The Biden administration is supersizing the defense industry to meet foreign arms obligations instead of making tradeoffs essential to any effective budget. Its new National Defense Industrial Strategy lays out a plan to âcatalyze generational changeâ of the defense industrial base and to âmeet the strategic momentâ â one rhetorically dominated by competition with China, but punctuated by U.S. support for Ukraineâs fight against Russia and Israelâs military campaign in Gaza.
Instead of reevaluating its maximalist national security strategy, the Biden administration is doubling down. It is proposing a generation of investment to expand an arms industry that, overall, fails to meet cost, schedule, and performance standards. And if its strategy is any indication, the administration has no vision for how to eventually reduce U.S. military industrial capacity.
Todayâs diplomatic complicity in the catastrophic human rights and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the culmination of years of erosion of the international rule of law and global human rights system*. Such disintegration began in earnest after 9/11, when the United States embarked on its âwar on terror,â a campaign that normalized the idea that everything is permissible in the pursuit of âterrorists.â To prosecute its war in Gaza, Israel borrows ethos, strategy, and tactics from that framework, doing so with the support of the United States.
It is as if the grave moral lessons of the Holocaust, of World War II, have been all but forgotten, and with them, the very core of the decades-old âNever Againâ principle: its absolute universality, the notion that it protects us all or none of us. This disintegration, so apparent in the destruction of Gaza and the Westâs response to it, signals the end of the rules-based order and the start of a new era.
The United States enters into more than two-hundred treaties each year on a range of international issues, including peace, defense, human rights, and the environment. Despite this seemingly impressive figure, the United States constantly fails to sign or ratify treaties the rest of the world supports. It has failed to ratify treaties that tackle biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions, protect the rights of children and women, and govern international waters. For a country frequently looked to as a global leader, the United States has consistently failed to step up in international partnerships. In fact, the United States has one of the worst records of any country in ratifying human rights and environmental treaties.
Why hasnât the United States stepped up to the plate? According to scholars and policymakers, one major reason is the fear of treaties infringing on national sovereignty. The United States shuns treaties that appear to subordinate its governing authority to that of an international body like the United Nations. The United States consistently prioritizes its perceived national interests over international cooperation, opting not to ratify to protect the rights of U.S. businesses or safeguard the governmentâs freedom to act on national security. Politics also poses a significant barrier to ratification. While presidents can sign treaties, ratification requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Oftentimes, the power of special interest groups and the desire of politicians to maintain party power, on top of existing concerns of sovereignty, almost assures U.S. opposition to treaty ratification.
The failure of the United States to lead on international treaty accession can have dangerous consequences. It can undermine the credibility of those treaties, weaken international partnerships, and raise concerns about the United Statesâ own commitments to matters such as human rights and environmental protection. By refusing to ratify treaties the rest of the world supports, the United States can lose other countriesâ trust and gives up the influence of shaping the future direction of global rules. Furthermore, abstaining serves as a barrier to resolving critical global and regional issues, implicitly giving permission to other countries to free ride and follow the rule of law established by treaties only when it is in their best interest. Given these implications, I outline ten treaties the United States has not ratified and highlight arguments opponents cite for the lack of ratification. (...)
Ditch the âRules-Based International Orderâ The phrase is a linguistic atrocity, while the concept draws attention to American hypocrisy, in the Middle East and beyond. Thereâs an alternative.
The world is skeptical about this American shtick, especially in Africa, Asia and South America, where countries are feeling â and often resisting â pressure by Washington to align with the West against Russia and China. Beijing and Moscow, meanwhile, have an easy time skewering Americaâs double standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin tells audiences in the Global South that the RBIO is just a veneer for American exceptionalism, so that the US can arbitrarily make the ârulesâ it wants and then âorderâ everybody else around. (...)
This points to the underlying problem. John Dugard, a South African professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands and a former judge on the ICJ, argues that the US pushes its RBIO so hard precisely because it wants to avoid unreservedly endorsing, and obeying, an older, simpler and clearer idea: that of international law.
That standard, which is universal rather than subjective like the RBIO, would be awkward for Washington. International law is based in part on multilateral treaties, many of which the US helped write. And yet America refuses to sign on to quite a number of them, including the Conventions on Cluster Munitions, on the Rights of the Child and on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute that created the ICC, and more.
So Washington canât exactly make a legal case when scolding China, say, for bullying the Philippines in the South China Sea, since the US isnât itself a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It canât credibly join the ICC in accusing Putin of war crimes because it doesnât recognize that court â and in fact sanctioned the ICCâs prosecutors when they looked into allegations of crimes by American soldiers in Afghanistan.
This is a familiar trope for you to trot out, but it seems absurdly contradictory on the face of it. Laws—international or otherwise—are rules.
Accuse the US of hypocrisy all you like but that doesn't invalidate the concept, because the alternative to a rules-based order is a power-based order. We see this writ large by the authoritarian despots you relentlessly cheerlead for: they do what they like to whom they please because they can, and we should just let them. Empowering those they do it to is warmongering because it prolongs their agony. They should just surrender and accept their fates.
Funny, attacking them in the first place isn't warmongering, it's totally legitimate. Because...history. Or something.
You'll respond to this (if you do at all) with a pithy one-liner or yet another cut&paste screed, but it would be interesting to know how you square these circles in your own head. Not some RT mouthpiece's head, not some convoluted digression flinging rhetorical dust in the air, just explain how you want nations to interact with each other.
Ditch the âRules-Based International Orderâ The phrase is a linguistic atrocity, while the concept draws attention to American hypocrisy, in the Middle East and beyond. Thereâs an alternative.
The world is skeptical about this American shtick, especially in Africa, Asia and South America, where countries are feeling â and often resisting â pressure by Washington to align with the West against Russia and China. Beijing and Moscow, meanwhile, have an easy time skewering Americaâs double standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin tells audiences in the Global South that the RBIO is just a veneer for American exceptionalism, so that the US can arbitrarily make the ârulesâ it wants and then âorderâ everybody else around. (...)
This points to the underlying problem. John Dugard, a South African professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands and a former judge on the ICJ, argues that the US pushes its RBIO so hard precisely because it wants to avoid unreservedly endorsing, and obeying, an older, simpler and clearer idea: that of international law.
That standard, which is universal rather than subjective like the RBIO, would be awkward for Washington. International law is based in part on multilateral treaties, many of which the US helped write. And yet America refuses to sign on to quite a number of them, including the Conventions on Cluster Munitions, on the Rights of the Child and on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute that created the ICC, and more.
So Washington canât exactly make a legal case when scolding China, say, for bullying the Philippines in the South China Sea, since the US isnât itself a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It canât credibly join the ICC in accusing Putin of war crimes because it doesnât recognize that court â and in fact sanctioned the ICCâs prosecutors when they looked into allegations of crimes by American soldiers in Afghanistan.
