Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
I know what it's showing, but "Actually, Russia does veto more!" isn't the interesting part.
I didn't sneak it in, I wrote "directly" because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and that's the big reason they're being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasn't involved in any of them, I don't think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. It's politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that they're facing a foe they can't destroy, and don't trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.
So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You "can accept [...] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands", and that "exigent circumstances" is defined by the mighty, "As has been the case all along". Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, "can accept" might to make right. But you also "don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases", so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term "Crooked Timber Conservative"?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but there's no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.
I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And it's not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what I'm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to "the good guys should just kill all the bad guys", and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what they're doing. This either gets people's gears going, or devolves into the "No you don't get it, I'm a Good Person." meme, which is always funny.
The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.
If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that aren't willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the "fucking for virginity" paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isn't to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.
And if you'll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that they're inherently reactive and limited: you can't force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it can't stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isn't, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isn't really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as you're not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an "I can do what i want" card. If the lawbreaking continues, and there's no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until they're either brought back in line or the line disappears. It won't happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, you're back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world "I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!". What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
It's why I take a dim view of "yes, it's illegal, but it's the right thing to do". It's also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemies' enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, it's why I'm a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm "well, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuilding". Which I now realize is also "yes, it's illegal, but it's the right thing to do".
Your words:
Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:
..implying Iran is only words but no actions. Although they very much act, but through the hands of their affiliated terror groups.
Doesn't sound like it, when you're listening to their officials. Not now, not prior to Israel's attack. So what's your basis for this assumption?
No. The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: the occurring ethnic cleansing was not a secret. It is not like those states made up a "trust me bro" story like for example the US did a couple of years later with Iraq. The UN knew about it but still wasn't capable to act accordingly due to being deadlocked - yet again. Hence, as was the case numerous times before and will be the case countless times in the future, states acted on their own behalf. And in this case, I can understand it, as, we've been through this before, the existing exigent circumstances called for immediate action. I don't see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.
The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. There's a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.
Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isn't here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.
Fine. But since I never made that claim, please don't vent that frustration on me. I told you what I'm criticising - the general principle irrespective of who is using it - and how little this has to do with the whole tribalistic competition between the badness of the individual actors of the Middle East conflict ... Frankly, these are the most toxic and useless discussions to be had on the internet. I'm really not interested.
But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldn't fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that can't be won. On the other hand though, these countries effectively received a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. This card frees them from consequences from their own actions, frees them from the need to compromise. All of which the other countries that weren't as privileged didn't receive. So we have a two-class system: the vast group of commoners that must play along nicely or sufficiently suck up to one of the elites to be protected (fueling political bloc formation), and the elites that can choose how much they want to play along. At the same time, this severely undermines and even destroys the effectiveness of international law, as it can at any point be halted/stalled by these countries and they can't be held responsible. It is a flaw that must be fixed, should the whole construct of international law have any form of future.
My point exactly.
(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countries' membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.
Yes. Exactly. Being a veto power is a privilege and should be honoured accordingly by the nations holding this privilege. I can see that less and less.
It depends on the circumstances. And, let's be real, most don't really care about these but rather only about who's doing it. Back at the tribalistic m.o. For some, it is just fundamentally wrong because it was "NATO"/"the US" and they build their entire (political) world view around the core principle of opposing them. I'm not implying you're one of them, but I guess you'll know what kind of people I mean. On the other hand, you've got those that cheer for the US whatever they do. Who don't care about the countries on the receiving end of US military ambitions, because it is the land of the free bringing democracy. But we're speaking about this case specifically, and I really have to say, given these specific circumstances, I can understand why NATO did what they did.
Well. I don't. Because I'm certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldn't resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was "only" the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldn't kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.
Correct. The amounts used don't affect any of that.
Likewise. My claim isn't that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesn't look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like... well, what Israel is doing to them right now. So, yknow, doing it again.
And that's the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. That's the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what I've seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the "well, dictator, illegitimate" opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures it's justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going "What, you did it too!". Hell, right now, the US and Israel are engaged in a war that they can't even give an excuse for, and Carney, who just came back from Davos and the "remove the sign from the window" speech put the sign right back were it was. Your entire argument works perfectly as long as there's either an absolute judge of right, or a universal agreement of what right is, but if that were true that consensus would be law and there wouldn't be a need to break the law in the first place.
This is a fair complaint. But I point again to the problem it was trying to solve: to make a UN, you have to convince countries to give up some of their sovereignty to an external force. The League of Nations failed because A) a bunch of countries left the minute they didn't like a ruling, and B) a bunch didn't even join because they didn't wanna risk even getting to that point. The veto was a way to coax them into the community and get them to see the value in staying, instead of taking their toys and leaving. And if that sounds fucked to you, I'd point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.
I... no. The "but" there doesn't do anything. The rest of the statement is unrelated to the first sentence, and the first sentence is what I'm pointing at. You say you care about the underlying mechanisms, but I don't see you making the connection here.
Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of "we're taking you all with us" and two are run by geriatrics who clearly haven't made peace with their own mortality, one of which's warchief just said they're doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.
But the nuance I was making is this part: "the veto itself is still the same". The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking. It alone is not exactly fantastic, but is limited. It's the second part that turns it gamebreaking.
"Jain". It's an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.
The problem with this is the same as with the "mostly" above. Though I am reminded of an old Chris Rock routine (no, not that one) where he talks about OJ and the murder of his wife, and the repeating punchline is "Now I'm not saying he should've done it, but I understand". There's a big gap between "I understand" and "he should've done it".
...I'm tempted to say "you're doing it again" again, but actually this poses an interesting question: say, for example, Iran had US military possibilities. Like, somewhere in 2024, they somehow get ahold of, IDK, a US carrier group or two, and then proceed to use it to bomb Israel to force them to get out of Gaza and retreat... let's say back into the 1967 borders. Would you approve?
Again, your words:
Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.
You're mixing up aspiration and possibilities.
NATO 1999: evident violations of basic human rights. Do you agree?
Maduro: IS a dictator and IS illegitimate, but still I say abducting him like that is wrong.
Russia: NATO or any of its member states didn't invade a neighbouring country in the biggest war since WW2 in order to annex and expand the own borders. I know too well that Russia and their sycophants love to play that "just mirroring NATO!!1" card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that "argument" has always just been a steaming pile of bs.
It isn't restrictive as it didn't hinder them to do what they wanted to do all along. Rather, in a world of Putins and Trumps, no side is trying to be the "better" side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and don't care anymore. Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story. Especially, after seeing what kind of problems come along with it. This thing needs to be further evolved instead of just saying: well, it is what it is. Otherwise, as can be seen right now, the whole thing will go down.
Well, it is a dangerous world we live in, merely hanging by a thread. No point hiding from that hard truth. The only thing keeping us kinda safe is that neither of these geriatrics has the power to completely single-handedly actually fire the nukes. There's other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustn't necessarily mean the end of us all. But a UN, which especially is toothless against the veto peers, is of no use for the disputes between the nuclear elite.
Since we're eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If there's the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.
An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, there's no point announcing it.
Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesn't), we'll face that dilemma time and time again. Instead of reacting to urgent causes like violation of human rights, we will argue about the existence of these urgent causes, their legitimacy, who brought them forward, what they might gain from it, etc.. but we won't respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that I'd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have that..
That largely depends on what you mean by "approve" and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many "Jewish infidels" as possible won't find my "approval", especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could "approve", as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.