Washington's Cynical Approach to Global Human Rights

Have you ever noticed that obvious human rights abuses in some nations are ignored by Washington whereas those in other nations are emphasized?  For example, it's perfectly fine for Saudi Arabia to use the death penalty as the primary means of punishment for a wide range of crimes well beyond intentional killings (i.e for activists who criticize the nation), punish freedom of expression and failing to protect women and children from gender-based violence whereas, Iran, who has similar issues is vilified as an example of the worst human rights abusers on earth.

 

Fortunately, a leaked document from back in 2017 when newly minted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was learning the ropes of international diplomacy tells the world all that they need to know about how Washington views human rights.  The memo was written by Brian Hook, the Director of Policy Planning in the State Deparmentfrom 2017 to 2018 under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from 2018 to 2020.

 

Let's look at some key excerpts from the memo which covers the subject "Balancing Interests and Values" as they refer to human rights and democracy promotion in American foreign policy.  First, we find this with my bold:

 

"The liberal/idealist/Wilsonian view is that other countries, including US allies, should be pressed to adopt democratic reforms and human rights practices in accordance with American preferences.

 

The "realist” view is that America's allies should be supported rather than badgered, for both practical and principled reasons, and that while the United States should certainly stand as moral example, our diplomacy with other countries should focus primarily on their foreign policy behavior rather than on their domestic practices as such."

 

So, in other words, one should ignore the "bad human rights practices" of America's allies because these are domestic issues within these nations and that these nations should be supported no matter how they mistreat their citizens.  Rather, Washington should be focussing on the foreign policies of these "friends" and ignore their bad behaviours.

 

The memo goes on to outline the history of America's involvement (i.e. meddling) in the world when it came to its relationship with various nations and their human rights records.  The author of the memo approves of how President Ronald Reagan handled its role in the world as follows:

 

"As he (Reagan) stated at the 1980 Republican convention, "The basis of a free and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is, and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking." Or again, from Reagan's 1981 inaugural address, with reference to US allies: "We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale."

 

During Reagan's second term, his administration began to move in the direction of more pointed pressure for liberalization with regard to allies such as Chile, South Korea, and the Philippines.  But these efforts bore fruit in part because viable democratic and pro-American forces existed in each country -- and the US continued to provide vital reassurance. Reagan's first instinct was always to back allies against adversaries, even in controversial cases, including through his second term. South Africa would be an excellent example. The approach used there was called "constructive engagement," and in the long run it worked."

In contrast, Hook notes that President Jimmy Carter's approach was a complete failure, observing that Carter's badgering of American allies, particularly Iran, "unintentionally strengthened anti-American radicals" and ended up "facilitating the job of the insurgents" despite the fact that the anti-American movement was alive and well in Iran before Carter took office.

  

Hook then goes on to outline the partial failures of the post-Cold War presidents who used American power to nudge nations toward positive social changes which ended up failing as was the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and the nations that were subjected to the Arab Spring movement.  

 

Here's the most important part of the memo which clearly outlines the cynicism in Washington's approach to human rights with my bolds:

 

"In the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights.

 

It is not as though human rights practices will be improved if anti-American radicals take power in those countries. Moreover, this would be a severe blow to our vital interests. We saw what a disaster Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood turned out to be in power. After eight years of Obama, the US is right to bolster US allies rather than badger or abandon them.

 

One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently -- and better -- than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies. The classic dilemma of balancing ideals and interests is with regard to America's allies. In relation to our competitors, there is far less of a dilemma. We do not look to bolster America's adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically."

 

And there you have it.  The American political establishment's approach to human rights is to be guided by each nation's value to Washington's global agenda; if the nation (i.e. China, Russia etcetera) is seen to be working against American hegemony, it's human rights record is to be used as a cudgel to beat it into submission to American "democratic" values.  In contrast, the human rights abuses of those nations that are viewed as friendly to America are to be treated as though their obvious abuses simply don't exist and never happened at all.

Israel's Dahiya Doctrine, Proportionality and the Collective Punishment of Civilians

Israel's ongoing attacks on civilian targets in Lebanon should come as no surprise to anyone given an Israeli military doctrine that was adopted back in the first decade of the 21st century.   Given Israel's substantial military superiority over its neighbours particularly Lebanon and Gaza/the West Bank, it's not terribly surprising that this strategy has been used repeatedly over the past two decades to punish threats against the nation of Israel.

 

The Dahiya Doctrine is an asymmetrical Israeli military tactic that calls for the use of deliberate, massive and disproportionate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure with the goal of pressuring and punishing the citizens of hostile regimes.  It is named for the strategy that Israel used during the Second Lebanon War of 2006 which targeted the Dahiya quarter of Beirut, the stronghold of the Hezbollah.  Its alleged goal is to achieve deterrence and to prevent Israel entering into costly protracted wars of attrition.  The originators of the Dahiya Doctrine, Major General Gadi Eizenkot and Colonel Gabriel Siboni announced the Doctrine in 2008 and stated that Israel's specific goals for the use of the tactic were to set a "painful and memorable precedent, quick military operations serve to shorten and intensify the period of fighting and lengthen periods of calm between rounds of fighting."  By enacting the Doctrine, Israel would create an environment that would include increasing the cost of postwar recovery for the states and civilian populations that support and finance attacks on Israel. Israel's archenemies consider postwar recovery imper­ative and integral to any victory. They mobilize their financial and noncombat resources for large-scale reconstruction efforts aimed at the rapid alleviation of civilian suffering. 

  

Here is a quote from General Eisenkot:

 

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

  

Since its official inception, the Doctrine has guided IDF war making in Gaza in 2008, 2012, 2014 and, in the most obvious example, the current military operations in Gaza in 2023 and 2024 which has cost the lives of over 41,000 Gazans with over half being women and children and pretty much destroyed the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

 

One might ask whether this doctrine is legal.  According to the Institute for Middle East Understanding, international laws prohibit the deliberate and disproportionate use of military force against civilians and their infrastructure.  

 

Here's what the International Committee of the Red Cross has to say about the principle of proportionality with my bolds:

 

"Applying the principle of proportionality is critically important for protecting civilians and critical infrastructure in situations of armed conflict, especially because civilian and military networks are highly interconnected in the information and communications technology (ICT) environment and incidental civilian harm is to be expected in most cases.

 

The principle of proportionality is a corollary of the principle of distinction and it recognizes that, in the conduct of hostilities, causing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects is often unavoidable.  However, it places a limit on the extent of incidental civilian harm that is permissible whenever military objectives are attacked, by spelling out how the principles of humanity and necessity must be balanced in such situations.

 

The principle of proportionality is further reinforced by certain rules flowing from the principle of precautions in attack, in particular the obligation to do everything feasible to assess whether an attack may be expected to be disproportionate and to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that it may be expected to have disproportionate effects.  Overall, an attack against a military objective can be lawful only if the principles of proportionality and precautions are respected, meaning that the incidental civilian harm must not be excessive, and the attacker must have taken all feasible precautions to avoid this harm or at least reduce it."

 

As well, Article 51 of the Geneva Convention states the following:

 

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

 

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

 

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

 

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

 

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

 

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

 

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

 

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

 

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

 

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

  

As I noted at the beginning of this posting, Israel's actions that have impacted the civilian population of Lebanon are a direct result of its implementation of its Dahiya Doctrine which has been inflicted repeatedly on the Palestinians and Lebanese for decades.  Collective and disproportionate punishment of its neighbours seems to be the norm when it comes the decisions made by Israel's military and political leadership despite the internationally acceptable limits of military actions against civilians.

 

Additional References:

 

1.) Dahiya Doctrine - Fouad Gehad Marei (2020)

 

2.) The Dahiya Doctrine, Proportionality and War Crimes - Rashid I. Khalid (2014)

 

The Sobering Impact of a Global Nuclear War

With two of the member nations of NATO, Canada and the United Kingdom, strongly advocating for the use of long-range weapons against the Russian fatherland by Ukraine's military and now with the EU Parliament voting in favour of the idea by a 425 to 131 vote, I thought it would be an ideal time to review the impact of a nuclear war given that we are stepping ever closer to the precipice.  

  

Let's open this posting with a recent item on RT, the much-hated Russian government-backed news purveyor:

Here is the key quote:

 

"I am constantly trying to convey to them one thesis that the Americans will not be able to sit it out behind the waters of this ocean. This war will affect everyone, so we constantly say – do not play with this rhetoric."

 

While Russia's ambassador to the United States, Anatoly, Antanov appears to be referring to a U.S. Department of Defense study that examined the impact of a nuclear war on global agriculture, there is little doubt that a nuclear exchange would have a significant impact on human survival.  Thanks to Alex Wellerstein's NUKEMAP, we can get a sense of the high human cost of nuclear war directly related to a nuclear blast.

 

Let's start with a scenario where, in response to a NATO threat to its existence, Russia uses the road mobile, heavy truck-mounted RT-2PM or SS-25 Sickle Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (which has now been replaced with the Topol-M which has a single warhead with 800 kiloton yield, noting that it can be upgraded to four to six warheads) which had a yield of between 800 and 1000 kilotons.  This is roughly one-third of the yield of the American LGM-35 Sentinel ICBM (aka the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent) which has a yield of 300 kilotons which will replace the Minuteman III missiles.

 

In all scenarios, the fireball radius is shown in yellow within a yellow outline, moderate blast damage radius is shown in dark grey, the thermal radiation (i.e. 3rd degree burns) radius is shown in orange and the light blast damage is shown in light grey.

 

Here's what would be the result of an airburst detonation of an 800 kiloton nuclear weapon over Washington D.C.:

 

There would be an estimated 484,780 fatalities and 839,440 injuries.

  

Here's what would be the result of an airburst detonation of an 800 kiloton nuclear weapon over New York City:

 

 

There would be an estimated 1,564,350 fatalities and 2,937,690 injuries.

 

Here's what would be the result of an airburst detonation of an 800 kiloton nuclear weapon over Los Angeles:

 

There would be an estimated 582,880 fatalities and 1,454,320 injuries.

  

Since the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom seems more than willing to start a nuclear war, here's what would happen to the poor unfortunate serfs living in London, England:

There would be an estimated 947,080 fatalities and 2,295,450 injuries but I'm guessing that the British Prime Minister will be hiding in some hardened facility that will be immune from the immediate impact of a nuclear war.

 

And, since the Prime Minister of Canada and his Ukrainian mentor, Ms. Chrystia Freeland, believe that Ukraine must win the war against Russia at any cost including attacking the Russian fatherland directly, here's what would happen to the denizens of Canada's capital city:

 

Given that Ottawa is a much smaller city than the other cities in this posting, there would "only" be an estimated 238,740 fatalities and 343,530 injuries.

 

In this rather sobering posting, I have attempted to outline the immediate impact of a nuclear detonation over several cities around the world.  The number of dead and injured that I have used are only related to the detonation event and do not reflect the medium- and long-term health impacts of radiation and other issues like crop failures and infrastructure destruction. 

 

Politicians that flippantly state that they believe that Russia should be subjected to the use of NATO (i.e. American and British) long-range missiles should be held to account for their idiocy.  Or, perhaps these politicians who are so keen on expanding the war into Russia and their immediate family members should find themselves on the front line of any conflict with Russia.  Oceans will not protect North Americans from the sobering impact of a global nuclear exchange.

The Missions and Objectives of the Russian Armed Forces

While we may have a surficial understanding of the mission and objectives of the Russian military, much of which is communicated to us through the eyes of the biased Western media which seems quite certain that Russia's goal is to conquer the better part of Europe.

 

Using a VPN, I was able to access the website of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and the pertinent webpage which outlines the Objectives of the Russian Armed Forces as shown here:

 

The mission statement opens with this:

 

"Given the foreign policy shifts of recent years and new national security priorities, the Russian Armed Forces now have a totally new set of objectives..."

 

The four objectives are as follows:

 

1.) Deterring the military and political threats to the security or interests of the Russian Federation

2.) Supporting economic and political interests of the Russian Federation

3.) Mounting other-than-war enforcement operations

4.) Using military force

Note that "using military force" is not the first objective of the Russian Armed Forces, rather, deterrence, supporting the homeland and other-than-war operations would appear to be priorities.  You will also notice that their objectives do not include having 750 military bases in 80 nations around the world:

 

Let's look at each objective in turn.  Here are some of the tasks that Russia's Armed Forces will use to deter war and military-political threats and to provide for national security:

 

- tracking the rising military-political tensions and uncovering war preparations to attack the Russian Federation and/or its allies;

- sustaining the status, operational availability and mobilizational preparedness of the strategic nuclear forces and the relevant support capabilities to assure their functionality and usability; keeping the C2 systems ready to inflict the desired losses on the aggressor under any conditions;

- maintaining operational capabilities, war and mobilizational preparedness and training of the peacetime general purpose forces on the level high enough to beat back local aggression;

assuring readiness for strategic deployments as part of a state-run effort to put the nation on a war footing;

- making arrangements to put in place territorial defenses.

Here are some of the tasks that Russia's Armed Forces will use to support its economic and political interests:

 

- providing for security of Russian citizens in war zones and areas of political or other sort of instabilities;

- creating the friendly environment for Russian state or government-related economic activities;

- safeguarding Russian national interests in the territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zones and the World Ocean;

- staging and conducting information counter-balancing operations.

 

Here are some of the tasks that Russia's Armed Forces will use in other-than-war operations:

 

- living up to the commitments in keeping with the relevant international treaty obligations and inter-governmental agreements;

- fighting international terrorism, political extremism and separatism; preventing and putting in check sabotage activities and terrorist acts;

- undertaking a partial or full-fledged strategic deployment, maintaining operational availability of the nuclear deterrence capabilities;

- running UN/CIS-mandated peace-keeping/peace-enforcement operations while operating either as part of a coalition set up by an international Russian-participated organization or on an ad-hoc basis;

assuring a martial law/emergency regime in one or several constituent units of the Russian Federation pursuant to express directives from the National Command Authority;

- safeguarding the national borders of the Russian Federation in the air and underwater media;

Of most interest to us is the use of military force to assure the security of the Russian Federation.  According to the Russian government, Russia's Armed Forces are trained to engage in four types of war:

 

1.) Armed Conflict

 

A form of conflict waged to resolve political, ethnic, religious, territorial and other kind of difference through the use of arms, with the country (countries) involved in the relevant military operations coming short of letting the tensions be escalated to the special status generally known as war.

 

2.) Local War:

 

A war between two or more countries pursuing limited political goals, where combat operations are generally prosecuted within the confines of the warring sides. Under certain circumstances, local wars can escalate into a regional or large-scale war.  In my opinion, this is the type of war currently being fought in Ukraine and is on the brink of becoming a regional war given Washington's unfettered support for Ukraine's military.

 

3.) Regional War:

 

A war involving the given region’s two or more countries (groups of countries) operating through the use of either national or coalition armed forces commanding both conventional and nuclear capabilities within a single region confined by the waters of seas/oceans and aerospace, with the warring sides pursuing critical military and political goals. A regional war requires a full-fledged deployment of the armed forces and economic capacities, as well as the enhanced engagement of the material resources and moral courage available to the warring countries. Should any nuclear-have countries or their allies happen to participate in a regional war, such a war can feature the threat/risk of nuclear weapons being eventually employed.  In my opinion, this is the type of 

 

4.) Large-Scale War:

 

A war between coalitions of countries or larger world powers. It can be precipitated by escalation of an armed conflict, local or regional war by way of a significant number of countries from different world regions being effectively involved. In a large-scale war, the warring sides would pursue radical military and political goals. It would require that participating countries mobilize all of their available material resources and moral courage.

 

Modern Russian defense planning, while being reflective of the realistic grasp of Russia’s current resources and capabilities, is based on the assumption that the Russian Armed Forces together with other national troops should be prepared to repel aggression and rout the aggressor. Besides, the Russian Armed Forces should be ready to mount active (offensive and defensive) operations under any scenario of armed conflicts being unleashed and carried on in the conditions of the adversary resorting to massive use of modern and advanced lethal weapons, with assorted WMDs making no exception.

 

It is important to note that Russia's Armed Forces are trained to effectively wage two concurrent armed conflicts of any type in peacetime, during an emergency and to prosecute two local wars following completion of the full-fledged strategic deployment of the nation's Armed Forces.

 

Now you have some idea of how Russia's leadership views the missions and objectives of its armed forces.  Given the recent threats to the Russian homeland from overly and overtly aggressive Western politicians who wish to see their long-range weapons used to attack the fatherland, putting the missions and objectives of the Russian Armed Forces into perspective is important to understanding how they will respond to these provocations.

Turkey - The Next BRICS Member State?

The first NATO member state has applied to join the ever-growing and increasingly powerful global alliance.  Turkey, looking to increase its presence on the world stage and stepping away from the traditional geopolitical and economic alliances that have increasingly lost their power in the new multipolar reality, has formally requested membership in the BRICS alliance of the world's developing economies.

 

As background, BRICS currently consists of founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and, effective in 2024, have added Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Ethiopia to their full membership list with Algeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Palestine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Bangladesh, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Belarus, Kuwait, Senegal, and Bolivia also being in line to join.

 

BRICS advocates for the reform of the United Nations Security Council and, most importantly to the global economy, the abandonment of the "imperial currency", the United Sates dollar.  

 

Here is a quote from a recent article on the BRICS website:

  

"Joining the BRICS means accepting currencies other than the dollar and connecting to new international payment systems. It is about “addressing what we consider an unjust and costly payment system”, said South Africa’s Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier this year."

 

Interestingly, on September 1, 2024, Russia launched a platform that will allow large Russia companies to settle their export and import transactions in Bitcoin since it is an "absolute, stateless and uncensorable store of value that the world needs to trade on equal terms".

 

As it stands now, BRICS has a significant and growing advantage to the Western economic powerhouse, the G7.  Here is a comparison:

 

1.) Population - BRICS - 46 percent  G7 - 10 percent

 

2.) Global share of GDP (PPP) - BRICS - 35 percent   G7 - 30 percent

 

3.) 2050 share of GDP - BRICS - 50 percent  G7 - 20 percent

  

At a the recent sixth edition of the BRICS International Municipal Forum, held in Moscow on August 27th and 28th, 2024, 120 foreign countries met with 5000 participants from 500 cities in attendance to discuss cooperation between megacities and the BRICS framework:

 

As well, between October 22nd and October 24th, 2024, the BRICS Summit will be held in Kazan, Russia.  While Washington in specific and the leaders of the West in general would have us believe that Russia has been sanctioned and shunned by the global community into oblivion, in fact, their role in the BRICS alliance seems to be very strong. 

  

Let's go back to Turkey, a new potential member of BRICS.  Turkey is a founding member of the OECD and the G20.  Its economy is the 17th largest in the world according to the IMF and the nation had a GDP of $1.024 trillion in 2023.  In June 2024, Turkey exported $17.1 billion worth of goods and imported $22.7 billion resulting in a negative trade balance of $5.6 billion for the month.  Turkey's top exports for the month were cars, tractors, trucks & parts thereof ($2.22B), machinery, mechanical appliances, & parts ($1.53B), electrical machinery and electronics ($1.03B), iron & steel ($862M), and precious stones, metals, & pearls ($775M). Top imports for the month were mineral fuels, mineral oils and products  ($4.14B), machinery, mechanical appliances, & parts ($2.7B), cars, tractors, trucks & parts thereof. ($2.31B), electrical machinery and electronics ($1.78B), and iron & steel($1.58B).  In June 2024, Turkey exported mostly to Germany ($1.33B), United States ($1.19B), United Kingdom ($1.03B), Italy ($921M), and Iraq ($729M), and imported mostly from China ($3.14B), Russia ($2.96B), Germany ($1.72B), the rest of the world ($1.41B) and United States ($1.05B) 

 

Here are visualizations showing Turkey's trade data:

  

1.) Exports:

 

2.) Imports:

 

If you wish to see the visualizations in more detail, please click here.

 

Turkey's economy grew by 4.5 percent in 2023 and is projected to grow by 3.0 percent in 2024.  Turkey has a significant inflation issue; inflation decreased from 57.7% in January 2023 to 38.2% in June 2023. However, inflation escalated to 68.5% by March 2024, driven by factors including the lira's depreciation, significant minimum wage hikes, tax adjustments, and strong demand.  Public debt is around 30 percent of GDP. 

  

While Turkey certainly isn't one of the world's most influential economies, it still has a significant presence in the world's trading ecosystem and its interest in joining the BRICS alliance will certainly impact the economic power of the group.  What will be interesting to watch in the future is whether Turkey abandons its membership in the OECD and becomes part of the global anti-United States dollar "club" as a means of preventing Washington from influencing their domestic agenda.  It will also be fascinating to watch the machinations as NATO negotiates the new reality of having a partner state that currently forms a key part of its bulwark against the "Russian hordes" joining the "evil empire" as part of a move to reduce the power of the aging unipolar global alliance.