Bleaching: Casus foederis

Since ancient times, a clause in the alliance treaties has been known, requiring allied rulers to aid each another in the event of armed assault on the part of a 3rd party.

This clause refers to circumstances—events, facts or activities that trigger the lever of solidarity assistance and are named casus foederis. This virtually means “the case of a covenant” which imposes collective obligations on the parties to the alliance. In time these commitments from the rulers passed to the states.

By the way, what causes no of the politicians to be able to usage this concept in their discussion of NATO alliance obligations? Nor does anyone want crucial concepts of global law to be spread to the public. Bring their interpretations closer, which show that the Treaty provisions are not as clear as any political amateurs seem. Besides, as the large leader of the V French Republic utilized to say, Charles de Gaulle"The treats are like virgins and roses, they only last as long as they last." Their "vigilance" changes as the circumstances in which subsequent generations live change.

Among the oldest preserved of our time is the agreement of 1258 B.C.E. between Pharaoh Ramses II of the 19th century. The dynasty and the King of the Hittites, Hattusilis III, who, after mutually exhausting wars that most likely led to a balance of strength between the 2 powerful states of antiquity (Egypt and Hatti in Anatolia), concluded an agreement, which at the same time marked the treaty of peace, covenant and relationship and good neighbourhood. The most crucial evidence from the point of view of the alliance was the phrase: "If any enemy steps against Ramesses' estates, let Ramesses tell the large King of the Hittites: go with me against him with all your armed forces." The Alliance besides included common assistance in keeping the dependent states in check, especially in Syria and Palestine, as well as the issuing of fugitives along with their wives, children and slaves, while unscathed, and thus without punishing them with death, “or harming their eyes, lips and legs.”

More closely to our time, we will find the mention to the alliance guarantees expressed in the form of casus foederis in many crucial treaties, from the 2 covenants starting between the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire of 1879, through the 3 covenant (1882), to the French-Russian alliance (1892). The alleged entente cordiale (1904) means the English-French arrangement, and then the Russian-English agreement (1907) as a three-understanding were only the delimitation of the spheres of influence, not the arrangement of common assistance.

But already in the first universal global organization that was the League of Nations, it was accepted in Article 16 of the League Pact that "if any League associate resorts to war against the obligations of the Pact, he will be considered ipso facto to have committed a war against all League members."

The 1945 United Nations Charter went further, stating in Article 51 that each associate State of the organization, in the event of armed assault, has the right to individual or collective self-defense, which is referred to by both the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5) and the historical Warsaw Agreement (Article 4).

Article 5

Casus foederis of the North Atlantic Treaty does not supply a clear and automatic warrant of coming to the state with aid, nor does it specify that it will be military aid. For the sake of full knowing of the essence of the mitologized provision of Article 5, it is worth quoting it in its entirety: “The parties agree that an armed assault on 1 or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered to be an assault against all of them; as a result, they agree that if specified armed assault occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defence recognised in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, will assist the organization or parties so assaulted, immediately individually and in agreement with another parties specified action as it deems necessary, without excluding the usage of armed forces, in order to reconstruct and keep the safety of the North Atlantic area.”

In order to realize the substance of these obligations (one for all, all for one), the content of Article 4, which states that ‘the parties shall consult whenever, according to any of them, territorial integrity, political independency or the safety of either organization is threatened’, should besides be cited.

Contrary to popular belief, therefore, there is no evidence that allied aid is unconditional. Just mention the debate on the legitimacy of the launch of a mechanics based on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty following the 2001 Al-Qaeda attack on the United States. It has shown that the circumstances triggering allied aid are not clearly defined and equally understood. In practice, specified assistance shall always be conditional on the individual readiness of the States participating in the alliance, if necessary. The literal evidence itself in the treaty establishing the covenant is not sufficient. The will of all states to meet their commitments is necessary. And with Turkey and Hungary in mind, it is already clear present that consensus is not easy to achieve, as it seems to any naive politicians. The question of time mobilisation, determination and commitment remains.

NATO was established in 1949 to defend the values of the Western planet and to institutionalize American leadership in the Western strategy against the communist threat. After the east bloc broke down, the alliance experienced many recognition difficulties and decision-making inability. But it turned out that nothing consolidates the covenant more than the fresh enemy. A large deal has been done to make a fresh Russia for specified an enemy, attributing it to all possible aggressive and imperial urges.

In addition, a immense asymmetry was born within the alliance in terms of defence capabilities and capabilities. For this reason, Western Europe has been "destuverenised" for American protection. And the fresh members from Central and east Europe, protecting themselves under the "parasol" of the protection of the U.S., disposed of any insteer. They assumed the function of obedient performers of the Atlantic Hegemon will, who recognized NATO as an intervention weapon in a global ideological struggle, in the name of "total" democracy and human rights. The Alliance has ceased to execute the defensive functions to which it was called. He became a gripping-resistible alliance, utilizing force outside the casus foederis (Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya). NATO is presently engaging on an unprecedented scale in military and logistical assistance for the fighting Ukraine, although this state does not meet any treaty conditions not only an ally, but even a partner. Unless there are any secret agreements that the public has not been informed of.

Hegemonic War

All of this means that we are dealing with the usage of force to "extinguish fires" which the West itself provokes. As far as Russia is concerned, it has been arbitrarily decided that, unlike the United States, it has no right to express the ambition of the powers, cannot lead any groups, nor can it defend its state of possession. Nor does he have the right to express his concerns for his own safety, citing the dangers of her gate. Against this background, there was a collision of US geopolitical interests with Russia. Their rivalry led to a clash that threatens to transform the local war into a hegemonic war.

He wrote about specified a war. George Modelski, American investigator of Polish origin, unknown or underestimated in Poland. In his opinion, the main stake of any inter-power conflict is to win or keep the position of ‘lead quarterback’ in the global system. The reflection of long periods in politics and the global economy has already prompted British historian Arnold Toynbee to separate the cycles of peace and war and the challenges and answers that determined the dynamics of the global system. The destiny of civilization depends mostly on the evolution of power in global relations. Currently, the game is about primacy in the global strategy between the US and China, and the war in Ukraine is part of this ruthless rivalry. erstwhile the leaders of the conflicted parties cease to respond reticently to each other's threats, militarism erupts and pretenses are held to be the most important. Hegemic wars are a consequence of specified strategies, as well as a catalyst for a extremist change in position quo.

Against the backdrop of this unbridled dynamic, the powers dependent on the safety guarantees of the top power rightly anticipate to proceed to confirm his alliance commitments. However, the "epoch" speeches of the president of the United States, which Polish politicians unreflexively admire, are only a rhetorical demonstration of collective solidarity and do not prejudge a real commitment to defending Poland in the event of any aggression.

For example, aggression provoked by Poland itself. For all commitment to the war in Ukraine, which exceeds the alliance agreement, carries the hazard of Russia applying retaliatory measures, which do not necessarily mean casus belli for all NATO. Poland's claim to be a Ukrainian "leader" of the alliance is not covered by any position of strength or reputation. On the contrary, Western elites cynically exploit the naivety of Poland, which has made its main geopolitical asset out of demonstrating selfless generosity in supporting Ukraine. but with his help, he can't play anything circumstantial for himself. The naive mock the world. Anyone who doesn't care about his own business and economical calculations, in a hard game of more powerful forces is simply a simple loser.

“The Prophecy of Disaster”

The last visit by the president of the United States to Kiev and Warsaw is read as an announcement of the Western's continued commitment to Ukraine in the ongoing war with Russia. erstwhile announcing an increase in military aid, the president of the largest power, guaranteeing “peace through war” did not reassure us that he would do anything to guarantee that war action did not embrace 1 of the associate States' alliance. In Realism Biden is more of a “prophecy of disaster” than “the messenger of peace”. He is simply a missionary leader and fanatical, ideologically haunted, tool in the hands of large arms corporations, who primarily care for their interests.

The shallows, in order not to say primitive and faithful comments about the statements of an American dignitary, show a deep misunderstanding of the seriousness of the situation. The “chief of chiefs” did not go beyond the acquainted rhetoric of deterrence against Russia. Intellectual deficiencies and emotional intensification do not let Polish decision-makers to go beyond immediate calculations, without imagining alternate scenarios for ending the war in Ukraine. Avoiding hard questions about the prospects of post-war governance in east Europe and referring to Western “unity” in triumph and reconstruction of Ukraine can be deceptive.

Considering the prospects of ending the war, many Western observers are well aware that Russia as a atomic power cannot lose this war. It is the hazard associated with specified a failure that stops the more sensible politicians from irresponsible declarations or incitement to escalation. Against this background, Polish zealists and war enthusiasts are distinguished, both on the side of the rulers and opposition. Ukrainian centrism in viewing the problems of the modern planet obscures their imagination of reality. It leads to “tunnel” thinking, to the top detriment to the Polish national interest. The promotion of a imagination of the complete disintegration of Russia or the punishment of Russians, like Nazi Germany, dangerously brings the Ukrainian war closer to the border of the Hegemonic War with atomic weapons.

The safety guarantees are primarily about the will to supply effective assistance. Treaty provisions are not worth much, as are the emotional assurances of individual politicians. As the case showed Donald Trump, the U.S. is not "unbreakable" and "consistent" in the defence of allies, as they like primarily their own commercial interests. The safety of allies is increasingly transactional. The North Atlantic alliance is convinced of this by paying for the maintenance of U.S. bases, weapons, technologies, and yet gas supplies.

Polish rhetorical radicalism

In all alliance, the bargaining power of the parties is important. due to the apparent asymmetry of potentials and capabilities, Poland relies entirely on safety guarantees from the US. The dedication of political elites to American protection limits any anticipation of independent decisions and actions. That is why it is worth advising all the "restrictive" politicians, from the president to the MPs, to quit racing for rhetorical radicalism, due to the fact that it becomes a burden, not an asset of Polish participation in the global order redevelopment. Countries that do not play above their potential, do not grow in neighbouring relations and recognise the realities of their geography and geopolitics.

Despite the determination of politicians to bring the war in Ukraine to a victorious end, we are faced with an expanding fatigue of societies in conflict and its costs. Who knows if the disparity with respect to the assessment of Russian aggression into Ukraine will translate into giving up ideological principles for pragmatic calculation of interests? U.S. Republicans are aware that a realistic abroad policy requires that facts be respected. And these clearly indicate that it is impossible in the long run to keep a hierarchical global system, ignoring the participation in the global politics of China or Russia.

There is besides much evidence that the West will not avoid talks with Russia about strategy safety in the future. Russian Treaty proposals of 17 December 2021. – although rejected by the West – they will return in any form erstwhile the war is over. It will not only be essential to address the alleged indivisibility of safety, to redefine the importance of the various principles that have been completely devaluation. For example, non-interference in the interior affairs of the parties or respect for sovereign equality of states, even in relation to the free formation of its own system, without imposing any external designs. This would mean, as China calls for, abandoning the "cold war mentality" and rejecting "value-based policy".

Resigning power mission and returning to Realpolitik are the only way to reconstruct stableness of the global system. The experience of "relax" in East-West relations should be used, return to confidence-building measures, information on intentions ("hot lines"), reactivation of permanent negotiation and consultation platforms. All efforts to re-establish inter-power relations request to be mobilised. alternatively of geopolitics of fear and hatred, they must return to geopolitics of compromise.

Understanding axiological diversity and accepting systemic diversity are the first step from NATO states on the road to building modus vivendi with countries considered enemies. It is inactive besides early to revalue relations with Russia for emotional and personality reasons. However, it must be borne in head that effective peace-making is simply a hard and risky process. It is only through the prudence of the politicians of the disputed parties that we can avoid reciprocating and rematching.

Prof. Stanisław Bielen

photo public domain

Think Poland, No. 11-12 (12-19.03.2023)