Text 17683, 93 rader
Skriven 2011-04-29 14:18:42 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 17483 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Wednesday April 27 2011 at
17:35:

MV>>> A treaty is sort a contract between sovereign states isn't it?

RB>> Like the USA and Cuba at the time Guantanamo was leased, yes. And
RB>> just to remind you, treaties are not abrogated (rendered null and
RB>> void) merely because a government happens to change. If that were the
RB>> case, no treaty would be worth the paper it's written on.

MV> Of course. A mere change of government is no reason to terminate a
MV> treaty and it is not the normal way of things.

MV> However if the change is more than just a change of government but a
MV> more drastic change like a revolution or a seperation, it is not
MV> unusual for treaties to be terminated.

An example, please. Unilateral naturally. And without sanctions by the other
side.

MV> Nobody expected the individual members to continue all treaties singed
MV> when they were still part of the USSR. Nobody expects Iraq to honour
MV> all treaties signed by Saddam and nobody will expect Libya to honour
MV> all treaties by Ghadaffi after his fall.

Of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't be treaties. Contracts between
private parties are different.

Why did communist China honor the treaties made by imperial China with the
British? There was a revolution - and the new government still honored treaties
made by the country. Hongkong was only given back to China after the lease
specified in the treaty lapsed. And China agreed to that. Not "communist"
China, just "China".

MV> Disallowing parties to renegotiate a treaty when the circumstances
MV> change drastically is unfair.

Sez you, in a specific case. What if the Dutch government had negotiated a
treaty with Nazi Germany to allow bases in the Netherlands? Good question
whether those bases would nowadays still be there or not.

MV> When the treaty between Cuba and the US was signed it may have been to
MV> the advantage of both parties. it is obvious that today that is no
MV> longer the case.

That's a good question. From what I read, there are several agreements since
then that are to the benefit of the Cuban government. Do you really think
Castro would never have made a major affair of this if he had _really_ felt
Cuban soverignty were involved?

RB>>>> You're confusing Guantanemo with Ramstein.

MV>>> Am I? How do we know that when push comes to shove, The same will
MV>>> not happen to Ramstein as what happened to Guantanomo? That the US
MV>>> will simply refuse to leave?

RB>> You're joking ;-)

MV> No Bob, I am dead serious.

Then you're pretty naive regarding international relations.

MV> You claimed a souvereign country could allow foreign military basis on
MV> its territory and disallow them at will. I gave you a counter example.
MV> Cuba is unable to get rid of the Gitmo hotel.

Cuba (not the present regime) signed a TREATY! and this is binding on all
subsequence governments. The cases have absolutely nothing to do with one
another.

RB>> The Cuban government is not involved. The treatey was ratified and
RB>> all following governments are bound by it. Even the Cubans understand
RB>> that - why is it so hard for you to do so?

MV> Because I can see that that treaty is a joke.

You are Dutch, Castro is Cuban. HE decides what is right for Cuba, not you.

MV> Get those blinders off your eyes Bob.

Ever look in a mirror?

One thing I keep asking myself during this entire discussion is why you take
one side _exclusively_ and never even consider the position of the other. And
why you think you have the right to speak for the Cubans, who, after all, are
the ones concerned and can speak for themselves. And why you think treaties
between nations are mere scraps of paper to be abrogated by subsequent
governments as they please.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)