A Masterclass in Sophistry: Debunking Larry D. Johnson's Claim that ''Estoppel and Laches'' Protect the Kremlin Impostor in the United Nations - Knowledge is Power
The Principal Legal Officer in the UN Office of the Legal Counsel at the time's whitewash of the 1991 fraud on the UN, wasted no time coming to Putin's rescue when Ukraine exposed the fraud.
Mr Johnson wasted no time publishing his article ''United Nations Response Options to Russia’s Aggression: Opportunities and Rabbit Holes'' on1 March 2022, just 7 days after Russia invaded Ukraine.
(It appears to be in reply to an opinion by Professor Ian Hurd: Read the words as they appear — Russia is not a member of the United Nations Security Council – Chicago Tribune, 28 February 2022. Which, while advancing one reason for the correct conclusion, does not explore the situation in detail and contains one misapprehension1):
As the “The Principal Legal Officer in the UN Office of the Legal Counsel at the time”, Johnson has failed to declare his interest - a potential massive culpability for being a party to fraud, duress and a 33 year violation of the UN Charter. Naturally it is in his interests to both distance himself from any involvement in the events, and to attempt to claim the events were lawful.
Johnson’s article is frankly filled with assertions of fact which are not supported by any evidence, assertions of law which are directly contrary to established UN and general law rulings, and a wealth of omissions of established facts.
Here I examine the last part of his article, under the heading “Rabbit hole no. 3: Declare Russia is not a bona fide member of the Organization, there
having been no decision admitting it as a member after the demise of the USSR“.
Oh how I would love to ask him some questions under oath in the witness stand about where he was, what he knew, whom he spoke to, at the time; and where are the evidence2 and legal authorities backing his statements.
Here is a screenshot of my notes.
x
The issue is muddied by many commentators confusing “new countries” with existing countries which are not UN members in their own right - maybe in deference to the 1947 determination of the UN Legal Committee on succession, which was dealing with a new country, but the principle actually applies to any non-member breakaways from member states, new or existing.
This fudging obscures the law that existing states which become members of Federations do not lose their status as “countries”, as exemplified by Ukraine being a UN member alongside the USSR. Such countries do not suddenly change into “new countries” if they leave the Federation. For example Syria, a UN member. joined a Federation and later left, and resumed exercising its original membership. The consequence of this fudging is the disinformation argument that the outcome of different cases is based on “consent”, rather than law.
See my several examinations of the evidence and the law on this matter, in this substack; starting with
Then:
Then:
Then:
