Kk-Forum,
At 14:30 10.01.2002 +0100, Gabriel Kielland wrote:
>> At 03:32 04.01.2002 -0500, Aslak Schanke wrote:
>>
>> >... Selve kjernen i ”dette oppropet” –
>> >som jeg nå lover å ikke bruke mer energi på – er at det
>> angivelig foreligger
>> >en rekke internasjonale lover som USA skal ha forbrutt seg mot i
>> Afghanistan.
>> >Jeg mener fortsatt at det vil være svært vanskelig å argumentere
>> fornuftig
>> for
>> >dette synet. Tvert imot; det internasjonale samfunn er som Johansen
>> påpeker i
>> >stor grad lovløst, og der hvor få eller ingen lover foreligger, kan man
>> heller
>> >ikke snakke om lovbrudd.
>>
>> Dette er med respekt å melde tøv. Det foreligger lover, det finnes en
>> internasjonal rettsorden. At en stormakt bevisst ignorerer den, endrer
>> ikke ved det faktum. Lovløshet blir ikke automatisk en samfunnsnorm fordi
>> det finnes lovløse. Enten får AS være tilhenger av en internasjonal
>> rettsorden og fordømme USA, eller så får han erklære seg som tilhenger av
>> jungelens lov og den sterkestes rett.
>>
>> Knut Rognes
>>
>Kan du forklare nærmere hvilke lover du refererer til og beskrive hvilken
>rettsorden som er brutt av USA?
OK. AS skrev i sitt siste innlegg (se over) at der det ikke forekom lover
(få eller ingen) kan man heller ikke snakke om lovbrudd. Det kan derfor
synes som AS hadde oppgitt sitt opprinnelig prosjekt: å spørre hvilke lover
som var brutt.
Nå vil GS ha svar.
Noam Chomsky svarte som følger på tilsvarende spørsmål i USA:
**************
Any resort to force undertaken by the US is in violation of international
law, and also of the "Supreme Law of the Land," unless it is specifically
authorized by the UN Security Council or is in self-defense against "armed
attack" until the Security Council, which must be at once notified in such
a case, is able to act. "Armed attack" has a very specific meaning. The
standard definition, going back to Daniel Webster, is that an armed attack
is one that "is instant, overwhelming and leaving no other choice of means,
and no moment of deliberation." The doctrine was reiterated at the
Nuremberg Tribunal in rejecting Nazi claims, and since. But the US has
never accepted this fundamental principle of the UN Charter, to which it is
obliged to adhere. In recent years it has reinterpreted the right of
self-defense to include "defense against future attack," "or aggression "to
defend our interests." In fact, anything it wants. The question whether US
actions are illegal is unwarranted. That question applies only to states
that make some pretense of obeying international law. But the US never has,
quite explicitly. There's a very brief record from the highest sources in
chapter 1 of my book _Rogue States_, which much more detail elsewhere. Will
there be a condemnation? By whom? Washington's allies are equally lawless,
and the rest of the world knows the cost if you disobey the master. During
the Vietnam war, for example, the UN was unable to undertake any discussion
of what most of the world regarded, correctly, as outright US aggression
and horrendous terror, because everyone knew that if the issue as much as
came up, the UN would be dismantled. In contrast, when Russia invaded
Afghanistan -- a terrible crime, but nothing remotely like the US invasion
of South Vietnam, then all of Indochina -- the UN was able to pass ringing
declarations condemning the act (highly praised in the US) and to intervene
to mediate a Russian withdrawal. The US has always made it clear that it is
not subject to UN supervision. It is, after all, the only state to have
opposed (in this case, vetoed) a Security Council resolution calling on all
states to observe international law, naming no one, but everyone understood
that it was aimed at the US because of its contemptuous dismissal of the
orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force"
(international terrorism) against Nicaragua, which were instantly
escalated. It is a remarkable tribute to the ideological system that all of
this is not common knowledge and brought up constantly in discussions of
the "war against terrorism" that is being proudly hailed. In a country that
valued its freedom, all of this would be known to every high school
student. The suppression of the facts is so extreme that yesterday, Oct. 6,
AP was able to report, without embarrassment, that the US is unwilling to
allow a Sandinista-led Nicaragua to join its coalition of the just
(including Russia, China, Turkey, Algeria, and other worthy states) to
fight terrorism, because the Sandinistas have not yet apologized
sufficiently for their crimes against the US in the 1980s, when they dared
to resist US attack. Do you think any of this will receive a comment? A
raised eyebrow? Wait and see.
Noam Chomsky
*****
Knut Rognes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST