'Freezing' Lawless Regions Invites Hot Conflict by Brenda Shaffer, Wall Street Journal
The downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17 over rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine on July 18 illustrates the dangers that ungoverned territories present to international security. A significant number of territories are currently without an accountable authority and present dangers to their neighbors and others. We need better strategies to get rid of these black holes in the international security system, or prevent them forming…
The convenience of "freezing" conflicts instead of resolving them comes at a cost. These ungoverned territories are centers of illicit activity, including money laundering, counterfeit goods, human trafficking and the drug trade. They are often havens for terrorists and criminals. Individuals inside and outside often derive financial benefit from unregulated economies in these areas, where taxation is nonexistent. Since banks in these regions may not be registered with states, no one is technically running afoul of international treaties and no one can be sued for illicit activity...
Comments
Non-interference in the affairs of others is also a major aspect of the Sovereignty Solution. The US and its EU/NATO partners have failed miserably at this aspect of "democracy promotion." I never can understand how outsiders picking winners and losers promotes good self-governance.
And if Russia is responsible for its proxies, is the US responsible for its proxies or clients, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? What then, in this formulation, is the exact return address for Mumbai or Abbottabad? Do Afghans or American citizens that have served in Afghanistan have a legal case against the American government? Pakistanis threatened by their government, an ally of ours and our Western partners?
This sounds similar to the arguments in Anna Simons, Joe McGraw's, et el, work on the Sovereignty Solution. (article at this link and the entire book is available on Amazon: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2007/03/01/the-sovereignt…)
Excerpt:
QUOTE The convenience of "freezing" conflicts instead of resolving them comes at a cost. These ungoverned territories are centers of illicit activity, including money laundering, counterfeit goods, human trafficking and the drug trade. They are often havens for terrorists and criminals. Individuals inside and outside often derive financial benefit from unregulated economies in these areas, where taxation is nonexistent. Since banks in these regions may not be registered with states, no one is technically running afoul of international treaties and no one can be sued for illicit activity.
It is time to ensure that each such disputed territory has a return address so that it is liable for its actions. There should be a separation between legal sovereignty and security responsibility: If a state supports a militia or force that operates in another area—like Iran's Hezbollah or Russia's client militias in Ukraine and regions of Georgia—then Tehran and Moscow are the return addresses. END QUOTE
Conclusion:
QUOTE Above all, states should be held responsible for what takes place in their de jure territories. If Palestine wants a flag at the U.N., it cannot relieve itself of responsibility for what happens in its territory by claiming that nonstate militias out of their control are perpetrating attacks. And if Russia wants the respect of the international community, it must control the separatists in eastern Ukraine that it is supporting and take responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.
The U.S. and Europe should stop trying to "freeze" conflicts as a means for conflict resolution. This only delays the next round of conflict and leaves huge territories that are springboards for further danger. END QUOTE
<blockquote>It is time to ensure that each such disputed territory has a return address so that it is liable for its actions. There should be a separation between legal sovereignty and security responsibility: If a state supports a militia or force that operates in another area—like Iran's Hezbollah or Russia's client militias in Ukraine and regions of Georgia—then Tehran and Moscow are the return addresses.</blockquote>
Use Google News and type in the article title to bypass the pay firewall.
This is the quote from the article that concerns me the most. I've often wondered how you pin the tail on the donkey responsible for a WMD attack on our homeland (or Israel/Europe/Asia etc.) if nobody claims credit. We see a hint of that in the disappearance of the Malaysian Air 777 over the Pacific. If one does not believe in coincidences, one also might question that Putin just happened to be on the phone with President Obama when the other 777 was shot down in East Ukraine.
Sure you can hold Iran responsible if Hezbollah admits an attack. What if they don't own up? What if ISIS/ISIL claims credit for a WMD attack? Who do we retaliate against if we know they could not possibly have developed a nuclear weapon, for instance, on their own? If a fringe group supported by Saudi citizens is responsible, we can't attack Saudi Arabia. If Russian separatists do something atrocious, we can't retaliate militarily against Russia due to MAD.