Maybe, as the human world stands at the brink of possible nuclear annihilation given the antiquated launch on warning system of Russia and its 2,000 “small or tactical nuclear weapons” that Putin may have to “use or lose” depending on the fog of war, it is high time to actually consider an “equal protection of the law” approach to resolution.
Joe Biden has called Vladimir Putin a war criminal because under the law of war it is a crime to invade another nation. That is correct: wars of invasion are criminal. President Putin, apparently offended by the charge, has called US diplomats in to challenge the charge.
The facts are clear. A war of invasion has occurred, so what possible challenge could President Putin seek to assert? It has been said “truth is the first casualty of war,” so maybe the truth of this crime is dying unmourned in some bomb crater?
However, some deeper truth underlies President Putin’s attempt at defense to the charge.
I feel compelled to come to President Putin’s defense. But to do so, one must first accept A. Solzhenitsyn’s challenge to “Live not by Lies.” Truth is not relative and must be asserted fully if a rational basis for assessment of the charge can be done.
First truth: Biden and Putin are both empowered without legal restriction to launch nuclear holocaust no matter what the people who elected them desire.
Since no rational person can support nuclear holocaust, the usurpation of that power is entirely illegitimate, amounting to the power to condemn all to death with no input nor recourse under law. This is unconstitutional under both the US and Russian constitutions as well as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other laws and treaties.
Second Truth: Putin has some claim to legitimacy for his criminal invasion. He may rightly cite George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq (the 19th anniversary of which was March 19, 2022), an invasion based entirely on lies as was Mr. Hitler’s Poland invasion, as precedence for almighty leaders’s “rights” to invade other nations. What is just for one Nuclear Dictator is right for another.
Well, Putin may have something here. This arguably creates a conundrum over how to proceed to Peace in Ukraine.
The foundational issue is how to deal with this war criminal charge?
I modestly suggest the following resolution.
The United States, following its obligations under the “law of nations,” agrees to offer up for trial in the Hague the alleged war criminal George W. Bush as well as UK agrees to offer up for trial the other alleged war criminal Tony Blair and Israel all its war criminals upon Russia’s agreement to offer up Vladimir Putin for similar trial and sentencing.
I modestly submit that such a proposal advances the claim of the US to be a “nation of laws” and advances the interest of all humanity in avoiding nuclear war, also known as “omnicide,” because of the potential to exterminate all of humanity.
I further modestly submit such a proposal advances the goal of humanity evidence by the ICAN Treaty outlawing nuclear weapons by rejecting and repudiating the enablers of nuclear holocaust.
Finally, such a modest proposal sends a warning to all want-to-be Nuclear powers: your days are over. Humanity considers you an enemy of all humankind, criminals of the darkest stripe. Give up your lust for absolute power or all humanity declares open season upon you as was done in ages past against pirates and slavers, who could be mercilessly hunted down lawfully by anyone, anywhere, anytime without due process.
A modest proposal to avoid this end is simply exercise of the right of self-determination and self-defense against the worst war criminals. The stark and final truth: One war criminal is no better than the other.
Let’s put all of them on trial at the Hague and put them in the front line of battle. I can assure you that they will end the war on the spot.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário