Quote:
|
Does a super power have the right to neglect international laws?
|
Twelli while this is a good question, there is a great deal of disagreement what is and what is not international law. More importantly laws any laws are open to some interpretation. Who is the final interpreter of international law? There really isn't one. You could say that possibly the UN is by some, but this really isn't the case either. This would give the UN sovereignty over all nations and that is not the case. The UN is not sovereign over all nations. Furthermore, what happens when two veto carrying members disagree over what is right? A decision cannot be made. The UN can pass resolutions though. One was passed that promised severe consequences to Saddam Hussein if he did not comply with UN weapon inspectors. He did not. Furthermore, Saddam signed a treaty to end the original Gulf War with promises to corportate in disarming which would mean also corporating to show that he was disarmed. He did not comply with this either. The UN and generally agreed upon international law respect the right of sovereign nations, which the US is, to defend themselves from attacks. On September 11, 2001 the United States suffered a tragic attack on our citizens, our government, and our infrastructre. We had decalared war on those who perpetrated this attack and those who support them. There was and is evidence which led our leaders to believe that Saddam was corporating with Al Queda and other terrorist organizations which we have declared as our enemy. We also had intelligence reports that he was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD's. Because he refused to comply with UN inspectors, we could not verify for sure if this was true without going there and verifying for ourselves. So far we haven't found any WMD's. Does this mean that there weren't any? Not necessarily so. While it's probable that he didn't have WMD's of a large scale, he could have had WMD's on a smaller scale which could have either been hidden and we've yet to find them or could have been removed from the country. Certainly it is a possibilty that he didn't have WMD's. Still it begs the question as to why he refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. Did he plan on developing them later? So far we can only say that Saddam knows for sure. Where we're at is that we can't prove for sure that there were WMD's, however we can't prove for sure that there weren't either. Personally I hope that there weren't or that we destroyed them in a bombing. I shudder to think of the damage that they could cause. But for sure our leaders did fear that Saddam was a threat to the US via giving terrorists access to WMD's and support in general. So we have a legal argument to defend ourselves.
Certainly there are those who argue against these legal reasons. However those people haven't been appointed as a universally recognized international judge to judge who is and is not in compliance with international law. Really this is a war of propaganda. However, I question those who oppose the war because in essence they are supporting one of the greatest mass murders the world has ever known. And let me ask you this, would you be comfortable with Hitler being in power today if we had his conventional military scaled back to proportions that could be managed by the US and HItler's promise not to use WMD's and that he doesn't have any but his refusal to allow international weapons inspectors to verify it? Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. History is replete with calamities from trusting such power hungry and blood thirsty madmen in the past. Does or should international law protect them and give them the right to threaten innocents in both their own nation and in others? I would say no and no. Still this is open to interpretation. France would gladly have protected him. Great Britan would not. It should be noted that while the US was the major supplier of manpower and resourses in prosecuting the war against Saddam, that we did act with an international coalition of several nations who supplied both manpower and resources and many others who offered moral support. The UN did not offer any official resolutions condemning this action. And while France, Germany, Russia and others did speak out against it; no one has appointed them rulers of the world to unilaterally or as an international coalition decide what is and what is not international law nor have they been given the power and authority to be the official interpreters of international law.
Now as pertaining to the situation of your country. Taiwan is a democratic country which elects it's government. If you choose a government which chooses to oppose a forceful takeover by your country it will be the choice of your elected representatives and not the United States. We may and most assuredly will come to you aid if you are attacked or threatened and ask for our help. If you don't want this to happen then choose a governemnt which won't ask for our help. You can merge with China by simply voting in a government that agrees to do this. However you will need a majority of voters to obtain this government.
It should be noted that China can destroy, but not necessarily occupy Taiwan at their choosing. You do have a formidible defense against occupation in that you are an island. There is no nation on earth, including China, which is a match for the United States in the air or on the sea. If we stand by you, China has the choice to desist or to destroy you. But they make that decision knowing that the US has the power to destroy China. Doing so would result in a nuclear holocaust which would destroy our world as we know it. But it is this mutually assured destruction that protects both you, China, and the United States as long as leaders with any sense of reason and responsibility govern. I do believe that we have that in all 3 countries. And God help us all if a nuclear nation ever gets a madman in control of nuclear weapons.