Today, Sergei Lavrov spoke for 26-minutes before an audience consisting of the heads of Russian non-profits and non-governmental organizations that are often one and the same, some Russian focused and based and others international having broader bases.
Lavrov acknowledges by implication the problem of toxic sovereignties. “… everyone is obliged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of peoples to self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory.”
Contrariwise: Everyone is not obliged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states whose governments don’t respect the rights of their own peoples to self-determination.
A toxic sovereignty is one in which the few rulers systematically oppress and harm groups of the many they regard as subhuman relative to them, or heretical to their established orthodoxy. Most states have toxicities as there can be various ruling groups whose realms don’t necessarily overlap each of which may be oppressive to those people not inside their order.
So the question is: what do other states do about a toxic sovereign state? According to the United Nations Charter, they mustn’t interfere.
For example, The Afghani Taliban government is comprehensively oppressive to its women in violation of the UN Charter. What measures would Lavrov have the Russian Government take to remedy this toxicity? Presumably only diplomatically.
However, the usurped government of Ukraine exercised toxic sovereignty of a Nazi persuasion over its Russian-speaking inhabitants primarily of the 4 eastern oblasts, who rebelled against it. 8 years later, Russia initiated its Special Military Operation to resolve the problem.
The current policy of the Mutualist states outside the Hegemon seems to be to stand aside - none of our business. Does that apply to the extremely toxic genocidal Israeli state?
Your POV here is worthy. The Afghan example is apt, and the regional nations are trying to solve the issue diplomatically. However, The Zionists are another matter completely and as I argue force must be used to solve the matter. Now that the 14 Palestinian factions have reached consensus, we must wait for the next move, which might be delivered by Ansarallah.
Thanks for this. Lavrov's speeches, as Putin's are demonstrations of adult governance that we simply cannot find in our own western world.
It doesn't matter to anyone I suppose but I only wish Lavrov had persisted in the distinction he made between the 'people of the world' and the 'unfriendly governments' and used appropriate language throughout. By which I mean abandon the customary use of 'America' to mean the nation and so on. Instead say what he really means: 'The American Junta' or similar.
I would like to see such adopted in all comments of international affairs and am somewhat aghast that it is not. Particularly damaging, of course, in the case of 'Ukraine' where the word applies in truth, when used, only to the Kiev regime part of it and on investigation not even to them but to their oppressive regime.
Please don't quibble that 'Donbas Ukrainians are now Russians'. You know full well what I mean I expect. And NATO, USA, Kiev insist that they are Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Yep. But nice to read some more calm measured sense from Lavrov.
Here (Australia) not only do we never get such adult responsible true sense we more and more get nothing at all. They are only incoherent they are silent.
Which points the finger, of course, at the real villain behind all of this: we the people. Who let the situation persist.
interesting saying 'under the snag' - i guess that means they evake the obvious snag they are caught in... "But as soon as you show "this" to a Western interlocutor, on those rare occasions when we "clash" somewhere at the UN, they simply (speaking in Russian) "go under the snag."
Lavrov acknowledges by implication the problem of toxic sovereignties. “… everyone is obliged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of peoples to self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory.”
Contrariwise: Everyone is not obliged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states whose governments don’t respect the rights of their own peoples to self-determination.
A toxic sovereignty is one in which the few rulers systematically oppress and harm groups of the many they regard as subhuman relative to them, or heretical to their established orthodoxy. Most states have toxicities as there can be various ruling groups whose realms don’t necessarily overlap each of which may be oppressive to those people not inside their order.
So the question is: what do other states do about a toxic sovereign state? According to the United Nations Charter, they mustn’t interfere.
For example, The Afghani Taliban government is comprehensively oppressive to its women in violation of the UN Charter. What measures would Lavrov have the Russian Government take to remedy this toxicity? Presumably only diplomatically.
However, the usurped government of Ukraine exercised toxic sovereignty of a Nazi persuasion over its Russian-speaking inhabitants primarily of the 4 eastern oblasts, who rebelled against it. 8 years later, Russia initiated its Special Military Operation to resolve the problem.
The current policy of the Mutualist states outside the Hegemon seems to be to stand aside - none of our business. Does that apply to the extremely toxic genocidal Israeli state?
Your POV here is worthy. The Afghan example is apt, and the regional nations are trying to solve the issue diplomatically. However, The Zionists are another matter completely and as I argue force must be used to solve the matter. Now that the 14 Palestinian factions have reached consensus, we must wait for the next move, which might be delivered by Ansarallah.
Thanks for this. Lavrov's speeches, as Putin's are demonstrations of adult governance that we simply cannot find in our own western world.
It doesn't matter to anyone I suppose but I only wish Lavrov had persisted in the distinction he made between the 'people of the world' and the 'unfriendly governments' and used appropriate language throughout. By which I mean abandon the customary use of 'America' to mean the nation and so on. Instead say what he really means: 'The American Junta' or similar.
I would like to see such adopted in all comments of international affairs and am somewhat aghast that it is not. Particularly damaging, of course, in the case of 'Ukraine' where the word applies in truth, when used, only to the Kiev regime part of it and on investigation not even to them but to their oppressive regime.
Please don't quibble that 'Donbas Ukrainians are now Russians'. You know full well what I mean I expect. And NATO, USA, Kiev insist that they are Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Yep. But nice to read some more calm measured sense from Lavrov.
Here (Australia) not only do we never get such adult responsible true sense we more and more get nothing at all. They are only incoherent they are silent.
Which points the finger, of course, at the real villain behind all of this: we the people. Who let the situation persist.
interesting saying 'under the snag' - i guess that means they evake the obvious snag they are caught in... "But as soon as you show "this" to a Western interlocutor, on those rare occasions when we "clash" somewhere at the UN, they simply (speaking in Russian) "go under the snag."
thanks karl.