Les Membres de l’Organisation s’abstiennent, dans leurs relations internationales, de recourir à la menace ou à l’emploi de la force, soit contre l’intégrité territoriale ou l’indépendance politique de tout Etat, soit de toute autre manière incompatible avec les buts des Nations Unies.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Charter of the United Nations


As the NATO Summit in Wales tried to generate as much hysteria as possible over alleged Russian aggression in Ukraine, the attending Prime Minister David Cameron was caught committing aggression in an interview. While showing apparent rage over the rise of the Islamic State (IS), formerly ISIS, terrorists, Cameron issued a threat of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a state, Syria. Aggression, legally, is most commonly understood as just the above, as outlined in the Charter of the United Nations.

Cameron threatened that he would bomb IS targets in Syria without permission from the Syrian government, which is a blatant call not just to violate the UN charter and commit aggression, but to violate the UK Parliament’s own ruling not to get involved in the War in Syria. The threat from Cameron comes amid his apparent concerns over alleged Russian military involvement in Ukraine – involvement that has been denied by the Russian government.

It is interesting to note that the Russian constitution refuses to give the President the ability to use military force without the approval of the Russian parliament. Right now, Russian President Putin has no such approval – just like Cameron has no approval to launch a military campaign in Syria. After Crimea joined the Russian Federation, the Russian President revoked permission for the Russian military to intervene in Ukraine, making any further involvement illegal and unconstitutional if were to actually be happening. Let me repeat: this means that according to Russian law, the Russian military involvement in Crimea was legal, but any Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine right now would be illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly, the UK government ruled against involvement in Syria in 2013.

Based on the PM’s reckless statements, Cameron’s UK appears to be a far more dangerous and destabilizing aggressor than Putin’s Russia in two ways. First, Cameron is publicly issuing his calls to aggression and trying to justify them. Second, Cameron is directly and blatantly breaking the laws of his own country and violating the rulings of the UK Parliament itself.

Russia is probably involved in eastern Ukraine, but its involvement must be informal simply because it has no legal basis. The idea of Russian tank divisions rolling into Ukraine is a fantasy – they have no authorization. So, Russian involvement with the unrest in the eastern region of Lugansk most probably only amounts to media support, social support, and humanitarian support. That is about the same level of involvement that the US has in most internal crises happening around the world, so the US and UK are blatant hypocrites for describing that as aggression.

I can come up with no other conclusion than that the whining by NATO states like the US and UK has nothing to do with any Russian aggression, but everything to do with their own ongoing publicly announced aggression in Syria, which Russia has constantly opposed diplomatically and is committed to prevent. Despite what the BBC and CNN say, NATO is still an ageing, obsolete organization and no guarantor of security for anyone, whether the threat is Russia or the IS.

Putin is no angel, but David Cameron, you sir are a scumbag.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

More from Beliefnet and our partners
previous posts

Americans are overwhelmingly polarized over ongoing presidential election campaigns. The choice is going to be between Donald Trump – an oligarch accused of disregarding the interests of minorities, and Hillary Clinton – an utterly disgraced public servant too unqualified and incompetent to even serve at the lowest possible grade in the US State Department. But, between the two, one has already clearly […]

Whatever you may think of it, everyone – politicians most of all – must respect the Brexit vote. The British people are not a bunch of children who need to be stood in the corner by know-it-all politicians because they voted “wrong”. They have voted, albeit by a slim margin, to no longer be part of the European Union. As far […]

In my experience (oh the irony…), there is a battle of experience vs knowledge. As someone who studied International Relations at university, but has little to no political experience or travel history abroad, I may seem like someone right out of an ivory tower. This would be a good ad hominem against me in a […]

Immanuel Wallerstein asserted in a recent post that the gap between American power and political rhetoric is growing. This can be related to the the Syrian problem at the heart of current US foreign policy. The US is no longer the dominant power in the world. However, it refuses to accept this, International Relations expert Wallerstein wrote at the start of June. […]

Close Ad