By Jose Mario D. De Vega, faculty at the College of Teacher Development, Philippine Normal University
After the Second World War, America, as one of the two superpowers, set the pillars, rules and foundational principles of the international legal system.
In the field of economics, a year before the war ended, they established Bretton Woods -- an international monetary agreement that created a system of fixed exchange rates. It pegged world currencies to the US dollar, while the US dollar was backed by gold at $35 per ounce. This system created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group to oversee the global economy. Allegedly, the goal was to prevent the disastrous economic instability, protectionism and competitive currency devaluations of the 1930s that contributed to World War II. We all know what happened to this diabolical financial global project.
In the field of law, the United States established the post-World War II international legal order by leading the creation of the United Nations (UN) to prevent future global conflict, championing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to protect individual liberties and prosecuting Axis war leaders at Nuremberg to establish modern international criminal law.
They conducted the so-called “Nuremberg Trials” and the “Tokyo Trials” that laid the foundation for prosecuting crimes against humanity, which consequently led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- the result of an international agreement reached in Rome in 1998 (hence the name of the Statute), which began operating in July 2002. Strangely, the US wanted to prosecute individuals and nations for crimes against humanity, but when their own soldiers are involved or their Zionist friends, they refuse to comply.
To me, this is the ultimate height of hypocrisy. If it is their enemy, the law applies; but if it involves them (US imperialists and their beloved Zionists), suddenly the law is inapplicable.
If that is the case, then they should be kicked out of all international conventions and norms, since they do not follow them. In fact, not only do they insult and desecrate these institutions, but they do also not even recognize them.
As the hegemon of the so-called “West,” the US and its allies preached democracy, order, rules and convention against what they depicted as chaos, dictatorship, authoritarianism and evil systems.
Hence, from 1945 up to roughly 2007-08, the US, through its Pax Americana, enjoyed the privilege of being not only the chief architect but also the primary defender of the so-called international order.
Yet, recent history has shown otherwise. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Venezuela, Palestine, Russia and now Iran, US imperialist actions against nations they dislike do not even remotely resemble the international order they claim to have established and championed.
Indeed, there are two forms of “international law”: one for the US and its allies, and another for the rest of the world. That is America’s contention of exceptionalism which is utterly rubbish and shameful to the maximum!
Two days ago, the dying US empire began their sinister moves to discredit the ICC. Worse, they went beyond questioning the court’s existence and the very practice of international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading a major diplomatic offensive to isolate and dismantle the ICC. He argues the ICC threatens American and allied sovereignty and has announced a global campaign of targeted sanctions against the court’s personnel.
This latest brouhaha from the US will further isolate them from the international community. Immediately, the European Union (EU) and rights groups strongly condemned Rubio’s announced campaign to systematically disable and dismantle the ICC. The EU formally rejected the US claim that the ICC threatens American sovereignty, calling threats against the court’s personnel “unacceptable.” Meanwhile, Amnesty International (AI) slammed the move as an “assault on international justice.”
Notably, several US allies have privately or publicly distanced themselves from Rubio’s retaliatory measures, maintaining their support for international legal frameworks. Though not a fan, the pronouncement and stand of Malacañang last night is a welcome statement. Their act of distancing themselves from the US plan is good. However, I strongly urge the local establishment here to do two things -- Asap: first, we must promptly rejoin the ICC; second, we must immediately reject Pax Silica.
I will argue for sure that the US crackdown on the ICC will exert intense diplomatic and economic pressure on the Philippines, but it is highly unlikely to halt the pending trial of Duterte. Despite threats of financial sanctions, travel bans, and reduced foreign assistance, none of these will affect proceedings at The Hague, since the Court has already acquired jurisdiction. Hence, notwithstanding Washington’s aggressive stance, the structural and judicial mechanisms driving the Duterte case are already in motion.
What matters most: our relationship with the US or our commitment to international order and the community of nations? This, in my view, is the perfect opportunity for this nation to prove to its citizens, to itself, and to the rest of the world that we are not a barangay or barrio -- worse, a vassal state of the US - but truly an independent sovereign country.
Internationally, we are at a crossroads. We must reconsider and reconfigure our foreign policy to match the prevailing political reality of the new global order if we wish to remain relevant.
The time has come for us to chart our own course and control our destiny. Either we craft and decide our independent foreign policy or forever remain in the disappearing shadow of a dying, decadent empire.
