Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers

The United States removed Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro from power and transported him to the United States to await trial. There, the deposed tyrant will be charged, among other things, with narco-terrorism and the possession of machine guns and other weapons of destruction against the United States.

In Venezuela, power was transferred to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, and there are reportedly no longer any American soldiers in the country. Hopefully, the country’s new leader understands the situation and moves swiftly to arrange honest elections.

In those elections, whoever the majority of the Venezuelan people express their support for should win. And whether that is last year’s Nobel Prize winner María Corina Machado or someone else, may that person receive American support in restoring the country to democratic governance, rebuilding its economy on market-based principles, and orienting its foreign policy toward Western democracies instead of China.

Under Maduro, however, Venezuela has accumulated many serious problems. These include an economic collapse over the course of the 21st century, increased drug-related crime, and now—after the operation just carried out—possible claims by Trump on the country’s oil reserves. For Venezuelans, it is therefore crucial to find solutions to all of these issues that are effective and that enjoy public support.

* * *

In this context, it is worth noting the incomprehensible reaction of UN Secretary-General António Guterres to the events. Instead of expressing satisfaction at the fall of a dictator, he saw fit to be deeply concerned about the U.S. strike on Venezuela, because it does not respect international law.

Did this creep placed at the head of the world organization really imagine that Maduro’s regime did?

The silver lining is that the UN has no real means to influence the Venezuelan case, nor does there appear to be support in Western countries for Guterres’s absurd “concern” or for Maduro’s regime. And even if there were, Donald Trump would hardly care about it any more than about the shit-flies tormenting cattle on American ranches.

All in all, the future of Venezuelans looks—despite Guterres—reasonably bright, at least compared to a few days ago. Of course, dismantling the misery caused by a long-standing socialist dictatorship will take time, but with determined effort the people can get what they deserve.

For now, however, we do not know what that will mean. And so we can only wait to see what the Venezuelans themselves want—once the Trump administration first restores to them the right to decide on their own affairs.

* * *

Finally, it should be noted that some have viewed the transfer of power in Venezuela as some kind of grand conspiracy in which the United States, China, and Russia seek to divide the world among themselves. 

I do admit that in this case certain features of such a scenario can be discerned, but there is nothing fundamentally new about it. Great powers have always sought to maximize their influence—sometimes more openly and sometimes more covertly, but always using the means they have considered most effective at the time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Maduron kausi loppu, eikä sen perään jäänyt haikailemaan kuin YK:n Antonio Guterrez

Russia’s Shadow Fleet Exposes Gaps in International Law

A ship that had been dragging its anchor – Fitburg – damaged a cable running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland yesterday. The Finnish Border Guard acted with its customary efficiency, documented the dangling anchor with photographs, and took the vessel into custody.

The case will next proceed to a more detailed investigation and, in due course, undoubtedly to court. This in itself sounds good, but I would like to draw your attention, dear readers, to what happened last October.

At that time, the Helsinki District Court announced that it would not examine the charges – in a similar case – against the vessel Eagle S, which belongs to Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, nor the compensation claims based on those charges. The court held that Finland’s Criminal Code could not be applied to the case.

The matter was commented on at the time by Member of Parliament Jarno Limnéll (National Coalition Party), who stated that “clearer legislation and international agreements are needed that give states the ability to deal with acts of this kind also in exclusive economic zones and international waters.” However, no such measures have emerged during the past couple of months.

For this reason, it seems clear to me that the Fitburg incident – quite evidently a cable sabotage operation ordered by Russia – is, logically speaking, a consequence of the Helsinki District Court’s decision and the shortcomings of international legislation. It is obvious that if breaking cables carries no consequences, Putin’s administration can continue sabotaging them without concern.

It is therefore easy to predict that cables running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea will continue to be damaged – so to speak, “by accident” – in the future. And this will likely continue until the necessary provisions are enacted in international law, despite the expected opposition from Russia and its proxies.

* * *

If one wishes to see something positive in the Fitburg case, it is undoubtedly the efficiency of the actions taken by the Finnish authorities. The cable damage was investigated quickly, and the perpetrator was also stopped.

Because of the legislative problem mentioned above, the only sanction available against the ship’s owner and/or crew will likely be to look for deficiencies in the vessel’s condition, thereby delaying its departure. In this way, the crew would at least be forced to loiter for a while off the coast of Kirkkonummi.

It would be interesting to know whether the shipowner and/or its crew have made an agreement with Vladimir Putin’s administration regarding compensation for those days in rubles or in some stronger currency. The exchange rate of the ruble has recently been in a decline reminiscent of that famous cow’s tail, so the value of days compensated in Russian currency decreases over time.

In any case, any deficiencies found on the vessel must be investigated before it is allowed to leave Finnish territorial waters. And, of course, even the smallest faults discovered on the ship should be required to be carefully repaired before departure clearance is granted – to the vessel and its crew alike.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Cable Cutting a Crime Without Punishment?
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Kansainvälinen lainsäädäntö kannusti Fitburgin kaapelisabotaasiin

Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

Many European states have recognized or are in the process of recognizing the State of Palestine. Finland is not among these countries but is instead waiting to see how the situation develops, together with, among others, the USA, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

This is reasonable in the sense that, from the perspective of international law, the existence of a state requires four basic elements – a permanent population, clearly defined borders, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Of these conditions, especially the second, third, and fourth are not met, so a rational person would sooner question the logic of the states that have recognized Palestine than that of the states that have chosen to wait.

Therefore, Palestine should be recognized as a state only when – or if – it one day fulfills all four conditions. In the meantime, every country – regardless of its stance on recognizing Palestine – can act in support of a just peace between Jews and Arabs living in the region.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

Russian Soldier Acknowledges War Crimes in Ukraine on National TV

War has always been a brutal game, inflicting suffering especially on the defeated side. For example, during the Thirty Years' War, it was common practice that the victorious party was allowed to plunder a conquered city for three days.

Such looting, often accompanied by rape and violence, was considered the victor's right. However, in the modern era, this kind of behavior is unequivocally prohibited under international law.

That is why it was shocking to read that Russian soldier Dugar Zhamnjanov admitted on the Russian television news channel Rossiya 1 that he had mutilated captured Ukrainian soldiers, voluntary fighters and civilians by cutting off the index fingers on both of their hands.

Of course, it has already been widely known that Russian forces have mutilated, tortured, beaten, and executed Ukrainian soldiers and civilians both in Ukraine and elsewhere. But the fact that someone would publicly admit to committing war crimes on television, showing their face and stating their name, reveals that the army, state, and leadership he serves do not take war crimes seriously at all.

For this reason—and many others—it is of utmost importance that Western democracies, which uphold the rule of law, ensure that such a morally bankrupt state—and especially its leadership—never gets to enjoy victory in the war against Ukraine. On the contrary, the war must end with justice prevailing.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Downing of the Azerbaijani Plane Is a War Crime That Must Be Condemned
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
Ukraine can and will stop Putin

What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, wrote the following on social media regarding the situation in Gaza:

"The suffering of civilians in Gaza must end.

Finland calls on Israel to assume its responsibilities under international law and to ensure access for humanitarian aid. The UN and humanitarian aid organizations must be allowed to operate fully and impartially. Humanitarian aid must not be politicised. Forced displacement of populations is a war crime and cannot form part of any solution.

We call on Hamas to release hostages and encourage the parties to return to the ceasefire.

Israel's security must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Peace negotiations must be started immediately on the basis of a two-state solution."

* * *

I am pleased with the President’s statement because he addressed both sides of the issue. And sadly, this stands in contrast to the remarks of nearly all other politicians who have taken a stance on the matter—especially those directly involved.

If the leaders and influential voices - as well as all ordinary people - within both Jewish and Palestinian communities of the Holy Land were to read Stubb’s comment and abide by it, the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this will happen. For the Palestinians, it would mean accepting Israel’s right to its current borders and ensuring that no more rockets are fired from Palestinian territories into Israel, nor any other terrorist acts committed.

For the Jews in the region, it would mean treating Palestinians—whether independent or part of Israel—as equal neighbors, with whom trade and interaction would be conducted as with any other people. Furthermore, it would require ensuring that no one—such as Jewish settlers in the West Bank—is granted any rights to touch Palestinian property, except through fair, voluntary transactions based on mutual agreement.

* * *

Regrettably, I doubt this will come to pass after nearly 80 years - with roots going even much further in history - of hostility. There always seems to be a small group of people who refuse to accept the status quo and take justice into their own hands, especially when they feel they have been wronged.

Of course, the problem described above would be “resolved” if Israel were to carry through with the idea of forcibly displacing the population of Gaza to completion. Or if the Palestinians, by some miracle, succeeded in destroying the Jewish state.

But the reality is that neither of these outcomes would be in accordance with international law, nor would they respect human rights, and therefore they are not justifiable in any way. And that’s why I fear that, despite Stubb’s principle—which, tragically, is disarmingly simple in theory—we are likely to witness another 80 years of hostility in the Holy Land. And the overwhelming majority of both Jews and Palestinians will continue to suffer because of it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Could Mohammed Sinwar’s Death Mark a Turning Point Toward Peace
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons
Understanding of Facts is Increasing in the Middle East

Finnish International Law Experts Viewed as Political Influencers by Peers

Finland, like other Western nations, is a rule-of-law state where power is based on Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers. According to this principle, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be vested in separate entities. In recent years, however, Finnish lawyers have increasingly been accused, particularly by the political right, of attempting to undermine the freedom of the Finnish Parliament, which exercises legislative power.

A striking comment about this issue was made today by Jukka Savolainen, the Network Director at the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. He stated that many international legal experts view their Finnish colleagues more as political influencers than as lawyers focused on the impartial administration of justice.

Specifically, Savolainen noted: "Next week, I’ll be hosting a symposium with seven professors of international law, and the majority of them have expressed surprise at the emergence of Finnish international law experts. They’ve wondered whether these experts are just poor legal scholars. Then they’ve concluded, no, they’re political influencers."

Left-leaning legal scholars have particularly criticized the return law passed last year to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare. This law allowed Finland to close its eastern border, effectively halting the flow of asylum seekers facilitated by Russia. The legislative amendment was enacted despite opposition from these scholars and successfully stopped the influx of migrants across Finland’s eastern border.

According to Savolainen, the emergency law was enacted in accordance with proper legislative procedures. He also emphasized that Finland is a sovereign state that can choose its commitments and withdraw from them as it sees fit. Additionally, he noted that Russia’s modern warfare doctrine explicitly mentions directing migration waves toward targeted countries as a method of state destabilization, providing both theoretical and factual justification for the law.

Regrettably, I doubt that even the criticisms I have discussed here will have any effect on left-leaning Finnish legal scholars, whose leading figure is Martin Scheinin. Scheinin, a former member of the UN Human Rights Committee and also once involved in Finland’s Communist Party, has shown no respect for the separation of powers whenever it has conflicted with his own ambitions. This trend is evident throughout his career.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare
Finland to Tighten Asylum Legislation and Reduce Undocumented Residents
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

Finnish authorities have detained a ship Eagle S registered in the Cook Islands, suspected of damaging the cable between Finland and Estonia. The vessel was found to be carrying approximately 35,000 tons of unleaded gasoline imported from Russia, suggesting an attempt to bypass sanctions imposed on Russia.

Finland has seized the oil, ensuring it will not reach the global market or contribute to funding Putin's war in Ukraine. This is, of course, an excellent outcome.

Finnish authorities have also gathered evidence indicating that the vessel was responsible for the cable damage. One piece of evidence is visible even from outside the ship: one of its anchors is missing, a clear sign that it was lost during the incident.

The police have already identified several members of the crew as suspects in the criminal acts. These include citizens of Georgia and India, who are being investigated for aggravated property destruction and serious violations of sanctions. Furthermore, additional evidence linking the ship to the cable damage has been uncovered, and more is likely to emerge.

The case is undoubtedly a major embarrassment for Vladimir Putin and his administration. For this reason, it was amusing to note Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov's claim that the actions of Finnish authorities have no connection to Russia. His response is reminiscent of a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar—his frustration is, to say the least, palpable.

It remains to be seen how the issue will ultimately be resolved. However, it is already clear that international law and regulations need updating to rein in rogue states like Russia on the high seas. Unfortunately, the interests of a few other countries, in addition to Russia, are likely to block such progress, making meaningful change highly improbable.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Downing of the Azerbaijani Plane Is a War Crime That Must Be Condemned
Western Nations Should Act Decisively On Two Fronts Against Russia
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

The Downing of the Azerbaijani Plane Is a War Crime That Must Be Condemned

The Russians shot down an Azerbaijan Airlines passenger plane, killing dozens of passengers. Their military fired at the aircraft in such a way that the missile exploded next to the plane, causing shrapnel damage that forced the plane to make an emergency landing. The plane was also denied permission to land at a Russian airport, despite requesting clearance.

All of this clearly constitutes a violation of international law by Russia, for which it and its leadership must be held accountable. This holds true even if there had previously been activity by military drones in the area.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the shooter must always ensure the military nature of the target being fired upon. Additionally—and this is the second reason—Russia is conducting an illegal war against Ukraine, making it ultimately responsible for all the consequences of that war.

Either of these reasons alone constitutes a clear war crime for which the perpetrator must be brought to an international tribunal in The Hague for assessment and sentencing. And this task must not fail if this tribunal is to have any legitimacy in the future. This remains true even if it is unlikely that the perpetrators of this particular war crime will ever serve the sentences imposed on them.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization
Moldova's Election Challenged – Western Support Needed

Finnish general to Scholz and Macron: no reason to negotiate with a terrorist

A former oligarch,  Mikhail Khodorkovsky, tweeted that "Putin stole (1) part of Ukraine´s territory. He got sanctions for that. To remove them, he stole (2) more, killing thousands of people. Got sanctions. Then he stole (3) all the grain, blocked the ports & threatened to create a famine, demanding the sanctions be lifted. Am I getting this right?"

A retired Finnish general commented on Emmanuel Macron´s and Olaf Scholz´s request to warlord Vladimir Putin about serious negotiations. According to him, there is no reason to negotiate with a terrorist. In his opinion "the only correct solution is to send the sixth fleet of the US navy reinforced by Allied units to escort grain ships and at the same time detain Russian ships carrying stolen Ukrainian grain".

To me it is unbelievable that it takes a Russian refugee and a Finnish general to clarify facts about the dictator of Russia to the two most important leaders of the West-European countries. That is: facts about a  dictator, who has just violated all possible agreements between sovereign countries and is responsible on a disgusting neglect of human rights by his army. 

I think Scholz and Macron should take a look at a mirror, and recognize ugly faces of thoughtless puppets of the most dangerous dictator of our time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Tractor course for Ukrainians
Place of the Free Ukraine
Military specialist: Russian plan in Ukraine was incredibly poor