Published:  12:25 AM, 16 September 2019

You must follow international law unless you are America


Aaron McGruder has aptly said, "The American people have no control over what the military does.We have no say in American foreign policy." If we want to criticize the United States foreign policy, it encompasses a wide range of opinions and views on failures and shortcomings of United States policies and actions.

There is a partly-held sense in America which views America isdifferent from other nations and therefore, cannot be judged by the same standards as other countries; this belief is sometimes termed American exceptionalism and can be traced to the so-called Manifest destiny, apolicy of imperialism rationalized as inevitable as if granted by God.

American exceptionalism has widespread implications and transcribes into disregard to the international norms, rules and laws in U.S. foreign policy. For example, the U.S. refused to ratify a number of important international treaties, such as, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and American Convention on Human Rights; did not join the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention; and routinely conducts drone attacks and cruise missile strikes around the globe.

American exceptionalism is sometimes linked with hypocrisy; for example, the U.S. keeps a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons while urging other nations not to get them, and justifies that it can make an exception to a policy of non-proliferation.

The U.S. doesn't follow international laws. For example, some critics assert the U.S. led invasion of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many more countries was not a proper response to an imminent threat, but an act of aggression which violated international laws.

For example, Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars-Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Critics point out that the United Nations Charter, ratified by the U.S., prohibits members from using force against fellow members except against imminent attack or pursuant to an explicit Security Council authorization. But in fact, all these are fabricated stories by American administration to dictate other sovereign and independent nations of the world and to intrude in other people's affairs or business; interfere unwantedly to show its supremacy self-importantly.

A professor of international law asserted there was no authorization from the UN Security Council which made the invasion a crime against the peace. However, U.S. defenders with full force argue there was such an authorization according to UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

The U.S. has also supported Kosovo's independence even though it is strictly written in UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that Kosovo cannot be independent and it is stated as a Serbian province. However, the International Court of Justice ruled the declaration of independence was legal because the Security Council Resolution didn't specify the final status of Kosovo. The U.S. has actively supported and pressured other countries to recognize Kosovo's independence.

Some political scientists maintained that setting economic interdependence as a foreign policy goal may have exposed the United States to manipulation. As a result, the U.S. trading partners gained an ability to influence the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process by manipulating, for example, the currency exchange rate, or restricting the flow of goods and raw materials. In addition, more than 40% of the U.S. foreign debt is currently owned by the big institutional investors from overseas, who continue to accumulate the Treasury bonds.

There was U.S. intelligence involvement with German and Japanese war criminals after World War II and Ratlines (World War II aftermath).

There has been sharp criticism about the U.S. response to the Holocaust: That it failed to admit Jews fleeing persecution from Europe at the beginning of World War II, and that it did not act decisively enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust.

By 1942, after newspapers began to report details of the Holocaust, articles were extremely short and were buried deep in the newspaper. These reports were either denied or unconfirmed by the United States government. When it did receive irrefutable evidence that the reports were true (and photographs of mass graves and murder in Birkenau camp in 1943, with victims moving into the gas chambers), U.S. officials suppressed the information and classified it as secret. It is possible lives of European Jews could have been saved.

One report suggests that news source Al-jazeera routinely paints the U.S. as evil throughout the Middle East. Other critics have faulted the U.S. public relations effort. As a result of faulty policy and lackluster public relations, the U.S. has a severe image problem in the Middle East and all-over the world, according to Anthony Cordesman.

Analyst Jessica Tuchman Mathews writes that it appears too much of the Arab world that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, regardless of the accuracy of that motive. In a 2007 poll by BBC News asking which countries are seen as having a "negative influence in the world," the survey found that Israel, Iran, United States and North Korea had the most negative influence, while nations such as Canada, Japan and those in the European Union had the most positive influence. The U.S. has been accused by some U.N. officials of condoning actions by Israel against Palestinians.

One estimate is that the second Iraq War along with the so-called War on Terror cost US$551 billion, or US$597 billion in 2009 dollars. Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich has criticized American profligacy and squandering its wealth.

Critic Robert McMahon thinks Congress has been excluded from foreign policy decision making, and that this is detrimental. Other writers suggest a need for greater Congressional participation. Jim Webb, former Democratic senator from Virginia and former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, believes that Congress has an ever-decreasing role in U.S. foreign policy making.

September 11, 2001 precipitated this change, where "powers quickly shifted quickly to the Presidency as the call went up for centralized decision making in a traumatized nation where, quick, decisive action was considered necessary.It was considered politically dangerous and even unpatriotic to question this shift, lest one be accused of impeding national safety during a time of war."

 Since that time, Webb thinks Congress has become largely irrelevant in shaping and executing of U.S. foreign policy. He cites the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, and the 2011 military intervention in Libya as examples of growing legislative irrelevance. Regarding the SFA, Congress was not consulted in any meaningful way. Once the document was finalized, Congress was not given the opportunity to debate the merits of the agreement, which was specifically designed to shape the structure of Americans long-term relations in Iraq.

Congress did not debate or vote on this agreement, which set U.S. policy toward an unstable regime in an unstable region of the world.

 "It is difficult to understand how any international agreement negotiated, signed, and authored only by American executive branch of government can be construed as legally binding in America's constitutional system," Webb argues.

Finally, he identifies the U.S. intervention in Libya as a troubling historical precedent."The issue in play in Libya was not simply whether the president should ask Congress for a declaration of war. Nor was it wholly about whether Obama violated the edicts of the War Powers Act, which in this writer's view he clearly did.

The issue that remains to be resolved is whether a president can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards of a so-called vital national interest worth of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of taxpayer money. When the military campaign lasted months, President Barack Obama did not seek approval of Congress to continue military activity.

America's former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold commented that, "There's a broad naïveté in the political class about America's obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve".

Some commentators have thought the United States became arrogant, particularly after its victory in World War II. Critics such as Andrew Bacevich call on America to have a foreign policy "rooted in humility and realism." Foreign policy experts such as Zbigniew Brzezinski counsel a policy of self-restraint and not pressing every advantage, and listening to other nations. A government official called the U.S. policy in Iraq "arrogant and stupid," according to one report.

Critics point to a list of countries or regions where continuing foreign policy problems continue to present problems. These areas include South America, including Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Brazil. There are difficulties with Central American nations, such as, Honduras. Iraq has continuing troubles.

Iran, as well, presents problems with nuclear proliferation. Policy towards Russia remains uncertain. China also presents a challenge.

There are difficulties in other regions too. In addition, there are problems not confined to particular regions, but regarding new technologies. Cyberspace is a constantly changing technological area with foreign policy repercussions.

John Bolton, USA's National Security Advisor and a war-monger have now gone away from the Trump government. Trump was to restrain this man long time ago who stood only a fraction to the left of Genghis Khan.

A genuine, true-blue, stars-and-stripe, hard-nosed, Johnny-get-your-gun, right-wing hoodlum, and then look no further. But Donald Trump is definitely is a Bolton's kind of guy. Columnist Richard Cohen has said, "Trump is unloved in his own house. A figure of ridicule, a theatrical creation, he is almost sympathetic.

He was told by the greedy and the outright stupid that he would make a swell president. The Liar's Paradox has spun out of control, with liars lying to a liar who believed the lie. What would that be called? Fox News, I think."

Concisely, American foreign policy has been continuing self-importantly to disregard international norms since 1929, for about nine decades, everywhere across the world.

The writer, a senior citizen,
writes on politics, political and human-centered figures, current and international affairs.

Leave Your Comments



Latest News


More From OP-ED

Go to Home Page »

Site Index The Asian Age