John Chuckman
WHY CAN’T THE UNITED STATES JUST LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE?
Nothing is more important as a founding principle for society than adherence to the rule of law.
Any other principles a society may profess, even big ones such as democratic or human rights, depend entirely for their meaningfulness upon rule of law. As does so humble but desirable a concept as the right to enjoy your own home.
Rights have no reality outside the rule of law. Unless rights are enforceable, they are advertising slogans or public relations.
And that summarizes what is so wrong with America’s practices and policies in the world. They violate the rule of law. Over and over again. None of the claims typically made by the United States against various governments it has targeted as opponents are supported by rule of law.
By the way, it is precisely the same for Israel, which, in truth, is a de facto American colony in the Middle East, one which enjoys a rather unique relationship with its mother country.
Israel, as demonstrated countless times, has little regard for rule of law. It may respect its own laws, as applied to a subset of the people living under its rule, but that has nothing to do with respect for the rule of law.
Its colonial status is confirmed by its always seeking American validation of its acts, whether occupying Golan or East Jerusalem, and then using that validation as a wedge against everyone else. We find the same even for defining who is a terrorist and therefore subject to American restrictions and sanctions. Israel, for example, sought validation for its views of Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorists, which, just going by facts and ignoring the rhetoric, they clearly are not. Israel’s self-proclaimed founding was validated by an American President (Truman) desperate for re-election and being intensely lobbied.
Colonial status is confirmed by the flood of subsidies Israel receives from America, both government and private subsidies, which keep its economy buoyed. And the subsidies go far beyond just large annual payments, to many specialized arrangements, such as a plum free-trade agreement, ready access to all of Washington’s highest officials, sharing secret intelligence few others share, access to new private and government technologies, receipt of very large and favorable American government contracts, American pressure applied to other states and organizations, such as NATO or the EU, for still other special arrangements, and re-enforcement of Israel’s prejudices against international organizations such as UNESCO, or indeed, the UN in general.
There’s even more. This is not a normal relationship between two states. And in its totality, there are priceless advantages no one else enjoys.
Now, just because the United States accuses someone of something nasty-sounding – whether it’s stealing an election or causing poverty or influencing an American election or any of dozens of other accusations - gives it no right, under international law, to sanction or blockade, and most certainly, not to sabotage or invade. Yet these are American practices.
Not only are accusations not proof, but many of the accusations, even if true, are not subject to the jurisdiction of anyone outside the country in question. Stealing an election? Since when is that, anywhere, a legal matter going across international borders? And a good thing it’s not, or the United States would have had a very great deal of trouble over the years. Playing games with elections, its own apart from what it inflicts on others, is a frequent American pastime.
Of course, again on the theme of respect for rule of law, the United States simply excludes itself from the jurisdiction of international courts. So, even in the case of legitimate cross-border charges, such as atrocities committed by its soldiers in one of its many wars, it arbitrarily excuses itself from judgment, recently even throwing out threats at those who might dare pass judgment.
It is the principle of exceptionalism which characterizes a great deal of what America does in the world. Now, that is not a principle that can be logically defended, let alone legally defended. It's just an assumed privilege, much like the privileges of great dukes or lords of the misty past. If you are powerful, you can assume privileges with no one to challenge you. If you thought the concept was something only from antique history, one having no application to the modern world, think again.
Is that the kind of world most of us want to see? Where behaviors from 16th or 17th century English or French lords dominate the globe? But that is what is being established, all dressed-up as something worthy in pretentious and dishonest words.
Acts such as sanctions, blockades, or invasions, when unilaterally imposed, are completely outside the rule of law. They are acts of aggression, yet the United States practices them with eager relish, always assuming a verbal tone resembling a properly-constituted judge passing sentence. It manages to sound hypocritical and sanctimonious at the same time.
