I was trying to figure out the logical paradigmata the Biden administration has repeatedly invoked in support of the pretense that they are defending the rule of law by supporting the Ukrainian war with Russia. To my knowledge there was no rule of law involved with the formation of Ukraine from a Soviet political entity following the end of the Soviet Union. Changing government and economic system entirely usually requires direct use of force rather than legal proceedings. Boris Yeltsin had no legal authority to make nations of Soviet political units; he was not the Emperor, and neither was Bill Clinton. I believe Joe Biden wants the Stalinist Soviet state boundaries that existed until 1991 for Ukraine in preference to the restoration of Russian boundaries that existed until Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Red Army took over the country in 1917.
Law is nothing more than an external formalization of power. Rule of law means rule of power. Usurping power from the demos to elites and elite military backed new rulers is what transpired in the case of the nascent Russian revival when the Clinton-Yeltsin axis filched Ukraine toward the N.A.T.O. side of things. Now the main hegemon; Joe Biden, is using that military power to consolidate Democrat Party lawyer-presidential rule decretals he says are law for Russia, Ukraine and for governing boundary disputes among nations..
Laws do not exist for-themselves. Laws do not exist without the people that made them. Rule of Law from the mouth of Joe Biden means rule of the lawyer that was a law maker in the U.S. Senate before executing law. That suit him as president. Joe Biden has in effect a petrified brain viewing himself as the law in-itself.
Rule of Law to Joe Biden does not mean rule of the laws of God. Democrats often break the laws of God as expressed in the Christian Bible inclusive of the Pentateuch. They kill, they do not love God enough to obey His laws, they are adulterers, abortionists, homosexuals and thieves, etc. The rule of law Joe Biden respects and regards as sovereign for the globe are realistically those of the U.S. Democrat Party. Democrats are intolerant of political pluralism or laws not in lockstep with laws they approve of. Democrats may not have forced the world into conformity with their concept of Democracy yet they are trying to get that done.
The Soviet Union ended mostly voluntarily without violence or blood beside a minor fray at the White House (where the Soviet Congress was located) that Boris Yeltsin defeated with a few tank shells. In that regard the ending of the Soviet Union was something of a miracle unparalleled in world history. Some communists dissented with the end of their era. Democrat Party politicians of course were Johnny carpet-baggers on the spot exploiting the situation with the impending vacuum of political and legal power. It goes without saying that U.S. President Bill Clinton had absolutely no legal or moral authority to be involved in negotiating any sort of post Soviet political structure; he didn’t reside in Europe and wasn’t formerly a dual passport holder of the Soviet Union.
Normally nations have formed around tribes or associated tribes that expanded and passed through various social structures of increasing organization levels until they become nations with non-local leadership. Sometimes that leadership is royal or authoritarian, rarely is it democratic and there are several additional forms of political leadership. Sometimes tribes kill their former rulers and ruling class. That occurred in Cahokia and was attempted in the Haitian revolution. The Soviet revolutionaries killed off several members of the former Romanov dynasty in the House of Special Purpose in Yekaterinburg Russia; a tourist site in Boris Yeltsin’s home town.
The non-violent transition from Russia was historically very special and should have been respected rather than exploited by the west. Russian national land should have been fully restored when the Soviet Union died.
Soviet Communist revolutionaries stole Russia in transforming it into the Soviet Union. Normally when property is stolen and recovered through whatever means it is returned to the former owner. When the Soviet Union ended the former Russian borders should have been allowed to emerge from the seventy years of suppression. If a nation had a popular vote and decided to end its existence and join some other entity that would at least be a Democratic procedure. If Mexico petitioned the United States to become a U.S. state and the U.S. Congress voted to accept it that would be a legal process according to U.S. and Mexican law. There would be no international legal convention concerning the process though; it is a process of reason and popular will for two governments to become one as it was in the several European states to form closer political bonds and become the European Union. Russians were never given that opportunity- that is to determine their own destiny in regard to Ukraine that was part of Russian before the Soviet revolution. A tiny minority of one continuing from the Soviet Union (Boris Yeltsin) chose under the influence of Bill Clinton it appears to have disposed of the former Soviet Union land as he saw fit. He ended the Soviet Union and formed the C.I.S. or Community of Independent States as would an Emperor informed by the power of the U.S. President leader of N.A.T.O. with a full and ready war machine poised at his temporarily powerless paper government entity in case he chose another path (such as restoring Russia fully). Boris Yeltsin negotiated with the west with a gun at his head; that was the rule of law that President Biden touts as a great legal and moral principle upon which Western civilization rests.
It is doubtful that Boris Yeltsin had a moral or legal right to dismember historical Russia and render parts of it independent. Neither did he have the legal authority to give independence to the land where the Brooklyn bridge reaches shore. A sober legal mind would have been mindful that popular will and historical circumstance operating in the political ecosystem of Earth makes national boundaries a matter of military power balances. If one wants to have a peaceful society it is necessary to comprehend and respect those international balances rather than to regard them as following legal fictions. The pretense that rule of law precedes rule of reason and historical facts and justice for adjudicating national boundary disputes is specious. Law is a national concern. International law is nothing more than legal comity or cooperation among friendly nations to enforce similar legal paradigms.
The United States and most nations will not enforce laws of other nations they hold to be unjust. Returning escaped slaves from northern states by force was so disagreeable to the north that it was rejected as law and became one of the proximal causes for the U.S. civil war. There was no natural right for Bill Clinton or Boris Yeltsin to give up Russian land as there was a reasonable paradigm for restoration of former East Block nations to a fully independent status. Baltic states for instance that were not part of historical Russia had an inherent right to return to there pre-Soviet status so far as was realistically possible. Russia shared that right.
Democrat Party politicians have consistently claimed to be enforcers of the rule of law in supplying countless billions of dollars of advanced military weapons to Ukraine when what they have actually accomplished is the rule of lawyers that are Democrat party Presidents asserting their will to power. Instead of peace they chose sufficiently corrupt policies to compel war in Ukraine. Piling up vast public debt in the U.S.A. they risk the security of the nation in escalating a military crisis that brings the world to the brink of nuclear conflict quiescent since 1945.
Russia should never have been placed in the situation of being required to fight with Ukrainians and the west as if it was one of two pit bulls in a dog fight for spectators. There was an are numerous ways to peaceful and directly end the conflict and begin to restore normal relationships in business and ecospheric world recovery from innumerable continuing insults. When a vacuum of power occurs of a unique historical nature simply restoring boundaries of what existed before the Soviet takeover of Russia would have been the conservative step to take. There have been circumstances where international powers have decreed international boundaries or formed nations from what were possession of defeated former ruling powers. One of the most obvious examples is that of the Ottoman Empire.
When the Ottoman Empire lost the First World War the allied powers decided to make several nations in the Middle and Near East from it. England and France ruled large areas of it for a time as well; from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were created yet the process was the consequence of military and political necessity for the victors to decide the fate of the former possessions of the defeated.
It is the case that most of the nations created in the Middle East did not exist before the First World War and that the people that lived there in the occupied class rather than that of the ruling class emerged from a time when they had lived repressed for centuries. People of the Middle East had not had an opportunity to live in the form of modern nation states nor with elected national government while the colonial power ruled.
Russia before the Soviet takeover was a well developed modern nation with strong national identity and borders including that of the Ukraine. The Soviets were like a ruling colonial power in Russia. Russia may not have been the most developed of nations in comparison to those smaller nations to the west, and it only eliminated serfdom about the time the U.S.A. ended slavery, yet it was not a completely undeveloped country. Russia had the malodorous institution of royal aristocracy of course, yet it also had a middle class and might have better developed a form of constitutional democracy with fetters and muzzles on the royals given time while the petty bourgeois prospered.
President Clinton made sure that Russians never had a choice about restoring their nation once the terrible oppressive weight of Soviet Communism was lifted. The ancient practice of war to retake their land was the sole remedy available in an international environment where Democrat Party presidents claimed that rule of law gave them the right to dismember Russia and defend the Ukraine, with the long view of joining it with N.A.T.O. and deploying advanced weapons systems on the Russian border to defend the law of force, force of law, or rule of force or law or whatever.
The Biden paradigm of meaning for rule of law means rule of force. It means more than that however. It means that in the future whenever any ruler can be co-opted by a strong international power or when a coup against a government can be orchestrated and an agreeable puppet put in place if he signs a paper with the international power to dissolve his nation and form several new ones as he deems fit the international power may invoke the rule of law precedent to intervene militarily. Stealing nations overnight and laundering their disposal through the rule of law gambit could become the norm for slick elite land grabs.
I believe a couple of additional points may be learned from the Biden and Democrat party lawyer-president history since 1992. One is the trust and betray nature of U.S. foreign policy. Instill the trust of America’s benevolent intentions in an adversary who drops their guard and is then betrayed by the U.S.A. at some future time. Trust and betray has several variations including enlisting allies who are discarded following use.
The other point is retro-causality. A concept invented by the physicist John Wheeler for use in cosmology applications, it also applies to U.S. foreign policy. The Reagan administration for example developed a good and even trusting relationship with Moscow concerning U.S. intentions, who let down their guard and moved toward capitalism, free enterprise and democracy passing through a period of power vacuum while abandoning Soviet communism. Later, due to Democrat lawyer Presidents of the U.S.A. the good work of the Reagan administration followed by the Bush I administration was betrayed thereby retroactively causing the trust phase to become a necessary part of the betrayal phase that was the emergent true policy of the United States Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment