Proponents of Chrystia Freeland’s stance argue that the international community must adopt a proactive approach to addressing the rise of 'legalistic' justifications for territorial aggression. By identifying the parallels between Beijing’s new ethnic unity law and the rhetoric used by Russia, leaders are attempting to set a clear boundary for what is acceptable in the modern global order. This perspective holds that silence or hesitation in the face of such developments only emboldens regimes to further challenge the status quo.
Supporters emphasize that the protection of democratic values requires more than just internal policy; it necessitates a collective diplomatic front. When a major power codifies its intent to prioritize ethnic or cultural unity over established international borders, it threatens the security of smaller nations and the stability of global trade routes. By calling for a pushback, Freeland is advocating for a strategy that prioritizes long-term security over short-term economic convenience.
This approach is seen as essential for maintaining the credibility of international institutions like the United Nations. If democratic nations fail to challenge these legal shifts, they risk allowing a new norm to take hold where territorial integrity is secondary to the domestic political needs of powerful states. The practical goal is to create a deterrent effect, signaling that the international community is monitoring these legislative changes and will hold actors accountable for actions that threaten global peace.
Ultimately, this perspective suggests that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of diplomatic friction. By naming the 'dark kinship' between these policies, leaders are providing a framework for the public and other governments to understand the stakes involved. This clarity is vital for building the political will necessary to sustain sanctions, trade adjustments, and other measures that protect the sovereignty of nations worldwide.