The United States often asserts the significance of the “rules-based international order,” but the country’s signature is curiously absent from one important compact on maritime law.
The observation was made by political science professor Nicolai Petro, who joined Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program Thursday to discuss the controversy created by the US’ recent unilateral extension of its continental shelf claims in the Arctic.
It is “very hypocritical” of the United States to demand adherence to international law while not following other international regulations when it suits them, former Swedish air defense officer Mikael Valtersson told Sputnik. This is particularly true “when the matter concerns a practical enlargement of US territory,” he added.
“Countries are generally allowed to extend their economic zone of interest from 200 miles to up to 350 miles if the contours of the continental shelf justify it,” noted Petro, author of the book The Tragedy of Ukraine. “In this particular case, the risks of conflict over these territories between the United States and other countries would seem to be minimal because the area that they are claiming jurisdiction over overlaps with those of Canada and Japan and is far from the Russian territorial claims or Chinese territorial claims.”
However, a conflict has arisen over the fact the US is not a signatory to the international agreement dictating its expansion.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, is signed by over 150 countries including Russia and China. But the United States is not among them.
“There is the issue of the precedent being set and what role international agreements… should play in such matters,” said Petro. “Whereas China and Russia are signatories to these treaties, the United States is not. And so both of those countries are asking the question of whether the United States should benefit from the provisions of the treaty, which it has not signed.”
China and Russia are essentially arguing that it’s unfair for the US to claim protection by virtue of the UN convention while not participating in upholding any of its obligations.
“The bigger issue, of course, is: isn't this a double standard?” the author asked. “Because this is clearly an example of the United States acting in its unilateral interest and thumbing its nose essentially at the obligations [that] it would have to do this under in a specific manner under existing treaties… What role does the United States or the West have claiming that it's upholding a rules-based order?”
“Well, it is because it is imposing its own rules and maintaining its order,” noted host Wilmer Leon wryly.
Discussion then turned towards the fallout of the terrorist attack at Russia’s Crocus City Hall venue last week. The horrific event has raised questions over what Western countries knew about the incident ahead of time and what information intelligence agencies shared with their Russian counterparts. The United States reportedly refrained from divulging full knowledge of the attack over fear Moscow would expose US intelligence sources and methods, according to The New York Times.
“Who knows?” responded Petro to the report. “This is all sort of things that appear in the press because they are leaked by intelligence sources so that their stories or their spin gets into the news. And then we are debating who is behind the shadowboxing. We have no no idea.”
“Can anybody identify who said what to whom?” he continued. “No. So all of this is pure hearsay. And we could just watch back and wonder in amazement why people can't talk to each other as normal human beings can.”
Russian authorities’ revelation that the attackers apparently attempted to seek refuge in Ukraine has raised further questions about Kiev’s guilt and its Western benefactors’ involvement, by extension. The matter remains highly controversial as relations between Russia and the US remain at a nadir, but Ukraine has previously conducted terrorist attacks against Russian civilians in Crimea, Belgorod, and elsewhere.
“Now there are stories that the leader of ISIS-K*, or the creator of ISIS-K, had actually worked in various positions in Afghanistan with the CIA,” said Leon. “So some could posit that the United States didn't want to reveal its sources because those sources would cut too close to home,” the host added.
“It's a possibility,” responded Petro. “There's also the possibility, which is not to be discarded, that it's not a government per se but organizations that governments at one point set up to do their bidding in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, [and] Syria, which have since developed their own networks, their own organizations they haven't told their bosses about.”
“There's an interesting article… by a former senior Ukrainian official, now living in Russia, who says, ‘is this a case where the puppets have become the puppet masters?’” he added.
With radical nationalists and neo-Nazis representing a significant element within Ukraine’s armed forces, Petro suggested a possibility of Ukrainian “puppets” acting on their own.
"I mean, if you believe what the New York Times and Politico report that Washington in no uncertain terms told Ukrainian officials to cease their attacks on Russian oil refineries and certain other types of targets. And the official response of officials of the Ukrainian government is that, no, we won't do that. Well, what conclusions are we to draw from that? How subordinate actually is Ukrainian interests and policies now to America and American funding?" the analyst wondered.
* ISIS (also known as Daesh/ISIL/IS/ISIS-K/Islamic State) is a terrorist group banned in Russia and many other countries.