[Setting red lines for the world is too important to be left to
individual, self-interested countries. ]
[[link removed]]

WHOSE “RED LINES”?  
[[link removed]]


 

Lawrence Wittner
March 5, 2023
History News Network [[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Setting red lines for the world is too important to be left to
individual, self-interested countries.  _

toy soldiers, by Judy ** (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

 

In the conflict-ridden realm of international relations, certain terms
are particularly widely used, and one of them is “red
lines.”  Derived
[[link removed]] from
the concept of a “line in the sand,” first employed in antiquity,
the term “red lines” appears to have emerged in the 1970s to
denote actions one nation regards as unacceptable from other
nations.  In short, it is an implicit threat
[[link removed]].

Vladimir Putin, self-anointed restorer of the Russian empire, has
tossed about the term repeatedly in recent years.  “I hope nobody
will get it into their heads to cross Russia’s so-called red
line,” he warned
[[link removed]] in
April 2021.  “Where it will be drawn, we will decide ourselves in
each specific case.”  These red lines, although addressing a
variety of issues, have been proclaimed frequently.  At the end of
that November, Putin announced
[[link removed]] that
Russia would take action if NATO crossed its “red lines” on
Ukraine, saying that the deployment of offensive missile batteries on
Ukrainian soil would serve as a trigger.  In mid-December, as Russian
military forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine,
the Russian foreign ministry demanded
[[link removed]] that
NATO not only rule out any further expansion, but remove any troops or
weapons from NATO members Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the
Balkan countries, and obtain Russian permission before holding any
military drills in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia.

Finally, on February 24, 2022, Putin
[[link removed]]―ignoring
a U.S. offer to negotiate
[[link removed]] some of
these items―sent a massive Russian military force pouring into
Ukraine in a full-scale invasion.  “This is the red line that I
talked about multiple times,” he said, and “they have crossed
it.”  Most nations were not impressed by this justification, for
the Russian invasion and subsequent annexation of large portions of
Ukraine were clear violations of international law
[[link removed]] and, as such, were
condemned by the United Nations General Assembly and the International
Court of Justice.

Of course, Putin’s red lines and international aggression, though
particularly blatant, are hardly the only features of this kind that
have appeared throughout Russian
[[link removed]] or
world history.

The United States has a lengthy record in this regard.  As Professor
Matthew Waxman
[[link removed]] of Columbia
Law School has written, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 involved
“drawing a red line―with an implicit war threat” against “any
European efforts to colonize or reassert control in the Western
Hemisphere.”  Given the relative weakness of the United States at
the time, the U.S. government did not attempt to enforce President
James Monroe’s grandiose pronouncement. 

But, with the emergence of the United States as a great power, its
government expanded the Monroe Doctrine
[[link removed]] to justify
frequent U.S. meddling in hemispheric affairs, including conquering
and annexing Latin American territory.  Even in recent decades, when
U.S. annexations have become a relic of the past, the U.S. government
has engaged in military intervention in other lands, especially in
the Caribbean
[[link removed]] and Central
America
[[link removed]],
but also in Asia
[[link removed]] and
the Middle East
[[link removed]] (where President George W.
Bush
[[link removed]] drew
what he called “a line in the sand”).

In recent years, as China’s military and economic power have grown,
its government, too, has begun emphasizing its red lines.  Meeting
with U.S. President Joseph Biden in mid-November 2022, Chinese
President Xi Jinping
[[link removed]] declared
that Taiwan was the “first red line that must not be crossed.” 
Xi did not mention the tension-fraught situation in the South China
Sea, where China had set up military fortifications on islands
[[link removed]] claimed
by its neighbors, including Vietnam and the Philippines.  But here,
as well, China had red lines―leading to the current dangerous
confrontations
[[link removed]] between
U.S. and Chinese warships in the region.  Sharply rejecting a 2016
ruling
[[link removed]] by
the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague that denied China’s
control of the area, the Chinese government continued to build up
fortifications
[[link removed]] on
the disputed islands.  Furthermore, Chinese troops have continued for
more than six decades to engage in violent military clashes
[[link removed]] with
Indian troops along the disputed border, in the Himalayan region,
between their two nations.

Although it could be argued that red lines are only an innocent
expression of what a nation considers unacceptable in world affairs,
it’s worth noting that they are employed especially by major
nations.  The “great powers,” after all, have the military
strength to give their warnings some credibility.  Conversely,
smaller, weaker nations do not usually bother to issue such
pronouncements, as their warnings―and even their interests―are
rarely taken as seriously.  For this reason, the issuance of red
lines usually boils down to a matter of what nation has the power to
compel other nations to accept its demands.

Consequently, red lines lead inevitably to spheres of influence that
other nations are supposed to respect―including a U.S. sphere in
Latin America, a Russian sphere in Europe, and a Chinese sphere in
Asia.  Naturally, people and nations living in the shadow of these
major powers are not enthusiastic about this arrangement, which
explains why many Latin Americans want the Yankees to go home, many
Europeans fear Russian hegemony, and many Asians are wary of the rise
of China.

Another problem with the issuance of red lines is their tendency to
inspire international conflict and war.  Given their roots in the
professed interests of a single nation, they do not necessarily
coincide with the interests of other nations.  In this competitive
situation, conflict is almost inevitable.  Where, in these
circumstances, is there a place for collective action to fashion a
common agreement―one recognizing the fundamental interests of all
nations?

Rather than a world of red lines proclaimed by a few powerful nations,
what humanity needs is a strengthened United Nations―a global
federation of nations in which competing national priorities are
reconciled and enforced through agreements, treaties, and
international law. 

Setting red lines for the world is too important to be left to
individual, self-interested countries.  They should be set―and
respected―by all.

_Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at
SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford
University Press)._

[Thanks to the author for sending this to xxxxxx -- moderator.]

* international relations
[[link removed]]
* Monroe Doctrine
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* Ukraine
[[link removed]]
* China
[[link removed]]
* Spheres of Influence
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]