By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In an interview with The New York Times, President Donald Trump stated his “own morality” is the primary constraint on his power to order military action, asserting he doesn’t necessarily need to abide by international law. This follows an increasingly aggressive military posture, including operations in Venezuela, and threats against other countries and territories. Trump also expressed a desire for the US to possess Greenland, citing psychological needs, and signaled he may not be concerned about his family’s foreign business dealings in his second term. Furthermore, Trump discussed his views on China and Taiwan, and NATO, and indicated a potential choice between the military alliance and acquiring Greenland.
Read the original article here
“Don’t need international law”: Trump says “my own morality” only restraint on global power; repeats Greenland push – The Times of India.
Okay, so let’s unpack this statement, shall we? When someone says they don’t need international law, and that their “own morality” is the only thing standing between them and exercising global power, well, that’s a whole lot to digest. The initial gut reaction? Worry, pure and simple. It’s like handing a loaded weapon to someone and saying, “Don’t worry, my conscience is the safety.”
The thing is, the entire world operates on a complex system of agreements and established norms. International law, while imperfect, provides a framework, a kind of shared understanding about how countries should behave. It’s what prevents the world from descending into total chaos. Think about it: without these rules, there’s no real barrier against a country invading another, seizing resources, or just generally doing whatever it wants. It’s what keeps the global game somewhat fair, or at least, attempts to. To claim you’re above all that? That you alone, and your personal sense of what’s right, are the only check on your power? That’s not just concerning; it’s a fundamental rejection of the entire structure that supports global stability.
And the issue of “morality” gets amplified when you consider the sources of the comments. It’s a very uncomfortable thought experiment to consider the restraint one has. It brings to mind questions of reliability and trustworthiness. Do we really want the fate of the world resting on the morality of any single person, especially one whose actions and history are already subject to scrutiny? That’s a high-stakes gamble, and the odds don’t seem particularly good. The United States, by its very nature, relies on a vast network of allies, partnerships, and shared interests. International law is key to all of this. It’s not just some abstract thing; it’s a practical tool that serves American interests. It facilitates trade, promotes stability, and allows the U.S. to maintain its influence on the world stage.
If international law didn’t exist, the whole game changes. The US created these rules to protect and further its own interests, while simultaneously putting limits on its rivals. It’s how the US built and maintained its dominance post-World War II. Think about it, one of the many reasons China might not invade Laos is because it would go against international law. And what is international law? Isn’t that a tool of power. The US uses it, but also benefits from it. This whole thing feels like watching someone methodically dismantle a structure that took decades to build. And it leaves you wondering, where does that leave everyone else?
It’s easy to understand why the prospect of someone wielding unchecked power, unrestrained by any external force, would send a shiver down your spine. The idea of a leader unbound by rules or norms, operating solely on their own personal code, raises a lot of red flags. The potential for abuse, for arbitrary decisions, and for actions that could have far-reaching negative consequences for the world is a real threat. It’s like being in a situation where the potential for catastrophe is always looming. There’s no check and balance, no accountability, just whatever the person in charge decides is the right course of action.
There’s this sense of disbelief, too, isn’t there? How can anyone believe that a single person’s “morality” is sufficient to govern their behavior, especially when they’re in a position of such immense power? It’s a bit like a child’s understanding of rules. If you think it’s okay to do whatever you want, well, everyone else can too. And then you have chaos. A leader should understand that the rules apply to everyone. This is a basic principle of fairness and order, and its absence is very alarming.
This idea of a God complex also comes into play. It’s as if they believe they are the exception. As though the world should conform to their individual will. They are not like others; therefore, they should not be bound by the same standards.
And then there’s the underlying sense of powerlessness, the feeling that nothing can stop this person from doing whatever they want. It’s a frustrating thing. It’s hard to imagine being in that position. The world at your fingertips, and you can simply do what you want, no consequences. It’s like a rogue administration, where the usual checks and balances are ignored, and it’s a terrifying prospect.
And the response you get is almost a sense of being “over it.” If this is how they want to play the game, then let them. In many ways, what would be the result? You could lose everything. It’s an exercise in futility to even try. It’s a sad state of affairs when so many feel unable to take action. It shows an almost complete disconnect between what the population wants and the direction of the country.
Ultimately, it’s a moment to take stock, and a moment to remember that the world is a complex place. But it needs rules.