From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 10:50:14 MST
> [Hermit 2] Got you, I think. I don't object to the division being
> characterized as "1) Terminate sanctions", "2) Defeat and
> rebuild" and "3) Status quo." In which case, I agree that I am proposing
an
> elaboration of 1. Is that fair?
Perfectly.
> [Hermit 2.1] It appears illegal (at present - that could change),
> but the US
> does not appear to be worried by illegality anymore than they are
> of others paying for their decisions.
To my mind this is one of the most interesting issues. It seems to me that
compliance with international law is a key issue (i.e. with particular
regard to the circumstances under which a state's right to sovereign
government may be considered as having been sufficiently derogated to
warrant the replacement of said government and the procedures by which this
may be attained).
Incidentally, Joe was wrong on one particular point; the interim Afghan
regime has already made a formal request for the extension of peace keeping
troops throughout the entirety of Afghanistan on the occasion of a state
visit to London. The request was turned down - Britain currently lacks any
spare capacity in its armed forces (
being currently engaged in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan to name but
a few popular military tourist destinations - incidentally this would appear
to have left the British mainland essentially undefended). As far as I am
aware this decision has also been reached by all other EU states. Not to
mention the fact the British were part of the military engagements in
Afghanistan, which is far from being an ideal platform for neutral
peacekeeping - I expect there is a concern as to how they will be received
if they attempt to move beyond Kabul. As such, the ISAF force is largely
confined to Kabul itself, where the Northern Alliance is alleged to be
permitted to stockpile weapons - so long as they are not flagrant enough to
brandish them in the streets.
> I see more not fewer interventions being desirable irrespective of the
long
> term-consequences. I am simply suggesting that we need to put in place
> appropriate law (rather than relying on force majeure), and structures to
> avoid the negative repercussions (I don't think it is impossible,
> just that we haven't done it yet).
I agree and this is essentially to what I was referring (you'll recall that
I was careful to say that it was the basic principles of replacing the
Afghan regime that seemed reasonable, not necessarily the means by which it
is currently being achieved, which still seem to me to leave a very volatile
situation with an uncertain future). To give another example, one is left
wondering about the Kosovo intervention when Kosovo has been refused
independence from Serbia. The situation would appear to have been left
incomplete and therefore necessitating a UN commitment that is essentially
open ended.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT