader network of alliances, with countries whose governments enjoy the independence than Warsaw Pact members never had. The US has dozens of bases in countries who accept their presence only because there is no suspicion of risk to sovereignty and who would immediately expel US forces if from those bases if there was. The most immediately obvious one being Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.
 
Last edited:
Because in 2011 the government of Bahrain exercised full authority throughout Bahrain and was recognised internationally as such; the only criterion in International Law for the recognition of an authority as the government of a state is that it exercises effective control over that state’s territory, democracy is not a requirement.
Yet the international community (with a few exceptions) still considers the PRC to legitimately have claim to Taiwan, and Georgia to have claim over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

NATO intervention in Kosovo was authorized under Chapter VII of the UN charter and by UN Security Council resolution 1199. The United States did not have any alliance with Serbia, nor had they signed any leasing agreement with Serbia. It did not undermine international law because it complied with International Law and it did not undermine US alliances, and in fact reinforced the alliance structure because it was acting in concert with its NATO alliance partners.

The concept of the OP is simply that America duplicate the Soviet action in Afghanistan in 1979, where the Soviet Union justified intervention and invasion on the basis of the agreement with the Afghan government to provide military instructors. It was a clear breach of international law that cost the Soviets in both political and economic terms. It did not harm the Soviet’s alliance structure because theirs was an imperial alliance network; they had bases only in nations whose governments they controlled, once that control weakened in late ‘80s their network of alliances collapsed. The United States has a far broader network of alliances, with countries whose governments enjoy the independence than Warsaw Pact members never had. The US has dozens of bases in countries who accept their presence only because there is no suspicion of risk to sovereignty and who would immediately expel US forces if from those bases if there was. The most immediately obvious one being Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.
I'd say Guantanamo Bay or some of our Central Asian bases might be better examples...
Of course, you're leaving out laws like the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter. Meanwhile, there are also domestic laws that were violated by the Kosovo War- and Libya too. (Sadly, Republicans aren't backing Kucinich's impeachment resolution.)
 

Cook

Banned
Yet the international community (with a few exceptions) still considers the PRC to legitimately have claim to Taiwan, and Georgia to have claim over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The International Community, with no exceptions, regards Taiwan as part of China, as does the government of the Republic of China itself; there is no analogy there. The government of Taiwain is acknowledged as that of the RoC, but they are not a recognised nation independent of China.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are further Russian actions analogous to the Soviet action in Afghanistan, where they were 'invited' in by a rebel organization.

Of course, you're leaving out laws like the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter.
I am not; Kosovo came under Chapter VII of the UN charter and was authorised by the Security Council, as I said at the start of my previous post that you just quoted.

I'd say Guantanamo Bay...
Guantanamo Bay would be the least threatened since the US presence there is not at the consent of the Cuban government; The United States has a perpetual lease on the land and maintains its presence there over the objections of the Cuban government by force.
 
Last edited:
Top