Similar Posts

3 Comments

  1. If some are upset with the details of the CCP’s latest imaginary maps, wait until the one with the 145 Dash Line comes out.

  2. Smells like imperialism

    ….the protection extended to diplomats is extended too military personal so that they are not subject to ‘political’ prosecution in foreign countries.

    Now why on earth would a ‘politically’ friendly state that has agreed to host a US military base, then want to bring a ‘political’ prosecution against an American soldier serving at that base?.

    To host a US base is a political decision of support from the host state. For the host state to then want to prosecute personal of that base on ‘political’ grounds makes no sense.

    Sounds like bullshit to me.

    More likely the host state would want to prosecute a US military person who had broken the host country’s laws and offended against the local population.

    Inserting the word ‘political’ is a cover.

    This is a general amnesty giving the right of the US military forces in that country to ignore and break the laws of that country.

    This is the definition of what imperialist states do in other countries.

  3. We are not imperialists, of course not. Because…

    All imperialists are genocidal.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-history-riddled-with-massacres-genocide/2261696

    No imperialist power wants its crimes acknowledged in a court hearing, neither do they want it pointed out in a public hearing that they are even imperialists.

    To project their power and protect their overseas interests, all imperialists maintain overseas military bases.

    https://ecfr.eu/article/chinas-new-military-base-in-africa-what-it-means-for-europe-and-america/

    Imperialists generally exempt their armed forces from being subject to legal proceedings of the host country where they keep a military presence.,
    Imperialists also exempt their military forces from the international criminal court and for the same reasons that they exempt themselves from local court proceedings.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/russia-withdraws-signature-from-international-criminal-court-statute

    I wonder if Ben Morgan would be as sanguine about it if the Russian or Chinese imperialists set up a military base on New Guinea territory and exempted themselves from all local laws.

    To maintain their power and exert their authority in their foreign territories, history tells us that war crimes and genocide are something all imperialists inevitably commit. For this reason no imperialist power cannot afford to risk their military personal being tried in local, or international, criminal courts.

    ….courts being used to argue political points in a manner that arguably does not happen in older and more entrenched democracies…. Ben Morgan

    Japan is an older and more entrenched democracy that has US bases on its territory.

    The people of New Guinea are not the only people to challenge the protection from prosecution of US military personal who have committed crimes against their people.

    https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/okinawans-protest-u-s-japan-status-of-forces-agreement-1.14775

    In fact the Japanese Legal authorities have more right to take cases against US military personal than what what Ben Morgan suggests should be allowed to the people of New Guinea. And the Japanese people only achieved this, after decades of protest and legal challenges.

    I wonder. Are Ben Morgan’s comments, that the young democracy of New Guinea shouldn’t have any right to challenge the special legal protections and privileges afforded foreign military personal in their country, Condescending? Patronising? Superior? Colonialist? Imperialist?

    We couldn’t be imperialists? Surely not?

Comments are closed.