Ukraine, Israel and the Worthlessness of International Agreements

tasks

The multilateral structures of international law, the trembling beams of the world state, are dependent on worthless pieces of paper signed by great powers.

Just as in the 1930s’, small countries that take those agreements at face value do so at their own risk. Agreements are statements of intent as conceived under current conditions and a current time. They are unenforceable except by the stronger against the weaker.

Whether it’s security guarantees or international covenants, they only apply to the extent that their signatories are willing to keep taking them seriously.

Ukraine is protected by agreements signed by Russia and by NATO countries. Those agreements are worthless because Russia decided to ignore them and the NATO countries under Obama are not about to go head to head with Russia.

When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, France and the UK finally did the right thing because the political conditions were now right for it. If the conditions hadn’t been right, Hitler would have gotten a pass on Poland the way that he had on Czechoslovakia and the way that Stalin got a pass on all of Eastern Europe.

All of this has wider implications beyond Ukraine. Israel is being told to put its faith in utterly worthless agreements that have already been repeatedly broken, both by the Palestinian Authority and by the United States.

The oral agreement that Sharon reached with Bush was tossed in the trash by Obama. Arafat began breaking Oslo from Day 1 and never stopped.

Obama still wants a nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia even though the bear has kept on violating its end of the deal. Obama is negotiating agreements with Russia and Iran that are equally worthless.

Treaties and agreements are pieces of paper that only work when both sides intend to honor them day to day. Without a compelling reason to go on doing so, they’re only pieces of paper.

  • cxt

    As Mr. Greenfield points out these are not “new” situations. We have been down this road prior and we are going down it again.
    What is the phrase? “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
    Our current Administration have clearly failed to learn the lessons of history—-or given their ideology simply learned the wrong lessons.
    And as usual other people are going to pay for their ignorance.
    How many times are we going to see the failure of paper agreements in the face naked force before we learn?
    And even more tragically what do you bet that even in the face of such action the Administration will still want to cut the military budget?

    • kasandra

      All true but no one should be surprised. As I’ve mentioned on FPM in other contexts, to people of the left, like our entire administration, the important thing is not what most people consider to be objective reality. They have so deconstructed reality that what is most important to them is the narrative. Thus, socialism isn’t always a failure because it runs contrary to human nature. To them, it has previously failed because it just hasn’t yet been tried by the “right people” (i.e., them). Obamacare isn’t a failure because, in the real world, you can’t add 30,000,000 to the healthcare rolls and not have an impact on the deficit or, in the alternative, have the rationing of healthcare; it’s not working because the Republicans insufficiently supported it. There’s always, for these people, a narrative that has little or nothing to do with reality. The current situation in the Ukraine isn’t because we have at the helm someone who has cut a trillion dollars of defense spending over the past 5 years, has crapped on all our allies and emboldened our enemies, and who believes that his words will move people. It’s because the aggressors are weak and pushing their agenda because they are acting out their feelings of weakness and inferiority. Needless to say, if in one’s narrative, power is a 19th century concept that is no longer relevant, and all international disputes can be settled by discussions, conferences, and “confidence building measures,” your country is going to have a rough time in the world of reality and hard facts.

    • nopeacenow

      Liberals don’t learn from history. They want to believe what people tell them. So they believe Israel can make peace with the Palestinians. Treaties signed by dictatorship and other non-democracies will be honored. We conservatives know that is not true. Liberals expect the best from enemies and receive the worst. Usually they don’t suffer the consequences of their error in judgment.

  • Steeloak

    “When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, France and the UK finally did the right thing because the political conditions were now right for it.” Yes, and their declarations of war were immediately followed by the “Stizkrieg” phony war, where they did nothing until Germany acted decisively to defeat them. They did the “right thing” reluctantly, and only on paper.

  • JVictor

    We are walking in very exciting and dangerous times. The logic Putin is using to justify his invasion of Ukraine, to protect the so-called Russian nationals, is going to set the international stage for the enemies of Israel to proclaim that they are invading Israel to protect their Muslim kindred. If the world doesn’t stand up to this Russian aggression, then Islamic aggression will have one more reason to cry “discrimination” if anyone dares to question their notions for Israel. At that point, “all the world” will be against Israel who will have to depend upon the remnant of allies from around the world and the armies of the G-d, led by Angel Jehovah Himself, to defend her.

  • Raymond_in_DC

    “The oral agreement that Sharon reached with Bush was tossed in the trash by Obama.”

    These agreements were not merely oral. They were formalized in an exchange of letters that were reaffirmed in a Senate resolution in 2005. Among those who voted for that resolution was then-Senator Clinton. Only a few years later she, as Secretary of State, and her boss were arguing that the commitments and positions outlined in those letters were not “binding” on the US. In a stroke all US commitments were devalued as they might not survive a change of leadership.