> * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there.
Indeed. So not an aggressive invasion but a humanitarian intervention.
> * Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).
Not quite. Technically speaking, neither of the official NATO missions in Afghanistan, ISAF and Resolute Support, were Article 5 missions.
When the US triggered Article 5 in October 2001 it explicitly did not request a full NATO response, but initially only for support such as NATO AWACS aircraft in US airspace. When it invaded Afghanistan, which was entirely justified in international law as an act of self defence, a handful of NATO countries opted to send support contingents, like SOF, as a way of showing solidarity. But it was not a NATO mission under NATO command: Operation Enduring Freedom was American-led and commanded from the beginning. At best you can say several NATO allies invaded. Later, NATO launched ISAF and Resolute Support and became more involved as an organisation deploying forces, but that was post-invasion.
The invasion of Afghanistan was as much self defence as the invasion of Ukraine. Probably less, actually.
The idea that it was any kind of self defence is kind of pathetic, and mirrors Putinesque propaganda. It was occupation pure and simple.
America really wanted to set up military bases there. It was a black spot in the world which it lacked imperial force projection and it was right between 3 major rivals (Russia, China and Iran).
Afghanistan did not knock down the twin towers. It actually offered to hand over bin Laden if the US provided evidence of his involvement and tried him in a neutral country.
That wasn't good enough for the US, who were itching for a military invasion anyway, and were keen to build some military bases in a spot where they didnt yet have any.
The idea that the US follows international law is a sick joke. The idea that the country that created the Hague invasion act has nonzero respect for international law is laughable.
First, the Taliban ‘offer’ was so full of caveats as to be worthless and, most importantly, they refused to do anything about the rest of the Al-Qaeda organisation that they hosted and shared power with and which attacked the US. Putting Bin Laden on trial in some supposed neutral third country would’ve done nothing to remove the clear and present threat to the US that Al-Qaeda at the time presented. So, yes, the US’s actions were legal under international law.
None of the major powers outside Europe have acceded to the ICC. Neither the US, nor India, nor China, nor Russia.
The caveats were exactly as I described and were entirely reasonable, but the US had a hard on for a military invasion and was not about to be stopped by such a trivial thing as due process.
Your idea that he should be handed over without question for trial does not follow any legal logic but is simply the logic of an imperialist.
The same logic is what led to the Hague invasion act, Guantanamo bay, the imperialist invasion of Iraq and, of course, the various attempts to push NATO further and further up against the more vulnerable parts of the Russian border.
As I said before, a Putin supporter would have broadly similar views to you - in reverse.
Again, that’s quite absurd. You’re acting as though Bin Laden was solely responsible for the attack, rather than being the head of an organisation that carried it out.
Afghanistan under the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda, protecting it, supporting it, and refusing to dismantle it when it attacked the US. It was in all the ways that matter basically part of the government. Under international law this means that they were responsible for its actions and therefore that the attack on the US was effectively an attack from Afghanistan. This is ‘due process’ at the international level.
Given this, international law is extremely clear on the rights of self defence in response to an attack. There’s no requirement to merely put the leader on trial in a third country, because everybody involved in drafting these conventions and treaties knew that would be nuts, would not achieve security, and would be unenforceable.
So, no. These are not ‘imperialist’ views, they’re ones any scholar of international law would describe in the same way. The US was fully justified in attacking Afghanistan and dismantling the threat from Al-Qaeda under international law.
* Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there.
* Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).