[ad_1]
US National Security Advisor John Bolton is back. He recently launched a furious blame at the International Criminal Court (ICC): "We will let the ICC die alone. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead for us. "
Is this another example of US President Donald Trump withdrawing the United States from the international community? Is this yet another harbinger of the end of the "rules-based" international order after 1945?
This is because "the rules-based international order" has never been what it seemed to be. Rather than a de facto benign agreement on problem solving through discussion rather than armed conflict, it represents an exclusive club that ensures the perpetual domination of some societies over others.
Ask the Palestinians.
One of the reasons for Bolton's tirade is that the US administration wants to prevent the ICC from responding to Palestinian demands to investigate the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Indeed, the Trump administration has proven in recent months that it is more than willing to try to punish Palestinians for daring to challenge Israeli rule, even if this "challenge" has taken the mildest forms .
Read more:
Gaza fire kites and balloon bombs ignite tensions
According to David Rothkopf, a prominent commentator: "It is as if the US State Department had handed over all of its Middle East policy to the Prime Minister of Israel."
Bolton, as if to prove this point, said in his speech:
The United States will always be with our friend and ally, Israel. And today, the State Department will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office here in Washington, reflecting Congressional concerns over Palestinian attempts to investigate Israel.
Not surprising
At the risk of using what has become a cliché during Trump's presidency: It's shocking, yes, but not really surprising.
Trump apparently seeks to destroy the seemingly civilized way of conducting international politics since the end of the Second World War – the so-called rule-based international order.
As Kori Schake explained in the New York Times:
At the beginning of the Second World War, the United States established a set of global norms that consolidated their position on a rules-based international system … building institutions and behaviors legitimizing American power.
Trump, according to this argument, can not accept or understand this, and happily commits himself to destroy it from within.
"This aggressive disregard for the interests of like-minded countries, indifference to democracy and human rights, and the culture of dictators is the new world Trump creates," says Schake.
However, the notion of a broad and benign world order led by the United States makes less sense from the point of view of those excluded by the system.
Indeed, for Palestinians, the harassment of the Trump administration may be more humiliating than previous presidencies, but in terms of substance, the difference is marginal.
The United States has always protected Israel's ability to dominate Palestinian land and Palestinians live with impunity; the United States has always been happy to use its power to support his friend under the Democratic and Republican Presidents.
The threat of James Baker
A useful example comes from the famous US Secretary of State James Baker, who in 1989 threatened to buy back the World Health Organization if Palestine were to join:
The United States vigorously opposes the PLO's admission to the World Health Organization or any other UN agency … To emphasize our concern, I will recommend to the United States that President that the United States does not pay any voluntary or assessed contribution. to any international organization that changes the current status of the PLO as an observer organization.
Like Bolton's attack on the ICC, it would punish a valuable and obviously benevolent partner in the "rules-based international order" simply to ensure that Palestine is kept out of the way.
Under the successive presidents since George H. W. Bush, the United States has promoted or allowed a form of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, but they have always taken place outside the framework of international law.
(AP Photo / Ron Edmonds)
Twenty-five years ago, PLO leader Yasser Arafat shook hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn. The United States has hardly progressed since then.
Americans do not care much about human rights, refugee rights or United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Israel-Palestine.
(AP Photo / Doug Mills, File)
Instead, the United States used its veto power some 43 times to protect Israel from the overwhelming will of the international community and withdrew and financed international bodies such as UNESCO and the United Nations Human Rights Council. man.
Why?
It's not as if the Palestinians had not cooperated. Since the end of the Second World War, the Palestinian Authority – the non-sovereign entity that ruled parts of the West Bank – has yielded to the will of the international community to an almost insignificant degree.
He reduced violence against Israel and pursued security sector reform led by the United States. At the same time, steps have been taken in bilateral negotiations and through the United Nations to adhere to "rule-based order". All this in pursuit of the so-called two-state solution – a partition plan in which Palestinians at the very least, accept the loss of 78% of their historic territory.
(AP Photo / Nasser Nasser)
But none of this was enough for President George W. Bush, who promoted a "road map" that subordinated the Palestinian state to a "performance analysis" that would be judged exclusively by the occupier. That was not enough for President Barack Obama, who said at a hearing in Cairo in 2009 that "the situation of the Palestinian people is intolerable," but each time opposed a state. Palestinian.
In this context, we can see that Trump's White House may be more openly aggressive in its language and its willingness to be vindictive towards Palestine and the Palestinians, but in essence, it is not very different from previous administrations.
The pernicious exclusion of Palestine from "rule-based order" is a US priority for any president, be it blue, red … or orange.
Read more:
Donald Trump's orange face may be funny, but this tanning historian says he's hiding something deeper
