The round table at the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Society
By Volodymyr Chornyi and Vitaliy Bilan
* * *
The correlation of civil law and law enforcement is an eternal problem. Pundits date the sources of it to the period long before the Common Era. However, we took interest not so much in the study of the ancient history as in an attempt to comprehend the alarming events of today.
During a comparatively brief period, for the third time (if not the fourth) in a row the international community is exposed to such a precedent of using force, thus evoking the whole range of emotions.
March 1999. The NATO Secretary Javier Solana gave orders to initiate a campaign of airstrikes against the Serbia military, and the Alliance's Armed Forces executed them most ruthlessly in the manner typical to, maybe, the unspeakable instances of both recent world wars.
The organization Secretary General explained then that they had nothing against the people of Yugoslavia isolated too long because of the policy of its government; that their goal was to avert further human suffering, aggression, and violence against the civilian population of Kosovo; and that all the members of NATO were unanimous in the decision.
Hence, the question at issue was the collective punitive action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Without going into detail, the one thing needs to be emphasized: the carnage was committed contrary to the international law without the permit of the Security Council of the United Nations, which within the system of international organizations is only one granted powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to use armed forces with respect to threats to peace, breaches of peace, acts of aggression.
September 11, 2001. Unprecedented terrorist attack perpetrated against the United States. The incredible collapse of twin towers of the International Trade Center in the New York City-the vivid
incarnation of the achievement of American genius of creativity and construction. Thousands of innocent lives among peaceful population; insulting and unheard-of blow delivered on the ambitions of the world leader and impudent challenge sent to the whole of humankind.
The entire world apprehended this horrible and so far unique terrorist act as a direct threat to international peace and security, and a crime against humanity. The fellow feeling of compassion was so strong that made millions of people on all the continents a party to and co-authors of the anti-terrorist coalition even before it was formally declared.
For this reason, the action in Afghanistan during the next few months, though perceived with alarm, had been carried out in the atmosphere of compassionate understanding of its motives and goals. However, loud voices of warning had been already heard then concerning the announcements about possible invasion of other countries, the possible "hot spots of international terrorism". Still....
March 2003. America has started another war of the 21st century. Speaking on the national television, President George Bush announced about the operation of the joint coalition forces to disarm Iraq, free its people of Saddam Hussein's regime, and protect the world against serious threat. "We came to give you freedom!" he said.
The talk again started on all the continents about the crisis of all existing security systems, failure of the world community to solve crises through diplomatic means, and helplessness of the UN Security Council. On the other hand, the question arose as to the legitimacy of the victors and tendencies towards split in the NATO and the US Euro Allies' camp.
All this became the subject of the roundtable discussion at the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Society, which session occurred this May 13. We offer our readers its abridged verbatim report.
Yuriy KOCHUBEI, President of the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Society, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine:
"It was important for us to call this meeting of people that are engaged with issues of international life and international law to exchange ideas related to the following subject: The Legal Right and Use of Force in International Relations. We have gathered here not 'to try or hold up to shame' anybody. In my view, at present, professional scientists not only in Ukraine, but the world over, are to give thought to this issue since the humanity has entered a new stage of international relations. "
O. MOTSYK, Assistant State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
"The issues of force and legal right, or rather the legal right to use force resides at the interfaces of two spheres-the international law and practical diplomacy. I see our task in investigating the judicial and internationally legal side of the problem. In my opinion, it is quite logical to have a meeting of diplomats and scientists, that is, experts in the sphere of international relations, under the roof of the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Society.
"In the words of Hugo Grotius, whose legal writings laid the foundation for modern international law, it is exactly through legal norms that justice is formed since only exercising the right it is possible to avoid situation when everybody is looking for his own interest regarding nobody and nothing.
"International Law within the frames of global world interdependency is a guarantee of stability being the founding rule in the process of asserting the national interests of a country as a principal subject of international relations. In this case, I wittingly avoid using the notions of justice and interest because these are self-evident phenomena ignoring which dooms the international community to pandemonium.
"Today, interpretation of the international law remains the same. We have a chance to observe only the intensification of such trends as international competition and struggle for power between subjects of international relations within the field of economy and politics. Without touching the theme of relations of authority in the international context, I would note that coercive means are indispensable factors of one subject affecting the other, with the realization of national interests often accompanied by the 'power game' taking the shape of sanctions, military intervention, etc.
"Under conditions of fighting international terrorism and getting over other global threats, the desire of the leading actors of the international relations to intensify control over countries that can be possible sources of thereat is natural and fair. Nevertheless, despite the existing clear cut international norms concerning solving international conflicts, these issues are becoming more and more the subject of international speculation. Thus, I am sure, radical change of international relations in the post-bipolar world are to press for improving changes in the sphere of international security and social and economic relations. When at issue is the legal substantiation of using force in international relations, the immediate reformation of the existing system is to no purpose so far.
"The Iraqi crisis puts on the agenda the issue regarding the efficiency of the Security Council as a principal international body. Of course, numerous questions arose as to the existing procedure of adopting the decisions of the said body and the need to improve it. However today it must be a single international authority to adopt decisions concerning the use of force. At present, we have different points of view about application of the correspondent norms.
"Do we need to reconsider the existing system? Time alone will answer the question. It is my earnest conviction that all changes to international law must be vested in international legal documents instead of effected after the event, especially, when the matter concerns war and peace questions. Every country, every subject of international law must be fully conscious of its rights and obligations. In the light of the recent events, the issue of national sovereignty and territorial integrity becomes particularly sensitive.
"As is known, the international law in accord to this country's doctrine cuts back to absolute minimum the use of force. In view of this, Ukraine comes out for moderate and pragmatic analysis of the existing system of international law and is convinced that drastic changes there will negatively affect international process and security.
"Since the use of force is often substantiated by the need to avert the threat from one or more states and to stop humanitarian disaster, the issue requires additional elaboration as well as working out of Ukraine's international legal attitude towards criterions of defining the said phenomena. Of the latter, the most complex one is the issue of observing human rights."
"At present, the humanity survives an important period in its history that already habitually it starts from September 11, 2001. In my view, the approach is rectilinear and simplified, and for me the period started in December 1991 with the final collapse of the USSR and the USA becoming the only superpower, thus bringing in a mono- polar world. The fact, however, should not be missed of Russia still being a big power to be reckoned with and a tough nut to crack.
"The 9/11 events shook the whole world, especially causing shock in the USA itself, which the country after the Pearl Harbor never had. The just desire of the US Administration to adequately respond to the challenge found the way out in concrete actions. Of them, the war in Afghanistan with an aim to annihilate the nests of international terrorism especially came into prominence. That was on the whole quite natural from the point of politics and psychology.
"Doubts were caused by the attempts to put forward general theory and formulate new doctrine of international relations using this tragic event, and to demand the acting rules international law re-examination by declaring them obsolete.
"I do not object the re-examination of the rules of international law, but I believe the rules are to be advanced further with an aim of strengthening, to develop novel and improve the existing international machinery of maintaining peace and security. No one should forget that the word 'security' is neighboring throughout the UN Charter with the word 'peace', and the latter brought about on the graveyard no one desires: everybody's dream is to live in a secure peace.
"Intellectual elite of all countries must give thought to this predicament. Quite a few of them have, indeed, fallen to thinking about the future of the world and international relations during the epoch of globalization. Question arise: why so suddenly the idea was born (or re-born) about the state sovereignty dying away needless. It is clear that in this case the doors open wide for interference in what was firmly believed to be the internal affairs of the country. A conception suddenly appeared of the so-called 'humanitarian intervention' that is permissible in the case of massive human rights violations, a threat of genocide, etc. All these attempts are explicable; what is needed is to define that such and such power is being an infringer of the rules of the social way of life, or this or other country belongs to the 'axis of evil'. As to me, the crux of the matter lies just here. The former foreign secretary of Great Britain Robert Cook noted justly, in my view, that we must establish the guiding principles for interference in response to massive violations of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity. By this, he wanted to increase the ability of the Security Council to carry out its duties, as well as to do what it should do.
"Does the U. S. have the exclusive right of 'strength initiative', as Academician V. Seminozhenko calls it, in relations with the 'problematic political regimes'? Problematic for whom? What could be the ground for inflicting prolonged 'pre- emptive strikes' by the American neo-conservatives?
"The United States behave incorrectly lately on the international arena, ignoring the evident interests of the world at large. First, it rejected the Kyoto climate treaty (The Kyoto Protocol) and its mandatory pollution reductions; secondly, it approved the Treaty on International Criminal Court; and, thirdly, it withdrew its signature under the Rome Statue on the work of journalists during military conflicts (their security is implied). Quite sizable is also contribution of Russia into the newest methods of 'spreading' democracy and solving the human rights issues: there are the 'cleaning-out' operations and mass poisoning of its own and foreign citizens, as well as conducting 'free elections' under the state of emergency.
"The strategy of unilateral preventive strikes developed by the US neo-conservatives harbors serious threat to the stability in the world and levels out the role and significance of the UNO.
"It is evident that one state, even the most powerful in the world, cannot decide after its own fashion the issues of war and peace. Otherwise, the reign of fist law arrives with no one knowing how to stop it. In my view, the prerogative and comfort of the one strong consists in his ability to patiently negotiate trying to reach unanimity and to avoid war. To preclude situation that requires sending troops, one should be ready for permanent dialog.
"It would never do to forget what we had found out one fine day: that India and Pakistan became nuclear powers. Such weapon is in possession of Israel, and North Korea, while a number of countries is deemed to verge on it. With an aim to guarantee their own safety, such countries may also decide to deal a preventive nuclear blow the way the USA and Russia provide for under certain conditions.
"We witness appearance of various doubtful 'doctrines' that lead to international anarchy serving as nutrient medium for terrorism bacillus. For instance, Israel unequivocally declares that it will not give up the Golan Heights because it needs them for defense. Or lend an ear to Richard Pearl, one of the leading American neo- conservatives, who says that they will not be able to win or even hold in check the terror of fanatics unless they are able to carry on the war on the source territories of terror. For that purpose, he asserts, the use of force is needed sometimes against the countries granting asylum to terrorists the way it had been done by crushing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
"It is clear that with 'hawks' nested firmly in the United States new wars are to be expected. The above great opponent of the UNO Richard Pearl claimed that the purpose of the actual US administration was the search for efficient means to counteract threats. These could be actions directed against countries granting asylum to terrorists, or manufacturing weapon of mass destruction. As is known, the Charter of the United Nations stipulates the right for 'individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures...' (Article 51). Among the countries that are a potential threat for the USA today are Syria, Iran, and the North Korea.
(Incidentally, 2001 on Iran's initiative was declared by the UN 'the year of dialogue of civilizations'; meanwhile, simultaneously in the USA Samuel Huntington's theory of "conflict of civilization' in the 21st century emerged. Is it an ideological preparation for adventures in the Middle East?)
"The right for unilateral actions, the so-called 'unilateralism', had been already exercised under Bill Clinton; however, there were ponderable grounds then to fight Saddam as aggressor against the UN member-country. This year, President George Bush declared that the USA takes the right to carry out preemptive strikes against the countries suspected of being a threat to the USA or the world. Thus, under any pretext a country may be called an 'abettor of terrorists' and a 'threat', this peace loving and tolerant nation including. Indeed, as physicians say, it is better to prevent a disease than to treat it. The same is true for politics: special efforts are needed as well as preventive diplomacy (Ukraine is known to be raising the question at the UN). Insufficiently applied are mediation and the whole supply of methods and resources provided for by Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
"Quite menacing is also the doctrine of peoples' responsibility for actions of their rulers. It is the latter that these peoples mostly suffer from. From the legal and moral points of view, such 'conceptions' as the collective responsibility of peoples (or collectives) for the actions of separate individuals, vengeance or taking hostages hold no water. Finally, if one desires, the events of 9/11 may be viewed as an act of collective American responsibility for action of their government. This is what the terrorists insist on. No such simple is seen the issue related to the American demand not to grant political asylum to the Iraqis. At that, the American figures and military go unpunished even when having committed crimes, since the United States has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court regarding its citizens.
"There is unlimited field of action for international organizations and individual specialists to work out principles and regulations of the humanitarian law. Wars subvert morality of both individuals and nations. Hence, it would be reasonable to convene a sound international 'post-Iraqi-war' conference to draw conclusions from these tragic events. Subconsciously, everybody is aware that not only concrete issues of material reconstruction of Iraq are to be solved; thoughts are also to be given to the country's future.
"We know that after the World War I poison gas and toxic agent attack was abolished, while the W. W. II brought about the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property (devised on idea of the Roerich Pact). The United Nations Organization banned the use of nuclear, chemical, bacteriological (biological), and toxic weapons. The experience of the second Iraqi war should have instigated measures to protect the media and journalists, and not only during military action.
"International law is being created at correspondent conferences by the efforts of subjects of international relations. Neither of the countries has the right to dictate the another sovereign state what and how it should do, which is a prerogative restricted to the UN and it body, the Security Council. This right is delegated to it by the member- countries. Exactly delegated since, in our opinion, sovereignty is not transferable being an integral part
of nation and state. Only certain prerogatives and control functions are transferred at the United Nations at the decision of a country's parliament. Even an autocrat is not able to deprive the people of its sovereignty.
"Time has come to give a new meaning to the UN role, and, maybe, even to rename it as is proposed by some. However, what must be preserved is the basic principles of respect towards peoples' sovereignty, their equality, as well as high regard of the members of the organization of the free-will obligations taken by them rather then the way some UN members treat the Security Council decisions. It is false that violators of the international law cannot be called to order. The only thing needed is the political will of those who in accord with the Charter of the United nations has the power and capabilities to make the violator stop the unlawful acts on top of the desire for common actions. Nowadays, with no ideological confrontation this has become possible. It is the strong ones that must show patience and wisdom, and cut out the shameful practice of using 'double standards'. Why, for instance, these champions of democracy in the world are in no haste to democratize Burma, a 'storehouse of drugs'?
"Forcible solutions, evens the ones achieved through a coalition, are not promising lacking a long-range outlook. Because of being formed against someone, it may break up and its configuration dissolve, if the situation changes. Hence, integration should be purposeful and be carried out with national interests of all participants in mind.
"The third world is also not to be ignored. Let us recall how the 1955 Bandung Conference and the 'Group 77' formed later became important factor at the UN and other international organizations. The force that is directed against countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America is pregnant with reaction and consequences that are hardly predictable. Strength is on the side of America today, but there is no guarantee that this will remain forever. Who knows what will happen to RND during the next decade? Incidentally, the latest new: Syria has put forward an initiative of signing a Treaty on collective defense of the Arab countries. Syria is a small country but such a treaty could have restrained ambitions of some generals.
"The conflict with the entire Muslim world, or even with the Arab world alone, have dark perspectives; solutions should be searched for the problems that are highly acute today and divide both countries and the whole regions. History shows that failure to solve the problem of Palestinian refugees in time grew into a political one creating not only a 'hot spot', but international conflict too, which became chronic. Compromise should have been sought, and not so much in the territorial and governmental sphere as in the humanitarian one. All the realities should have been taken into account, especially, the interests of people. The territorial expansion brought no security to Israel, for which it was allegedly been done. On the contrary, it turned the situation into a threat not for the region alone, but for the entire world too. Security weakened in one region immediately has an effect on all the countries, because it is indivisible. It is exactly the issues of strengthening security for all that the efforts of specialists in international law must be focused on. Shall I remind you the words of Vaclav Havel, a great supporter of democracy: "As long as
the word 'East' has an implication of something degradingly negative and the word 'West' - of something positive, it would be immensely hard to build a new world order to be founded on the equality between various regions."
"The humankind should reject mono - and bipolar worlds, and build a multipolar world that would provide peace and security to all the peoples on all the continents.
"The US action in Iraq, as Michail Gorbachev believes, "may provoke a new arms race in the world"; some people in Russia call for actually creating new blocs since, purportedly, a new repartitioning of the world is imminent: "With the USSR disappearance time big response has passed." Feverish activity is observed in Russia to accelerate integration of the post-Soviet terrain with it at the head. Suffice is to name the EuroAzEU, Integrated Economic Space, urgent instigation of Collective Security Treaty Organization finalizing-the bodies with serious ambitions.
"Russia-American relations, being quite complex and ambiguous, require continuous monitoring by the Ukrainian specialists since all kinds of surprise are possible. For Russia, the only 'super-task' had been and still remains in effect the renewal of the Great Power status. An important stage for it is the subjugation of Ukraine if not through direct occupation, which is, of course, a cardinal solution, then through other more up-to-date means ready in store.
"Actually with no coalition before the war in Iraq was started, the USA felt nervous and tried to drive a wedge between the 'old' and 'new' Europe. While speaking about this split between Europe and the USA Henry Kissinger noted that the division encouraged Russia to come forward more decisively against the USA than it had been doing during all the time after the 'cold war' ended.
"The question arises: Does the rift between the USA and countries of the 'old' Europe lead to a fundamentally new international situation? General Charles de Gaulle comes to mind. When asked whom he would be with when war against the USSR started, he responded that with the West despite his critical approach towards NATO.
"From my point of view, though unpromising, the division of Europe by Donald Ramsfeld into the 'new' and 'old' is dangerous. By undermining the whole idea of the united and integrated Great Europe, he succeeds in doing what the Soviet diplomacy failed by driving wedges between individual countries of the Old Continent throughout decades. Moscow is actively promulgating the idea of the Paris-Berlin- Moscow axis, adding there sometimes Warsaw too. However, by all the appearances the Western countries will not go that far, although the Iraqi events will surely contribute to the ideas crystallize of European federalism and European collective security as well as creation of correspondent structures and joint armed forces.
"For Ukraine, the situation is taking a tricky shape. On the one hand, the country is in Europe, while on the other, we are counting on the political backing of the USA (and, maybe, Poland). It turns out that again we are doomed for maneuvering. Maybe, indeed, we should choose our tack at last? The idea of the Baltic-Black Sea is very hard to realize if for no other reason than Russia becoming very suspicious of it.
"It remains only to develop and strengthen ties both with the 'old' Europe
and the United States, and maintain concurrently loyal relations with Russia.
"It is peculiarity of these days that quite a few people are getting down to brass tacks of geopolitical issues lacking even elements of science, thus confusing both himself and their readers with a flow of inexact terms.
"In his piece of writing Sufficient Isolationism Mr. Andriy Derkach, the people's deputy, offers a new conception of Ukraine's foreign policy by urging to stop 'speculating on its geopolitical location'. He falls short of understanding that geopolitical situation is an actuality always taken into account to define foreign policy doctrine. He sees Russia as our only ally to go to Europe together with. What I am afraid of is the fact that Europe by no means will be able to house Russia with its Asian part if the latter decides to join it all of a sudden.
"It seems that the 'sufficient isolationism' preaching is another trick of some sort of strategists intended to lead Ukraine astray from the road of European and Euro- Atlantic integration. Yu. M. Pakhomov also wrote something very similar: "A lonely country is a country without future." He feared that Ukraine might turn into a marginal and for this reason suggested 'in the right way to press for proper place within a place where we are expected" instead of isolating oneself. Similarity of these seemingly different ideas shows the same origin of thinking about the fate of this country.
"A mundane thing I am going to say: it seems, the humanity just the same switches from the "right of force" to the "force of right". Famous international lawyer L. Oppenheim noted fairly that states even when violating international law never deny the existence of the latter."
Vadym HRECHANINOV, President of the Atlantic Council of Ukraine:
"Political scientists believe we are entering the fourth stage of waging wars, if one believes that 'cold war' is its third phase. There are two tasks within its content: fighting terrorism and opposing the totalitarian regimes that exist in the world. Starting from this, one may say that the war in Iraq has it logic.
"Now for the Resolution 1441, under which all the members-countries of the Security Council acknowledged presence of the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, formally gave the United States the right for military action. I an strongly convinced that there are WMD in Iraq. The biological and chemical weapons will be found at long last, being done without tricks or fraud of any sort. I dealt with the issue for some time and know something.
"Concerning Ukraine, having agreed to send a chemical protection battalion we formally backed the USA. At present, with the issue of allocating a brigade to the northern sector of the country under the control of Poland is being discussed, which, in my view, it is logical. We may take also the second step when the war ended, if we approved sending a battalion to operate under conditions more complicated.
"Now, concerning the behavior of the United States of America. With Iraq fighting war of the fourth generation, it is war of the sixth generation for the USA, which ideology lies in the lesser possible cost of manpower, peaceful population
lives and preservation of infrastructure. The country was planning to wage a highly multipronged war that comprised bribery, deception, debunking, etc. With the immense monetary funds available, capture of big cities was not costly. At the same time, we know well that the Saddam's regime was criminal.
"Both Ukraine and Russia are capable only for wars of the forth generation. Chechnya is an impressive example. It also happens because Russia relies mostly on ideology of weaponry.
"Why then we are so ill disposed towards the US actions? Yes, there reason such as oil and desire to show who gives orders. What is for Ukraine to do? To marginalize, evade all the unions, associations, and remain alone with the head raised high but falling deeper and deeper? One should think over this well. "
Yu. Donskoy, Presi-dent of the Associasion of Peacemakers of Ukraine:
"I cannot go with General Hrechaninov on the issue of tactics and strategy of waging war. I think that the strategy and format of war in Iraq are linked with the US Defense Department leadership after the arrival of the Bush administration. People that were initiators of wars in Vietnam and Korea appeared there.
"While comparing the arrangements of using the weapons, I can't agree it is a war of the sixth generation. What we see was the Vietnam War continued. In similarity to that conflict, there was the use of cluster bombs with grenade and ball components. The same type of weaponry is used in Iraq in the densely populated areas with no troops. Manufactured in 50' to 70', it was brought into play not to be dispensing with on the US territory.
"The pressure of the military industrial complex that simply lacks desire to be engaged in recycling and reprocessing stipulated the war ideology. If there were other people at the US Defense Department and some other ideology employed, we would never see application of these means of destruction on such a large-scale."
L. Tupchiyenko, Candidate of Philosophy, Head of the History Depar-tment at the National Aviation University:
"I would draw your attention to the subject of our discussion. Let us recall that everything that has happened in the past was the use of force. So far, we lack the history of rightfulness. Only 273 years of five and a half thousand years of the written history of humankind were relatively peaceful. During the rest of the time, however, all the accounts were being settled with a club at first, then with a stone, and nowadays, as dear Vadym Hrechaninov says, by means of a high tech war of the sixth generation, and there is no getting out of it.
"I would define more pricisely the subject matter of our discussion. Some other system of conceptions is being advanced today, that is, justice or unfairness of using force. The norms of international law cease to function here serving poor protection. We should also recall that the international law originated from a certain culture; today it is imposed on other cultures that reject it.
Today, we have The Declaration of Human Rights that sprung from the European and Euro-Atlantic cultures while the world contains only half a billion carriers of European culture with the rest five and a half billion representatives of other shared beliefs and values.
"I believe that the plane to solve the problem only partially is linked with weapons. Terrorism springs out not from the division of the world into the East and West, but into the North and South, or the rich and poor, which injustice cannot be overcome in principle. We are to realize well that the world is at the threshold: either the "golden' billion succeeds in imposing its will on the poor world, which would became the whipping boy, or it will sweep the 'golden' billion away. "
H. Nemyria, Director of the European and Interna-tional Research Center:
"May I remind you when the term "unipolar world' appeared. The American political scientist Charles Krauthammer used it in 1989 in an article published by the Foreign Affairs magazine, thus being the proof the term originated before 9/11.
"And the following: the matter at issue is vulnerability. The Unites States of America felt invulnerable country. 9/11 had become the breaking point, after which they started feeling themselves vulnerable. There was correspondent response to such vulnerability: what could be done to play down this uncomfortable feeling of vulnerability? The roots of misunderstanding between the Unites States and Europe lie in the assessment of threat, and not only of the notion of terrorism, but also of the causes of it. For Europeans, it was a dormant phenomenon since terror accompanied almost all of the European history.
"Thirdly, it is the regard of the world institutions capable of helping efficiently meet the threats and reduce the sense of vulnerability. NATO and the events in Yugoslavia demonstrated that there were problems since the gap existed in the military might. The answer had been found in the formula: "coalition of those who will" that worked.
"What does it mean for Ukraine? One of the options - isolationism-was heard here. In my opinion, we are in a situation of forced isolationism for 12 years already. We have drifted towards neither shore.
"Is there an alternative to unipolar world? Multipolar world is the answer. The poles, however, could be viewed differently. To my liking is another formula - the multidimensional world, in which force may be used within some of the dimensions. This use of force to be taken as just must be codified into the norms of international law. We must be looking for the dimension that would allow to quickly use the situation, and practice the policy that would bring result fast. Otherwise, the country is at risk of turning from the one that got lost on the map of Europe into such one that is at a loss. "
V. Chornyi, Vice President of the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Society:
"From the discussion I have made the distressing conclusion that in international relations force and the right of force dominates and is destined to dominate further. Established norms and
principles of the world law and order that were being developed during decades with active participation also of Ukraine are being depreciated, ignored and ruined with legal control over the use of force taking a wrong turn.
"I would draw your attention also to the fact that when speaking about the right of force we unambiguously link it with the capabilities of 'the big'. Nonetheless, a novel notion appears-the so-called 'power of the small" (that is, the one of the weak, resentful, fanatical, or merely schizoid), which manifestation I would connect exactly with the events of 9/11. Hence, when talking about the monopoly over force, one should bear in mind that in similarity to our domestic economy nothing is completely clear there: open and shady sides are on hand. The first is the United States of America-blunt and, I would say, cynical sector, and there is international terrorism. The wrong either of them does is great, but which is greater it would be incorrect to discuss.
"We should remember that understanding of terrorism in our society is not so clear- cut. We often hear about our upbringing at the times when subversive and terrorist actions against the enemy actively employed by partisan were revered. Let us, for example, recall the so-called 'rail war'. That is why there are double standards in assessing them. Terrorist actions as well as wars viewed by different categories of people may be deemed equally just and unjust.
"Qualitatively very different display of force that the world has encountered lately are perceived especially keenly not as such, but because the law gradually gives way to force. If the use of force becomes a model for settling conflict situations, will it not plant a bomb for the future existence of the humankind? It is very hard to predict the global consequences of such a development, the more so "the search for targets is still on".
O. Babenko, Candidate of Political Sciences, Assistant Professor of the Department of Foreign Policy and International Law at the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine:
"What we keep forgetting is the following. Is their law without using force? Let us turn to the national level. Is right exercised when the state loses monopoly for coercion. Our state, for instance, lost monopoly for the art of force; there are laws but they are enforced. How can legal sphere operate without law machinery? No one doubts that there must be law and a system to enforce it. The force is only active, if the state, indeed, monopolized it and uses it alone allowing no one to it. Human society may operate either in the state disorder or vice versa. The extreme state of order is despotism while the state of disorder is chaos and anarchy. The world community exists just in the state either of order or anarchy. I believe that if the world community adopted a law or a body of law acknowledging by some international acts that the United States of America is lodged with power of monopoly for using force on the global scale, everyone would be at peace with himself since they would get power and law combined, which are, properly speaking, inseparable.
"You know, the Hrechninov's speech impressed me. He talked about things that have nothing scary about them: the USA claims the role of this world power. More than that. If the country succeeds to persuade the world majority to cut out international law for them, we would feel calm the next day because everything would join the state of order.
"As concerning terrorism. Such expressions as international terrorism as well as international Zionism, international espionage, etc. are categories belonging to phrase mongering for me. What is terrorism? It is not a phenomenon, but a form of struggle. Which is the most effective for, as you mentioned, some weak nation.
"In this case, we deal with a confrontation of Muslim and Western civilizations. As far as 1998 Osama bin Laden declared war to the United States and all Jews, and it goes on since then. If we talk about somebody wanting to put the society in order, the latter has, evidently, nothing to do with democracy, which is a myth. The one was merely invented by political scientists to have a cross between despotism and anarchy." The same is true concerning this country since it is impossible to dispense with reinforcing authoritarian power here. I think that the world trend is of the same sort: a new international law for the new force should be created."
Опубликовано на Порталусе 07 декабря 2021 года
Ваше мнение ?