SS: As the current world order implodes, numerous countries around the globe may try to make land grabs under a humanitarian guise, Nils Gilman, Zachariah Mampilly & A. Dirk Moses write. And the governments in Israel & Rwanda have created clear models countries can now use to justify such expansionism, they argue.
No mention of Armenia and Azerbaijan?
This piece is extremely Western world focused. There’s several things this essay misses.
Firstly, there’s a big difference between a defending nation who is the target of a war of aggression taking ground *from an aggressor nation* that started a war and an aggressor nation taking ground from a victim nation. If a country starts a war of aggression with a neighbor and loses territory as a consequence – maybe don’t try that again.
Secondly, the article seems to have missed lots of other annexations that have happened after WWII. Tibet, Aksai Chin, Xinjiang, Arunachal Pradesh – and those are just a partial list of the territories annexed by just China since WWII.
This isn’t ‘new’ it’s the old reason.
Remember the ‘white man’s burden’ the idea that European imperialism was justified because they were bringing ‘civilization’ and ‘progress’ to the ‘barbarians’
This is the justification imperialists use to justify their ambition. It works because a lot of the time that’s what happens. Governments can very easily say “their lives got better after we took over” with things like standard of living stats, civil rights, and before and after pictures. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are taking away people’s self determination. It doesn’t matter who does it, France, Isreal, Russia, America, or China. It’s bad and morally unjustifiable.
The only type of territorial expansion I can agree with are cases where the people clearly express their approval. With direct referendums on joining a county. And not ones that have any coercion. I can understand that sometimes they have to be carried out under occupation, but the occupiers should not coerce the population into backing the results. And countries need to let people go when they clearly want to leave, it doesn’t matter if it’s Scotland, Alberta, Puerto Rico, Catalonia, or Tibet. Your government is only in the right if it has consent of the governed
4 comments
SS: As the current world order implodes, numerous countries around the globe may try to make land grabs under a humanitarian guise, Nils Gilman, Zachariah Mampilly & A. Dirk Moses write. And the governments in Israel & Rwanda have created clear models countries can now use to justify such expansionism, they argue.
No mention of Armenia and Azerbaijan?
This piece is extremely Western world focused. There’s several things this essay misses.
Firstly, there’s a big difference between a defending nation who is the target of a war of aggression taking ground *from an aggressor nation* that started a war and an aggressor nation taking ground from a victim nation. If a country starts a war of aggression with a neighbor and loses territory as a consequence – maybe don’t try that again.
Secondly, the article seems to have missed lots of other annexations that have happened after WWII. Tibet, Aksai Chin, Xinjiang, Arunachal Pradesh – and those are just a partial list of the territories annexed by just China since WWII.
This isn’t ‘new’ it’s the old reason.
Remember the ‘white man’s burden’ the idea that European imperialism was justified because they were bringing ‘civilization’ and ‘progress’ to the ‘barbarians’
This is the justification imperialists use to justify their ambition. It works because a lot of the time that’s what happens. Governments can very easily say “their lives got better after we took over” with things like standard of living stats, civil rights, and before and after pictures. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are taking away people’s self determination. It doesn’t matter who does it, France, Isreal, Russia, America, or China. It’s bad and morally unjustifiable.
The only type of territorial expansion I can agree with are cases where the people clearly express their approval. With direct referendums on joining a county. And not ones that have any coercion. I can understand that sometimes they have to be carried out under occupation, but the occupiers should not coerce the population into backing the results. And countries need to let people go when they clearly want to leave, it doesn’t matter if it’s Scotland, Alberta, Puerto Rico, Catalonia, or Tibet. Your government is only in the right if it has consent of the governed
Comments are closed.