Comment by tpm

Comment by tpm a day ago

> Russia and China (and many others) have never even pretended to play or accept these "rules".

This false. They have pretended to play by the rules, and when breaking them, to at least manufacture some pretext, or to deny it was a state activity at all.

One example I can give you is that when invading Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union convinced a few Czechoslovak politicians to write a letter inviting the forces for "brotherly help", thus manufacturing a case that it's not really an invasion. They didn't have to do it, the force differential was overwhelming, but they did it because they could point at the letter on international stage.

All this may seem a bit pointless but binding them in international structures brought interesting fruit in the wake of Helsinki conference on human rights. After that they were forced to at least somewhat follow the signed documents which lead to significantly better conditions to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. And there are many examples like this, when pointing at international rules actually made things better. So let's not throw that away.

direwolf20 a day ago

Russia fabricated an attack on Russia by Ukraine before invading Ukraine. So this is still occurring.

Reply View 1 reply

tpm 20 hours ago

Possibly, though that was perhaps more for internal reasons, as at the time it was afaik illegal to start an attacking war per Russian law.

Reply View | 0 replies

panarky 20 hours ago

>> Canada's Carney whines about "international order" when just a few years ago ...

> They have pretended to play by the rules

@YZF is unwittingly agreeing with Carney. The rules-based order is partially a fiction. Relevant snips from Carney's Davos speech.

"The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source."

"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection."

"We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false ..."

"This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes."

When the US invaded Iraq, it at least pretended it was following the rules. It appealed to the UN for approval, it justified the invasion in the name of freedom and democracy.

It was all bullshit, but at least the US sustained the myth of a system of rules and a moral order.

But the US no longer pretends. It invades Venezuela and publicly states it was all about oil.

So even the pretense is gone now, and the benefits that came from pretending are gone. That's the "rupture" Carney is talking about, that sustaining the myths is not longer useful, so it's time to stop pretending.

Reply View 3 replies

YZF 19 hours ago

I'm well aware Carney also says it never really existed. So I don't think there's an "unwittingly" here. My issue with Carney is that he's whining about it.

Reply View | 2 replies
- panarky 19 hours ago
  
  He's the first world leader I've seen who publicly tells other leaders to stop complaining that the false thing is false, that pretending the false thing is true hurts everyone except the hegemon at the top. Taking concrete action to build a replacement system it is kinda the opposite of whining.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  YZF 18 hours ago
  
  He is simply negotiating with the US. That's it pretty much. He's trying to get the best deal for Canada. That's always been how things work. It's just politics. There is really nothing new here other than perhaps the more aggressive and public approach of the Americans. What used to happen in closed rooms is just getting a bit more light and the current US administration thinks that it can/deserves to get a larger share of the pie.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies