Sarah Neumann
For several decades, the process of modern international banditry has been going on in the direction that it is the USA that determines the place of friend and enemy and the rules of the game. These rules are written using sanctions, endless wars, or threats of war. The strategic questions here are: Are peace and democracy possible in such a world? Is it not the right time for making fundamental international rights stated in the United Nations Charter global? Shall not we try to change America’s global dictatorship that prevailed under the guise of the new international order and replace it with a multipolar order?
In the legal section of the United Nations Charter, it is clearly emphasized that every country can freely choose its own path, both politically and economically. In other words, there is no condition on how a government should implement its governance system. Violent security and political behavior of the USA, palpable in Asia and especially Vietnam, in addition to the process of nation-building and state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, has led to endless wars and destruction. The United States has insinuated as if the West, under the leadership of the United States, has the right to intervene and arbitrate on the governance system of countries or the standards of democracy and can decide which country is a “good” democracy.
Despite the very clear position of international law in the UN Charter, the United States has so far given itself the right to decide what is a democratic political system and what values should be applied everywhere in the world. However, in the United Nations Charter, it is emphasized that no government or country can interfere in the internal affairs of another country and force it to adopt or follow certain “values”.
However, in the logic of Washington, it seems that the logic of power has overcome the power of logic. When the United States wants to launch the new world order by the dint of war, the story is totally different and the United Nations Charter and the provisions of international law become futile and America becomes able to loot other countries, wage a war to punish countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq or encourage a country, like Saudi Arabia, to proceed its brutal war against Yemen.
The problem is that in the structure of the American world order, what has always remained is the basic principle that only one actor has the right to determine the rights of others. It is obvious that in this world order, there is no such thing as common rights or the right to enjoy international rights and everything is exported unilaterally from America.
A simple example shows how deceptive this one-sided designation is: the United States has appointed a special representative for women’s rights in Afghanistan while handing over it to a group that has been one of the most dangerous and misogynist terrorist groups for years. The story becomes even more ridiculous when even Biden talks about the violation of women’s rights in Afghanistan, and the United States condemns the non-respect of women’s basic rights in Afghanistan- the denial of the right to education by the Taliban. It is while Taliban is a group that the United States was exactly aware of its ideological thoughts and political and cultural policies. Even if appointing a special representative for women’s rights is a positive action for Afghanistan, then why is not a special representative for women in Middle East countries, where women’s rights are equally in doubt, appointed?
However, the bigger problem is that a country gives itself the right to use double standards to apply any right that is beneficial to itself and within the utilitarian framework of relations with its allies. These American values have a diverse range including occupying a country or handing over the occupied country to Salafi Jihadi groups.
Will the United States accept that a task force is appointed by China or by the United Nations to deal with the massive genocide of the Indians in the 19th century in the United States? Is America willing to compensate them for the genocide and occupation of their lands? Will America allow China, or any other country, to be responsible for tracking the status of blacks in America? Is there any country that can force America to become a member of the Hague International War Crimes Tribunal? While 300 billion dollars of gold reserves and foreign exchange of Russia and the foreign assets of Russian institutions and individuals have been blocked by the United States, can we expect that in the event of a war by the United States, the same amount of assets of American individuals, companies, and officials be seized by a third country?
Another issue that is raised in America’s dealings with other countries is the creation of a system of looting in the global political economy whose most benefits go to the pockets of the Americans. In order to maintain its position as the treasurer of other countries’ capital, America has forced or encouraged most of its neighboring governments to accumulate their foreign exchange reserves in the United States. Whenever the United States sees the conditions proper, it has no abstinence from looting the property of other countries.
For example, Afghanistan, as one of the poorest countries in the world, is facing a severe financial crisis; after the Taliban came to power following the agreement with the White House, Afghanistan faced the looting of its property; 7 billion dollars from the accumulation of territorial-national wealth of the Afghan people were confiscated by the United States. The irony is that the United States will never return half of this $7 billion to Afghanistan, which it has reserved for the victims of 9/11. This is while about 24 million people in Afghanistan are living in acute hunger.
What makes the matter worse is that according to the American intelligence agencies’ own estimates, not the Taliban but Al-Qaeda was involved in the September 11 attacks; in addition, most of the perpetrators were Saudi nationals but the case of Saudi involvement or role was never seriously investigated.
The most fundamental question is “From whom should the families who have lost their members in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya as a result of brutal wars of the United States, get their compensation?” More than 200,000 Iraqi citizens were killed in the American attack on Iraq, and many more have perished due to the indirect results of the war, such as the destruction of the food, sanitation, and drinking water security system, malnutrition and disease. According to the Civilian Harm Monitoring Group Airwars, between 22,000 and 48,000 individuals have been killed in direct American airstrikes after September 11. Can the killed civilians claim compensation from the US in an international court? There is no answer, and this is the banditry going on in the American world order.
No comments:
Post a Comment