On Friday, Donald Trump drove home his belief that might is right and the rule of law is an obstacle rather than an essential foundation stone of international order. First came the escalated assault on the international criminal court (ICC), sanctioning the body itself. Then he announced a deal with Russia to buy diesel.
The US has long chafed at the notion of being bound by the rule of law that it espoused publicly. That hypocrisy now appears as a lesser vice. The president has declared that “my own morality” is all that constrains him. His brazen flouting of the law, embrace of dictators and rhetorical attacks all undermine global standards.
Weeks before the midterms, Mr Trump blames Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy facilities for high diesel costs. It is his own unlawful war on Iran that has raised prices. The weekend’s attacks on Riyadh’s international airport, suspected as the work of Tehran-backed Houthis from Yemen, underscored that he cannot simply park that conflict when it suits him.
The Moscow deal is unlikely to produce significant shipments; the Russian military runs on diesel. But Ukraine is supposed to heed its message to make life easier on Vladimir Putin. It is Mr Putin (for whom the ICC has issued a warrant) who launched the illegal war, and whose troops launched lethal attacks on civilians this weekend. But in a world turned upside down, Mr Trump blames Volodymyr Zelenskyy for failing to cut a peace deal and says the democratically elected leader should go.
It is similarly perverse to wield measures designed to target human rights abusers and war criminals against those who seek to defend their victims. Mr Trump’s attack on the ICC was fuelled first by its Afghanistan investigation – though it has suspended consideration of US actions there – and then the issuing of arrest warrants for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and its former defence minister Yoav Gallant. The court has been preparing for these measures. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that companies have six months to wind down ties and that US allies must rein in the court: “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC.”
In stark (and intentional) contrast, the Nobel committee on the same day announced that this year’s peace laureate is Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge and chair of the UN commission which last year concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. It was not only a recognition of a remarkable career that began in apartheid‑era South Africa, but a reminder that institutions defending universal principles are under increasing pressure, and must be defended. “Peace requires justice,” the committee said.
As the ICC says, it cannot stand alone. The UK, EU and others too were right to criticise the US decision and declare their commitment to the court; invoking blocking statutes against sanctions would add heft to the rhetoric. They must show similar resolve in standing with Ukraine.
The nakedness of Mr Trump’s hostility to the rule of law has one benefit: no one can explain it away, or assume it is narrowly bounded. The war on Iran, kidnapping of Venezuela’s president, extrajudicial killings of alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and threats over Greenland and Canada have shown how far he will go, and overturned assumptions that allies will be safe. It is clear that the problem is not a “rogue court”, as Mr Rubio has claimed, but a rogue superpower.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
