Syria: The case for inaction

[John T. Fishel]

is more than a little skewed, Fuchs. Go back to 1648 in the Germanies. The end of the 30 years war created the world that we know today, only slightly modified. The world is Westphalian (Realist in Hans Morgenthau's term) with some modification brought about by Wilsonian Idealism (but damned little). The critical fact about the Wilsonian institution of the UN is that the UNSC reflects Realist view of the world. In many ways, the UNSC is the Concert of Europe expanded to include China. But for the Wilsonian vision to work the Great Powers must agree. When they don't, the biggest dogs will act and will be driven by their own interests whether seen narrowly or expansively. Ranting against the US and UK has as much utility as King Canute ordering the tide to stop rising - well perhaps a little more because those democracies (and a few others) sometimes listen to their critics. Try ranting against Putin's Russia or the PRC if you want to see what Canute was really up against.

As i said in an earlier post, IL is a weak reed to lean on. It ain't domestic law; in fact it isn't even law in the sense that law exists in all nation-states. It is a set of consensual norms made up of treaties (that apply only to signatories), regulations established by organizations created by those treaties, and customary behavior. No IL can be enforced against a state without either its consent or the power of a major state power or 2 or 5 or 9.If IL must be enforced by a major power(s) it will be done by an act or acts of war. That is true whether it is done with UNSC sanction or not.

Here is a little something to think about: Between 1933 and 1939 the League of Nations remained a functioning organization and Britain and France were Great Powers. In 1936, the Leader of Germany (another Great Power) flouted the treaty that ended the Great War and remilitarized the Rhineland in violation of international law; the other Great Powers did nothing. In 1938 Germany annexed Austria and threatened Czechoslovakia. Britain and France responded with the Munich Agreement for "peace in our time." In 1939 Germany invade Poland (incidentally in violation of IL just as in all the other cases) only this time Britain and France upheld their treaty and IL but it was nearly too late -especially because the other real Great Power, Russia (the USSR) had a non-aggression pact with Germany and opted to seize half of Poland for herself. And the other Great Powers - Japan was busy trying to carve up China and the US couldn't be bothered! The League Council (like the UNSC) was paralyzed and had been so since 1931 when Japan invaded China through Manchuria. Note that all of this took place outside of or in violation of IL. What does this ancient history have to do with today? If IL is not enforced by "acts of war" that are relatively small, the next act of war is likely to be a hell of a lot bigger and a hell of a lot more destructive. Oh, as Saint Carl suggested, the outcome of war is never certain. And, I would add, the outcome of a big war is far less certain with much greater consequences than the outcome of a small one. (I use small here in both its literal and Small Wars meaning.)

On that note,
Cheers


JohnT

[Fuchs]

Nice analogy, so befitting of Godwin's law.

There's a problem, though: Think about which country is a serial offender in regard to aggressions and bullying lately.

Sometimes the U.S. government is really not the solution to our problems; it is part of the problem.


It's still ridiculous and takes a lot of Kool-aid to think of the U.S. government as enforcing international rules. The hypocrisy-meter exploded long ago.

And one note to you and others here; the lowest respect for International Law among internet users can reliably be found amongst Americans. Other nationalities tend to be much more willing to give it a chance by respecting it more.
The problem isn't a lack of enforcement as you imply. The problem is a lack of respect. Some people have difficulties with this concept, but it really is possible to respect something without being threatened into it.

Again; try to understand your bunch is a major part of the problems in IL, not a major part of any solutions to problems in IL.

----------------

The good side of this all is probably that -lead by the lower chamber of the UK's parliament - the renewed age of racket interventions is probably nearing its end, with popular majorities finally reigning in on the warmongering through their representatives.

[John T. Fishel]

Fuchs--

One reason that small powers, medium powers, and former Great Powers fall back on IL is that they do not have the tools to enforce the norms they want to see enforced and IL is one of the few tools left. As someone else pointed out, this crisis - if it is indeed a crisis - is a conflict between the real Great Powers and their allies. The actual protagonists in the Syria case are the US and Russia along with Iran and their allies with the US unable to make a solid case to convince its allies that there is a real threat. Our President can't even convince his own countrymen so it is no wonder he can't convince a "hard head" like you!

In any case, my point stands: for "law" to be LAW it must be enforced. To be enforced, there must be agencies to enforce it. In the international community the only such agency is one or more of the Great Powers whether collectively in the UNSC or individually or in ad hoc coalitions.

Cheers

JohnT

[JMA]

Germany Joins US in Blaming Assad for Attack
http://goo.gl/pRgXZh

Not a surprise that Germany was the only European G-20 member not to sign the joint statement at the time... they needed time to seek permission fro their boss in the Kremlin.

German Energy Dependence on Russia
http://goo.gl/Tw70Hy

With Germany rapidly becoming a vassal state of Russia it surely poses a real threat to NATO and sovereignty of the EU.

So with Germany fingering Assad for the attack it surely signals a move in position of Russia on the matter?

[Ulenspiegel]

JMA,

your second article is really nice propaganda. It confirms again my opinion that the nuclear industry could learn a lot from NG producers.

1) A pipeline ties a producer to certain consumers, the disadvantages in a time with large amount of LNG on the spot market should be clear and were predicted around 2005. BTW Russia has only energy resources as export products, therefore, the dependencies are more complex. The new pipeline takes pressure from Russia, as Belorussia or Poland can not threaten the supply to central Europe any longer. Russia does not have the ability to change their customers on short notice, as her LNG prodcution capacity is very low and construction of alternative pipelines takes long.

2) The electricity production in Germany used 2012 14% less NG than 2011. NG can at the current price level easily be substituted with hard coal or lignite. Hard coal is available from the USA were shale gas substituted for coal. People often confuse power and energy. A high level of NG power capacity in a reneable scenario does not mean high full load hours of the power plants. :-)

3) The assumptions in respect to the energiewende are not convincing. In the field of electricity production it runs better than expected. I would read the publications of the German lignite producers (Braunkohleverband), they draw a different picture: NG and hard coal will come under severe pressure after 2022 when the decommission of NPPs does not longer compensate for increased production from RE. The trend of NG consumption for heating is also downwards.

[Ulenspiegel]

JMA,

your second article is really nice propaganda. It confirms again my opinion that the nuclear industry could learn a lot from NG producers.

1) A pipeline ties a producer to certain consumers, the disadvantages in a time with large amount of LNG on the spot market should be clear and were predicted around 2005. BTW Russia has only energy resources as export products, therefore, the dependencies are more complex. The new pipeline takes pressure from Russia, as Belorussia or Poland can not threaten the supply to central Europe any longer. Russia does not have the ability to change their customers on short notice, as her LNG prodcution capacity is very low and construction of alternative pipelines takes long.

2) The electricity production in Germany used 2012 14% less NG than 2011. NG can at the current price level easily be substituted with hard coal or lignite. Hard coal is available from the USA were shale gas substituted for coal. People often confuse power and energy. A high level of NG power capacity in a reneable scenario does not mean high full load hours of the power plants. :-)

3) The assumptions in respect to the energiewende are not convincing. In the field of electricity production it runs better than expected. I would read the publications of the German lignite producers (Braunkohleverband), they draw a different picture: NG and hard coal will come under severe pressure after 2022 when the decommission of NPPs does not longer compensate for increased production from RE. The trend of NG consumption for heating is also downwards.

[Fuchs]

Hilariously, I wrote almost the same back in 2008 already.

It's astonishing how long wrong ideas persist if only they are being liked by a large group of people: As if people believe what they like, not what's well-founded in facts.

[JMA]

Hilariously, I wrote almost the same back in 2008 already.

It's astonishing how long wrong ideas persist if only they are being liked by a large group of people: As if people believe what they like, not what's well-founded in facts.

Nothing has improved for Germany since 2008 in terms of growing energy dependency on Russia. No doubt you will keep us informed on German progress in this regard.

So in the meantime you can continue to delude yourself on the issue.

I have noticed since my return your shrill, vocal and rabid anti-American views. I must go back and search for your posts railing about Russia's breaches of Chechnya and Georgian sovereignty. Maybe you can direct me if you did?