Under the Flag of Patriotism, Trump Leads the World Toward the ‘Law of the Jungle’
Does the largest democracy in the world still have any respect for international law?
Qassem Soleimani was not exactly what we could call an angel of peace. Just ask the populations of Yemen, Syria or Iraq, many of whom are relieved by his death. The government of Iran is, in reality, an element of extreme instability and represses its own population in the name of power.
But the assassination on foreign soil by a drone piloted from hundreds of kilometers away raised another question among foreign governments: Does the largest democracy in the world still have any respect for international law?
Beyond the consequences that tension between Iran and the U.S. could bring from now on, in international circles, the conclusion is that the act that inaugurated the new decade could serve as a cornerstone for the consolidation of the law of the jungle on the international scene. And the consequences could be dramatic for populations in different parts of the world.
Without showing evidence, without advising allies, violating the sovereignty of another nation and even celebrating this on social media with patriotic symbols, the American government knows it will be able to carry out an attack with impunity. And it is exactly this aspect which concerns ambassadors and mediators in the corridors of the United Nations.
There are quite a few governments which refuse to play by the rules. Russia's invasion of Ukrainian territory, the financing of militias by Arab governments, and even the persecution of minorities in Myanmar and Africa are examples of explicit violations.
But the precedent becomes even more irresponsible when it is orchestrated by the symbol of the free world, by the country that, for years, required that international rules be followed; by the country that created and paid for the United Nations and its framework of laws.
By ignoring the rules established for decades, Donald Trump opened the doors for others to follow the same path. Tehran's own regime announced that, facing this new scenario, it will be abandoning the nuclear treaty. It wouldn't be a surprise if during the months to come, governments with antagonistic positions will seek to assert their interests by force, not by law or diplomacy.
But what happened in Baghdad was not just a violation of national sovereignty, a term which paradoxically Trump has treated as sacrosanct. With the threat to attack cultural sites in Iran, the U.S. inaugurated a new modality: the announcement of war crimes on social media. Once again, with total impunity.
The decision to snub the rules of civilization was not an isolated act. For many months, there was a proliferation by the American government of ever tougher unilateral sanctions against enemies, something that is illegal.
The argument is that such governments would suffer this response for human rights abuse and repression. The incoherence of the explanation is apparent when the same sanctions are not applied against dictators, who, in spite of being having as much blood on their hands as the others, are considered to be American allies.
In parallel, Trump dismantled nuclear treaties with the Russians, withdrew from climate treaties, abandoned international entities and trimmed back support for U.N. operations.
Last year, the White House gave yet another demonstration that laws could be disrespected, that national interest always speaks more strongly than the laws. Violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, Trump also recognized the annexation of part of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights by Israel.
At the end of 2019, Trump delivered yet another blow to multilateralism: He froze the World Trade Organization’s Appeals Court and left international commerce without judges who could determine whether an economy is violating basic rules.
Commerce, therefore, entered into an era of being subject to the "law of the jungle." Today, in practice, whoever applies an illegal barrier against a neighbor simply knows that it can remain with impunity.
In promoting this path of dismantling the international system – in commerce, in security and in climate – Trump has undermined the set of rules created in 1945, which allowed what was probably the largest expansion in the index of human development in history and the unchecked pace of globalization’s advance. And the great winner was precisely the American economy.
The dispute between the U.S. and China for international leadership and hegemony will be at play for the next 50 years. The White House knows it needs to construct a new system if it wants to maintain its position.
But under the shadow of the flag of a myopic patriotism and cloaked with electoral logic, Trump sets dangerous precedents at the beginning of the 2020s decade.
Those who follow him blindly may have the illusion that they are on the side of the strongest camp, but paradoxically, they will contribute to the dismantling of a system which, although profoundly imperfect, permitted 70 years of minimal rules of coexistence, of the illegality of war and of basic rights.
And the day when America sees its interests - and cannons - turn against it, America will no longer have the law to defend itself.
Qassem Soleimani was not exactly what we could call an angel of peace. Just ask the populations of Yemen, Syria or Iraq, many of whom are relieved by his death. The government of Iran is, in reality, an element of extreme instability and represses its own population in the name of power.
But the assassination on foreign soil by a drone piloted from hundreds of kilometers away raised another question among foreign governments: Does the largest democracy in the world still have any respect for international law?
Beyond the consequences that tension between Iran and the U.S. could bring from now on, in international circles, the conclusion is that the act that inaugurated the new decade could serve as a cornerstone for the consolidation of the law of the jungle on the international scene. And the consequences could be dramatic for populations in different parts of the world.
Without showing evidence, without advising allies, violating the sovereignty of another nation and even celebrating this on social media with patriotic symbols, the American government knows it will be able to carry out an attack with impunity. And it is exactly this aspect which concerns ambassadors and mediators in the corridors of the United Nations.
There are quite a few governments which refuse to play by the rules. Russia's invasion of Ukrainian territory, the financing of militias by Arab governments, and even the persecution of minorities in Myanmar and Africa are examples of explicit violations.
But the precedent becomes even more irresponsible when it is orchestrated by the symbol of the free world, by the country that, for years, required that international rules be followed; by the country that created and paid for the United Nations and its framework of laws.
By ignoring the rules established for decades, Donald Trump opened the doors for others to follow the same path. Tehran's own regime announced that, facing this new scenario, it will be abandoning the nuclear treaty. It wouldn't be a surprise if during the months to come, governments with antagonistic positions will seek to assert their interests by force, not by law or diplomacy.
But what happened in Baghdad was not just a violation of national sovereignty, a term which paradoxically Trump has treated as sacrosanct. With the threat to attack cultural sites in Iran, the U.S. inaugurated a new modality: the announcement of war crimes on social media. Once again, with total impunity.
The decision to snub the rules of civilization was not an isolated act. For many months, there was a proliferation by the American government of ever tougher unilateral sanctions against enemies, something that is illegal.
The argument is that such governments would suffer this response for human rights abuse and repression. The incoherence of the explanation is apparent when the same sanctions are not applied against dictators, who, in spite of being having as much blood on their hands as the others, are considered to be American allies.
In parallel, Trump dismantled nuclear treaties with the Russians, withdrew from climate treaties, abandoned international entities and trimmed back support for U.N. operations.
Last year, the White House gave yet another demonstration that laws could be disrespected, that national interest always speaks more strongly than the laws. Violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, Trump also recognized the annexation of part of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights by Israel.
At the end of 2019, Trump delivered yet another blow to multilateralism: He froze the World Trade Organization’s Appeals Court and left international commerce without judges who could determine whether an economy is violating basic rules.
Commerce, therefore, entered into an era of being subject to the "law of the jungle." Today, in practice, whoever applies an illegal barrier against a neighbor simply knows that it can remain with impunity.
In promoting this path of dismantling the international system – in commerce, in security and in climate – Trump has undermined the set of rules created in 1945, which allowed what was probably the largest expansion in the index of human development in history and the unchecked pace of globalization’s advance. And the great winner was precisely the American economy.
The dispute between the U.S. and China for international leadership and hegemony will be at play for the next 50 years. The White House knows it needs to construct a new system if it wants to maintain its position.
But under the shadow of the flag of a myopic patriotism and cloaked with electoral logic, Trump sets dangerous precedents at the beginning of the 2020s decade.
Those who follow him blindly may have the illusion that they are on the side of the strongest camp, but paradoxically, they will contribute to the dismantling of a system which, although profoundly imperfect, permitted 70 years of minimal rules of coexistence, of the illegality of war and of basic rights.
And the day when America sees its interests - and cannons - turn against it, America will no longer have the law to defend itself.
Previous article![]( "The Gift of a Drone")
Next article![]( "Phase 1 Trade Deal a Political Gain for China in Long Term")
