International Law And Neo-Colonialism

Many international lawyers and World Federalists see "international law" -- multinational treaties, the U.N. Charter and U.N. resolutions (at least those by the Security Council) -- as steps towards the rule of law at the global level and as positive achievements since the anarchic world of World War II.

However, if law represents a corpus of norms that are either automatically respected and obeyed or for which there are real enforcement agencies that operate for the safety and welfare of the people and penalties for violators, then it is often difficult to perceive the "law" aspect of "international law."
Reflecting the absence of automatic enforcement, on 27 January at the World Affairs Council of Northern California a retired American diplomat opined that "international law" might better be called "international conventions."

One need not be a skeptic or cynic to note that during the two years of George W. Bush's Administration the status of international law has been eviscerated, as one multilateral treaty after another has been unilaterally broken, set aside, or ignored.

Brrr... The Domestic Cold War Against International Law?
After the Great War of 1914-18 U.S. Senator Styles Bridges of New Hampshire was the leading protagonist among isolationists in defense of U.S. sovereignty. Such opposition was a leading factor in the failure within less than two decades of the principal institution of international law at that time -- the League of Nations.

After World War II another Senator, John Bricker of Ohio, led the charge against the U.S.'s pooling its sovereignty through the United Nations and related agencies. In 1952 he proposed that a treaty would become comparable in effect to internal U.S. law only with the passage of appropriate legislation by both houses of Congress; i.e., treaties ratified only by the Senate would not be self-executing. While not formally voted into law, the "Bricker Amendment" has become customary law even though it violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, that declares that treaties in which the U.S. is a party are part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

A generation later another Senator, unilateralist Dixiecrat Jesse Helms of North Carolina, burst onto the scene. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and at other times Ranking Minority Member) he exercised an effective veto over efforts of the President in much of the realm of U.S. foreign policy. Recall his threat that the International Criminal Court treaty would be approved "over my dead body."

Tsar for Proliferation and International Insecurity
During John Bolton's confirmation hearings in 2001, Helms annointed his clone as "the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon." Now as Under Secretary of State for Disarmament Affairs and International Security Bolton exercises extraordinary control in the Department of State. During the administration of Bush-I, as Assistant Secretary for International Organizational Affairs Bolton had shown his contempt for the U.N. For over three years he held up the W.F.A.-supported U.S. Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations sponsored by Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, before it could start operations in 1992. In July 2001, as the new Under Secretary, who is also a member of the National Rifle Association (which is promoting gun proliferation in the international field), Bolton endeavored to derail the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

Progenitors of the American Empire
Bolton, formerly on the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is only one of the phalanx of hardliners who have secured important policy positions within the Bush Administration and who are promoting a strategy of America ueber Alles. These include JINSAns Richard Perle (now Chair of the Defense Policy Board), Douglas Feith (Under Secretary for Policy in the Defense Department) and Michael Ledeen (Oliver North's Iran/Contra liaison with the Israelis), as well as Frank Gaffney, who converted the Committee on the Present Danger into the Center for Security Policy. JINSA and C.S.P., with the backing of many in the Zionist Organization of America and the military-industrial complex, call for Israeli takeover of all of Palestine and promote "total war" -- not just war with Iraq, but ultimately "regime change" also for the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In 1996 Perle, Feith & Co. produced a strategy paper for Likud Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu, and in February 2003 Bolton, meeting with Bibi and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, reportedly promised that after war with Iraq, the U.S. would deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

The World Can Become a Better Place to Live
So long as hardliners pursue an American imperium which -- in addition to controlling land, sea, and air, -- would also control space, the fate of the United Nations and international law will remain precarious. But should we be satisfied with maintaining the status quo?

Isn't it time that Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, and other forward-thinking American citizens of the world get rid of the latter-day unilateralists and neo-colonialists? Isn’t it time to emulate the Virginian statesmen of the 1780’s (Washington, Madison, and Jefferson), who worked not for a Virginian Superstate but to join with neighboring states in a federal union, which could make real laws for the benefit of all their people? Isn’t it time that all forward-looking citizens of the world join together and promote a democratic, federal United Nations able to provide peace with justice through enforceable world law? --- By John O. Sutter

For more details, see:
“A Dangerous Appointment: Profile of Douglas Feith,
Undersecretary of Defense under Bush” by James J. Zogby in Middle-East-Online, 18 April 2001;
“An NRA foreign policy?” by Dennis Jett in Chrisian Science Monitor, 18 July 2001;
“The Men from JINSA and CSP” by Jason Vest in The Nation, 2 Sept. 2002;
“John Bolton in Jerusalem: The New Age of Disarmament Wars” by Ian Williams in Foreign Policy in Focus, 20 Feb. 2003.