International Law Is Dead, Long Live International Law!

As I understand it, there is no international law since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is, there are bureaucrats who are adequate enough, foreign ministers who regularly meet, and states that conclude certain agreements with each other, people in general sit around in the U.N. taking certain actions, and adopting resolutions dragging bundles of papers from floor to floor, but there is only the appearance that global decisions are being made with the enthusiasm and assent of all U.N. member countries in the international interest. In fact, the U.N. is currently either broadcasting only what the United States wants, or casually withdrawing from really solving any problems.

International law is thought of as a set of legal norms created to regulate relations between different countries. However, I would like to add that, above all, the regulation of international relations occurs between governments that are more or less equal in strength.

In other words, stronger countries agree among themselves about how to divide the world, how to trade and with whom, and the principles and standards that member countries should live by. Other less powerful nations are then bound to this agreement.

Thus, the United Nations, established in 1945, has grown over the years, adding institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency and many others.

Countries that have bound themselves to the decisions of the stronger founding countries of the U.N. seem to enjoy rights on an equal footing with the great powers, but at the same time, they are always looking to hide beneath the wings of the great powers because one never knows what can happen. For example, Yugoslavia decided to stand alone without anyone’s help and consequently bombed by NATO just because it failed to consider bowing to the hegemon and relinquishing its territory and resources.

During the 75th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, President Trump delivered an absolutely wonderful speech apparently obviously as expected from the representative of the only superpower on the planet, which is no longer the case, while at the same time accused China of spreading COVID-19 and manipulating the WHO at will. However, China, along with observers from other countries, have alleged that Bill Gates controls the World Health Organization because he is one its main sponsors.

In other words, no one even considers the WHO to be an independent international organization. This is what happens where there is no international regulation, only people who hold power and divide the world among themselves. By the way, this is consistent with the WHO’s contradictory policy and statements by its officials regarding the virus. As we know, the WHO has not issued any official report to any country dealing with the pandemic. In the guidelines it issued about prevention, the WHO required everyone to wear a mask, as opposed to June 8 when it only recommended wearing masks, and then recommended that only infected patients wear masks. Now it tells us that asymptomatic carriers are not contagious.

I suspect that the volatile positions of WHO’s leadership are caused by pressure from stakeholders and not driven by the truth.

When the powerful United States, a country without equal, wanted to attack Iraq in 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell waved a test tube in front of the U.N. and claimed it contained a sample of biological weapons from Iraq, and that was enough for the U.N. to give its approval.*

In Libya, no one needed a test tube to scare the public, it was all much easier, and the bombing took place even more quickly. Why? Because the hegemon has no competition at the top of the world’s food chain. At the time, Russia was still quite weak after the Soviet Union willingly self-destructed in 1991, and China was not yet the world’s largest economy. Thus, the United States faced no obstacles in imposing its will on the whole world and doing whatever its heart desired.

It became clear that in the absence of any counterweight, a superpower can deal with international law as it wishes. In other words, the situation resembles that of the fable by Ivan Krylov, “The Wolf and the Lamb,” in which the wolf tells the lamb it is his fault that the wolf wants to eat and drags the lamb into the forest.

Whether there is an international agreement or not, a country that really wants to redraw its borders and reshape its esources by military means doesn’t need any particular reason to justify its right to attack and fight. The mysterious explosion of the American armored ship the USS Maine in Havana Bay in the winter of 1898 triggered the start of the U.S. war against Spain. It is assumed that the Americans blew up the ship themselves. As a result of the war, under the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the United States gained Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, as well as the right to temporarily control Cuba.

As the Iron Chancellor of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck, said in the 19th century, “The main thing is to capture a foreign city, and then the historians will explain why this is our native land.”

And winners, as you know, are not subject to judgment. As a famous saying on this subject goes, when asked by his son why “good always wins,” the father replies because “whoever wins is good.”

In Russia in 907 A.D., the Grand Duke of Kyiv, Oleg the Prophet, nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople and made peace with Byzantium, having received the right to trade duty-free. But under the leadership of subsequent princes, this right was revoked in the wake of an altered balance of power. Only the powerful have actual rights beyond those which merely exist on paper. You should only believe in the existence of official national borders if the country can defend them on the battlefield and in the factories.

Of course there have been historical cases in which a weak country has skillfully aligned with one of two competing strong nations and managed to survive. An example of this involved the three nations of ancient China which engaged in such a triangle during the Three Kingdoms period between 220 A.D. and 280 A.D.

A similar situation occurred at the beginning of the 11th century, when the state of the Khitan, founders of the Liao Empire, entered into a struggle for the northern provinces of Inner China with the newly reigning Song dynasty in Kaifeng and with the Korean state of Koryo. Through the Koryo’s competent management of interstate agreements, the Koreans defended their statehood and survived. I am speechless when it comes to our native history which is so rich with such examples.

Thus, we can conclude that in economic and military terms, a strong country uses international law merely as a reference point at times. For whoever has the power, has the right. It is the eternal law of the jungle. However, this power may be limited by other equally strong actors, by large and strong alliances of small actors, by different circumstances (such as internal strife or an unexpected lag in technology), or by other events that can undermine a country’s economy. For example, in the 11th century, the Arab caliphate, which extended from India to all of Spain, began to weaken for a very simple reason: salt deposits were found in Europe, and therefore Europe no longer needed salt from the expanses of the Silk Road, which caused the income of Arab merchants to fall dramatically. Consequently, the caliphate began its slow path to self-destruction and oblivion.

Russia has long realized that it is impossible to resist all the stupidity of our partners in the international arena, and therefore Russia has chosen to create alliances among nations based on common interests, for example BRICS, an alliance among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. For Russia, any alliance that includes the huge and powerful India and China is worth a great deal.

In the meantime, last week, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the full return of sanctions against Tehran and “all violators of the arms embargo on Iran.” This came two days after the Trump administration said that the U.S. unilaterally decided to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran. Both Europe and the United Nations Security Council refused to recognize this action. But, the Trump administration doesn’t care, and now all interested parties, particularly the Russian Federation, will be forced to consider how they will circumvent the sanctions, because Iran has the money to buy the weapons Russia wants to sell them.

So, in one situation, international law has succumbed to the will of the hegemon, and in another, international law is beginning to grow, slowly, much like an oak tree. When the tree reaches its full height, and embraces at least half the world with its branches, then the balance of power will return and international law will truly become international again. In the meantime, have strength and patience.

*Translator’s note: The United Nations did not approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.