XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc, alt.atheism   
   From: xdmod2@mail.com   
      
   "Freedumb CockUs"  wrote in message   
   news:u56aqo$29f2r$2@dont-email.me...   
   > Make Russia Pay   
   >   
   > The West has already frozen some $300 billion in Russian assets. Here's   
   > the case for seizing them.   
      
   I think that was another fabrication much like the Russians are fighting   
   with   
   chips from washing machines and whatever else nonsense you people put out.   
      
   > For months, the West has fretted over the prospect of paying for Ukraine's   
   > reconstruction. Russia's war has inflicted an estimated $400 billion in   
   > rebuilding costs, a tally that rises every day. Western leaders, already   
   > alarmed by inflation and the threat of recession, have understandably   
   > blanched over the bill.   
   > But many of them are disregarding a solution that would cover most of   
   > Ukraine's costs and help deter future aggression not only from Russia but   
   > from dictatorships around the world. A year ago, Western governments froze   
   > some $300 billion in state assets from Russia's central bank. Now they   
   > could seize the funds and give them to Ukraine.   
   > The biggest question is whether this would be legal. As critics have   
   > noted, a seizure of this magnitude has never been attempted. Moreover,   
   > little precedent exists for the United States to confiscate the assets of   
   > a nation with whom (despite the Kremlin's claims to the contrary) it isn't   
   > at war.   
   > From the June 2023 issue: The counteroffensive   
   > But Russia has unleashed a kind of rank imperialism the world has rarely   
   > seen since the Cold War, committing war crimes and-as manifold evidence   
   > suggests-genocide, all against a harmless neighbor. Because of its   
   > unjustifiable aggression and atrocities, Moscow has forfeited any moral   
   > right to funds stashed abroad.   
   > The reasons to seize them are legion. Confiscating the Russian funds-which   
   > are spread across various Western economies-would serve a crucial role in   
   > ending the fighting, beating back Russian imperialism, and ensuring a   
   > viable economic future for Ukraine. And it would send a clear threat to   
   > regimes that might otherwise be willing to breach international law and   
   > destabilize continents for their own gain, as Moscow has.   
   > Seizing these assets would also help fix an overlooked issue facing   
   > Ukraine: investor hesitancy. Investors remain wary of bankrolling projects   
   > that could be targeted by Russian drones and artillery. But the frozen   
   > funds could cover nearly 75 percent of Ukraine's costs and significantly   
   > reduce the burden on potential financiers, making the country a more   
   > appealing investment destination.   
   > In the U.S., much of the legal debate has focused on the International   
   > Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that defines the   
   > president's abilities to regulate international commerce during national   
   > emergencies. Although the IEEPA has historically been used to authorize   
   > more conventional sanctions-including in Iran, the Central African   
   > Republic, and China-some scholars, most notably Laurence H. Tribe and   
   > Jeremy Lewin, have argued that it could also be used to seize the tens of   
   > billions of dollars in Russian assets currently in U.S. reserves.   
   > Recommended Reading   
   >   
   > That proposal has generated legal pushback, although advocates are   
   > undeterred. The nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative told me that it has   
   > commissioned a study of the "legal foundations for seizing frozen Russian   
   > assets and transferring them to Ukraine," which will be led by Tribe. (The   
   > initiative is chaired by Garry Kasparov, who also chairs the Human Rights   
   > Foundation, where I direct a program on combating kleptocracy.)   
   > Even if U.S. law offered clear justification, though, it couldn't be used   
   > to touch any of Russia's assets frozen in Europe, which are far more   
   > valuable than those in the U.S. Fortunately, international law appears to   
   > offer such justification.   
   > As Philip Zelikow and Simon Johnson wrote in Foreign Affairs last year,   
   > Russia's obvious culpability for the war entitles Ukraine to claim   
   > compensation from Russia. Because "the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a   
   > wrongful, unprovoked war of aggression that violates the United Nations   
   > Charter," Zelikow and Johnson argue, any state (not just Ukraine) can   
   > "invoke Russia's responsibility to compensate Ukraine, and they can take   
   > countermeasures against Moscow-including transferring its frozen foreign   
   > assets to ensure Ukraine gets paid."   
   > Despite many policy makers' impression that Russian assets are   
   > untouchable, Anton Moiseienko, an international-law expert at the   
   > Australian National University, recently showed that they aren't immune   
   > from seizure. "To extend protection from any governmental interferences to   
   > central bank assets would equate to affording them inviolability,"   
   > Moiseienko wrote, which is reserved only for property belonging to foreign   
   > diplomatic missions. The protection afforded central-bank assets "is not   
   > as absolute as is often thought."   
   > That is, in the eyes of international law, Russian assets aren't   
   > inviolate. In fact, the only real remaining obstacles to seizing them are   
   > debates surrounding domestic laws and domestic politics. As Moiseienko   
   > wrote, "Political and economic circumspection, rather than legal   
   > constraints, are the last defense against [the assets'] confiscation."   
   > This is particularly true in the U.S., where plenty of hesitancy remains   
   > even after more than a year of war. As The New York Times reported in   
   > March, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen believes that seizing Russian   
   > assets could reduce faith in the American economy and the U.S. dollar.   
   > Other critics think it would threaten U.S. assets and investments in other   
   > countries.   
   > Eliot A. Cohen: It's not enough for Ukraine to win. Russia has to lose.   
   > These points all have a certain merit. And so, too, do concerns about such   
   > a move prompting the Kremlin to escalate. In all likelihood, though,   
   > Putin's regime has already written off these funds, not least because   
   > they'll almost certainly never be returned while he's in power. Moreover,   
   > seizing them is hardly as escalatory as, say, the West sending Ukraine F-   
   > 16s or long-range precision rockets.   
   > But at a broader level, these criticisms misunderstand the significance of   
   > the war and what it may lead to.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)