Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch said there was "mounting evidence that Russian and Georgian military used armed force unlawfully during the South Ossetian conflict" and it emphasized that this "highlights the need for international fact-finding missions in Georgia."What the hell does "unlawful" mean in an international military context? How can anyone say that with a straight face? Forcing someone's notion of "international law" upon the world is farcical to say the least. Put another way: Whose law was broken? The reason people fight is because they can't resolve things peacefully, and no law can be applied to that.
The Geneva Convention wouldn't mean a damn thing if the aggressor who violated the rules were to win. Such laws are only used as a pretense for the winning nation to justify their actions upon the loser. "War crimes" is a nonsensical term—there is no crime in war, only the will of the victor over the vanquished. Nuremburg after World War II was a farce in that punishing the losing generals was some application of authoritarian law. No way: The Allies extracted vengeance and had to apply the shield of "law" to make up excuses for their actions. The Allies rightfully won (although the Allied leaders were minor tyrants in their own right), and still they felt they had to apply a bit of decorative color to the war's end. Well, the winner writes history, always.
This whole conflict with Georgia and Russia is a case of he said, she said—who knows what exactly happened out there. What we do know is that Russia is not to be trusted. The wounds of the Cold War run deep, and just as China longs to rule Asia once more, Russia longs to again be the dominant power in Europe. Where such ambition runs rampant, war can never be far behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment