Click to see the full-size image
Written by Eric Zuesse
On November 1st, Christopher Black, who is one of the world’s leading international lawyers, headlined “The Collapse of International Law” and made his case that (and how) it was destroyed by the increasing hypocrisy that exists throughout The West and that is actually being applied by The West (though pervasively being ignored in The West — but not ignored elsewhere, much noticed there).
The blatancy of that lie by The West has now become so clear that there is public discussion in some countries regarding whether the United Nations itself has run its course, and that nations which don’t agree with its decisions should simply resign their membership in it. (A Czech official had argued that because only 13 other nations had voted in favor of Israel on a certain matter, Czechia — and maybe all U.S. allies — ought to leave the U.N.) The case that Black lays out is incontestably true, and he analogizes today’s U.N. to the post-WW-I League of Nations, which similarly had been produced by victor’s ‘justice’ in the wake of a World War which degenerated into yet more wars between contending empires such as had caused WW I, and then, again, it caused WW II, which was ‘justified’, in both instances (I and II), as being something more than a reshuffling between empires, which is what the post-WW-II international order and its United Nations — like the earlier League of Nations — turned out actually to have been (treating powerful aggressors as-if they weren’t aggressors at all).
This is not at all to deny the fact that the German Government’s share in the guilt for WW II was far higher than was the case in WW I, nor is it to say that the U.N. that was supposed to prevent there being any future World War was designed for that purpose as poorly as had been the League of Nations that likewise was supposed to prevent there being any future Word War. And, now, the U.N. could go the way of the League of Nations.
In fact, though the intensely anti-imperialist FDR had invented, initially conceived, and even named, the United Nations in August 1941, even prior to America’s entrance into WW II, and he did so on the conviction that WW I had been caused by contending imperialisms and so imperialism itself must terminate and become replaced by a global federal republic of all nations in order to prevent a WW III, which global democracy of nations he then worked on designing the U.N. to be, he died on 12 April 1945, just weeks before the 25 April 1945 till 26 June 1945 global San Francisco Conference that was to start the U.N. by drafting its constitution or “Charter.” FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, became the organization’s chief designer, but many features in it were already unstoppable because of FDR’s work on it; and, so, the U.N. that exists today operates under a Charter that is a combination of the anti-imperialist FDR and the pro-U.S.-imperialist Truman, who, on 5 January 1946, wrote to his right-hand man, James Byrnes, “At San Francisco no agreements or compromises were ever agreed to without my approval.” Today’s U.N. was Truman’s creation, more than anyone else’s: Truman’s was the guiding hand that wrote all of it. It’s not 100% his; he compromised where he had to, but he was the document’s ultimate editor. Everything that’s in it was acceptable to him. The Conference’s attendees had far less power over the final document than he did. Everything that’s in it had received his “approval.”
And, then, during the Potsdam (Germany) Conference, which was to be the new President’s introduction to other world leaders, he became convinced mainly by his hero, the pro-U.S.-imperialist General Dwight Eisenhower, but also by the pro-English-imperialist of specifically the Rhodesist type, Winston Churchill, that if the United States would not come to rule over the entire world, then the Soviet Union would, and so Truman finally decided, on 25 July 1945, that this was the case, and that the U.S. must therefore win control over the entire planet. It meant that FDR’s plan, for his U.N. to be designed to be the global democratic federal republic of all nations, and to be the source and the power to produce and to enforce all international laws and no national laws — that there would be no authority or power for the U.N. over domestic or “national” (i.e., intra-national) laws — never was able to come to fruition. (On 25 July 1945, Truman not only decided that a U.S.-v.-U.S.S.R. war must follow after the Allies’ anti-fascist war, but he demanded from Stalin that America must have a say-so in what domestic laws would be in the countries that the Soviet Union had conquered from Nazi German control; and, Stalin, of course, said no to that.) (If course, likewise, if Stalin had demanded that the countries which America had conquered from Hiter become Marxist, then Truman would have said no to that, but Truman was so small-minded that he never thought of this crucial fact. This was typica of him).
The ONLY influence that (according to FDR’s plan) the U.N. would have regarding NATIONAL laws would be the international community’s free-speech right to comment about those, but nothing mandatory — ONLY advisory, regarding intra-national matters. Truman’s U.N. is what we instead have; and, as Black’s recent commentary makes clear, it’s dying, if not already (in fact) dead. The U.S. and its allies have long been violating international laws; and, as Black points out, always did it with absolute impunity. So: in what sense can this even possibly be international justice, or even international law? Or any kind of international democracy of nations? It’s none of that.
This explains (as Black makes clear) not only Israel’s actions regarding the Palestinians; but, also, America’s actions regarding Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China, Libya, Syria, and others. Regime-change here there and everywhere — except in the U.S. empire itself. However, because Western media suppress, if not totally block, such information (the illegality of those U.S. actions: coups, invasions, and illegal sanctions) (and they even penalize publishers, such as Julian Assange, that report, instead of hide, this illegality), the U.S. and its allies are able to get away with calling themselves “democracy” (which is clearly a lie). Censorship is the handmaiden to any dictatorship, and the killer of any democracy.
If there doesn’t exist a democratic federal republic of all nations regarding international laws and their adjudication and enforcement, then any nation’s being any sort of democracy (other than a rhetorical one) is and remains impossible. Where international dictatorship (i.e., empire) exists (and this is the system that Truman imposed and which has grown since), then democracy isn’t even possible. FDR was working on a solution to that problem, but it got terminated on 25 July 1945 by Truman.
Subsequently, that Trumanism became called “neoconservatism,” and it is pervasive on both sides of the aisle in Congress, but it’s really a support for the U.S. Government to win control over the entire world. FDR had the opposite aim: to outlaw ANY empire.
What Christopher Black is denouncing is Trumanism=neoconservatism=Rhodesism.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
great write up! the other side of this is the abandonment of neoliberal economic standards. the west has undermined free market capitalism and the fundamental notion of the west as a fair & open society by weaponizing the reserve status of the petrodollar, seizing hundreds of billions in private property, and blockading & sanctioning any countries deemed belligerent.
the un is a global banker knick-knack. a western institution as decadent as war itself. one of the many tools like the icc, the who, the imf, and the central banks that the global banking elite employ to imprison the world. anyone playing by its rules at this point is obviously in on the divine comedy. it’s beyond cynical to think otherwise
free market capitalism? what about bigfoot and the loch ness monster? capitalism, by its very nature and throughout its history, is the antithesis of a “free market”. it cannot exist without a working class whose surplus productivity is converted into economic and political power by a speculating ownership class. who could have possibly perceived “the west” (whatever that is) as a fair and open society?
yes today capitalism warped into neonfeudal / neoncommunism as per marxist doctrine. marx increasingly became preoccupied with an attempt to understand the contemporary capitalist mode of production, as driven by a remorseless pursuit of profit, whose origins are found in the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat.
but the separation lines of such framework were to blur yet remain distinguishable. now what we have is complete obliteration of the neoliberal economic framework which is part of the overarching international law framework itself. and this has far reaching implications for the world and society itself
that said, one can argue that the neoliberal as well as the international “rules based order” born alongside the un after ww2 — was employed as a timely facilitation for world dominance. the premise of free markets and international law just happened to be a useful ploy to sell to the world when it never truly existed in the first place.
and now that the framework no longer benefits the west (due to china outplaying them) — they need to discard the whole system itself — in order to preserve its dominance / hegemony.
of course this effort is like trying to bend the laws of nature — or trying to prevent the sun from rising in the east and setting in the west.
the neoliberal economic framework has absolutely not been obliterated. it was always a manifestation of “free trade” power imbalances, and remains so. the principle tenet was eliminating any democratic intervention in capitalist exploitation by the state, and that is rolling along nicely, continuing to enrich the international speculating class.
today? are you trying to equate feudalism with communism? and what was capitalism prior to this “warping” to which you refer?
neo feudalism and neo communism are the same thing. except neo feudalism defines the banking sector and it’s power dynamics as the owners of the ownership class itself. the internet law framework has seen gradual erosion. the erosion being stronger and more pronounced since 9-11 and the onset of “global war on terror”
this erosion of international law has been incremental alongside the erosion of the neoliberal standards which form part of the same internet law framework. e.g. seizing private property due to political reasons is against international law. thus the system is being dismantled completely and utterly.
international* not internet
neoliberal? i don’t think that word means what you think it means. literally everything is being converted to “private property”. neoliberalism always entailed the accumulation of economic and thus political power in private hands, and that is exactly what is happening, across the globe, although it is mitigated to some degree by state control in china.
no, maybe you don’t know what it means. here’s the britannica definition for you:
“neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics.”
“…in particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention…”
source: https://www.britannica com/money/topic/neoliberalism
there is no such thing as “free market competition”. so that’s not much of a definition. neoliberalism is simply the removal of the constraints of democracitic influence on the accumlation of economic power by a speculating ownership class.
you can check multiple sources for ‘neoliberalism’ it’s the same definition everywhere and still used in that context among learned people. but hey — you are allowed to have your own opinions. i’m nit going to continue this back and forth if we can’t even agree on an officially defined concept with its widely accepted terminology. have a nice rest of your weekend
i don’t have to check “multiple sources”. i gave a succinct definition. freel free to explain which element in my description is inaccurate, or provide elements that are missing. by all means, explain what an “officialy defined concept” is. let ‘er rip when ready!
that is the correct definition of ‘neoliberalism’ and it is true that the world has seen a gradual decline of international adherence to law & order and the neoliberal global financial model of economics which championed free markets and minimal state intervention. whether you believe “free markets” even existed or whether you believe in the definition os said system is your opinion — and not a factually based one at that.
just yesterday the indian foreign minister subrahmanyam jaishankar said regarding the novel widespread use of sanctions: “it’s not that they go to the united nations to seek legitimacy; they do it when they think their interests are at stake. many parts of the world do not accept the concept of sanctions in the same way. it is done as if the whole world agreed on sanctions. it’s not really like that.”
as it was mentioned: the wide spread use of sanctions against russia, iran, and china — and the seizing of private property from individuals without any sort of criminal trial is 100% illegal, unprecedented, and against the “neoliberal” global model of economic from the past 70 years. not to mention clandestine economic warfare tactics like currency manipulation. this is a new lawless dark age we have entered.
there is an overarching totalitarian effort from the top down. there’s been a huge departure from democracy norms and international law everywhere and at every level. just look at the new anti democratic laws limiting or abolishing free speech being enacted all over europe and the uk. america has also seen a decline in personal freedoms and undermining of freedom of speech. it’s all a concerted effort reaching a crescendo against autonomy & freedom
oh doodles. here you go trying to sound smart again. i already told you, you are at your best when you just listen and learn. i hate it when they try to sound smart and have no clue
what’s more pathetic than a jewish supremacist hasbarat? i don’t know either.
indeed, i am supreme. and you will stand down or ill have you arrested for hate crimes; religious persecution; antisemitism; maybe even holocaust denial? you half wits are the new ni66ers. welcome to the animal farm, pig.
😂😂 you belong in an asylum
gosh doodles, you’re worried about trying to sic some kind of authorities on me for hate crimes while calling me a pig? silly ol’ jewish supremacist, doodles! what is holocaust denial, anyhow?
insanity rules the mind of incestual behaviors in my studies of bloodletting jews and the tribes of antiquities all across the globe.
i see you’re still inside spider, come out before spider make excrements of you!
“the very essence of democracy is advertising”. chekov…if it was possible in usa the world would see ww3—their peasants are crude stupid immoral
roosevelt was anti-imperialist? that’s why he fought a war to secure a us pacific empire and a western european imperial realm? who knew?
how about justice, intelligence and media knocking out of race any unwanted presidential candidate.. not even talking about campain “donnation”