From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 21:32:13 MST
Kai Becker wrote:
> [A] democratic world government doesn't exist yet, and
> perhaps we shouldn't want one, but there are such things as
> international treaties and one party - by far not the only one,
> but the most important - that ignores signed treaties is the US
> government. They broke bilateral
> treaties (Nicaragua, th US got even convicted for this), presented
> faked evidence to justify wars (Vietnam, Golf War I, Grenada),
> support dictators, war lords and even extreme religious fanatics
> and give a shit for freedom and democracy, whenever they have
> to choose between what is right and what serves US interests.
Although I am aware that the US has declined to sign up to certain
treaties (such as on the environment - Kyoto and on an international
court that could try American's for war crimes) this is quite a
separate matter to the US being in clear and unambiguous breach of
a treaty. It is also quite a separate matter to the US dealing with
dictators and warlord in those parts of the world where neither they
nor anyone else seems to have effective jurisdiction.
My reading of Article 51 of the UN Charter suggests that the US
did not need to breach the UN Charter to go after the Taliban into
Afghanistan but that they do need a new resolution to go into
Iraq now that the Security Council has their signature on 1441 and
Chirac could exercise a veto..
I don't know of any clear unambiguous cases of the US breaching
a treaty recently lets say post Viet Nam for instance (if then). But
this could easily be my ignorance.
Can anyone give a *clear* and *unambiguous* instance of a treaty
breach by the US? I mean a material or significant breach of the
sort an impartial and reasonable third party would recognize?
- Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 21:08:59 MST