Proposed Thai Cana Routes (foto Wikipedia)
South China Sea Explanatoty Map (foto mil.news.sina.com.cn)
The South China Sea: What’s Really at Issue
The South China Sea is basically China’s export waterway to Africa and to Europe (among other markets), but in order for China’s enemy (aspiring conqueror), America (https://theduran.com/the-future-for-china/), to harm and weaken China maximally, and to use the United Nations assisting in that aggression, America and its allies have cast this vital trade-waterway as being instead basically just an area to be exploited for oil and gas, and minerals, and fishing. The American Government’s aggression – its effort to strangulate China’s international commerce – thus becomes ignored by the U.N., which is consequently handling the entire issue under its law which pertains to a nation’s (China’s) rights to exploit the natural resources of and under a given waterway.
The international legal issue, which is being applied, is therefore the 1982 UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea). This treaty (law, https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf) has been ratified, or at least signed, by all countries except the United States, whose hold out for 12 years had blocked the Convention even from coming into effect. Then, finally (when Guyana, on 16 November 1993 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea), did, after so much delay, become the requisite 60th country (https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm) to ratify the Convention, so as to bring it into actual effect), the US, on 29 July 1994 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea), went through the mere formality of signing the Agreement, because Part XI of the Convention (“to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty,” https://archive.is/JYbFd#selection-1195.7-1195.102) had, by this time, become modified, to the satisfaction of Exxon and other US oil and gas corporations, so that US President Bill Clinton had UNCLOS (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf) signed by the US – but not sufficiently satisfied to have it ratified by the US, which nation therefore still remains the lone holdout amongst the 179 UN member nations that had been invited to join it. Some countries are entirely landlocked. So, ironically, the lone holdoutnation, U.S., is now militarily threatening China (one of the Convention’s actual member nations), for its allegedly violating that Convention, in regard to what is, in fact, China’s essential exportation (and importation) waterway, even more important to China than its being a potential Chinese natural resource asset.
Furthermore, China has long wanted to reduce much of its need to ship through the South China Sea, by means of building what for China would be equivalent to what the Panama Canal is for the U.S., but this new canal would be located in Thailand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Canal), which America conquered in its 1948 coup – the CIA’s first (http://archive.is/u5BXz#selection-1309.0-1411.314). If built, this Thai Canal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Canal#/media/File:Thai_Canal_map-de.jpg) would significantly reduce China’s costs of importing oil from Iran and Arabia, as well as its costs of exporting goods to India, and to Europe and Africa. Therefore, the US regime is willing to pay whatever the cost might be in order to bribe Thai leaders to continue saying no to that canal proposal (https://theduran.com/china-needs-thailand-as-an-ally-against-u-s/). But, will China ultimately outbid America? There is a tug of war in Thailand about whether to participate in China’s proposal.
The US thus blocks China, both via the UNCLOS, and via China’s main potential method of avoiding its need to rely so heavily upon its usage of the South China Sea – the Thai Canal.
This is consequently a good example of how the imperialistic US Government, which is uniquely hostile toward the United Nations, nonetheless exploits the UN, and yet still receives deferential treatment from it – so that the US can actually use the UN as a tool to advance its own imperialistic objectives of conquering yet more territory, additional vassal nations or ‘allies’.
The UN is, furthermore, exceptionally proud of its achievement in having finally passed UNCLOS into international law. As it says (https://archive.is/Ox3ci#selection-569.0-569.149), “‘Possibly the most significant legal instrument of this century’ is how the United Nations Secretary General described the treaty after its signing.”
None of this can be understood outside the context of international law itself, which is tragically corrupt, as a result of the following history, the backstory here.
Though the UN was invented and even named (https://read.un-ilibrary.org/united-nations/yearbook-of-the-united-nations-1946-47_4a346b95-en#page37) by America’s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), he died just before it started, and his successor Harry S Truman shaped it by modifying FDR’s plan (https://theduran.com/how-the-cold-war-which-never-actually-stopped-actually-started/), so that the UN would gradually fail, and, instead, the US Government would itself emerge effectively as being the global government over all other governments – America’s Government would become a global dictatorship over nations, instead of the UN coming into existence as the global democratic republic of nations (FDR’s UN) that FDR had aimed for it to be, controlling international relations after World War II, in such a manner as to prevent a WWIII.
We thus live in Truman’s post WWII world, definitely not in FDR’s.
After World War II (in which the US and UK were allied with the USSR against the fascist powers (http://archive.is/sKLQr) that had invaded countries which had not even been threatening them), America soon launched a string of coups and invasions – overthrowing and replacing governments that hadn’t even posed any threat, at all, to America’s national security – and the world thereby became increasingly accustomed to the fact that America’s military and CIA are, in fact, the world’s new invading military force, replacing Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Emperor’s Japan, in that capacity, as international dictators. That’s something which FDR had been planning to prevent any nation from being. The first four US coups were against Thailand in 1948 (http://archive.is/u5BXz#selection-1309.0-1411.314), Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, and Guatemala in 1954; and each American coup replaced a moderate leader with a brutal fascist regime, crushing democracy there. The US takeover in Syria lasted only a few years. America also engaged in numerous outright military invasions, many of them using hired proxy forces (US funded mercenaries, https://theduran.com/u-s-uk-france-certainly-committed-an-international-war-crime-against-syria-on-14-april-2018/), instead of using US soldiers, as being the US regime’s “boots on the ground,” to do the actual killing and dying. America thereby became the invading country throughout the world, which is what the fascist powers had been in World War II.
The post WWII America thus emerged as standing above international law, ever since the 1945 end of WWII. In effect, America’s Government has internationally become the world’s government – by force of arms. Other countries are subject to international law, but the US is not. The U. has emerged as the international empire, taking over, and dominating, in more and more countries, until it now openly demands compliance from all countries, and even threatens Iraq’s Government, that if Iraq tries to expel the US occupying forces, the US will permanently destroy Iraq (https://theduran.com/u-s-demands-iraq-either-join-u-s-war-against-iran-or-be-destroyed/).
America’s imperialist fascism has become so bold, for so long, so that news media don’t even report it. If one lays a WWII ideological template over the world’s nations today, then today’s US and its allies are much more fitting the mold and form of the Axis powers, than of the Allied powers; but, this time, instead of there being Germany and its allies as the imperialistic fascists, we today have America and its allies, as constituting the imperialistic fascist nations. America assumed this role gradually, first as that role was ‘justified’ supposedly as being an ideological contest between democracy versus communism (which, on the US side, was merely an excuse, not an authentic explanation, http://archive.is/dWxNZ); but, then, increasingly, without any such ideological excuse, as being, simply, America’s alleged ‘superiority’ (such as the recent US President, Barack Obama, repeatedly asserted, that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation” (http://archive.is/R1Gbd#selection-555.0-555.62) which means that every other nation is “dispensable”; only America is not). It is now as flagrant with America as it had been with Hitler’s Germany (“Deutschland über alles,” et cetera). The gloves have finally been taken off, by today’s US imperialist fascist regime. The US even has the world’s highest percentage of its own population being in prisons, a higher imprisonment rate than that of any other country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). This is very appropriate for the world’s most totalitarian country (https://theduran.com/which-is-the-most-totalitarian-country/). So, the dictatorship isn’t only international – it is even intranational (http://archive.is/eZh9N), inside the US. And it very much is in control over the nation’s news media (https://theduran.com/how-the-billionaires-control-american-elections/). It’s a two Party dictatorship (https://archive.is/3X9JY#selection-1301.70-1427.19).
When US President FDR died as WWII was ending, his dream for the future was that America and its allies in WWII would create a democratic super nation controlled by all nations, a United Nations that would have the military force throughout the world to enforce international laws, which would be made democratically by the UN (https://theduran.com/how-the-cold-war-which-never-actually-stopped-actually-started/), through its Security Council and General Assembly. But, nowadays, instead, the US and its allies are free to invade anywhere they wish, and – unlike what happened to the fascist leaders during WWII – the US and allied leaders get away with it, and they aren’t even charged by the International Court of Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice)and the International Criminal Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court). They stand above international law: precisely the sort of situation that FDR had aimed to prohibit.
For example, one of America’s allies – and thus immune to international law – is Israel; and, on September 3rd, the international news site South Front headlined “Israeli Forces Rain Down Missiles on Syria” (https://southfront.org/israeli-forces-rain-down-missiles-on-syria/), and reported that:
The Israeli Air Force conducted a second round of missiles strikes on Syria in less than a week.
Late on September 2, Israeli warplanes launched missiles at the T4 airport in the province of Homs. According to Syria’s state media, the strikes were conducted from the direction of the US-controlled zone of al Tanf on the Syrian Iraqi border. Syrian pro= government sources claimed that a large part of the missiles was intercepted. (…)
The most recent previous Israeli strike on Syria took place on August 31 targeting the countryside of Damascus city and the province of Daraa.
Syria does not invade Israel, but Israel routinely invades Syria, and long has done so – and yet Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, is not being strung up and executed by an international criminal court, like the leaders of Germany and Japan were supposed to have been, after WWII. That Judgment at Nuremberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials), and similar trials against some of Japan’s leaders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East), were actually only victors’ ‘justice’ against some of Germany’s and Japan’s leaders, but (at the time) the victorious Allies claimed it to be the start of international justice, and to be the enforcement of international law – even though the trials were held only against Germany’s and Japan’s leaders, but not also against Italy’s. Italy had signed with the Allies the Armistice of Cassabile surrendering on 8 September 1943 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_Cassibile), and this was part of that deal – Italy’s Government wasn’t quite as horrific as the other two (https://archive.is/QJBjf), which held out till the bitter end. These trials were prosecuting against “aggressive war”: the charge was that the imperialistic fascists had invaded countries that hadn’t invaded them – exactly what the US and its allies constantly and now routinely do, after WWII (overthrowing and replacing governments that had not even so much as threatened the US and its allies).
The US and its allies are today’s imperialistic fascists, and the UN can do nothing against them. The UN can do nothing against the leaders of America and its allies for doing what had been done by the leaders of Germany and Japan during WWII.
Hitler’s and Hirohito’s spirits thus now rule in the self styled (but now only formally) ‘democratic’ countries, whose rulers reign with far nicer rhetoric – far more hypocrisy – than their 1930s fascist predecessors had done. And the UN is dead, because it became created by Harry S Truman, instead of by FDR.
Consequently, let’s consider, in more depth here, the example of China.
China is a communist country, but its communism is drastically changed from the time when Mao Tse Tung founded it, and its Marxism is unrecognizable, no longer a “dictatorship by the proletariat,” but instead one Party rule by a Party that anyone, of any economic class, is invited to join, and which is widely considered by the Chinese people to be a “democracy” (https://theduran.com/countries-ranked-on-democracy-in-2020/). A far larger percentage of Chinese consider their Government to be a “democracy” than the percentage of Americans who consider America’s Government to be a “democracy.” Chinese don’t consider the number of political parties to be any indication of whether the nation is a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. They are correct in that (http://archive.is/wKmik#selection-1189.74-1319.1). In fact America’s own Founders had aimed to be creating a nation which would have no parties at all.
FDR made a clear distinction between a national democracy and an international democracy. He believed that international relations should be an international democracy of independent nations that deal with each other on a cooperative instead of coercive basis, and that international laws should govern this, coming from and being enforced by the United Nations. By contrast, national democracy was to be a choice that only the people within a given nation should determine, and the UN should have no relevance to, or control over, that. “Human rights” are individuals’ rights, and are an internal matter within each nation, whereas the rights of nations are very different, and are the purview exclusively of the UN, as FDR was planning it. This was how he planned for there to be a post WWII world which would have no World War III.
By contrast, today’s US regime claims, for example, the authority to dictate what countries should control which international waterways. This is clearly infringing on the UN’s area of authority; and, so, Truman’s UN has no control over the matter, though it does have vague laws which pertain to it. Today’s UN’s laws ignore one cardinal position — a cardinal geostrategic principle, the Westphalian principle (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/nation-states-and-sovereignty/) – that FDR and the Soviet Union’s dictator, Joseph Stalin, agreed upon and which Winston Churchill opposed: the view that each of the major world powers should be allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of a foreign nation only if that foreign nation is on its borders or at least nearby (which was undefined). This was the Westphalian system, but enhanced so as to be explicitly anti imperialistic, because both FDR and Stalin believed that both World Wars had resulted from imperialism. Both leaders rejected imperialism but accepted that there exists a distinction between major and minor powers, such that the nearby surrounds of a major power need to be entirely nations that are allied with that major power, or, at least not hostile toward it – not allied with any major power that is hostile toward itself. In other words: both men rejected Churchill’s demand that empires be allowed, which could extend beyond a major world power’s own “neighborhood.” Churchill wanted to continue the British Empire (http://archive.is/3yUJc#selection-1333.0-1675.2). Truman accepted Churchill’s view, and rejected the view of both FDR and Stalin (https://archive.is/rKKnR#selection-1249.0-1723.610). Consequently, Truman and Churchill agreed together to move forward toward an all encompassing US UK Empire (https://theduran.com/how-the-cold-war-which-never-actually-stopped-actually-started/). Though, nominally, the Westphalian principle had already become a part of the UN’s subsequent Charter – because of FDR – as being Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 7 (https://archive.is/c3UqD#selection-905.0-905.358), it was ignored from the outset, and the UN organization itself became set up so as to hide the entire Charter from the public. The numerous deficiencies in the Charter – such as its failure to include any clause describing a process by which the Charter could be amended – thus have likewise been hidden from the public, and not debated, nor discussed; and, thereby, the US and UK have been able to have their way: the system for future global dictatorship was thus born.
Consequently, geostrategic issues were prohibited by the US regime from being subjects of international law. Though international law allowed vague references to “aggressive war,” simply because FDR’s US had already established the system to pursue and hang German and Japanese leaders for their having done that, the concept of “aggression” became smudged in international law, instead of defined; and, so, aggression is practically absent as a topic of international law as it currently exists. This is how the South China Sea issue came to be treated only as being an issue of natural-resource rights. The UN’s Charter is essentially irrelevant to what is the most important. Even its Westphalian clause (https://archive.is/c3UqD#selection-905.0-905.358) – which is only the original, weaker, empire accepting, form of Westphalianism – is irrelevant, since it’s ignored.
China’s ability to ship its products westward via the South China Sea is crucial to China’s economy. Consequently, the imperialist fascist regime and its allies are trying to reduce that ability. Because this is Truman’s, instead of FDR’s, post WWII world, the existing relevant international laws lack sufficient clarity, and the US and its allies can, under existing law, gradually choke off China’s exports.
Katherine Morton’s 20 July 2016 article, “China’s ambition in the South China Sea” (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-2346.12658), in the journal International Affairs, argues that China’s ambition in the South China Sea is primarily driven by China’s thousands of years old commercial policy, of being a maritime nation, a nation whose economy is based upon international trade. This is not imperialistic, but it instead concerns international rights that every nation ought to have. Until 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Qing_dynasty_(AD_1644_%E2%80%93_1912)), China was ruled by imperialistic Emperors, but afterwards it was no longer imperialistic and has instead been defending itself against imperialistic powers. Morton argues that China’s objective is not any grand design to achieve maritime hegemony – such as the US regime has, and such as England, Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan, previously had done. It’s not imperial rule over countries that aren’t in their own neighborhood. It’s not conquest; it is instead self defense. America and its allies do the coups, invasions, and international economic sanctions (economic blockades, even), but China does not. That, basically, is Morton’s argument (though she doesn’t put it in those clear terms). She says that China’s “attention is primarily focused upon demonstrating political resolve to defend China’s maritime periphery. Yet conclusive evidence that the Chinese leadership is intent upon dominating the South China Sea for the broader purpose of building a Sino centric maritime order in east Asia is difficult to find.” The obtuseness – if not self-contradictoriness – of her writing might be due to her desire not to offend the US regime’s own imperialistic sensibilities. Such a style is common amongst international affairs scholars in the US and allied world.
However, the US regime claims that China, instead of America, is the imperialistic power. The US regime, as usual, claims to have the international right to enforce its will in international affairs anywhere on the planet. Sometimes, today’s UN based international laws are in favor of outcomes that the US regime wants. Thus, we have the matter of the South China Sea, where the UN body, UNCLOS, ruled on 12 July 2016 (https://vn.usembassy.gov/the-united-statess-commitment-and-international-law-in-the-south-china-sea/)that the only relevant question is which nation is the nearest to a given part of a waterway (so as to have the right to explore and exploit there). The international laws by today’s UN ignore geostrategic issues, such as both FDR and Stalin wanted to include in them, but Churchill and Truman wanted international laws to ignore such matters so that UK and now US could jointly pursue world conquest (https://theduran.com/how-the-cold-war-which-never-actually-stopped-actually-started/). Since the UNCLOS ruling in 2016 opposed China’s claims, by ignoring its major-power concerns about its self-defense, the US, under the hyper aggressive ruler, Donald Trump, recently came out publicly committed to enforcing that 2016 ruling by the UN body (https://www.cfr.org/blog/vietnams-response-united-states-changing-approach-south-china-sea). On September 1st, Reuters headlined “Special Report: Pentagon’s latest salvo against China’s growing might – Cold War bombers” (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-bombers-special-report/special-report-pentagons-latest-salvo-against-chinas-growing-might-cold-war-bombers-idUSKBN25S4RZ), and reported that.
On July 21, two US Air Force B 1B bombers took off from Guam and headed west over the Pacific Ocean to the hotly contested South China Sea. The sleek jets made a low level pass over the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and its escorting fleet, which was exercising nearby in the Philippines Sea, according to images released by the US military. The operation was part of the Trump administration’s intensifying challenge to China’s ruling Communist Party and its sweeping Territorial Claims over One of the World’s Most Important Strategic waterways. While senior Trump officials launch diplomatic and rhetorical broadsides at Beijing, the US Defense Department is turning to the firepower of its heavily armed, long-range bombers as it seeks to counter Beijing’s bid to control the seas off the Chinese coast. (…)
The US Army also intends to spread forces through the first island chain and other outposts in the Western Pacific. It is planning a series of major exercises this year and next where troops would deploy to islands in the region, according to senior commanders and top Pentagon officials.
The US regime is using, as its excuse, its backing the territorial claims of what it claims to be its ‘allies’ against China – such as Vietnam. Meanwhile, the regime is applying diplomacy and other means, in order to encourage those ‘allies’ to insist upon, and not to compromise or weaken, those claims. Vietnam (https://vn.usembassy.gov/the-united-statess-commitment-and-international-law-in-the-south-china-sea/) quickly responded to America’s active backing, by “Vietnam Threatens China with Litigation over the South China Sea” (https://www.lawfareblog.com/vietnam-threatens-china-litigation-over-south-china-sea).
What’s at issue there is underwater oil and gas exploration and development rights of the various nations’ corporations. If China truly does not place its corporations’ commercial interests above the Chinese nation’s self defense interests, then it will sacrifice the former for the latter, and it will cede those other nations’ rights to exploit that oil and gas, and will settle with its neighbors, for an agreement by all of America’s ‘allies’ to support and endorse China’s rights to traverse unimpeded through those waterways.
If the US regime then would continue its heavy military fortifications surrounding China, then China would (in accord with its agreements that it will have reached with Vietnam and those other neighboring nations) be receiving, from those nations’ endorsements of China’s rights in that regard (for China’s self defense), and from those nations’ public requests for US forces to depart from their region, support for China’s shipping rights, which would be at least as valuable to China as whatever the natural resources there are worth.
Map of the South China Sea, with nine dotted line highlighted in green (foto Wikipedia)
In regards to the 12 July 2016 ruling by UNCLOS, it concerned specifically the case between China and the Philippines (https://web.archive.org/web/20190129031833/htts://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf), and it presented the Philippines’ challenging China’s claims, which claims were are based on arguments such as (regarding “Scarborough Shoal”) that “Since the Yuan Dynasty, the Chinese people have never stopped developing and exploiting Huangyan Island and its surrounding waters and the Chinese government has exercised effective management and jurisdiction over their activities all these years.” The ruling replied to that assertion by saying, “The Tribunal’s conclusions with respect to” that area are “independent of the question of sovereignty.” But, whatever the ruling was based upon, what’s relevant here is that the US Government has no right to be sending its warships and other weapons into the South China Sea in order to ‘enforce’ UNCLOS’s ruling. And whatever China’s claims are or were in this matter, they cover(ed) a very large area, which encompasses almost all of the South China Sea – it encompasses the area that’s within the “nine dash line” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line), which is shown here in green (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#/media/File:9_dotted_line.png). Although UNCLOS (actually the UN authorized body that administers it, the International Seabed Authority, https://archive.is/Ib6Wd) is legitimately involved in this matter; the US Government is the opposite: it is instead an international law violator and has no right to be involved, at all, and is illegally throwing its weight around where it doesn’t belong and should be expelled – and would be expelled if this were FDR’s UN, instead of Truman’s UN.
Another way that Truman’s UN helps the US regime geostrategically against China is the issue of Hong Kong – an internal Chinese matter, which wouldn’t even be a UN concern if the UN had been created instead by the UN’s inventor, FDR. Even the original, weaker, form of the Westphalian principle – the version that’s in the UN’s Charter (https://archive.is/c3UqD#selection-905.0-905.358) – would prohibit outside involvement in this matter. As Reuters headlined on September 3rd, “UN experts decry Hong Kong security law in open letter to China” (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-security-un/un-experts-decry-hong-kong-security-law-in-letter-to-china-idUSKBN25V030). Any UN that gets involved in any nation’s internal affairs, and in such things as ‘human rights’, should be simply dissolved, because it is advancing imperialism, instead of preventing it.
Basically, today’s UN is just a talking forum, a PR vehicle for its member-nations; but, actually, at the deepest level, it’s a propaganda agency for imperialism. That’s what it was designed for.
If China can win the support of its neighbors in the region to kick America out, then the sacrifice of such assets as oil and gas there would be a relatively inconsequential price for China to pay. Unfortunately, today’s UN must be eliminated and replaced by one that builds upon FDR’s intentions, because today’s UN – Truman’s UN – is exactly the opposite.
America’s having its weaponry and forces on and near China’s borders is even worse than when in 1962 the Soviet Union placed its forces in Cuba – and nearly precipitated WWIII. America has no right to be there. And today’s UN has no justification to continue its existence – a replacement of it is direly needed.
Details of the existing U.N.’s deficiency in the present situation will here be summarily stated: UNCLOS asserts (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf): “Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles.” That’s the outermost limit of any coastal nation’s “sovereignty.” Furthermore: “Non compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State. If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.” But Truman’s UN possesses no military force of its own and therefore that “coastal State” is provided no protection by today’s UN. Furthermore: UNCLOS even allows an enemy nation’s naval vessels into that 12 mile limit, but “submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.” There is no limit upon how near the shore an enemy’s warships are allowed to come. Yet the US violates UNCLOS routinely. What military force exists against its doing so? What legal tribunal exists that covers this? Furthermore: The agreement by FDR and Stalin, that any major world power needs to have some sort of right to veto or block any nearby nation from coordinating with any other major power that is hostile toward that given major world power, is entirely absent from the existing UN – existing international law. Consequently, for example: The US, under JFK in 1962, was acting in violation of the subsequent 1982 UNCLOS, when he ordered the Soviet military to depart from Cuba – that was beyond the 12 mile limit. Existing international law has to be replaced. It ignores essential geostrategic concerns to prohibit imperialism and to minimize any likelihood of a WWIII. It needs to be replaced.
And that’s not the only reason why the current system of international laws needs to be replaced. The existing international dictatorship, which is the U.S. regime, is even more conservative than is Truman’s UN. For example as of October 2019, there are 37 “Treaties Pending in the Senate” (http://web.archive.org/web/20200907131500/https://www.state.gov/treaties-pending-in-the-senate/, the US Senate). These UN backed treaties all are of a progressive nature, asserting the rights of workers and obligations of employers, et cetera; and, in fact, the first three of these treaties deal specifically with workers’ rights. The earliest of them, activated in 1949, is the “International Labor Organization Convention N° 87 Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, adopted by the International Labor Conference at its 31st Session held at San Francisco, June 17 – July 10, 1948 (Treaty Doc.: Ex. S, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.); submitted to Senate August 27, 1949.” President Truman could not get Republicans to back it (http://web.archive.org/web/20181226061232/https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/treaty_81-19.pdf), because they opposed workers’ rights. They still do, and the Treaty still isn’t joined by the US regime. Indeed, as Roncevert Ganan Almond noted, in his 24 May 2017 article in support of “US Ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention” (https://archive.is/BSCR2), “Even treaties that flow from American leadership (https://archive.is/IwX94), in areas like protecting rights for persons with disabilities (https://archive.is/Fw5Ps), are rejected” (https://archive.is/Fw5Ps). They’re always being rejected by Senate Republicans. Truman, of course, was a Democrat; and, on most issues, the leadership of that Party is less conservative than is the leadership of the Republican Party. Thus, though Truman’s UN is conservative, it isn’t as conservative as is the US regime itself, which is even more conservative than Truman himself was. Physically, Hitler and Hirohito lost WWII; but, spiritually, they turned out to have won it. The reason is that FDR tragically died too early.
Originally posted at Strategic Culture (https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/09/south-china-sea-what-really-at-issue/).
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 (https://www.amazon.com/Theyre-Not-Even-Close-Democratic/dp/1880026090), and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Q1H4EG).