Fletcher's crusade is off-base
George Fletcher's article proclaiming the illusionary supremacy of international law over the sovereignty of traditional nation-states ("Is this really war?," Oct 23, page 9) is not in the least enlightening.
If such transnational entities like "Terror Inc" are to be recognized as agents of war under the laws of land warfare, then Fletcher would have us believe that these landless sovereign entities should be officially recognized as the juridical person of a foreign state equivalent, only without the territory.
There are precedents. From around 1870-1945, the Holy See was recognized as a sovereign entity despite lacking the critical qualification of terra imperium or territorial jurisdiction under international law. Due in part to the realpolitik of the likes of Bismarck, the papal states of the feudal era had disappeared from the maps of Europe by that time. But the Vatican, in its capacity as an enduring ecclesiastical sovereign entity, also still legally claimed it had a supreme dominion over all the earth, including those successfully Christianized nation-states of the fallen Roman Empire.
Fletcher is on a crusade to establish the UN's universal jurisdiction, just as the "Terror Inc" is on a jihad to establish an ecclesiastical dominion over the earth. In Afghanistan, the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues is evidence of the disregard for cultural and religious relics protected by the 1907 Hague Convention. This treaty includes a clause for settling disputes arising out of hostilities and military occupation of claimed territory at the International Court of Justice.
Rather than abide by the laws of land warfare, Fletcher promotes the rule of landless jurisdictional authority to combat the "landless revolutionaries" of a new jihad. Perhaps he should read FM 27-10 Rules of Land Warfare, which is the US Army's manual on the Hague Convention of 1907. It is the authoritative source for clearly defining the elastic legal circumstances of effective military control of an occupied area including its transnational jurisdictional authority.
I think Fletcher should remember that `landless revolutions' never worked and the unconventional soldiers of the "American Empire" on the ground in Afghanistan are not in a state of decline.
Jeff Geer
Las Vegas, Nevada
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS