By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, the US views its power as more important than international law, believing multilateral solutions are irrelevant. Guterres noted a clear conviction by the US that prioritizes its own influence, sometimes disregarding international norms. He expressed concern over the UN’s struggle to enforce its charter, particularly with major powers wielding greater leverage. Guterres criticized the UN Security Council, suggesting its structure is outdated and ineffective, with veto powers furthering individual interests.
Read the original article here
The crux of the matter, as hinted at by the UN Chief, seems to be a belief, or perhaps a pragmatic acceptance, that US power trumps international law. It’s a rather stark statement, and one that cuts to the core of how the world perceives the US on the global stage. It suggests that the US, under certain leadership, prioritizes its own interests and perceived power over adhering to the rules and norms established through international agreements. This is a complex issue, and it’s something that we should unpack.
The context of this situation involves a potential scenario with Greenland. The implications are concerning. It raises the question of whether the US is willing to disregard international norms when it comes to asserting its influence. It’s the kind of situation that exposes the fragility of the international system and challenges the very foundations of the rules-based order, a system largely crafted and historically upheld by the US itself.
A significant point that emerges from this discussion is the internal division within the US. The internal turmoil might be seen as a sign of weakness, and some believe that pressure from the outside world could be a catalyst for change. The concern, however, is the damage the US is inflicting on its own soft power. Relying solely on raw power, especially in the current climate, is a risky strategy. It can backfire, isolating the US and emboldening its adversaries. The loss of soft power is like canceling half the equation and the US is worse off because of that.
Furthermore, it becomes clear that international law, at least in its enforcement, is somewhat of a theoretical construct when dealing with major powers. The sentiment expressed here is that the US, along with other powerful nations, often operates outside the confines of these laws. This perspective isn’t new. Vietnam, Iraq, and other instances are cited as evidence that the rules don’t always apply equally. The absence of repercussions for past actions only reinforces this perception.
There’s a critical point to consider: It’s not necessarily “the US” that believes this, but rather the current administration. This distinction is crucial. It underscores that this attitude isn’t a permanent characteristic of the nation, but rather a reflection of the views of those in power at a specific moment in time. The actions of such leaders, as some suggest, can have serious consequences.
The impact of such actions on China also comes into play. If the US consistently prioritizes power over international law, it inadvertently paves the way for China to gain influence. It creates a vacuum that China can potentially fill, leading to a shift in the global balance of power. It’s worth noting the argument that the world must see the US, under current leadership, as power-hungry.
The situation also raises questions about the role of international organizations like the UN. If the US consistently disregards international law, what authority do these organizations truly hold? If they are unable to restrain a powerful nation, then what is their purpose? There is, as some point out, a double standard, where democracies are expected to abide by international law while authoritarian regimes are not. This perception contributes to a sense of frustration and cynicism.
There is a sense of disillusionment and a feeling of being on the precipice of some kind of shift. The current US administration is perceived by some as the kind of power-hungry ego maniac who is similar to Russia.
The discussion highlights the erosion of the US’s standing in the world. As the US alienates allies and makes enemies, its ability to influence global affairs diminishes. It’s a trend that can undermine its long-term interests and its ability to act as a global leader. As a result, the rest of the world has a simple message: “The rest of the world believes the US can go fuck itself”
The US must learn that the world does not revolve around it. The US is a major beneficiary of the rules-based system it helped create. The complacency of the nation brought us to this state. The need for change is critical.