@stephanie I actually like this statement.
It is very factual.
And I've noticed a tradition, in international law circles, to aim for neutral / mild / diplomatic language. Like: a dozen whereases, and then perhaps a "strongly" (like for genocide).
I think this statement reinforces that (frustrating) tradition. It is indicative of intent to stand united with those who uphold #InternationalLaw.
If one were anticipating the worst and building a case for, let's say, 2028, it could be helpful to go on record now as condemning illegitimate elections. And condemning the *persecution of dissenters* specifically? Right the fuck on for, inter alia, section 2 of the Charter.
This statement (in my opinion) establishes that clear pro-international law precedent for allies around the world to see. It takes sides, on ne peut plus claire. Which is strategic if it seems you might need international allies soon. Like Venezuela, and Greenland, and Ukraine, and and and.
It is always a question whether the Liberals will in practice live up to their better principles, instead of just saying them cleverly / convincingly.
But I think it's as close to calling out the US for breach of international law as they can get without attracting attention / war (including economic).
I think it’s principles and team-building, which the world currently needs right now.
I think Anita Anand is / has a very strong writer.
Actually, I might write her a letter. Been a while since I've sent one (postage-free by law).
#FediLaw #LawFedi