By Tom Fowdy
The Trump administration has decided to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) over its treatment of Israel.
This should not surprise anyone; it is a hallmark of the White House's Unilateralist foreign policy and was undertaken by Mike Pompeo in the past. While advocates of Palestine cheered as the Biden administration lost the support of Muslim voters and left-wingers owing to his unconditional support of Israel, I had been pointing out for a long time that a Republican administration would be even more fanatically in favor of Benjamin Netanyahu and give him a free rein to do anything.
Of course, the conflict is over; therefore, immediate liability for it is out of Trump's hands. However, that does not mean, as before, there would be any interest in accountability; quite the opposite. The United States is firm and unwavering in its unconditional support of a man indicted on war crimes, with the message being sent out in very clear terms that the US will oppose any attempts by the ICC to investigate it or its allies. In other words, international law and accountability do not apply to itself or Israel.
What are the ramifications of this? The answer is that it is another assault on the international rules-based "order" the US ironically once created but now no longer likes, as it no longer mirrors its preferences. Hence, Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organisation and the Paris Climate Accords and launched an investigation into its ties with the United Nations. These, again, are all hallmarks of his unilateralist foreign policy. Still, it can be counterargued that while Biden's foreign policy paid more superficial lip service to these concepts and ideas, it ultimately was little different in practice.
Beyond the specifics of the administration itself, however, this is the structural reality of the international environment we now live in. The world is in a multipolar climate with numerous competing powers, and it looks more akin to a pre-1914 world than a Cold War one. While the United States and the Soviet Union held an equilibrium in military force that saw them compete within institutions with each other, and thus a shared interest in a bottom line global stability, here we have an increasingly frayed global environment whereby an insecure US is psychologically reeling from its diminished position and thus is happy to dismantle rather than uphold the order.
In such a scenario, "might make right" and the anarchic nature of international society, as underlined by realist theory, becomes most apparent, where only the power of states truly matters in the determination of subjective national interests, and therefore an inability of institutions to uphold the law. Hence, we effectively face a "new league of nations" scenario, whereby the designated international bodies dedicated to upholding the law become paralyzed. The US has blocked the World Trade Organisation's ability to resolve tariff disputes in the name of protectionism, the International Criminal Court has been sanctioned and reminded its jurisdiction is only "selective", whereas the UN is imply paralysed by the veto feature in the security council.
The double-edged sword of this approach is that people will wake up to the fact that there is no true international justice. Why must Russia be punished for its war in Ukraine, but Israel is not for its actions in the Palestinian territories? Why can the US selectively accuse some countries of genocide but ignore others? While things have always been this way, the disintegration of the international order makes it more apparent than ever before. We live in dangerous times, and Trump is not about multilateral engagement. His critical, of course, surely hopes it undermines the credibility of the US, a country that proclaims itself as the advocate of international order, justice, and righteousness. Trump, however, is at least open enough to say what's really all about American interests, and that's fine for most of his supporters.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Trump's 'US first' Doctrine over Latin America
Opinion | A more pragmatic Trump, or speaking too soon
Opinion | The first days of Trump's foreign policy
Opinion | The New Conservative era
Comment