Modern international law is enshrined in certain legal principles outlined in the UN Charter which itself is premised on the right of all nations to full sovereignty and non-interference.

These principles were given even more weight with the addition of the Nuremburg codes which outlined any war of aggression from one state over another to be formally illegal. While one might have thought this to be a rather obvious fact, no one had ever bothered to make it a law before 1947.

However as we see today, fires are being lit by Anglo-American forces who hypocritically use the authority of these treaties while not actually respecting those very principles which they abuse for their own ends. In a stern call to defend these principles before we pass the point of no return in our collective slide into hell, President Putin addressed the 9^th Annual Moscow Conference on International Security stating:

“Unfortunately, geopolitical processes are becoming increasingly turbulent despite isolated positive signals. The erosion of international law continues as well. The attempts to use force to push through one’s own interests and to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of others continue unabated… Any new rules should be formulated under the auspices of the UN. All other avenues will lead to chaos and unpredictability,”

UNCLOS Then and Now

Despite the calamitous Cold War age, piecemeal efforts were made to build upon the UN Charter with international agreements designed to defuse tension, establish agreed-upon rules clarifying long-standing ambiguities over territorial disputes that could easily lead to hot wars if not addressed. In the domain of the seas, the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) was established in 1982 and enacted in 1994 establishing for the first time in history clearly defined rules for territorial sovereignty of ocean waters. Before this treaty, a six century practice called “Freedom of the Seas” held that all claims to sovereignty ended where land hit water and all was then fair game. Under UNCLOS, national territories were demarcated at 12 nautical miles beyond all landmasses of a nation, and economic jurisdictions extended 200 miles around all nations entitled “exclusive economic zones”. While all signatories could enjoy transit through these exclusive economic zones, all fishing, and resource extraction rights etc, would be uniquely enjoyed by one party alone. Beyond the 12 nautical mile boundary, all waters would be considered otherwise international.

Despite the fact that 167 nations have ratified this important treaty, the nation which had historically defended sovereignty and advanced this discussion to the point of law refused to adopt it to this day.

UNCLOS which has been used by the USA for years to justify the forays of US military ships in China’s back yard, often moving through waters clearly within China’s 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea and elsewhere.  Whenever China has raised the alarm warning that America’s actions threaten her safety (especially considering the vast military encirclement of hundreds of thousands of US troops, destroyers, bases and THAAD missiles across the Pacific), the typical response delivered by their US counterparts is “it is within our right to do this, as the Exclusive Economic Zone outlined in UNCLOS does not prohibit the transit of foreign military ships.”

While that is technically true, America’s non-participation in UNCLOS renders this entire argument null and void.

While the UK has ratified UNCLOS, Perfidious Albion was quick to break that treaty on June 22 when a British destroyer made a B-line into Russian waters in the Black Sea threatening to break the 12 nautical mile zone around Crimea as a provocative message to Russia. Like so many risky maneuvers plotted in the bowels of British intelligence, the message of this calculated provocation was three-fold. This message stated that neither Britain, nor the broader Anglo-American machine it represents, respects either 1) the democratic 2014 vote of the Crimean people to return their land to Russia since this water, Britain assert, to be Ukrainian, 2) the efforts to defuse military tensions in Russia’s soft underbelly by saner elements among the western alliance, or 3) the principles of sovereignty upon which UNCLOS itself is premised.

Closed Minds Destroy Open Skies

Although it was first proposed in 1955 by President Eisenhower, what later became known as the Open Skies Treaty was only revived in 1989, made into legislation in 1992 and put into action in 2002. When Russia leaves the treaty in December of this year, it will have 33 members.

The important element of this agreement is that every member enjoys the right to conduct surveillance flights over any member of the group using standardized censors and aircraft at all times, and all data accumulated by any surveillance plane is immediately made the joint possession of all members. The benefit of this treaty should not be lost on anyone who has studied the Cuban Missile crisis and recognizes the importance of trust building mechanisms among especially nuclear powers.

However, when Russia passed a law announcing its intent to leave the treaty on June 6, 2021- following the earlier example of the USA which cancelled its membership under the direction of Mike Pompeo and Esper in 2020, NATO members were quick to lay down thick layers of criticism onto Russia’s belligerent war-making ways. Was anything similar heard when Biden announced that the USA had no intention to re-enter the treaty? Of course not. In response to this pressure campaign, Foreign Minister Lavrov stated on June 24:

 “The termination procedure has been launched, as you all know. The depositaries of the treaty have been notified. But the hypocritical reaction in response to our absolutely natural and pre-planned step from the side of NATO and the EU, who urged Moscow not to dismantle the treaty, as if they forgot Washington’s irreversible decision to withdraw from the treaty as the main reason behind the current crisis, is what is astounding to us.”

While anyone reading western mainstream media would tell you that the fault for the Open Skies breakdown lies entirely with the Russians for having denied several requests by western powers to conduct flyovers of strategic Russian areas like Kaliningrad and Transnistria, a broader set of facts is often ignored. Lavrov pointed out that over the past decade, NATO members “blatantly neglected its obligations under the Treaty on Open Skies, closing down the majority of the territory of the US, Canada, the UK and France to Russian planes”. Not only that but Open Skies treaty members failed to commit to not sharing information they collected over their Russian flyovers with the USA after it had left the treaty on several occasions when these eminently reasonable guarantees were sought by Russia.

Like UNCLOS earlier, this treaty went far to balancing the dual obligation of respect for each individual nation’s independence while harmonizing this reality with a higher global responsibility to live together with certain rules. By these facts alone, Open Skies is not Hobbesian, zero-sum or unipolar. And by these facts, it too must be undermined in the mind of any globalist utopian.

The Problem of World Government

Lastly, and most importantly for our present purposes, it is known that the NATO alliance and G7 are now governed in large measure by a force which has nothing but disdain for the system of nation states established with the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 and enshrined in the UN Charter. When liberal imperialists like Sir Henry Kissinger and Tony Blair joined with neoconservative parasites championing the “end of the Westphalian era” after 9/11, a poisonous new doctrine of law emerged onto the scene. This new doctrine had already been there informally for decades of course, but under the new terms of crisis management that emerged with the post-9/11 “war on terror” and broader regime change agenda outlined in the Soros-funded Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Protocol, it was becoming clear that the UN Charter and Nuremburg Codes were to be rendered as null and void as the US Constitution itself. “The ideals enshrined in these documents might appear nice” stated the neo-Hobbesian NATO-phile, “but they have no place in a Social Darwinian world of cold chaotic forces guided by selfishness, lies and shadows where only the strong survive and impose order from above in a unwavering quest for a utopian state equilibrium.”

Ignoring, for the time being that nearly every single case of terrorism either foreign or domestic for the past 80 years has enjoyed both the logistic and financial support of western intelligence agencies, the ugly truth is that the systematic undermining of all international customs and norms during the past 80 years has had everything to do with the unyielding desire to replace a world governed by nation states and the general welfare of the citizens with a perverse Hobbesian Leviathan whose sole law is defined by the power of the most fit over the weak.

Where the Multipolar Alliance is defending the structures of sovereignty, non-interventionism, and cooperation as the foundation of International Law, the unipolar alliance run by hives of creepy technocrats and billionaires wishing for nothing less than total control over a depopulated, post-truth, post-nation state world order sometimes called “shareholder capitalism” is but in truth nothing less than neo-technocratic feudalism.

In the next installment we will review the origins of the UN Charter in greater detail followed by a third part on the Westphalian Treaty of 1648 that ended the 30 years war and the strategic importance of this world-changing policy for today.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

Similarly optimistic, if not delusional, remarks of an “agreement in principle” were made this week separately by Mike Pompeo, the U.S.’ top diplomat, as well as Trump’s special envoy on arms control, Marshall Billingslea.

The sanguine posturing by the Trump administration amounts to absurd grandstanding. It’s obvious that with three weeks to the presidential election there is an attempt to inflate the image of Trump into a master deal-maker and hence to score some “good news” for the American people in a bid to boost his re-election ambitions.

What’s going on here is unscrupulous and shabby gimmicking around with the onerous matter of global security. The main issue at hand is the New START accord governing limitations on strategic nuclear weapons. The treaty came into effect in 2011 and is due to expire in February next year, only four months away. It is the last-remaining arms-control treaty between the U.S. and Russia, specifically limiting the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles deployed by either side. Given that the U.S. and Russia together possess over 90 per cent of the world’s total stockpile of these weapons, it is incumbent on both to secure the landmark treaty.

It should be noted that Washington has already abandoned several arms-control treaties: the Anti-Ballistic Missile accord, the INF treaty, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Open Skies Treaty.

However, there is no need for dramatics seen this week from the U.S. side. The New START accord allows for a five-year extension if both sides simply agree to it. The Trump administration seems to be creating an illusion of “breakthrough” in deal-making when all that is required is for both sides to calmly agree to an extension. Russia has consistently advocated for an extension of the New START without preconditions as a bridge towards a longer-term, more comprehensive regime of arms control taking into account new concerns about strategic stability, such as weaponization of space and missile defense systems.

It is the Trump administration which is using the issue of extension as leverage for demanding conditions. It is withholding extension to extract concessions from Russia, such as including China into negotiations (but not American NATO allies) and latterly demanding a freeze on short-range nuclear weapons. It should be noted that there was already a treaty on limiting short-range, or tactical, nuclear warheads – the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) accord, which the Trump administration resiled from last year.

Despite earlier warnings from Russia, as well as from some European and American politicians, that the New START was in danger of falling into obsolescence, the Trump administration had adopted a cavalier indifference towards negotiations. It was only until this summer that the White House began to engage in negotiations to renew the treaty. But even then it became clear that the Americans were playing cheap politics. The opening of bilateral talks in Vienna in June involved a facetious propaganda stunt by U.S. negotiators aimed at shaming China into joining discussions. Such a ridiculous drama and fabrication purporting to show empty Chinese seats at the venue was nevertheless an eye-opener into the lack of professionalism and integrity on the U.S. side as an honest partner.

It is evident that the U.S. side has been using the threat of an arms race as pressure on the Russian side to capitulate to its unilateral demands. Russia has stood firm on its position that it will not sign up to unilateral conditions set by Washington for New START. It is because of unethical and puerile politicking by the U.S. which has resulted in the New START heading for expiry. Global security is gravely being undermined precisely because of American shenanigans.

Democrat contender Joe Biden has indicated that if he is elected to the White House on November 3, he will sign an immediate five-year extension to New START. That may well turn out to be a vote-winner for Biden. But it shouldn’t come down this, whereby global security is being jeopardized because of American bad faith.

A major contemporary talking-point across the globe is the rapid decline in American international standing. There are many ways to illustrate the waning of U.S. power and reputation, from backsliding on international agreements, to the imposition of callous sanctions against stricken nations, to the uncouth squabbling in its so-called presidential debates. But the grubby duplicity and irresponsible conduct of the Trump administration regarding its obligations on nuclear-arms control and global security is a particularly lamentable demonstration of American disgrace.

There is growing concern that the Trump administration will let the last-remaining arms-control treaty fall – the New START (2010) which limits strategic nuclear missiles held by the U.S. and Russia. If it goes, then the world is facing an arms race not seen since the Cold War. It will be open season for nukes.

Into the malign mix are the current heightened tensions between the U.S., NATO, Russia and China. Confrontation could spin out of control with catastrophic consequences for the planet. There is a grim sense that risk of nuclear conflagration is greater than at any time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis more than half a century ago.

There is strong suspicion that the Trump administration is deliberately playing the mad man as a negotiating tactic. It’s an unconscionable and extremely dangerous gamble with world security, but this would seem to be Trump’s diabolical art of the deal.

What the U.S. president wants is to tie China into arms-control treaties along with Russia. China’s nuclear arsenal is a mere fraction of either the U.S.’s or Russia’s – reckoned at one-twentieth of their combined stockpile. Beijing has stated over and over that it will not enter into arms limitations with the U.S. or Russia until the two nuclear superpowers first make drastic reductions in their number of warheads. That seems reasonable. The onus is on Washington and Moscow to first demonstrate progress on disarmament, as they are obliged to do under the 1970-founded Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Trump has repeatedly indicated possible extension of the New START with Russia, but only if China is brought into a trilateral deal. He therefore seems to be using the threat of an arms race as a way to lever Russia and China into a trilateral accord. But New START is a bilateral treaty between Washington and Moscow. By pushing the trilateral idea to include China, Trump is trying to rewrite the deal with Russia out of Washington’s desire to control Beijing.

Trump is affecting to show that he is prepared to throw away America’s signature – and jeopardize global security – in order to force China to the negotiating table on Washington’s terms.

When the Trump administration walked away from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty last year, it accused Russia of breaching that accord. Moscow denied those claims as unfounded. It later emerged that the real reason for Washington rescinding the 1987 treaty was its desire to deploy short and medium-range missiles against China in its rivalry over Asia-Pacific.

In ditching the INF, the Trump administration is destabilizing European security and putting pressure on Moscow over potential threats from the return of U.S. short and medium-range missiles to European territory.

The ratcheting up of insecurity and the specter of an arms race is Trump’s calculated tactic for bringing China into arms limitations along with Russia. The scrapping of the INF and the threatened abandonment of the New START are all part of the same negotiating ploy. This is not just serial loosening of arms controls for its own sake, but rather as a way to lever both Russia and China. Perhaps, the Trump administration is calculating that it can unnerve Moscow so that the latter will in turn put pressure on Beijing to accept Trump’s “grand bargain”.

The announcement on quitting the Open Skies Treaty (OST) appears to fit into this game plan. The treaty was signed in 1992 and became effective in 2002 with some 35 member nations as signatories, most of them European states. The treaty allows for reconnaissance flights over territories to build trust.

Like the INF treaty, the Trump administration is using alleged violations of the OST by Russia as a pretext to jettison another arms-control accord. Again, the real objective is to create insecurity and latent threats in order to apply pressure on Moscow for concessions. The ultimate prize for the Trump administration and Washington state planners is to maneuver China into trilateral arms control.

When Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal of the Open Skies Treaty, it was done with noticeable ambiguity.

“Russia didn’t adhere to the treaty. So until they adhere, we will pull out, but there’s a very good chance we’ll make a new agreement or do something to put that agreement back together,” said Trump said at a press briefing last week.

His Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also dropped hints at deal-making with Russia while declaring an end to U.S. participation in the OST.

It seems more than coincidence that in the same week, Trump’s envoy on arms control, Marshall Billingslea, made a pointed offer to Moscow of extending the New START – but only if China were brought into a trilateral nuclear limitation treaty.

“We intend to establish a new arms-control regime now precisely to prevent a full-blown arms race. It’s for all of these reasons that President Trump has expressed his strong desire to see China included in future nuclear arms-control agreements,” Billingslea is quoted as saying during a virtual conference at the Hudson Institute. “A three-way arms-control agreement will provide the best way to avoid an unpredictable three-way arms race.”

It might be asked: what is wrong with seeking a trilateral accord on nuclear weapons involving the U.S., Russia and China? Surely, a grand bargain like that might be deemed as making progress towards general nuclear disarmament.

But such rationale is putting the horse before the cart. The U.S. and Russia must first significantly reduce their arsenals as they are obligated to do. Moreover, arms controls and disarmament is all about trust and integrity. Washington is destroying trust and integrity by deliberately creating insecurity in order to achieve its geopolitical objective of controlling China. How can Trump build trust and do a genuine deal when he is doing all he can to kill any trust in a genuine commitment to obtaining international security and peace?

On Dec. 28, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Russia limits the scope of US military observation flights over its territory starting from Jan. 1, 2018. Moscow cancels overnight stops at three airfields for US observation planes, as well as scraps a number of bilateral agreements that were made to facilitate observation flights. The step is taken in response to US curbs on similar Russian flights over Hawaii and Alaska coming into force on the first day of 2018. The restrictions are reversible and could be lifted if the US backtracked on its policies.

In September, the US warned Russia that the restrictions on flights over the Kaliningrad region – a non-contiguous section of Russian territory squeezed between Lithuania, Poland and the Baltic Sea – were seen as a violation of the treaty. Russia restricted flights over the Kaliningrad region because some parties to the treaty crossed the length and breadth of the flight path, causing problems in the use of the region’s limited airspace and to the Kaliningrad international airport. It prompted Moscow to restrict the maximum flight distance over the Kaliningrad Region to 500 kilometres without changing the total flight distance of 5,500 km and hence coverage of Russia’s territory. The regulation does not run contrary to the OST or the signatories’ subsequent decisions. The flight range of 500 km is sufficient for observing any part of the region. The US, Canada, Turkey and Georgia have established restrictions within the treaty on flying over their territories.

Russia has been accused of the unlawful denial to permit observation flights in the 10 kilometer border area of the so-called Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But the two entities are sovereign states recognized as such by Russia. The Open Sky Treaty states that the flights must not violate a ten-kilometer corridor along the border of another state.

Another accusation said Moscow overused the force majeure provision to change the coordinated plans of observation flights due to flights made by the country’s leaders in close proximity to the planned paths of observation flights. But the provision was invoked only once.

Why the US has chosen to keep Russian surveillance aircraft away from Alaska and the Hawaii? Alaska is home to four air bases, three naval facilities, Minuteman III ICBMs sites. On November 2, the military finished installing the 44^th Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) at the Missile Defense Complex at Fort Greely, Alaska, completing the deployment of 14 additional GBIs ordered by President Obama in 2013. Hawaii is where United States Air Force Hickam Air Force Base and the Naval Station Pearl Harbor as well as Pacific Missile Range Facility are located.

Actually, it’s not a severe blow; Russia can use satellites to observe these areas. But it’s a start. The restrictions could unleash a chain reaction to bury the treaty as part of a broader process of arms control erosion. For instance, Georgia has closed its skies to Russian observation flights in a clear and gross violation of the OST. It calls the 2018 flights into question. The decision could be explained by the desire to conceal from observers the construction of military facilities.

The Open Skies Treaty continues to be a valuable instrument for security and stability at the time of arms control crisis. The OST enhances transparency and the risk of war. With the treaty in force, the US gains as much as Russia but by having provoked Moscow into taking retaliatory measures it has made one more step to make the world slide an unfettered arms race.

Signed in 1992 and in force since 2002, the treaty, a fundamental trust-building measure, permits its 34 ratified member-states to conduct observation flights over one another’s territory while capturing aerial imagery of military personnel and materiel. US officials assert that Russia violated the agreement by imposing restrictions on flights over the Kaliningrad Oblast, a non-contiguous section of Russian territory squeezed between Lithuania, Poland and the Baltic Sea.

Under the treaty, nations get a quota of flights they can fly over one another’s territory. Russia began restricting that flight distance to 500km for all flights over Kaliningrad since 2014. “US experts have determined that 500 kilometers is insufficient to enable the United States to observe Kaliningrad in its entirety in one flight,” warns the State Department’s 2016 adherence report.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his reappointment on September, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US may scrap the treaty “if Russia is not in compliance.” According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the US military see a diminishing value of the treaty, which was negotiated in the early 1990s and came into force in 2002, due to advances of satellite imaging technology.

Russia restricted flights over the Kaliningrad region because some parties to the treaty crossed the length and breadth of the flight path, causing problems in the use of the region’s limited airspace and to the Kaliningrad international airport. The new regulation is in compliance with the treaty. The US, Canada, Turkey and Georgia have established restrictions within the treaty on flying over their territories.

The US claims that observation flights near Russia’s borders with South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been restricted in breach of the treaty. US media fail to present the Russian position on the issue. Moscow points out that that the two entities are sovereign states recognized as such by Russia. The Open Sky Treaty states that the flights must not violate a ten-kilometer corridor along the border of another state. As one can see, the refusal is in compliance with the treaty’s provisions.

Russia has some “no-fly zones” stipulated by national law. The treaty also allows for deviations under “force majeure,” or an event beyond a state’s control. Normally, it has not been a problem but it has become one as the bilateral relationship has deteriorated and anti-Russia hysteria has been whipped up in America.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia would take its own measures against the United States in response to any new US restrictions. Commenting on the expected announcement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said treaty members “should strictly follow its terms and raise any complaints through mechanisms of the treaty.”

Russia also has claims that a number of participating states, including Canada and the United States, are interfering with observation flights but it does not let it come into the open. “We have serious claims that a number of participating states are interfering with observation flights,” retired Maj. Gen. Alexander Peresypkin, a member of Russia’s Vienna delegation, told the Wall Street Journal.

Like in the case of INF Treaty, the US makes controversial issues come into the public domain before officials and experts are engaged in serious discussions to address the differences. It should be noted that the Trump administration has not yet formed a good team capable of negotiating with Russia on arms control related issues.

Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the Russian foreign ministry’s department on arms control, “As for the claims against us, we do not consider them grounded. In fact, the agreement is very complex; its provisions cannot always be straightforwardly interpreted, so it is necessary to look for compromises and solutions.” Steve Rademaker, former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of International Security and Non-proliferation, told Congress that Russia complies with the Open Skies Treaty.

The United States launched the arms control erosion process by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It still has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 20 years after it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996. In 2016, Russia suspended the bilateral Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PDMA) because of Washington’s failure to observe the terms of the deal. Now the US Congress is moving decisively to start dismantling the Open Skies Treaty along with other major arms control agreements currently in place.

There are only the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty still left in force. The future of both is in doubt. President Trump has already decried the New Start Treaty. The INF Treaty has become a controversial issue with both sides accusing each other of violations. The US has already taken practical steps leading to the withdrawal from it. Now Washington is on the way to tear up the treaty, which has enormous importance for confidence building.

The Vienna Document on confidence- and security-building measures is limited in its ability to garner information on the ongoing military activities. The Vienna Document and the Open Skies Treaty complement each other. Tearing up the Open Skies Treaty means killing the confidence-building regime between Russia and NATO. With the treaty in force, transparency is enhanced and the risk of war and miscalculation is reduced. It’s important to keep it in place and settle the disputes at the round table.