In the aftermath of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, US president Teddy Roosevelt brought together negotiators from Russia and Japan to hammer out a peace. This was the first time the US was ever seen as an ‘honest broker’ in international relations. In 1919 President Wilson sailed to Paris with his 14 Points doing his level best to get the Europeans to negotiate an honorable peace. The wily Europeans outfoxed the rigid and moralizing Southerner in just about all the negotiations. Nevertheless, the US retained the aura of ‘honest broker’ until this century. I can’t say exactly when we lost it—probably when Colin Powell lied to the UN in testimony before the Second Iraqi War—but lost it we did. Somewhere in there we lost the aura of exceptional power we possessed by pissing away a metric shit-ton (yes, an American who can do metric!) of blood and treasure in the sands of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan—and with that loss, we shot whatever credibility we retained right in the foot. But those, shall I say, are different discussions for a different day.
Lost auras being the one thing—at least we still got a chakra, right? (Ugly and poisoned though it may be.) It’s the second thing that grates the teeth at night: an everlasting chronicle of bullshit deeply eroding any sense of diplomatic norms that’s transfigured us into OG rogue nation. So, grab some popcorn, rewind the Wayback Machine and head back to 2014 cause I got a whopper to tell you.
It’s late summer of 2014 and a brushfire war is simmering between Russia and the Ukraine. The US and its European allies are eager to see the Ukraine join NATO. They bring Russia and the Ukraine together and pretty much force feed them the Minsk Accords. Then, over the course of the next eight years the NATO allies string the Russians along encouraging the Ukraine in its ever persistent demands to renegotiate the Minsk Accords.
Nota bene: yes, I write it as the Ukraine. I know the Ukrainians desire their benighted lot to be call Ukraine.
Do I care?
Not one iota.
It was always called the Ukraine—I mean, the Russians use the partitive genitive (don’t ask) when describing the Ukraine as a nation—and it will ever thus be called the Ukraine.
Now, it took the Russians—rarely gullible—a long time to figure out our stunning acts of “bad faith.” But “bad faith” it was. The US and its European allies had no intention of ever compelling the Ukraine to live up to its international agreements with Russia. They were only ever playing for time, waiting for the day they could present Ukrainian membership in NATO as a fait accompli, hoping for a démarche, a dénouement. Damned if we got war in its place.
But the forever-war nation ain’t gonna let a little war-war stop it, no, no, no! Once America sets a precedent it’s game on, bitches! So, in late May-early June 2025 the US negotiated directly with Iranian diplomats signaling that no military action was imminent. While negotiations were held, the US and Israel agreed on America logistical support for an Israeli attack on Iran. A week after Israel launched its first strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, the United States followed suit. Not only is this acting in “bad faith” it’s outright deceit, a line no nation should ever cross in the conduct of negotiations. It’s one thing to bring two sets of instructions to negotiations, one always needs a fall-back position. But deceit? WTF?
Twice then, the US has acted in “bad faith.” It’s at number three when the wise recognize a pattern, three also being proof of outright illegality in the conduct of international affairs, at least according to international and domestic law. So, there is that, you know?
Domestic law, you ask? How so?
“Young grasshopper,” says Master Po, “sit and I will tell you.” (Anyone who gets the reference wins a cookie.)
Treaties signed by the United States and ratified by the Senate are, in accordance with the 1920 Supreme Court ruling Missouri v Holland, the supreme law of the land.
Skeptical-like, you query, “what treaty did we violate, Sean Paul?”
Easy, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This treaty enshrined, in international and domestic law, a norm of diplomacy dating back 575 years to the city-state of Milan and its then ruler Francesco Sforza—a norm, or custom only violated three or four times in the last century it’s so sacred. So basic, so important is the principle of the personal sanctity of the negotiator, aka the diplomat, that it is respected by every nation on the goddamned planet.
It is the singular, fundamental law of diplomacy from which spring all the other elements of reciprocity evident in the conduct of international relations. And in typical American fashion, just days ago, we nuked that norm into oblivion when we in concert with Qatar and Israel arranged for an attack on credentialed Hamas negotiators.
I don’t have anything else to add except a few questions. Why would any nation enter into negotiations with us ever again? Who would be that stupid and reckless? And what, if anything, can ever be done to regain international trust? What I’ve detailed are fundamentally outrageous betrayals of diplomatic norms, norms developed over 500 years ago and used for centuries.
It’s not rocket sceince. Hell, it ain’t even algebra. Christ, it’s more basic than fractions. It should be easy to comprehend. And the behavior is so fucking counter-productive I would expect even the stupid to fathom.
I would be wrong.
P.S. And consequences,those things be bad, like ju-ju bee tree bad shit. Didnae take long, aye?
P.P.S. Oh, and by the way, this leads directly to the massive diversification away from petrodollar settlements, which gets us a fuckton closer to the end of the dollar as global reserve currency. That’s going to be one serious painful adjustment for Americans to make, domestic production notwithstanding.
If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.
Tallifer
The Ukrainians want to be free and sovereign just as the Palestinians, Tibetans, Burmese and Venezuelans want to be free. They want their children back from indoctrination camps and they want the Russians to stop attacking and killing them. No amount of pseudo-history changes that.
Sean Paul Kelley
@Talifer: Ha ha ha ha ha! I’m so BOTW!
mago
Tallifer’s at it again.
What kind of cookie did I win?
Sean Paul Kelley
@Mago: Snickerdoodle.
Feral Finster
Tallifer is of course the Ukrainian Whisperer, He Who Knows What Ukrainians Really Want.
Of course the US acts in bad faith. What is anyone going to do about it?
European strategy since 1917, BTW, can be summarized as “get Americans to do their fighting for them “, europeans being congenital wimps but master courtiers.
Jan Wiklund
Actually 69% of the Ukrainans want peace as early as possible, see https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx
But that aside, there is one mistake in Kelley’s article. Hamas is not a state with right to appoint diplomats under interantional law. Palestine might be, though, even if the US hasn’t recognized it.
cc
It’s a natural extension of the US euphemism “strategic ambiguity” for lying: pretend to have negotiations, then attack during negotiations.
There’s a very long Anglo history of this, hence all the many phrases: “Perfidious Albion”, “two-faced”, “speaks with forked tongue”, “white man treaties”, “not one inch to the east”, “non-agreement-capable”, …
Perhaps, as in the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog, the rest of the world has to assume that it’s a part their nature or culture, despite their nice-sounding reassurances.
elkern
“… we in concert with Qatar and Israel arranged for an attack”?
Israel planned and performed the attack. Israel apparently/presumably gave USA prior notice of the attack, but I haven’t heard of direct US involvement in the plans or action.
US of course shares the blame because we supply weapons and satellite data to Israel.
But I haven’t heard anything about Qatari collusion in the attack?
Feral Finster
The RAF apparently refueled the Israeli aircraft attacking Qatar. The idea that these Israelis slipped across Jordan and Saudi Arabia, unnoticed by anyone, *including* the US assets in the area, beggars belief.
And yes, the Qataris were assuredly in on it, although they were equally assuredly not given a choice.
Carborundum
RAF refuelers use drogue and probe systems; IAF refuelers use flying booms (i.e., they’re not compatible). This is apparently an issue for the RAF as they want to acquire the F35A (boom refuelled) to supplement their B models (probe refuelled) and the K46 is continuing to be an obdurate problem child.
I think detailed inquiry will show that HAMAS representatives aren’t credentialed for the purposes of the Vienna convention. That said, still such a bad idea to whack them it makes the motives transparent…
Tangentially, what does BOTW mean?
Sean Paul Kelley
@Carborundum: “Cannot say. Saying, I would know. Do not know, so cannot say.”
If you get that reference without googling it, I might tell you. Otherwise, what time is your bus again? 😉
KT Chong
I wanted to point out two earlier historical examples where the U.S. had acted in bad faith toward China — well before 1905 — that help explain Chinese distrust of U.S. diplomacy today.
1. Annexation of the Ryukyu Kingdom / Okinawa:
• Ryukyu was historically a tributary and protectorate of China, but also under influence from Japan (especially after Satsuma’s 1609 invasion). Over the 19th century, Japan consolidated control, declared Ryukyu a Japanese han (domain) in 1872, and then fully annexed it in 1879, making it Okinawa Prefecture.
• The U.S. came in as a “mediator” / “peace broker” during the dispute between China and Japan over Ryukyu.
• Unbeknown to China, the US was secretly pursuing its own interests (e.g. in naval bases, trade). The U.S. diplomacy was not neutral. There was tacit or explicit agreement with Japan to open up trade, in return for U.S. acceptance and recognition Japan’s claims over Ryukyu / Okinawa.
• Of course, Okinawa (once a Chinese tributary and protectorate) now hosts a US military base with the primary purpose to encircle and suppress China.
2. World War I / Versailles – the Shandong Question
• A fragmented, weak China joined the Allies and declared war on Germany in 1917. The agreement between China and the Alliance was: if and after the Allies won, Chinese concession territories to Germany (especially in Shandong) would be returned to China.
• At the Paris Peace Conference, despite China’s contributions (including the Chinese Labour Corps) and efforts against Germany in China (to divert Germany’s attention and resources from the Western front,) the Allies granted and tranferred Germany’s concession territories in Shandong to Japan, rather than returning control to China as promised.
• The U.S. (Woodrow Wilson) had rhetoric about self-determination and honoring Chinese claims, but in practice sided with Japan on that issue over, again, trade deals, (i.e., mostly energy and oil deals, which later would ironically lead to World War II between the US and Japan when the US blockade and cut off oil to Japan.)
• After the Treaty of Versailles transferred Chinese territories from Germany to Japan, the sense of betrayal among Chinese triggered the May Fourth Movement (1919), a major turning point in modern Chinese nationalism, partly rooted in the idea that the U.S. and the Allied powers had made promises to China and then reneged on them, (and that was not the first time.)
These are not just “ancient history” for many Chinese; they are a recurring pattern that forms the foundations of modern Chinese perceptions and distrusts of the West particularly America: agreements and promises made by Westerners, particularly Americans, and then broken or betrayed.
I think including these earlier cases helps sharpen your argument: that the erosion of “honest broker” status for the U.S. did not start in 1905 but has deeper historical roots.
Sean Paul Kelley
@KT Chong: 19th-early 20th century China is one of my more obvious knowledge gaps, thank you for the needed correction. I mean that sincerely.
Purple Library Guy
On direct US involvement, or the lack of it:
So, Qatar is a small place, and it is the site of a really major US military base. Most specifically, it is the hub for the anti-air/counter-missile complex the US has been using mostly to help Israel against Iran. That complex is in theory a joint Arab thing, much of it paid for with money from the Saudis, UAE, Qatar itself and so on, but it’s integrated with and controlled by the Americans.
Planes could not get into position to bomb Qatar without this air defence complex noticing them, but apparently no warnings were given, no interceptors scrambled, no defence systems put on alert. This required active co-operation by the US to in effect sabotage a system supposedly there to defend, among others, Qatar.
I mean, we can quibble about definitions, but I’d say a Qatari perspective would consider this an active, not merely passive, betrayal. They’d have been better off with a crappy little defensive system they actually controlled than they were with a great big awesome system the US deliberately turned off so it wouldn’t interfere with their enemies attacking them.
Carborundum
AP is reporting that the IAF used air launched ballistic missiles, from release points over the Red Sea. That would explain the lack of warning and intercept and would not require US collusion.
IIRC, they have a fairly limited number of these systems, originally intended as / derived from test vehicles for Arrow. Jeffrey Lewis is quoted as speculating that they were kinetic warheads, which seems pretty plausible judging from the imagery of the target.
Re. BOTW – don’t tell me, but currently it’s going so far over my head that the sonic boom isn’t reaching the ground… subconscious is going to have to chew on that for a while.
Erty
Russian is my first language. And not, Ukraine is not partitive genitive in contemporary Russian. If you look into the etymology of the word, it may have been genitive but far back, in 13th century.
Sean Paul Kelley
@Erty: my ex-wife was from Russia–but the far northwest, from the Komi Republic specifically, about 120 kilometers from the Artic Circle. She always used the partitive genitive when discussing the Ukraine, current Federation Republics and former Soviet States. Perhaps she did it for me specifically because when I was taught Russia–by a German no less, which is a language that most certainly has the definite article, I was taught that the partitive generative was the way Russians created a definite article. But, if I stand corrected, then I do. I’m always happy to learn something new.
It does make me wonder how or why the Ukraine was described thusly for a century or two by English speakers and was used widely up until the 1993 when the Ukrainians request that the Russians begin calling the Ukraine in Russia with the preposition “v” and no longer “na” which has the connotation of the Ukraine being an intergral of Russia, as “na” the province of Ukraine, “na”, of course meaning on and “V” meaning in, which further confuses the fuck out of me? “Na” after all is used in the accusitive, case which signifies the direct object of a sentence but so does “V” meaning to all too often, and to in English is frequently the first word in an indirect object of a sentence. What hell am I missing here? Some damned Slavic subtlely too soft for my Anglophone ears I suspect.
Anyway, sorry for the long digression.