Washington turns down Iraqi call to remove troops
This is... just bad news for our current international system built on national sovereignty.
More than 100 years ago, China faced the same thing. Countries were stationing their troops on Chinese soil under the name of "protecting our nationals". There is no question about countries protecting their own embassies overseas; embassies are considered sovereign, which is why countries can and do station troops on embassy grounds. But to station troops somewhere else, that is different. Such deployments are usually in agreement with the host country (like Japan and South Korea), and to do otherwise is to undermine the respect for national sovereignty that has formed the foundation of our current international system.
If the U.S. can station troops in Iraq to protect its embassy, even if Iraq does not welcome such a deployment, then there is nothing stopping China from doing similar military deployments to protect its national interests overseas against the will of other sovereign countries.
Which part of "refusing to leave" does not make the U.S. an occupying force?
Which part of "refusing to leave" is not a slap in the face to all countries who want to uphold the rule of national sovereignty?
Which part of "refusing to leave" is not undermining our current international system?
Why, U.S.? Why? We used to respect and honour you for being the big champion of the rule of law, of being the protector of our international system. Why are you undermining all that now?
This is... just bad news for our current international system built on national sovereignty.
More than 100 years ago, China faced the same thing. Countries were stationing their troops on Chinese soil under the name of "protecting our nationals". There is no question about countries protecting their own embassies overseas; embassies are considered sovereign, which is why countries can and do station troops on embassy grounds. But to station troops somewhere else, that is different. Such deployments are usually in agreement with the host country (like Japan and South Korea), and to do otherwise is to undermine the respect for national sovereignty that has formed the foundation of our current international system.
If the U.S. can station troops in Iraq to protect its embassy, even if Iraq does not welcome such a deployment, then there is nothing stopping China from doing similar military deployments to protect its national interests overseas against the will of other sovereign countries.
Which part of "refusing to leave" does not make the U.S. an occupying force?
Which part of "refusing to leave" is not a slap in the face to all countries who want to uphold the rule of national sovereignty?
Which part of "refusing to leave" is not undermining our current international system?
Why, U.S.? Why? We used to respect and honour you for being the big champion of the rule of law, of being the protector of our international system. Why are you undermining all that now?
No comments:
Post a Comment