Double Standards: within the international community

[ev]

Since the collapse of the USSR the geopolitical division between the 'east' and the 'west' is no longer an ideological division between what was capitalism in the west and "communism" in the east.


Today, however, we have been left with the lingering mentality from the cold war era, a mentality of intervention that undermines the principles of sovereignty, liberty and basic human rights - where economic interests are placed before those of human interests.


This mentality exists at large within the ideological 'west', more traditionally known as the United States, the UK, NATO states, as well as other states that knowingly allow & support the violation of international law (that is, agreements and legislation) for their own or collective benefit.


The United States has been of late the main protagonist in international affairs, with it's clandestine operations against democratically elected governments - with the intention of installing puppet bureaucracies that care more about promoting US economic interests more than the welfare of their own citizens. Democratically elected governments such as, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Argentina 1976, and Venezuela 2002 have all been toppled by US backed coup d'états and does the international community condemn these actions? No, they do not.


The double standards in the international community are ever more evident in Europe. Take for instance the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. The territorial integrity of states is attached to the fundamental principles of international law, the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 talks about the territorial integrity of Serbia and all members of the UN should adhere to this decree, but have they? No, and not surprisingly either, following Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence the United States and it's allies recognized it, going against the UN Security Council Resolution.


Now we come to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, when they declared independence from Georgia (after Georgia initiated a military campaign which included ethnic cleansing) - this was seen as unacceptable by the international community and was not recognized by the international community.


So on one hand you have the 'western' members of the international community supporting Kosovo's illegal unilateral declaration of independence and not adhering to Resolution 1244 of the UNSC, and on the other you have them condemning the unilateral declaration of independence by the autonomous republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both Kosovo's and the two autonomous republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia declarations should not have been recognized, and because the 'west' did so they set a dangerous precedent that until it is remedied will continue to undermine the fundamental principles of international law in regard to the territorial integrity of states.

Double standards are everywhere in the international community, where it is permissible for one state to violate international law it is not for another. Until we reform international organizations such as the United Nations to ensure that international law is equitable and adhered to then, really, such organizations are merely sentimental and provide no security guarantees to the international community or the people in it.

/endrant

[Niccolò Rossi]

Double standards are everywhere in the international community, where it is permissible for one state to violate international law it is not for another. Until we reform international organizations such as the United Nations to ensure that international law is equitable and adhered to then, really, such organizations are merely sentimental and provide no security guarantees to the international community or the people in it.

Fuck the 'international community'
Fuck the UN
Fuck International Law

Communists aren't interested in equity between nation states in the world imperialist chess game, we are interested in their abolition.

EDIT: Maybe my above post comes off as dismissive. That's not my intention. The point I'm trying to make is that, reform of bodies like the UN and the 'proper' implementation and policing of international law is no solution for the working class.

[ev]

Fuck the 'international community'
Fuck the UN
Fuck International Law

Communists aren't interested in equity between nation states in the world imperialist chess game, we are interested in their abolition.

EDIT: Maybe my above post comes off as dismissive. That's not my intention. The point I'm trying to make is that, reform of bodies like the UN and the 'proper' implementation and policing of international law is no solution for the working class.

What if it was a socialist state, would you jump to defend a state on the road to communism from UN actions?

Whilst understandably communists don't care if the conduct of bourgeois nation states are equitable, they shouldn't be so quick to write-off the UN.


The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace.

It serves a purpose today and we would be worse off without it.

[Q]

Whilst understandably communists don't care if the conduct of bourgeois nation states are equitable, they shouldn't be so quick to write-off the UN.
Why not? It is a toothless tiger in the service of imperialism. That was the whole intention when it was created in the first place and it would be silly to see more in it than there is or to try and reform it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What if it was a socialist state, would you jump to defend a state on the road to communism from UN actions?

Firstly, there can be no socialism in one country (much less 'on the road to communism'). The hypothetical of a socialist island in a sea of capitalism is not a realistic one. Of course, such a situation of isolation will most likely exist the day after a proletarian revolution, so the difference is a minor, albeit essential one.

Secondly, and more importantly though, the UN is not the neutral arbiter of the 'international community' (this is no different from the bourgeois mystification of the 'neutrality' of the state and it's role as the social arbiter). The UN is the battleground (playground) of world imperialism on the diplomatic level. It is a liberal and pacificist mystification directly in the service of one-or-another imperialism.

Any real proletarian bastion will not seek defence of revolution under it's aegis! The UN, as the representative of the world bourgeoisie, will be the first to line up against the working class in it's struggle for the destruction of the current order.



The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. It serves a purpose today and we would be worse off without it.

There's a reason why it's rare to see leftists actually take the word of the ruling class at face value.

[ev]

Your respective perspectives on this subject is interesting, to say the least.

[noway]

triple standard..quadruple standards

[proudcomrade]

Firstly, there can be no socialism in one country (much less 'on the road to communism'). The hypothetical of a socialist island in a sea of capitalism is not a realistic one. Of course, such a situation of isolation will most likely exist the day after a proletarian revolution, so the difference is a minor, albeit essential one.

I disagree. The revolution has to start somewhere; the whole globe will not just suddenly zoom from center/right/neoliberal to instantly communist, or even instantly socialist. Individual nations will have to make it happen one at a time. Some already have. I completely respect the systems in Cuba and North Korea, and consider them to be socialist in character, despite that current global conditions have forced them to make some undesirable concessions. China and Vietnam, on the other hand, have allowed far too much capitalist creep. But individual socialist countries are perfectly realistic and possible, in my opinion, although difficult and imperfect. Complete communism under current world conditions, however, is another story. On that, I agree with you- currently outright impossible.

As for the main topic, I used to dismiss the UN on a neutral level, figuring it to be essentially one more neoliberal political body; and for a Communist like myself, I thought of it as not really worthy of any consideration one way or the other. All self-congratulatory talk, no positive change, etc. Then, I started to hear the news reports of UN 'peacekeepers' raping young African girls during their deployments in Rwanda, Darfur, etc., and now I actively hate the UN altogether.