International Rules
International Rules Are Hard to Define and Even Harder to Enforce as Conflicting Views of Who Is to Blame Prevail
Most Americans who pay attention to the country’s foreign policy have no doubt heard the assertions by various secretaries of state and presidents that the post-World War II world should be guided by what is referred to as some version of what is claimed to be a “rules based international order.”
What is left out of the expression is any indication of who makes the rules, though diplomats and government officials who are on the right side of the process might well say that it is some kind of consensus from countries that are democracies and/or politically stable to do what is right in various situations that develop internationally. That means, if a country attacks a neighbor and there is a strong belief that the attacker was neither threatened nor being otherwise harmed by the neighbor, there should be universal opprobrium and possibly even some action taken to stop the fighting even if it requires force to do so.
Determining what is considered “right behavior” is rather a hazy process,though there are certain guidelines consisting of the Geneva Accords and the various War Crimes and Genocide statutes. And there are also the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, which have independent jurisdiction, though they lack an enforcement mechanism beyond issuing arrest warrants for government officials considered to be human rights or war crimes violators. Nevertheless, there is a lot of wiggle room in how international interactions are perceived and powerful nations tend to escape censure based on the likelihood that they will be able to strike back in various ways, making any sanctioning or response more trouble than it’s worth. There is also the fact that the whole game is rigged.
The UN was established in October 1945 with the objective of preventing a repeat of World War II, but it was set up in a way to benefit the victors and allow them to keep control of the punishment aspect that was a responsibility of the UN Security Council. Five members of the Council were made permanent members, which gave them individually the power to veto any proposed action, even if they be on the wrong end of a one to 15 tally. Those nations are currently the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, all of which were at least nominally on the “right side” at the end of the war, though the People’s Republic of China was only allowed to replace what is now Taiwan, which held the seat, in 1971.
Of the world’s great powers, the United States has long de facto seen itself as the guardian and interpreter of what is acceptable in a “rules based” world, and it even pretends that all the rules apply to everyone, which is manifestly untrue. Nevertheless, sometimes something slips through the defenses that reveals all too clearly what is going on. In responding to a question from a journalist, Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a claim recently that absolutely no one who has spent any time in Washington will believe. The journalist had asked whether the federal government in making its foreign policy decisions tended to favor and/or excuse the behavior of some countries while condemning others for exactly the same actions. Blinken replied “We apply the same standard to everyone. And that doesn’t change whether the country in question is an adversary, a competitor, a friend or an ally.” Everyone in the room was thinking of Israel as Blinken spoke, and all understood very clearly that he wasn’t telling the truth and was trying to preserve the fiction that the United States holds allies and clients to the same standard that it uses for others, most notably competitor nations like Russia and China or adversaries like Iran.
This presumption that the United State should by rights lead was initially based on the U.S. having emerged from World War II largely undamaged as the strongest economy with a powerful military, a status which was enhanced through the creation of the World Bank and the Bretton Woods agreements which established the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It is not a coincidence that the UN building itself was located in New York. This primacy is now being challenged by the growing BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) alliance.
The debt-ridden U.S. might well be heading for a fall as the dominance of the dollar is challenged by Russia, China, Iran and a number of other nations that are demanding free trade in all currencies. But to return to today’s reality, the division of power in the UN is limited. It means that the possible action undertaken by the UN and the international community to address violations of the “rules” will be inhibited by the ability of the five permanent members to us their vetoes. It would in fact be impossible for the UN to sanction those countries, as they would use their own vetoes to protect themselves and they would likewise use their vetoes to protect their friends and allies.
This is what we have been seeing over the past several months, with a series of three Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolutions proposed in the UN Security Council being vetoed by D.C. or, in one case, subject to an abstention, to protect American client Israel. In cases where the U.S. veto is not applicable, the United States has other weapons that it uses to reject, for example, judgments by the international courts, which it can also ignore as it does not recognize court jurisdiction. Israel is also not a member. The ICC is reportedly being warned and even threatened by members of the U.S. Senate from both parties that arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, which are right now being considered, will be met with U.S. retaliation—and legislation to that effect is already in the works. The White House is arguing, falsely, that “the ICC has no jurisdiction in Gaza” and adding that “We do not support its investigation.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also issued a statement calling the reported warrants “disgraceful” and “lawless.” “If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American poof justice is not exactly unprecedented. But neither Israel nor the United States should be complacent about what is developing as much of the world watches with horror the daily slaughter coming out of Gaza.
The latest move to end the killing consists of a resolution submitted by Algeria in late May calling for an immediate ceasefire. The draft resolution also demanded compliance with previous council resolutions that call for the opening of all border crossings and humanitarian aid access to Gaza’s 2.3 million people who desperately need food and medicine. Israel’s response to the resolution has so far consisted of its attacking an ambu“The United States and Israel can ignore the various resolutions floating around the UN or they can begin to wake up and smell the roses. The tide is running very strongly against both nations.” lance in Rafah carrying wounded civilians and killing the two medical attendants. litical leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel,” Johnson maintained while calling for the Biden administration to “immediately and unequivocally demand that the ICC stand down” and “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination.”
The tools would include sanctions against individual jurists and their families as well as confiscation of property. Indeed, few Americans know that the United States has exercised its veto 50 times in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel from critical resolutions mostly relating to the Palestinians, so the intervention with the courts to subvert the course The Algerian resolution was in response to an Israeli attack on a tent city refugee encampment near Rafah which ignited a huge fire and killed 45 homeless Gazans, including many women and children. According to one news report, “Parents were burned alive in their tents while children screamed for help.” The pictures of the carnage, screened worldwide, were horrific, and they have united most of the UN General Assembly members as well as an overwhelming majority of the Security Council to demand an end to the fighting.
The United States, however, responded in late May that the resolution “is not going to be helpful,” an almost certain indication that it will again exercise its veto to protect what Israel is doing. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood added that “another resolution is not necessarily going to change anything on the ground,” while a spokesman in a follow-up State Department press briefing declared “It is imbalanced and it fails to note a simple fact which is that Hamas is to blame for this conflict.” One might also note that it does not blame Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians over the past 75 years, but the State Department is not interested in that distinction. The United States and Israel can ignore the various resolutions floating around the UN or they can begin to wake up and smell the roses. The tide is running very strongly against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and the United States is now being seen nearly everywhere as a full-time accomplice to the genocide that is undoubtedly and deliberately taking place.
One senior Israeli government official is now predicting that the war will continue until the end of the year, another seven months, success apparently being measured by arriving at a point when all or nearly all Palestinians will be either killed or deported. When it becomes clear that is the objective, where will the “red line” be and what will you do, President Joe Biden?
What is left out of the expression is any indication of who makes the rules, though diplomats and government officials who are on the right side of the process might well say that it is some kind of consensus from countries that are democracies and/or politically stable to do what is right in various situations that develop internationally. That means, if a country attacks a neighbor and there is a strong belief that the attacker was neither threatened nor being otherwise harmed by the neighbor, there should be universal opprobrium and possibly even some action taken to stop the fighting even if it requires force to do so.
Determining what is considered “right behavior” is rather a hazy process,though there are certain guidelines consisting of the Geneva Accords and the various War Crimes and Genocide statutes. And there are also the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, which have independent jurisdiction, though they lack an enforcement mechanism beyond issuing arrest warrants for government officials considered to be human rights or war crimes violators. Nevertheless, there is a lot of wiggle room in how international interactions are perceived and powerful nations tend to escape censure based on the likelihood that they will be able to strike back in various ways, making any sanctioning or response more trouble than it’s worth. There is also the fact that the whole game is rigged.
The UN was established in October 1945 with the objective of preventing a repeat of World War II, but it was set up in a way to benefit the victors and allow them to keep control of the punishment aspect that was a responsibility of the UN Security Council. Five members of the Council were made permanent members, which gave them individually the power to veto any proposed action, even if they be on the wrong end of a one to 15 tally. Those nations are currently the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, all of which were at least nominally on the “right side” at the end of the war, though the People’s Republic of China was only allowed to replace what is now Taiwan, which held the seat, in 1971.
Of the world’s great powers, the United States has long de facto seen itself as the guardian and interpreter of what is acceptable in a “rules based” world, and it even pretends that all the rules apply to everyone, which is manifestly untrue. Nevertheless, sometimes something slips through the defenses that reveals all too clearly what is going on. In responding to a question from a journalist, Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a claim recently that absolutely no one who has spent any time in Washington will believe. The journalist had asked whether the federal government in making its foreign policy decisions tended to favor and/or excuse the behavior of some countries while condemning others for exactly the same actions. Blinken replied “We apply the same standard to everyone. And that doesn’t change whether the country in question is an adversary, a competitor, a friend or an ally.” Everyone in the room was thinking of Israel as Blinken spoke, and all understood very clearly that he wasn’t telling the truth and was trying to preserve the fiction that the United States holds allies and clients to the same standard that it uses for others, most notably competitor nations like Russia and China or adversaries like Iran.
This presumption that the United State should by rights lead was initially based on the U.S. having emerged from World War II largely undamaged as the strongest economy with a powerful military, a status which was enhanced through the creation of the World Bank and the Bretton Woods agreements which established the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It is not a coincidence that the UN building itself was located in New York. This primacy is now being challenged by the growing BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) alliance.
The debt-ridden U.S. might well be heading for a fall as the dominance of the dollar is challenged by Russia, China, Iran and a number of other nations that are demanding free trade in all currencies. But to return to today’s reality, the division of power in the UN is limited. It means that the possible action undertaken by the UN and the international community to address violations of the “rules” will be inhibited by the ability of the five permanent members to us their vetoes. It would in fact be impossible for the UN to sanction those countries, as they would use their own vetoes to protect themselves and they would likewise use their vetoes to protect their friends and allies.
This is what we have been seeing over the past several months, with a series of three Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolutions proposed in the UN Security Council being vetoed by D.C. or, in one case, subject to an abstention, to protect American client Israel. In cases where the U.S. veto is not applicable, the United States has other weapons that it uses to reject, for example, judgments by the international courts, which it can also ignore as it does not recognize court jurisdiction. Israel is also not a member. The ICC is reportedly being warned and even threatened by members of the U.S. Senate from both parties that arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, which are right now being considered, will be met with U.S. retaliation—and legislation to that effect is already in the works. The White House is arguing, falsely, that “the ICC has no jurisdiction in Gaza” and adding that “We do not support its investigation.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also issued a statement calling the reported warrants “disgraceful” and “lawless.” “If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American poof justice is not exactly unprecedented. But neither Israel nor the United States should be complacent about what is developing as much of the world watches with horror the daily slaughter coming out of Gaza.
The latest move to end the killing consists of a resolution submitted by Algeria in late May calling for an immediate ceasefire. The draft resolution also demanded compliance with previous council resolutions that call for the opening of all border crossings and humanitarian aid access to Gaza’s 2.3 million people who desperately need food and medicine. Israel’s response to the resolution has so far consisted of its attacking an ambu“The United States and Israel can ignore the various resolutions floating around the UN or they can begin to wake up and smell the roses. The tide is running very strongly against both nations.” lance in Rafah carrying wounded civilians and killing the two medical attendants. litical leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel,” Johnson maintained while calling for the Biden administration to “immediately and unequivocally demand that the ICC stand down” and “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination.”
The tools would include sanctions against individual jurists and their families as well as confiscation of property. Indeed, few Americans know that the United States has exercised its veto 50 times in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel from critical resolutions mostly relating to the Palestinians, so the intervention with the courts to subvert the course The Algerian resolution was in response to an Israeli attack on a tent city refugee encampment near Rafah which ignited a huge fire and killed 45 homeless Gazans, including many women and children. According to one news report, “Parents were burned alive in their tents while children screamed for help.” The pictures of the carnage, screened worldwide, were horrific, and they have united most of the UN General Assembly members as well as an overwhelming majority of the Security Council to demand an end to the fighting.
The United States, however, responded in late May that the resolution “is not going to be helpful,” an almost certain indication that it will again exercise its veto to protect what Israel is doing. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood added that “another resolution is not necessarily going to change anything on the ground,” while a spokesman in a follow-up State Department press briefing declared “It is imbalanced and it fails to note a simple fact which is that Hamas is to blame for this conflict.” One might also note that it does not blame Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians over the past 75 years, but the State Department is not interested in that distinction. The United States and Israel can ignore the various resolutions floating around the UN or they can begin to wake up and smell the roses. The tide is running very strongly against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and the United States is now being seen nearly everywhere as a full-time accomplice to the genocide that is undoubtedly and deliberately taking place.
One senior Israeli government official is now predicting that the war will continue until the end of the year, another seven months, success apparently being measured by arriving at a point when all or nearly all Palestinians will be either killed or deported. When it becomes clear that is the objective, where will the “red line” be and what will you do, President Joe Biden?
By: Ally Mathews
Ask Ally Mathews a question now