To phrase it more completely, regime change and general destabilization of Latin American countries has definitely led to the immigration crisis in the United States now. Lack of stable governments and economies has absolutely exacerbated the production and transportation of drugs into the United States. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been killed or disappeared by US-empowered gangs or governments.
Now that said, I don't know what the world would look like had their right to self-determination been preserved. Nobody knows. But as a general rule, countries whose power structures were not toyed with by colonial powers do better than countries whose power structures were toyed with.
I mean, if you ever needed smoking gun proof this is a lie, you got some today.
Countries appeal to international law when they don’t have enough power to achieve their goals through brute force alone.
Countries that do appeal to international law but also have the wherewithal to do what they want only make those appeals to conceal their naked ambitions under the guise of the rules based order. It’s just good marketing. Nothing more.
The model you should construct should assume treaties and agreements are stable insofar as the incentives for players to maintain them remain in place.
It’s all about national interest, always has been, and at this point I’m surprised anybody can be so dense as to not be able to see this.
I don’t think anyone in int’l law is mistaken about the constraint that enforcement is so thoroughly contingent. The argument is just that the stability elicited from int’l law amongst players trying to (mostly) cooperate can have utility.
> I mean, if you ever needed smoking gun proof this is a lie, you got some today.
You are misunderstanding me. I had hoped my claim was clear, but maybe not, so I'll try again: if you want to understand and predict the world well, factoring in international law is an important factor. Claim: no serious scholars or analysts would disagree. Of course they will build different models (unfortunately relatively few are quantitative, but there are exceptions) and argue the details.
Now to your statement "I mean, if you ever needed smoking gun proof this is a lie, you got some today."...
Recency bias has a huge effect on people. But today is one data point out of many. It matters, in context, weighted appropriately. But how to weight it? Have you put thought into this? What was your prior and how much did today change it? (Admittedly, few people write down their priors, so for most of us, this exercise is sort of like a retrospective where we realize we probably never thought about it carefully in the first place!)
I will reiterate my original point more clearly: international law does not affect how superpowers behave.
When convenient they will use international law and norms as justification for actions they would take regardless. When inconvenient, they will just ignore them.
To the extent that superpowers do “follow” international law, it is only because those laws were written by the superpowers themselves or align with their interests at any given time.
Appeals to scholars or analysts is meaningless in this context. You should post why those people think they matter, or what their reasoning is, not, “hey, guys that I think are smart say this matters.”
My priors before this were that international law mattered a little, but this event has convinced me it’s all a farce. Exhibit A: the UN’s increasing irrelevance as we move toward a multipolar world.
Why do you think international law constrains nation states, despite much evidence to the contrary, including today’s events?
Ok, I'm pretty sure I understand your claims. I'll divide up my response in sections with `---` addressing each of them. I'll use ILN for "international laws and norms". (My edits are finally done as of 10:33 am eastern.)
---
> Why do you think international law constrains nation states, despite much evidence to the contrary, including today’s events?
For clarity, I didn't say nor mean «ILN determine/constrain actors in all cases». I conveyed, to the best of my ability: «ILN are a useful factor to include in a model»".
In the text below, I'll elaborate quite a bit on why ILN matter as factors to include.
---
As I read your comment, I'm interpreting it as claiming to argue against «ILN is a useful factor to include in a model». You put forth an argument saying it doesn't matter. I'll argue against your argument.
But I should pause. I should not assume... I don't know your age, your nationality, your educational and/or professional background, and so on... Do you know what I mean by a quantitative model? Even people with Ph.D. can easily talk past each other on this. I'll give just one example of what I'm talking about: [1]. It is likely easier to grok than a dense statistical analysis 'locked up' in an academic paper.
Here is some context about why I care about this. Professionally I've worked as a software developer, entrepreneur, machine learning & statistical researcher and analyst, and lots more. At my core I both (a) build technology to solve human problems and (b) enjoy building things because it is fun and enabling. About ~10 years ago I build a search engine to surface quantitative models. One of my key underlying drivers is to help people to move past merely talking about stuff. Talk is cheap and imprecise. There are many kinds of models, none perfect, but the use of them is vastly better than pretending like any one framing _is_ reality. Recognizing a model as a model is the first step. Then you can step back and figure out "what is this model useful for?". With models we can put things 'on paper' and point and them and say things like "what happens when we factor in X"? We don't have to fixate on one model. We can be fluid and think about what we're trying to understand and predict.
---
> When convenient they will use international law and norms as justification for actions they would take regardless. When inconvenient, they will just ignore them.
This is both a false binary and (for lack of a concise phrase) 'starting very late in the causal chain'. I'll start with the first and then explain the second afterwards.
1. The above is a false dichotomy. There are at least three other cases. ILN are (to some degree):...
A. ... imbued in a leader such that they don't even _want_ to venture too far outside the parameters of 'acceptable'.
B. ... perceived to have consequences that need to be accounted for. Over time the leader will more or less compare their perceptions of reality to what happens in reality.
C. ... these consequences (perceived and actual) affect the decision space of a leader. A change in the decision space, in general, may change the decision. (not always of course).
There is variation in how much A, B, C apply and play out. This variation provides informational value -- a foundational concept in modeling. More informational value, ceteris parabus, makes model predictions better. We're on the same page?
2. You may have noticed that above I've already implicitly explained my second criticism. If you want to predict how leaders act, it is unwise to start the analysis at the point of 'where they made their mind up'. Instead, you want to predict how and why they form their views and goals. My claim is that factoring in ILN (international laws and norms) is useful -- it is better to factor it in than to exclude it. To skip past it is 'starting too late in the causal chain'. It would be analogous to saying "Once the trigger is pulled, the laws against murder cannot stop the bullet."
2'. If one wants to build an even _better_ predictive model, one would want to predict what kinds of leaders come to power. Imagine some counterfactuals. What if there was no UN Declaration of Human Rights? In such a world, what kind of leaders would come to power? In general, they would be different than the current slate. I'd predict to see more warlord-like behavior; there would be less trust and more military spending. Without trust, more force and threats of force are necessary. I hope you can see I've sketched out an argument for why ILN provide some shared basis for countries to cooperate based on shared values. [2]
In short, if you are arguing -- and want to continue doing so -- that ILN have no predictive value, I challenge you to build a predictive model and prove it. But I don't think you really will hold such a view once you step away from the keyboard and reflect.
I don't confuse my approximations for reality. I once rigidly held a view not too different from the one you probably do. I thought my model was 'real'. But no longer. I've found better models for predicting.
---
> My priors before this were that international law mattered a little, but this event has convinced me it’s all a farce. Exhibit A: the UN’s increasing irrelevance as we move toward a multipolar world.
Two responses:
3. It is too soon to assess the scope of international responses to Trump's invasion of Venezuela. My response here is the same as the section above. The problem is reasonable people will struggle to find consensus on how to operationalize "farce" into a prediction. It is too squishy. We can do better than this; we can build models. I've already covered this ground above.
---
> Appeals to scholars or analysts is meaningless in this context. You should post why those people think they matter, or what their reasoning is, not, “hey, guys that I think are smart say this matters.”
I don't think I'm really fully tracking you here, so I'll respond as best I can... We're standing on the shoulders of giants. We cannot discount the work of scholars throughout history.
My claims are not arguments from authority. They are arguments along the lines of 'smart people have taught us that thinking about the world in terms of models is superior to not doing so.' To use another phrase that conveys the same idea: don't confuse the map with the territory.
No charitable person would claim that my argument is anything like "hey, guys that I think are smart say this matters". If you go back and reread, now, you don't really think I'm saying that, do you? To make such a claim would be to ignore large parts of what I wrote -- it would involve tossing those out -- and myopically and forcing an uncharitable interpretation onto my words. Hacker News works better when people are charitable. [3]
---
I'll gone to some lengths to try to understand your position and explain mine. At this point, I hope you will reciprocate.
[1] https://conflictforecast.org ... this is just an example to give flavor. I'm not holding it up as a great model, but at least it is relatively clear in how it works – compared to what you'll typically see when some pundit says something about some risk of conflict: """Our forecast uses millions of newspaper articles to make the conflict forecast. In our analysis of the content of the newspaper articles we rely on a so-called topic model which summarizes the millions of articles and words into topics using unsupervised machine learning. The topic model allows us to calculate 15 topic shares for each country/month which we display in the bubbles to the right."""
[2] Some people can't or don't see this. Some people fixate on isolated individual behavior. They ignore evolutionary foundations that people exist in a social context. They don't understand or appreciate game theory or theory of mind; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind .
[3] """Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.""" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Corrections: please replace #3 above with these points:
1. It is too soon to assess the scope of international responses to Trump's invasion of Venezuela. A large part of ILN is what happens after a particular event.
2. "Farce" is rather squishy. One interpretation (one I agree with) means i.e. "international responses often fall short of rhetoric". Ok, sure. But few savvy people expect rhetoric to match reality. The impact of ILN are neither a 0 nor a 1. It is probabilistic -- not totally random -- and it depends on the circumstances. More detailed models have the potential to make better predictions (if they don't overfit).
We need to drive towards measurable (quantitative) predictive models. Here's an example question: "If the United Nations changed its charter so that one veto was not enough to block enforcement, how would state-based aggression change (by how much)?" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
I gave you a predictive model, and I challenge you to prove it is incorrect. Nations do what they want irrespective of international law. If they can write it to align with what they wanted to accomplish anyway, they will. Otherwise they ignore it.
Go touch grass, brother. Life is more than models. Most things in life really aren’t that complicated. People do what they want and make up the reasons for why they did what they did as they go. It’s basic human behavior at the state level.
Since I've put in a markedly higher level of effort here, I'm only going to respond further if you carefully and thoroughly respond to my comments above.
I wouldn’t call the word soup you posted across multiple comments “high effort”. This isn’t high school English class. Higher word count doesn’t mean the information within is somehow more valuable.
How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?
Trump does only respect power, as do all other serious leaders. Power is all that matters in the end.
How do you think the system of international law came into existence? It was imposed by the US at the end of WWII because of their overwhelming military strength and the fact that no other nation had nuclear weapons at the time.
The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.
>How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?
It doesn't change the physical realities of that much at all besides maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid.
No, the main change is that now Xi can more reliably expect a weaker, less unified response from the west due to political divisions inside America as well as between western nations. He can expect less diplomatic pushback, fewer sanctions, etc.
Also, no all serious leaders do not only respect power. Serious leaders who are also morally and ethically good also take into account right and wrong when they make decisions.
The right thing to do would be for America to try to preserve and enforce a rules based order, regardless if other countries do. America has significant agency in the world and should consider how the world should be and try to get there. Not only consider how the world is.
Even from a realpolitik standpoint, there is benefit on showing consistent adherence to an ethical code. It encourages other actors to follow that same code as well. When we violate our own morals and values, we can't expect others to respect them.
How does one nation following an ethical code encourage others to follow it as well?
Following an ethical code in international affairs constrains the nation following it. It provides an asymmetric advantage to others who choose not to follow that code.
This is partly why China has become so powerful over the past three decades. They chose to ignore western ethical codes around intellectual property rights, fair trade, environmental protections, and human rights. They are powerful today in no small part to their willingness to disregard these things.
This is difficult for people to understand because in interpersonal relationships following an ethical code is 100% the path to healthy and meaningful relationships, and most modern history education attempts to anthropomorphize past interactions between nations. But the cold fact is that international politics is nothing like interpersonal relationships.
A nation can encourage other nations to follow their ethical code by threatening to use force if they don't. They can create incentives to encourage nations to change their behavior through trade or treaty. But I can't think of a single time in history when a nation was such a shining star of morality that they inspired other nations to change their ways and adopt their ethics.
You can't expect other nations to respect your nation's moral and ethical values when they don't care about them in the first place and in fact hope that you choose to follow them to the fullest extent so that you're easier to compete against.
> maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid
Isn't that the opposite? The US just demonstrated that it can still conduct military operations, and the presence of Chinese envoys in the country does not deter it in any way. As of now, China has one fewer source of oil it can rely on in case of an invasion.
Maybe you're right, but I view it more as: China can now be confident that the US doesn't care much at all about the sovereignty of weaker nations or coming to the aid of allies. "Might makes right", and if China asserts itself with strength (as in a full blockade/invasion instead of a few envoys present) Trump will most likely back off.
How does the US invading one country imply they won’t defend another country?
I get that military resources devoted to one theatre can’t be used in another and for that reason the US might be less able to defend Taiwan, but that may not make them less willing.
A more reasonable read is that the aircraft carriers and other naval assets in the Gulf of Mexico are more effective there than they could be in the Pacific. Venezuela doesn’t have hypersonic anti-ship missiles. China does.
> The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
I have put in good faith efforts to convert with MisterMower, for example, in [1]. Shortly after that, they insulted me. [2] This is also against the HN Guidelines, and that kind of behavior is not welcome here. Here are additional examples of hostility and insults they've made:
> Old farts like yourself [3]
> In case you don't understand how analogies work [4]
Please don't comment like this here. HN is a text-only discussion forum where people come together to discuss topics that gratify intellectual curiosity. This place can only work if people respect and follow the guidelines, and it's fine for users to politely point out to each other how they can be doing better – precisely so they don't have to get the moderators involved.
This comment comes across as mean-spirited. It's not cool to open with an apology then proceed to put out up to 7 paragraphs of eloquently-worded personal attack.
HN is only a place where people want to participate because this kind of thing is not accepted here. Please show you respect the guidelines and care about the health of the community if you want to participate here.
> How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan?
Taking the beaches here would require spilling the blood of tens of thousands of PLA troops, but as demonstrate two days ago, the only real barrier to blockading us was the threat of the USA showing up.
Xi's hunger for Taiwan shouldn't be underestimated. It's utterly irrational but it is his obsession. It's becoming clear he intends to die in office, and he's seeing his legacy as a mirror of that of the entire communist revolution - he wants to be the next Mao, with a permanent framed photo on the wall of every school and many houses in the PRC. Mao was happy to waste millions of PLA in every conflict the PRC engaged in as an outright military strategy, he called it something like "drowning the enemy in a sea of bodies," Xi will be the same.
Oh, yes I agree for the most part none other than perhaps the USA military is about to be distracted by South America.
Xi himself probably already had war gamed what it would look like to kidnap the president here in Taiwan from the presidential palace or whatever. The main difference is, now we're all talking about it - if it was that easy to snatch a president, will the PRC try it against us? Will the KMT throw Lai under the bus so the PLA can do a targeted kidnapping or assassination, perhaps alongside his US-friendly VP?
The assumed difference in Venezuela is that Maduro and his policies are not popular enough for a similar leader to easily slip into his place and cohesively unite the country against the US while maintaining Maduro’s policies and keeping his factions and constituents from which his power was derived happy.
Big assumption to be sure, and time will only tell if it’s a correct one.
In a place like Taiwan or the US that assumption is almost certainly false. Imagine Xi kidnaps the US president. Does anyone honestly believe the entire government and its people just roll over and say, “I guess China owns us now”?
You’ll hear a lot of the same people decrying this action simultaneously calling for the assassination of Putin. The cognitive dissonance is something to behold.
Information that is known to be wrong is still useful. The immediate talking points on both sides reveal quite a bit if you can read between the lines. Everyone is lying but the lies themselves are revealing.
Increasing the supply of oil will lower its price. Bringing production in Venezuela back online will have this effect. Historically they have produced three million barrels per day, currently that number is closer to one million.
Russia is funding its war in Ukraine with profits on thier oil production. All else being equal, this makes it harder for them to keep doing that. They reportedly spent $6 billion on air defense systems in Venezuela, not for no reason.
Lower oil prices also reduce China’s dependence on Russia for energy. Reducing the incentive for those two countries two cooperate would be in US interests.
Energy is fungible and lower oil prices will help reduce the cost to operate AI data centers. On the margin it will improve their profitability and reduce public backlash about rising electricity prices in the US.
A large portion of the migrant crisis in the US has been driven by Venezuelan refugees fleeing Maduro’s gross mismanagement of the country. If the subsequent government can bring prosperity back to the country it also reduces illegal immigration in the US, something the current US administration clearly supports.
Lots of positive things could result here and you don’t have to be a “Kissinger psychopath” to imagine them and hope they materialize.
Ok, but at the cost of American freedoms? We are a country ruled by laws not people. Everything about this operation violated this principle. Are you willing to give up your freedoms in order to create cheap oil so that your scenarios play out? My ancestors didn't die on the battlefield to support such things.
What freedoms did you lose today? The Patriot Act was signed into law two decades ago. I can’t remember the last time Congress passed a declaration of war prior to the President engaging in military action.
I’m sympathetic to your sentiment but that train left the station likely before you were born.
I'm very likely older than you so I have total context going back to the 1970's. Your question is silly. You don't suddenly lose freedoms, they erode. The current executive overreach is without precedent. In prior administrations congress was involved. Even during the second Iraq war congress was involved and time was taken to make a justification. The action of today was by executive fiat.
Now you know why so many countries want to leave the dollar system. There are no meaningful constraints on the supply of dollars.
Gold at least places real constraints on the growth of the money supply. Imperfect as it is, it’s better than a financial cabal in one country creating money to suit their needs irrespective of any other objective.
If it's more profitable to keep your money under a mattress than to make things, provide services, or provide loans, the economy will tilt toward hoarding cash instead of more productive activities.
This is the classical argument, but I think it's been largely refuted by practice. Instead of hoarding cash inflationary systems motivate hoarding 'things' and then trying to rent them out to everybody. This is arguably even less productive as it's fundamentally socially harmful.
When the value of things naturally declines over time, there's no real motivation to hoard them. And I think hoarding is less harmful than never-ending rent seeking. This entire issue of sidestepping inflation by hoarding+renting is what led to things like the WEF predicting that 'You will own nothing, and be happy.' That's just fundamentally dystopic because it's setting the recreation of feudalism, under a capitalist shell, as a goal. The unstated implication of their prediction is that the super-rich would own everything, and then rent it to you.
It's always been that way. The notion that currency is backed by something concrete like gold is an illusion, one that some people cling to these days.
Even if it were true, inflation makes the whole issue moot. Money is only worth what it will buy, so it is at the mercy of prices.
Finally money depends on people's collective acceptance of it. No point in holding gold if people lose confidence in gold, for instance if people start producing convincing fakes. How does the average person verify gold? It almost always goes back to trusting some central authority.
Yes, inflationary policy is a tax. But its better than the alternative, where the commodity cant keep up with the economy, and that money goes to the holders of the commodity instead with nobody in control
Can you rephrase that? Because I think you have it exactly backwards here unless I'm misunderstanding you.
In inflationary systems money becomes worth less, but 'things' tend to hold their value. This is precisely why the very wealthy are accumulating massive amounts of 'things' - it creates profit out of nothing thanks to inflation. So you're most incentivized to buy up as much as you possibly can, and then rent access to it. This is precisely how you get the WEF saying things like, 'You will own nothing, and be happy.'
By contrast in a deflationary system the value of things tends to decrease over time, all other things being equal. That is to say that obviously things like land can still increase in value over time if demand, in an area, significantly outpaces supply, but relative to inflationary systems - the 'natural' direction for prices is down. And so in this system there's much less motivation to hoard things. Of course in exchange there's a far greater motivation to hoard money, but at least that's fairly equitable. Right now lower classes simply can't avoid paying the inflation tax, whereas the wealthy not only avoid paying it, but directly profit off of it.
reply