International Humanitarian Law For Thee, Not For Me
From a U.S. point of view, we sit atop the liberal world order. We dominate culturally, economically, militarily, and morally. Got a problem? Perhaps an armed conflict with non-state actors? The U.S. has your back. This role as world superpower has been shaped by years of involvement in foreign wars, highly influential diplomacy, and a deeply entrenched reliance on the U.S. Dollar as the global reserve currency of choice – without much of a legitimate challenge since WWII. But the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has brought to light, at least to the rest of the world, that the strength of our alliances is more important to us than upholding the rules-based system. U.S. selective enforcement of international law, particularly regarding Israel, might be undermining our legitimacy as global hegemon.
After WWII ended, the U.S. played a key role in establishing the new international order. The general consensus was that another global conflict would be undesirable, and if the U.S. could be the one leading the charge for world peace, all the better. Important to the development of this world order, specifically with concern to international humanitarian law, are the Geneva Conventions, which protect non-combatants. The U.S. is a traditional defender of these values, enforcing IHL on states all over the world who commit genocide, harbor terrorism, and violate the human rights of their citizens in any respect.
However, looking back on our record as judge, jury, and executioner of IHL, it’s clear that we often turn a blind eye if it means advancing U.S. interests. To be clear: American interests are inextricably linked to economic and political health abroad. That is why we participate on the world stage, through a system of alliances and international institutions, including international law. But often, our interests have been pursued simply under the guise of upholding the order, with actual motivations being far more self-centered. The means of securing these interests? Much worse than the motivations. Take Iraq for example. Did Saddam Hussein blatantly violate human rights? Absolutely. But according to the ICJ, this “does not by itself provide a legal basis for resort to war.” Without going too far down the rabbit hole of potential motivations, there was little to no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda was questionable at best. By process of elimination, the remaining potential motivations for war are not the most morally-upstanding.
The case of Israel’s war in Gaza constitutes an obvious double standard. The preliminary ruling by the ICJ determined that Israel’s occupation and annexation of both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are unlawful. A UN independent commission confirmed that Israeli authorities are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. What does the U.S. do? Unconditional military and diplomatic support. They may be our ally, and crucial to security efforts in the Middle East, but the law must still apply to them.
The implications for this could be severe. The U.S. is already not a popular actor in the Middle East. Invasions, coups, assassinations, occupations, and a particularly faulty withdrawal from Afghanistan do not give the U.S. the best reputation. Support for Israel, especially during an ongoing genocide, is not helping. The most powerful ideological foe in the region is Iran, who funds militant groups in support of Hamas and the Palestinian cause. They are also part of the “new axis powers” (China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea), an alliance of authoritarians with growing influence around the world. China’s business dealings and investments through the Belt Road Initiative provide them with significant leverage over many countries it considers strategic, and also provides the framework for potential overseas military bases. North Korea has shipped 1,500 special forces troops to Russia's Far East for training and acclimatizing at military bases and they are likely to be deployed for combat in Ukraine. 10,000 more troops could be ready to deploy by November 1st. As for Iran themselves, the absence of a nuclear deal could mean trouble as the conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate.
The international rules based order is under threat, and the U.S. simply does not have the legitimacy to defend it. Defense of genocide is eroding our international authority to uphold the order that we claim to lead, and our enemies, some of whom seek to challenge U.S. hegemony, know it. If we can intervene on behalf of international law when we disagree with the perpetrator, then we can do it in Israel.