By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US is facing scrutiny from G7 foreign ministers regarding recent military strikes in the Caribbean, targeting vessels suspected of carrying drugs. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot criticized the operations, citing potential instability in the region where France has overseas territories and concerns of unlawfulness, marking a rare rebuke of US actions. These strikes, which have resulted in at least 75 reported deaths, have led to questions about legal justification, with the US arguing self-defense while international experts raise concerns of war crimes. The G7 meeting, chaired by Canada, also focused on support for Ukraine and addressed the conflict in Sudan, but the Caribbean strikes were a central talking point.
Read the original article here
US strikes against boats in Caribbean ‘disregard international law’, French minister says, and it’s difficult to avoid the sinking feeling that this isn’t exactly news, is it? It’s almost expected at this point, isn’t it? The sentiment seems to be, “What are you going to do about it?” and the answer, sadly, often seems to be… nothing. The reality, as pointed out, is that the US often acts as though international laws are more like suggestions – guidelines to be followed when convenient, or ignored when they aren’t.
The very concept of “law” seems to have undergone a bit of a redefinition, particularly in certain circles. It’s a bit like a buffet – you take what you like and leave the rest. The argument being made is that what the US is doing is simply wrong, plain and simple. It’s not just a breach of international protocol; it’s being framed as potentially something far more serious. The use of lethal force in these situations seems to be drawing comparisons to state-sanctioned murder. Democratic governments generally don’t resort to summary executions for drug smuggling, because the actions taken are not a crime that generally warrants the death penalty.
The underlying frustration is evident. Why is this allowed to continue? Why isn’t there a more forceful response from other nations? The idea that sanctions, travel bans, and the like might be the appropriate response gets bandied about, yet there’s a recognition that such measures are unlikely to be enacted or, if enacted, to be effective. The US is a behemoth, and even if other nations wanted to impose penalties, they’d risk retaliation and economic damage. The US seems to believe, as the saying goes, that those who write the rules are the ones who ultimately win.
The situation seems to highlight a fundamental double standard that exists, where actions that would be condemned if undertaken by other nations are often met with a shrug and a “that’s just the way it is” attitude when the US is involved. This selective application of international law undermines its very legitimacy and fosters a climate of cynicism. The reality is that the international laws are backed up by the US and give them legitimacy, and the US can’t have those laws applied when they are against its interest.
The scenario brings to mind a question: Would the US not hesitate to take extreme measures to protect its citizens, even if it meant violating international norms further? The argument seems to suggest that the US would defend itself and their citizens at any cost. This reflects a worry that the US might intervene militarily to free its citizens, thus obliterating the facade of respect for international law and demonstrating that the pretense of adherence is nearing its end.
The core of the problem, according to the sentiments expressed, is that the US seems to believe itself to be above the rules. The idea of other nations imposing sanctions, embargos, or other retaliatory measures against the US is floated but swiftly dismissed, due to the US’s economic and military might and that doing so would have serious consequences. This creates a challenging situation where the very idea of international law, at least in its current form, is rendered impotent.
The implication is that the US’s actions aren’t just a series of unfortunate incidents but part of a pattern of behavior that consistently prioritizes its interests above the law. In the end, the issue is that it feels like the whole system is reaching its breaking point.