Moral Authority II
Watch in amazement as John McCain condemns Russia for having the temerity to cross an international boundary — “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
We all recall, of course, John McCain’s outrage when the United States violated this rule back in 2003.
So James Taranto’s prediction has quickly come true. Which got me wondering; how many dozen UN resolutions does it take before an invasion is OK by international standards, and how many resolutions was Russia enforcing when it invaded the Republic of Georgia?
[tags]Mathew Yglesias,John McCain,Russia,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today,United Nations,Republic of Georgia[/tags]
Filed under: Doug • Liberal • Russia • United Nations • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I’m not sure I understand: By invading a nation unprovoked, the US IS in less of a moral position to say to Russia: “Hey, you can’t invade a nation unprovoked!”
Bush/McCain and Obama ALL are right in saying that Russia should not invade Georgia. The difference is that Obama has stood behind the position all along that it is wrong to invade a nation unprovoked.
So, what is the problem with saying this?
Or, is there no problem, you’re just saying that this guy was right in predicting that we would say what is True and Right?
Remember way back when, when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Remember all the UN resolutions dealing with that and the Gulf War’s aftermath? Who enforced those resolutions and the no-fly zones? Primarily, the US. UN peacekeepers weren’t going to do it.
We kept getting shot at during those patrols, contrary to the cease-fire agreement. Also during that time, Hussein was supposed to ‘fess up to the UN about WMDs. UN resolution after resolution went by with Hussein ignoring them all. Inspectors finally went in, but were hindered by the Iraqi government.
After their 5th or so “last chance” from the UN to comply, threats of “dire consequences”, and a Congressional mandate to use force, Bush went in.
This you call “unprovoked”. Saddam laughed at the Sternly Worded Letters(tm) from the international community, and we were just supposed to go along to get along. Sanctions were less that useless due to all the under-the-table deals, some with our supposed allies.
I’m sorry, but you continue to sound more isolationist than Pat Buchannan. He didn’t attack us, so we should stay out of it. I’m sorry, but if you really want to be a “citizen of the world” like Obama claims he is, you can’t just shut the door until someone starts banging on it.
Now, the Left is trying to compare the decade or so of history that led up to the Iraq war (and, frankly, they’re trying to ignore that history) to the Russo-Georgia conflict. Georgia may have been in the wrong at the start, or maybe Russia provoked them into it. Whatever the case, the reaction by Russia — virtually cutting Georgia in half with its troops and tanks — cannot possibly be morally equivalenced with the Iraq war, if you really hold the UN in any sort of esteem.
And to really turn it upside down, you can make a case that Russia was provoked, so you shouldn’t be condemning them in their subjugation of it. At the same time, our liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, with international backing (even if just in word) is condemned.
The Left is swimming in contradictions. They love the UN, but ignore its imprimatur to us when it suits their political name-calling. And Taranto’s observation, which is now true based on the fact his prediction was, is another contradiction.
Comparing, in any way, the invasions of Iraq and Georgia is not “True and Right”. It is a falsehood that comes from cherry-picking your facts.
Obviously, I disagree. From where I sit, it’s just moral relativism. “It’s okay when we do it but not okay when they do it.”
I’m sorry, but if you really want to be a “citizen of the world” like Obama claims he is, you can’t just shut the door until someone starts banging on it.
AND, when you are a citizen of the world (and we all are), NEITHER can one simply invade each country that misbehaves. We have to have a better system in place. As it is now, we are forced to mostly ignore the Rwandas, the Darfurs, etc, etc, because we’re busy invading the Afghanistans and Iraqs.
Bush has decided to use the UN, as noted, in many international matters. The UN has been incredibly feeble in its attempts even to label these things “genocide”. It actually took Bush himself to use the “g” word at the UN.
Could we try to do something militarily? Perhaps, but we’d still get labeled by many on the Left as acting unilaterally, and there are still nagging political issues with the African Union. Economically? Perhaps, but avoiding the problem with aid going to rich dictators rather than the poor who need it is still a problem. (Myanmar, anyone?)
You’re ignoring (recent) history on this count as well. It’s not the same thing. The Left clamors for international support, but the group tasked with speaking for the international community is toothless but for the US. Are we overextended? Perhaps, but there’s much more to it than that, and even if we weren’t/aren’t, we’d still have the political and economic problems.
Frankly, I think private organizations are doing well there. Yes, there needs to be an international response, but the UN’s too timid.
Which would be a case for strengthening the UN, it seems to me. Strengthening international response to humanitarian crises. Strengthening world ability to enforce international law in serious circumstances.
Instead, what we get from too many on the Right is a continued weakening of international law. Constant complaints that we ought not be part of the UN, that we ought not fund it, that we ought not heed international law.
Which is fine when it’s US breaking international law, but not so good when we want to hold others accountable for misbehaving.
This seems to me to be one of the weaknesses of those on the Right: They want to be able to hold the Russias, Irans, Husseins of the world accountable to some Greater Law, but they are not wanting the US to submit to any international law.
You can’t really have it both ways and not lose moral force.
You really think a one-world government would make things better? That’s essentially what you’re advocating, given enough UN power.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And I’m not asking for it both ways, by any means. I’m saying we got the backing of the international community to get the job done in Iraq. Russia didn’t. That distinction is lost on Matthew Yglesias and the others I’ve seen make the same comparison. And again, the irony is that these criticisms come from people who highly value the UN and international support. There is absolutely no pleasing them, and frankly it speaks to how much they really value international law.
No, no, no, no! A thousand times, NO! NOT a one world gov’t. Not at ALL what I’m advocating. Man, I don’t trust a gov’t OUR size, I CERTAINLY wouldn’t trust a one world gov’t. Lord forbid!