“Every violation of international law invites another violation. From Afghanistan to Iran and across Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela, the line between what is permitted and what is prohibited has been steadily blurred by the complicit inaction of the United Nations Security Council.” That was part of the opening paragraph of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”). If it weren’t for Lula’s lack of credibility on the subject, it would have been a wonderful op-ed.
The second paragraph of the op-ed opened with the following two sentences: “Until recently, there was at least an attempt to give interventions a veneer of legitimacy through U.N. endorsement. Today, the open exercise of power no longer even tries to keep up appearances.” Lula cannot pretend to be unaware that for many of the conflicts he listed, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the U.S. made the case and sought U.N. Security Council (UNSC) authorizations for them. I watched live coverage of former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the UNSC about the Iraq war before that conflict began.
We may not like the reasons given for those wars. And it is true that in the case of Iraq, the evidence presented to make the case later turned out to be false. But they don’t negate the fact that the U.S. acted through prescribed channels.
When Russia launched its unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it made no such attempt. It simply barged in, in an act akin to banditry. My initial shock was later amplified by hearing so many people around the world using all kinds of spurious reasons to justify the barbaric war that Russia had launched on its small neighbor. It occurred to me then that the world as we had known it for nearly eight decades had come to an end.
That was the best time for Lula to write this kind of op-ed.
I agree with Lula that the UNSC has become woefully ineffective. But “a veneer of legitimacy” granted by that body is still far better than the law of the jungle that Russia applied in its invasion of Ukraine. The people who didn’t seem too bothered by that in 2022 cannot all of a sudden complain when someone else does something similar.
Brazil did vote in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and demanding withdrawal of its forces from Ukraine. But Lula went on to partly blame the West and Ukraine for provoking the conflict. Brazil did not partake in the sanctions regime that was implemented to punish Russia for its violation of international law. Lula happily participated in BRICS meetings with Vladimir Putin in attendance, even after Putin was indicted as a war criminal.
Curiously, regarding the U.S.-Israel war with Iran, there is complete silence in Lula’s op-ed on the issue of Iranian culpability. Is Lula telling us that Iran is a totally innocent victim here? He unabashedly blamed Ukraine, which had not attacked anyone before it was assaulted, but says nothing about Iran, which is widely known to be the chief sponsor of state terrorism in the world. My sense is that Lula can’t bring himself to name and shame the leaders of Russia and Iran because they are his personal friends. He has no such inhibitions, however, when it comes to Donald Trump and his “evil” America.
I am a patriotic American. For precisely that reason, I don’t close my eyes to America’s wrongdoings. Parents who coddle their children and ignore their bad behaviors know what the consequences of that can be. My relationship with my country as a citizen is similar to that of the connection between parent and child. When I see something, I say something. I may not have much power over anything as an ordinary citizen, but I have a vote. That is influence. Staying vigilant is my way of ensuring that when it comes time to exercise that power, I am able to do it appropriately. National leaders like Lula are supposed to be the guardians of international institutions like the U.N. It would be nice to see them talk straight regardless of who the players are on any given issue.
The subtitle of Lula’s op-ed says that “Powerful nations are flouting international law, and somebody ought to stop them.” Putin’s Russia has lost its credentials and is not qualified to stop anyone on anything. Xi Jinping is the chief enabler of Russia’s barbaric war in Ukraine. Also, he is definitely not going to seek permission from the UNSC if and when he decides to forcefully take over Taiwan. That rules him out as a good cop.
I wonder who Lula has in mind then for this job. Mark Carney’s middle powers perhaps? They haven’t even formed their club yet. And, in any case, they don’t quite have the muscle mass required to face up to the large bears. The jungle is going to get a lot more precarious for a while.