Tuesday 4 March 2014

Voton's staff, Loge's contracts, and Ukraine

Tyler Cowen asks how much American credibility is at stake in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Under a plausible reading, American inaction signals to China that America would do nothing were China to start messing around with Japan or Taiwan.

But careful for the fine print when Loge's writing the contracts. The security guarantee only committed America to helping Ukraine out if Russia uses nukes. And even then, they don't have to do much. Here's Outside the Beltway:
Likewise, the parties “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” Emphasis mine. So, unless Russia uses nuclear weapons, the other signatories have no obligation to do anything. If Russia were, unfathomably, to threaten or use nukes, then the other parties would be obligated to take the matter to the Security Council—where Russia would promptly veto any proposed action.
When Voton had Loge write the contract with the giant brothers, he hoped that Loge would be able to find a way to avoid his ever having to pay Fasolt and Fafnir: any defect in Valhalla's construction meant no payment was needed. But the giants built it perfectly, and so Voton had to find a way to pay lest the basis of his overlordship, the contracts carved into his spear, all unravel. The giants knew that Loge's contracts were tricky and needed careful attention.

I know nothing about the fine print in America's security guarantees to Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea. If the fine print is sound, I'd expect War Father to follow through with his agreements. If it's all tacit and implicit, then maybe there's a problem.

Update: Ilya Somin suggests sanctions targeting Russia's elite. I suppose that's easier as Europe heads into spring. Justin Eric Haldor Smith provides some history.

5 comments:

  1. Relevant text is Article V of Treaty of Mutual Cooperation: "[USA] would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes" (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_Japan_and_the_United_States_of_AmericaTreaty of Mutual Cooperation). There's plenty of wiggle room if you're in the mind for wiggling.


    Having said that, does the fine print really matter? Even if the fine print was sound the USA could and probably would do whatever it felt was in its best interests anyway. What are you going to do about it?


    BTW, would be much more concerned about South China Sea, whose claimants mostly don't have security treaties with the USA, than I would about Taiwan, Japan, ROK. Vietnamese claims to the Spratleys would probably be the best analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric Crampton the academic and discerning person asks
    " Tyler Cowen asks how much American credibility is at stake in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Under a plausible reading, American inaction signals to China that America would do nothing were China to start messing around with Japan or Taiwan."



    Where is John Kennedy when you need him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's a big difference between Russia invading a country which hosts Russian military bases, and Russia or China invading a country which hosts American military bases.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agree; credibility worries there overstated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's all possible, but breaking the fine print means none of the fine print's worth much, and we're in Cowen's "no credibility beyond interests" world.

    ReplyDelete