Quote:
|
There is no spirit of the law. There is no international law. There is only a set of agreements that can support any claim from anyone. What you seem to forget, is that international "law" exists because countries agree that these laws are beneficial to them. When one country (the US) then becomes more powerful than others, it can basically dictate it's terms to the rest of the world. That may not be a nice idea, but it's a simple fact of life.
|
There IS an international law in the same way that there is a US Constitution and US law.
History of America: In the US a few founding fathers established a Charter (Constitution) which has governed the USA ever since. It did not have every states support/involvement at the time, but it had validity nonetheless. Then the people elected governments who passed laws within that Constitutional Framework to flesh things out. If the laws were broken then you could be taken to the US Court.
History of the UN: A few founding fathers established a Charter which has governed the world ever since. It did not have every states support/involvement at the time, but it had validity nonetheless. Then the member states directly passed laws within the UN to flesh things out. They also ected reprsentatives to the Security Council. If the laws were broken then you could be taken to the ICJ or face economic sanctions or war.
International law is codified and signed by those under it. The law doesn't just "support any claim from anyone". There are courts to preside over it and there are measures that can be taken to enforce it.
Yes the laws exist because we (including the US) have agreed they are beneficial to us and everyone else. Law is one of the cornerstones of civilization and society - though America seems to forget that. However *all* the laws in *every* democratic state, including America, exist because the people (or their elected representatives) have agreed they are beneficial. If the people en-masse do not support the laws then a change of government, through elections or revolution, and a change of laws will occur. BUT if only one or a few people do not like the laws then they tend to simply use their power and wealth to abuse them, and when this occurs we do not praise them for standing up against the law and the general will. Instead we criticise them and point to their abuse of power and the effects it has for undermining the law.
If one person (be they a president, a general or a president of Microsoft) becomes significantly more powerful than all others is it okay for them to bend the law to their wishes or break it if they feel fit? Of course it isn't. And the same applies to international law.
Quote:
|
You can be glad that the US is a relatively *good* country
|
This is what many positions seem to boil down to. America is 'good' so we can break laws and conduct our own justice, because we would only do what is right. The best form of rule is by a wise, benevolent dictator - so what is wrong with wise, good America throwing its weight around? America just can't see what all the fuss is about. They don't understand why the world is biting the hand that feeds it.
The problem is that
you and
America think that you are good, and that means nothing.
France thinks they're good. Germany think they're good. Egypt thinks they're good. Iran thinks they're good. Palestine thinks they're good. Israel thinks they're good. China thinks they're good.
What you need is some form of less subjective assessment and *that* is the UN and international law.
America has proved time and time and time again that it can do terrible damage by doing (and I am giving it a huge benefit of the doubt) what it thinks is best.
You put
dictators into power
left ,
right and
centre . You support undemocratic organisations one year and then try and destroy them the next.
Even in Iraq, the very country you now say you know what is best for, you used Saddam as a CIA agent and you helped put the Ba'ath party in power - giving them a
death list of hundreds of communist, opposition members who were then murdered.
To put it bluntly you have
form . In fact worse than that. You not only have a form list the length of your arm, but you have very rarely intervened to for non-selfish reasons, in fact you have very rarely intervened to
prevent humanitarian disasters full stop.
Is it any wonder we don't believe American leaders when they say "trust us"?
Is it any wonder we want to see some sort of international check against the power of the US?
Is it any wonder we don't want to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop?
Edit:> I have used "you" a lot here. Where i do so it is lazy shorthand for America. I don't blame any of these things on you personally or the citizens of the US. I don't want this to be personal. It is just my take on what the government of the USA has been, and still is, responsible for. Nor does my non-inclusion of what the UK has done mean that I condone it. The UK is as guilty over Iraq as the US.