You guys probably almost all hate the U.N./international law and want Gaza leveled, but this is food for thought about how hypocritical the U.S. is when it comes to the phony "rules-based" order. It's why I laugh when SFP sky screams that Russia upset the international order for cleaning house in Ukraine. One critical aspect of all this is I think being a vassal state for Israel is damaging our credibility with the rest of the world. There is a trade angle at the end I added, but don't really have an opinion about.

quote:
Ted Snider asks:

Is America a Rogue Superpower?

“Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world.

Snider refers to the recent UN Security Council resolution 2728 which "demands" a ceasefire in Gaza and "demands" a release of hostages and "demands" the unhindered supply of food and other items to Gaza.

The U.S. has claimed, falsely, that the resolution is not binding.

As Snider writes:

On March 25, the U.S. went one step further and took a step toward becoming a rogue state who has supplanted international law with its rules-based order. International law is grounded in the charter system and the United Nations and is universally applicable. The rules-based order is composed of unwritten laws whose source, consent, and legitimacy are unknown. To the global majority, those unwritten laws have the appearance of being invoked when they benefit the U.S. and its partners and not being invoked when they don’t.

On March 25, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.” The resolution was able to pass because the U.S. stood aside and let the other fourteen Security Council members pass it by abstaining instead of vetoing.

But in her explanation of the American abstention after the resolution passed, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield “surprisingly” said that “we fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution.”

Her claim that the Security Council resolution was nonbinding was not an off script, impromptu comment. It is the strategy of a country that enforces, not international law, but the U.S. led rules-based order.

Arnaud Bertrand has added a similar thought:

Since the beginning, it's been obvious that Gaza was in many ways a fight between International Law and the US's "rules-based order".

This whole episode around the UN resolution is a perfect illustration of this. There is no debate amongst international law scholars that resolutions by the UN Security Council that "demand" certain actions are binding (good explanation by a legal scholar here). In fact resolutions by the council ARE international law, article 25 of the UN Charter clearly states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

Yet the US now argues that the "rule" is in fact different: "It's a non-binding resolution, so there's no impact at all on Israel".

Where is this rule written, that somehow when the UNSC "demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire", it's non-binding and "there's no impact at all" on the warring party?

Nowhere, that's the beauty of the rules-based order: the rules are made-up in the moment to fit the interests of the U.S. and its henchmen, depending on the circumstances.

The big issue here is that the whole world, literally, disagrees with the U.S. claims.

quote:
The U.S. is now using protectionism, subsidies and tariffs, which are clearly illegal under WTO rules it had previously agreed to. But as it has managed, without having any serious argument, to destroy the WTO's court their is no longer a direct way it can get penalized for it.

LINK