| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Let us begin by identifying the inherent weaknesses of the 'rules-based world-order'.
1. Nobody knows exactly what the rules are. They are not codified anywhere, they are just a set of vague precepts based on peace being better than war, not rewarding aggressors, national borders being sacrosanct, international treaties meaning something etc etc
2. There is no mechanism for changing the rules. They are added to from time to time by solemn enclaves issuing statements about this or that being prohibited but, on the whole, that just adds to the mess. You are going to need landmines and cluster bombs from time to time. (Though not dum-dum bullets, it seems.)
3. There is no way of enforcing the rules. Even if there happens to be World Policeman on duty at the time, whether they will do anything about it is doubtful. Remember Barack when Assad used chemical weapons? Remember Barack when Russia invaded Crimea? And if the World Policeman doesn't do anything there's no-one else who will. 'Coalitions of the willing' notwithstanding.
So a 'rules-based world-order' is most definitely not like, say, the law code of a nation state, where all these things are taken for granted.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Let us begin by identifying the inherent weaknesses of the 'rules-based world-order'.
1. Nobody knows exactly what the rules are. They are not codified anywhere, they are just a set of vague precepts based on peace being better than war, not rewarding aggressors, national borders being sacrosanct, international treaties meaning something etc etc
2. There is no mechanism for changing the rules. They are added to from time to time by solemn enclaves issuing statements about this or that being prohibited but, on the whole, that just adds to the mess. You are going to need landmines and cluster bombs from time to time. (Though not dum-dum bullets, it seems.)
3. There is no way of enforcing the rules. Even if there happens to be World Policeman on duty at the time, whether they will do anything about it is doubtful. Remember Barack when Assad used chemical weapons? Remember Barack when Russia invaded Crimea? And if the World Policeman doesn't do anything there's no-one else who will. 'Coalitions of the willing' notwithstanding.
So a 'rules-based world-order' is most definitely not like, say, the law code of a nation state, where all these things are taken for granted. |
You are making it sound like an unwritten constitution. Surely a very good thing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It depends. If you are thinking of the British Constitution, this is not really unwritten, it is just not embodied in a single document. But it's all there if you know where to look. There are a few agreed conventions but these are hoary with age.
The 'rules-based world-order' is not like that at all. It is entirely understood. It is entirely modern. It is not embodied anywhere. It just is. Brought out at the drop of a hat. And dropped just as quickly if found to be inopportune.
But you may be on the right lines about being 'unwritten'. Though I would prefer 'automatic', 'self-regulating', 'hidden hand'... things like that. But we shall have to see what gives when we explore what a 'no-rules world' looks like... tomorrow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
At the nation level, any universal rule-based system will never work because self interest trumps every time. You can try to punish an offending nation but we know how that turns out. All rules, all laws, all principles are broken. “There are no truths outside the Gates of Eden”.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| At the nation level, any universal rule-based system will never work because self interest trumps every time. |
Self-interest trumps everything, all the time. If a nation breaks a rule and gets punished for it, surely it is in the nation's interest to obey a universal rules-based system.
| You can try to punish an offending nation but we know how that turns out. |
No, you'll have to say.
| All rules, all laws, all principles are broken. “There are no truths outside the Gates of Eden”. |
What about outside a bank you're just about to rob?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
No, of course it’s not always in a nation’s interest even if it gets punished. A current example is Russia, which has been financially and militarily punished for invading Ukraine. The big stick didn’t work, but maybe you want a bigger stick? Maybe a third world war to punish Putin? There was something he coveted and he was willing to pay lives for it. There is an already world policing agency, the UN. Each nation looking after their own interests, each looking after their own family’s interests. 'Twas always thus, human nature. I suppose you could start with that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| No, of course it’s not always in a nation’s interest even if it gets punished. |
You have summed up what is wrong with the rules-based world-order. A nation does not know whether it will be punished or not.
| A current example is Russia, which has been financially and militarily punished for invading Ukraine. |
* It was not punished the first time, when Russia invaded Crimea.
* It was not punished the second time when it 'invaded' the two eastern oblasts
* It was resisted by Ukraine the third time in 2022.
| The big stick didn’t work, but maybe you want a bigger stick? |
If the biggest stick in the world didn't work I am unlikely to be advocating a bigger stick.
| Maybe a third world war to punish Putin? |
Certainly not this size of stick.
| There was something he coveted and he was willing to pay lives for it. |
Not so. He assumed, we all assumed, that it would be a (relatively) bloodless operation as Russia has assumed will be the case in all its voluntary wars for the last hundred years. Mostly the assumption was correct. In Finland, Afghanistan and Ukraine it was not.
| There is an already world policing agency, the UN. |
The UN has no policing powers.
| Each nation looking after their own interests, each looking after their own family’s interests. 'Twas always thus, human nature. I suppose you could start with that. |
Then that's where I'll start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
| A current example is Russia, which has been financially and militarily punished for invading Ukraine. |
* It was not punished the first time, when Russia invaded Crimea.
* It was not punished the second time when it 'invaded' the two eastern oblasts
* It was resisted by Ukraine the third time in 2022. |
Yes, Russia correctly guessed (again) that Crimea and the Oblasts annexations were not worth going to war over. But I remember the months before the invasion when the buildup of soldiers and equipment on the border. At the time, you confidently said Russia was just sabre-rattling. In the meantime Ukraine was preparing for war. Subsequently the West pumped in money and equipment and at the same time punished Putin financially. Ukraine was at war so I’m interested to know why you emphasised the word ‘resisted’.
| There was something he coveted and he was willing to pay lives for it. |
| Not so. He assumed, we all assumed, that it would be a (relatively) bloodless operation | |
But he didn’t stop, did he. Punished or not, bloody or not.
| There is an already world policing agency, the UN. |
The UN has no policing powers. |
True. Bringing International Peace by talking.
| Each nation looking after their own interests, each looking after their own family’s interests. T’was always thus, human nature. I suppose you could start with that. |
Then that's where I'll start. |
I’m all years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Wiley remains in favour of a loosely defined, International Rules Based Order, providing it includes the right of self-determination for former colonies and the prohibition of aggression between states. It might be invented, we might have problems upholding it (though the period after the second world war is relatively war free, compared with earlier eras?). The alternatives are worse.
Each nation looking after their own interests, each looking after their own family’s interests. 'Twas always thus, human nature. I suppose you could start with that.
|
That looks invented to me, but TBH why should I be bothered, as long as these folks uphold the right of self-determination for former colonies and support the prohibition of aggression between states.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Yes, Russia correctly guessed (again) that Crimea and the Oblasts annexations were not worth going to war over. But I remember the months before the invasion when the buildup of soldiers and equipment on the border. At the time, you confidently said Russia was just sabre-rattling. |
That's what I believed (along with everyone else, for shame) but I don't think what I believed had much effect on the international situation. Sabre-rattling is a routine part of international relations, actually getting the sabre out and stabbing people with it isn't. That's my only excuse.
| In the meantime Ukraine was preparing for war. |
There has been considerable criticism from Ukrainians that they weren't but I'll take your word for it.
| Subsequently the West pumped in money and equipment and at the same time punished Putin financially. Ukraine was at war so I’m interested to know why you emphasised the word ‘resisted’. |
Because Russia's forays are based on the assumption the other side will not resist, or at any rate will not resist effectually.
There was something he coveted and he was willing to pay lives for it.
Not so. He assumed, we all assumed, that it would be a (relatively) bloodless operation
But he didn’t stop, did he. Punished or not, bloody or not. |
I am saying Putin wouldn't have started if he had known he would have to fight a bloody war. He could have stopped when he found he would have to. He chose not to.
There is an already world policing agency, the UN.
The UN has no policing powers.
True. Bringing International Peace by talking. |
Not through the UN as far as I know. But if you have examples...
Each nation looking after their own interests, each looking after their own family’s interests. T’was always thus, human nature. I suppose you could start with that.
Then that's where I'll start.
I’m all years. |
You can always contribute your own ideas. I only have a near-monopoly on wisdom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley remains in favour of a loosely defined, International Rules Based Order |
Mick remains of the view that loosely defined rules are worse than no rules. Or at any rate he certainly wouldn't be in favour of them.
| providing it includes the right of self-determination for former colonies |
There's three loosely-defined things to start us off.
| and the prohibition of aggression between states |
That's not loosely-defined, that's ripping up the human condition.
| It might be invented, we might have problems upholding it |
Not sure what 'it' is but do go on...
| (though the period after the second world war is relatively war free, compared with earlier eras?). |
It has had more wars than any comparable period in human history. If you mean wars between Great Powers then, yes, they have been absent because nuclear weapons make them wildly irrational.
| The alternatives are worse. |
Not sure what alternatives are being referred to. And the word 'worse' can be very tricky too.
Each nation looking after their own interests, each looking after their own family’s interests. 'Twas always thus, human nature. I suppose you could start with that.
That looks invented to me. |
I think 'woolly' is nearer the mark. I trust you won't be repeating Brian's woolliness...
| but TBH why should I be bothered, as long as these folks uphold the right of self-determination for former colonies and support the prohibition of aggression between states. |
You capped it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Yes, Russia correctly guessed (again) that Crimea and the Oblasts annexations were not worth going to war over. But I remember the months before the invasion when the buildup of soldiers and equipment on the border. At the time, you confidently said Russia was just sabre-rattling. |
That's what I believed (along with everyone else, for shame) |
So I was the only one not believing it! Must have been the tea leaves.
That is exactly my point. Punishment doesn’t work.
There is an already world policing agency, the UN.
The UN has no policing powers.
True. Bringing International Peace by talking. |
Not through the UN as far as I know. But if you have examples... |
I was being ironic.
| You can always contribute your own ideas. I only have a near-monopoly on wisdom. |
No, I have no solutions to offer, it’s the human condition, sadly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I am pretty relaxed about woolliness at the start of the investigation, it allows me to defend ortho and see what you have got.
So far I see nothing.
So I will keep going.
TBH why should I be bothered, as long as these folks uphold the right of self-determination for former colonies and support the prohibition of aggression between states.
|
Russia invades in 2014, international people condemn it, put on some sanctions. True, it did not stop them doing it again, but note the second time there were lots more sanctions, and lots of weapons to Ukraine.
Why?
If you llisten it's because most folks in Nation Sates think aha, rules based order. Ukrainians should be allowed to determine their own future and should not be invaded. This is the ortho position, and it does appear to work most of the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
OK, let's take it as a test case
| Wiley wrote: | | Russia invades in 2014, international people condemn it, put on some sanctions |
There was scarcely an international dimension at all
* Crimea was morally but not legally Russian (that's hugely important)
* Ukraine understood this and just 'accepted it' (I really can't describe its actions in any other way)
* Since it was legally against the rules-based world-order, some footling actions were taken.
That, to me, is a textbook example of the way it should be (provisionally). There was no bloodshed, no particularly bad feeling engendered, a wrong was righted, all would have been well with the world. It didn't matter a jot whether Crimea's new status was formally recognised or not.
| True, it did not stop them doing it again |
I don't believe it much affected what Russia would do in the future. It is illusory to think Great Powers have Great Plans.
The second time was when Russia incited/ exploited/ supported/ the two eastern oblasts to revolt against being in Ukraine. Now this is the same as Crimea in one respect, different in two others
* the oblasts were morally but not legally Russian
* the oblasts cannot be neatly separated from Ukraine in the way Crimea can
* Ukraine reacted violently.
Not wisely, not efficiently, not with any discernible international support and created a situation of such extreme instability that it had be brought to an end by something reasonably radical.
N.B. Although this was exacerbated by Russia, I do not blame Russia for 'coming to the rescue' of Russians, however specious this may have been. The situation was caused by people being on the wrong side of the border and there being no way in the 'rules-based world-order' to change the situation.
I take it we are now in 2022:
| there were lots more sanctions, and lots of weapons to Ukraine. Why? |
Because Russia had invaded Ukraine wantonly. In such a situation there are no rules, everyone is free to do whatever they want to do depending whether they
(a) want an independent Ukraine
(b) don't want an independent Ukraine
(c) don't much mind either way
(d) want to curry favour with Russia (not with Ukraine, Ukraine isn't important enough).
| If you llisten it's because most folks in Nation Sates think aha, rules based order. Ukrainians should be allowed to determine their own future and should not be invaded. This is the ortho position, and it does appear to work most of the time. |
Absolutely. But not because of a rules based order. It is because countries that are invaded tend to resist violently hence they don't get invaded most of the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Ukraine did not just accept it in 2014, if we go back Ukraine had a pro-Russian chap at the helm, Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, who served as the fourth president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014.
Your ordinary Ukrainian folks did not like his policies, his family and their cronyism, and started protests. Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych fled via Kharkhiv to Crimea and then to Russia, round about 22nd February.
| In early 2014, the Euromaidan protests led to the Revolution of Dignity and the ousting of Ukraine's pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. Shortly after, pro-Russian protests began in parts of southeastern Ukraine, while unmarked Russian troops occupied Crimea. Russia soon annexed Crimea after a highly disputed referendum. In April 2014, Russian-backed militants seized towns and cities in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region and proclaimed the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) as independent states, starting the Donbas war. Russia covertly supported the separatists with its own troops, tanks and artillery, preventing Ukraine from fully retaking the territory. |
To Wiley, it's a bit like saying the Syrian fella accepts Israeli incursions, he is not, it is just there's nothing he can do about it as there are bigger battle(s) going on.
The bad guys (outsiders) are trying to take advantage of a power vacuum during a revolutionary/civil war type situation.
We need to oppose this as we support self determination and we support the prohibition of aggression between states.
Why? Well, it's because of "a rules-based order". We don't overthink it. It's what we do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
