> Representatives from all 30 NATO members unanimously adopted Resolution 479[pdf] during Monday’s meeting in Madrid. The measure advises NATO member countries to take a number of steps to support Ukraine and condemn Russia, including “to state clearly that the Russian state under the current regime is a terrorist one,” as well as “to take collective action towards the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression committed by Russia with its war against Ukraine.”
There are 7 billion people who can classify NATO as a terrorist organisation.
At some point or other the 'Golden Billion' will discover that they're actually a minority in the wider world and don't have the influence they think they have.
Makes a blanket claim speaking for all 7 billion people not in NATO, and supports the evidence with a meme. What makes claims like these so powerful is that those 7 billion people aren't really here to speak for themselves, so pundits can claim anything then claim they've got the majority of the world at their back.
>URGES member governments and parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance
>[...]
>h. to take collective action towards the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression committed by Russia with its war against Ukraine as well as to impose an obligation to make full reparation of damage loss or injury under international compensation mechanism;
>i. to state clearly that the Russian state under the current regime is a terrorist one
Principles that would have both h and i as consequences, if firmly established, would be quite reasonable, but something that's a special case will never be legitimate.
Even a law against murder, if inconsistently applied, could be a crisis. Imagine, it, for example, applied inconsistently, for example, against a group, in a society which had previously had a system where murders are prevented through revenge. That group would presumably be destroyed.
I think such a principled establishment of tribunals against crimes of aggression or tribunals which determine what states have terrorist regimes is unlikely.
It's possible to oppose Russia in the context of war, or of military support for Ukraine, but to put a legal veneer on something which is not intended to applied generally and thus to have genuinely legal character is not legitimate.
I find the current use of the word "terrorist" to be very strange. It seems to be little more than special pleading; The western powers apply it liberally to their enemies, essentially to label them as evil, while not applying it to allied actors. For instance, the ongoing conflict in Yemen is causing massive harm to civilian populations, but the Saudian Arabian state has not been designated as "Terrorist". I am completely in favour of the establishment of tribunal to prosecute war crimes, but these should be based upon the well-defined and recognised principles of international law, not arbitrary labels like "Terrorist".
6 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 20.5 ms ] thread> Representatives from all 30 NATO members unanimously adopted Resolution 479[pdf] during Monday’s meeting in Madrid. The measure advises NATO member countries to take a number of steps to support Ukraine and condemn Russia, including “to state clearly that the Russian state under the current regime is a terrorist one,” as well as “to take collective action towards the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression committed by Russia with its war against Ukraine.”
[pdf] https://www.nato-pa.int/download-file?filename=/sites/defaul...
At some point or other the 'Golden Billion' will discover that they're actually a minority in the wider world and don't have the influence they think they have.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOFo3TaagAEYvUa?format=jpg&name=...
>[...]
>h. to take collective action towards the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression committed by Russia with its war against Ukraine as well as to impose an obligation to make full reparation of damage loss or injury under international compensation mechanism;
>i. to state clearly that the Russian state under the current regime is a terrorist one
Principles that would have both h and i as consequences, if firmly established, would be quite reasonable, but something that's a special case will never be legitimate.
Even a law against murder, if inconsistently applied, could be a crisis. Imagine, it, for example, applied inconsistently, for example, against a group, in a society which had previously had a system where murders are prevented through revenge. That group would presumably be destroyed.
I think such a principled establishment of tribunals against crimes of aggression or tribunals which determine what states have terrorist regimes is unlikely.
It's possible to oppose Russia in the context of war, or of military support for Ukraine, but to put a legal veneer on something which is not intended to applied generally and thus to have genuinely legal character is not legitimate.