EVIL US VIRUS Makes a Mockery of Treaties and International Law

0 views
Skip to first unread message

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer

unread,
May 29, 2022, 2:33:04 AMMay 29
to


US Govt is THE MOST EVIL ENTITY not just on this planet, but the ENTIRE
UNIVERSE.

This fucking EVIL US Govt VIRUS must be COMPLETELY DESTROYED for humans
to live in peace and harmony.

Cocksucking, confused gender WHITE RACE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND their own
"Pathological Lying, Cunning, Deception" and "Smile, Shake Hands, Back
Stab and KILL" Modus Operandi, even though it is VERY EASY TO SEE,
because they spend their ENTIRE LIVES sucking and inserting human,
animal, rubber and metal genitals.

You WASP morons, you think you are being VERY SMART in supporting your
EVIL GOVTs in LOOTING, SLAUGHTERING and SUBJUGATING Non-WASPs and POC,
WITHOUT understanding your EVIL GOVTs are DOING the SAME to YOU.


If the DUMB LOW IQ americans KNOW what the EVIL WHITE PSYCHOPATHS and
CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS are doing to them, they will USE their GUNS to
SLAUGHTER EVIL American Govt CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS and PSYCHOPATHS like
fucking pigs and END the EVIL.


===========================================================================

https://www.newsclick.in/US-makes-mockery-treaties-international-law?amp


US Makes a Mockery of Treaties and International Law

The US claims it is operating under a “rules-based order”—but the term
is not the same international law recognised by the rest of the world.
Rather, it is camouflage behind which American exceptionalism flourishes.

K.J. Noh

08 Jan 2022

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other members of the Joe Biden
Cabinet are fond of proclaiming the “rules-based international order”
(RBIO) or “rules-based order” every chance they get: in press
conferences, on interviews, in articles, at international fora, for
breakfast, lunch, dinner, and cocktails.

Along with the terms “human rights” and “democracy,” the RBIO is
routinely used to claim a moral high ground against countries that they
accuse of not following this RBIO, and wielded as a cudgel to attack,
criticise, accuse, and delegitimise countries in their crosshairs as
rogue outliers to an international order.

This cudgel is now used most commonly against China and Russia. Oddly
enough, whenever the United States asserts this “rules-based order” that
China (and other “revisionist powers”/enemy states) are violating, it
never seems to clarify which “rules” are being violated, but simply
releases a miasma of generic accusation, leaving the stench of racism
and xenophobia to do the rest.

This is because there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the
RBIO.

The RBIO isn’t “rules-based,” it isn’t “international,” and it confounds
any sense of “order,” let alone justice. It is, at bottom, the naked
exercise of US imperial power and supremacy, dressed up in the invisible
finery of an embroidered fiction. The RBIO is a fraudulent impersonation
of international law and justice.

There are many layers to this misnomer, to be deconstructed piece by piece.
‘RBIO’ in Contrast With ‘International Law’

First, the RBIO is not “international” in any sense of the word.

There actually is a consensual rules-based international order, a
compendium of agreed-upon rules and treaties that the international
community has negotiated, agreed to, and signed up for. It’s called
simply “international law.” This refers to the body of decisions,
precedents, agreements, and multilateral treaties held together under
the umbrella of the Charter of the United Nations and the multiple
institutions, policies, and protocols attached to it.

Although imperfect, incomplete, evolving, it still constitutes the legal
foundation of the body of international order and the orderly laws that
underpin it: this is what constitutes international law. The basic
foundation of the UN Charter is national sovereignty—that states have a
right to exist, and are equal in relations. This is not what the US is
referring to.

When the US uses the term RBIO, rather than the existing term
“international law,” it does so because it wants to impersonate
international law while diverting to a unilateral, invented, fictitious
order that it alone creates and decides—often with the complicity of
other imperial, Western, and transatlantic states. It also does this
because, quite simply, the US does not want to be constrained by
international law and actually is an international scofflaw in many cases.
The US as International Outlaw

For example, the US refuses to sign or to ratify foundational
international laws and treaties that the vast majority of countries in
the world have signed, such as the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women), ICESCR (the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights), CRC (the Convention
on the Rights of the Child), ICRMW (the International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families), UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), PAROS (the
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space), the Ottawa Treaty (the
Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention), and the majority of labor
conventions of the ILO (International Labor Organisation).

In fact, the US harbours sweatshops, legalises child labour (for
example, in migrant farm labour), and engages in slave labour (in
prisons and immigration detention centres). Even the US State
Department’s own 2021 Trafficking in Persons Report acknowledges severe
problems in the US of trafficking and forced labour in agriculture, food
service, manufacture, domestic service, sex work, and hospitality, with
US government officials and military involved in the trafficking of
persons domestically and abroad.

Ironically, the US tries to hold other countries accountable to laws
that it itself refuses to ratify. For example, the US tries to assert
UNCLOS in the South China Sea while refusing—for decades—to ratify it
and ignoring its rules, precedents, and conclusions in its own
territorial waters.

There are also a slew of international treaties the US has signed, but
simply violates anyway: examples include the Chemical Weapons
Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, UN treaties prohibiting
torture, rendition, and kidnapping, and, of course, war of aggression,
considered “the supreme international crime”—a crime that the United
States engages in routinely at least once a decade, not to mention
routine drone attacks, which are in violation of international law. Most
recently, the AUKUS agreement signed between the US and Australia
violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by exploiting a
blind spot of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

There are also a multitude of treaties that the US has signed but then
arbitrarily withdrawn from anyway. These include the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, the Agreed Framework and the Six-Party
Talks with North Korea, the Geneva Conventions, the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and many others.

There are also approximately 368 treaties signed between the Indigenous
nations and the US government; every single one of them has been
violated or ignored.

There are also unilateral fictions that the US has created, such as
“Freedom of Navigation Operations” (FONOPs): this is gunboat diplomacy,
a military show of force, masquerading as an easement claim. FONOPs are
a concept with no basis in international law—“innocent passage” is the
accepted law under UNCLOS—and it is the United States and its allies who
are violating international laws when they exercise these FONOPs.

Air Defence Identification Zones (ADIZs) are likewise notions that have
no recognition in international law—the accepted concept is “sovereign
airspace”—but the United States routinely claims that China is violating
Taiwan’s ADIZ or airspace—which covers three provinces of mainland
China. These are some examples of the absurd fictions that the US
invents to assert that enemy states like China are violating the RBIO.
This is weaponised fiction.

The US also takes great pains to undermine international structures and
institutions; for example, not liking the decisions of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), it has disabled the WTO’s Investor-State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) mechanism; it has undermined—and threatened—the ICC
(by passing the American Service members Protection Act [ASPA], also
known as the Hague Invasion Act), and more recently, sanctioned the ICC
prosecutor and her family members; it thumbs its nose at the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its decisions, and generally is
opposed to any international institution that restricts its unbridled,
unilateral exercise of power.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, in blunt candour, asserted
that there is “no such thing as the United Nations,” but this unhinged
ideology is quietly manifested in the day-to-day actions of the United
States throughout successive US administrations.
Whose Rules? The US Applies Its Laws Internationally

On the flip side of this disdain for agreed-upon international law and
institutions is the US’ belief that its own laws should have universal
jurisdiction.

The US considers laws passed by its corrupt, plutocratic
legislature—hardly international or democratic by any stretch of the
imagination—to apply to the rest of the world. These include unilateral
sanctions against numerous countries (approximately one-third of the
world’s population is impacted by US sanctions), using the instruments
of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the US legislature and
courts, as well as currency and exchange systems (SWIFT). These
unilateral sanctions are a violation of international law and
humanitarian law, as well as perversions of common sense and
decency—millions have perished under these illegal sanctions.

To add insult to injury, the US routinely bullies other countries to
comply with these unilateral sanctions, threatening secondary sanctions
against countries and corporations that do not follow these US-imposed
illegal sanctions. This is part of the general pattern of the exercise
of US long-arm jurisdiction; examples abound: the depraved arrest,
imprisonment, and torture of journalist and WikiLeaks publisher Julian
Assange—an Australian national—for violating US espionage laws; the
absurd kidnapping of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou (a Chinese national)
on Canadian soil, for violating illegal US sanctions on Iran (which
Canada does not itself uphold); and many other examples, too many to
enumerate.

This long-arm bullying is often exercised through a network of kangaroo
courts within the US, which arrogate to themselves unitary,
plenipotentiary international powers to police the citizens of other
countries. Not surprisingly, the US also applies its own laws in a
similarly corrupt way within its own borders, with its own gulag system
fed through these kangaroo courts.

The most dramatic examples of the corruption of these courts can be
noted in the routine exoneration of police-inflicted murders of
civilians, except under the most extreme protest and activism; and
absurd judgments, such as the prosecution of Steven Donziger by a
Chevron-linked corporate law firm; or the exoneration of Kyle
Rittenhouse by a judge allowing the accused to run the juror lottery.
Note, however, the system itself is set up for conviction: over 99% of
federal cases that go to court result in conviction; most do not even go
to trial: 90% of US federal indictments are settled by defendants
pleading “guilty” or “no contest” to charges filed against them.

The idea that there is any impartial notion of justice is belied by the
fact that fair and adequate legal representation is unaffordable for
most defendants; that appointed public defenders are so overstretched
that they often spend literally minutes on each case, simply counselling
defendants to plead guilty—which most do—and individuals, in the rare
cases where they do win, are often bankrupted and psychically destroyed
by a system that has unlimited resources and finances to beat down its
victims.

This corrupt system of oppression, despite its obvious injustices and
iniquities, is exacerbated within vast grey areas of the justice system
where even counsel, appeal, scrutiny, or oversight does not apply, and
where a single individual may be judge, jury, and executioner. These
include, for example, certain parole and probation systems, review
boards within prisons, debt collection systems, immigration proceedings,
asset forfeiture systems, and many other quasi-judicial systems of
oppression.

Generally, these violations and injustices are excused or erased by the
international and national media, which are complicit in maintaining an
illusion of impartial, high-standards justice in the US. This is an
illusion without substance: the US legal system, like its health care
system or educational system, is essentially a failed system that is
designed to work only for the rich and powerful. It delivers
substandard, so-called care, if not outright abuse, harm, violence, and
death, to the vast majority of people who have the misfortune to enter
its sausage-making chambers.
Routine Exemptions, Deadly Disorder

Nevertheless, from time to time, dramatic incidents of the US flaunting
the international “rules-based order”—i.e., international law by the US
—occasionally make headlines (before being rapidly silenced).

One type of recurring violation is the abuse of diplomatic immunity.
This type of case is mundane and repetitious: a US (or Western-allied)
government employee kills or harms native citizens; the US immediately
claims diplomatic immunity. Sometimes the perpetrator is drunk, out of
control, or paranoid; often they are spies or contractors. For example,
according to recent reports, Anne Sacoolas seems to have been a drunk US
spy who killed a British teenager in 2019. She was spirited away
immediately as a diplomat.

Raymond Allen Davis was a US contractor, possibly acting CIA station
chief, who shot dead two people in the street in Pakistan. Another
person was killed by a vehicle picking up Davis to take him away from
the crime scene. Davis was spirited out of the country, no explanations
were given, and the murders were erased from media consciousness.

This mindset of exceptionalism and impunity is not anecdotal, but
manifests on a general, structural scale in the numerous one-sided U.S.
status of forces agreements (SOFAs) in the countries where the United
States has troops stationed. These give a blanket immunity similar to
diplomatic immunity: the violating US soldier or contractor cannot be
arrested and rendered to domestic courts unless the United States
chooses to waive immunity; US extraterritorial exemption/immunity can be
applied despite cases of murder, mayhem, violence, torture, rape, theft,
sexual trafficking, and a host of other sins.

This type of exceptionalism also applies to national health policies and
international health regulations. For example, multiple COVID-19
outbreaks have been traced to U.S. violations of domestic public health
measures—screening, testing, contract tracing, and isolation—in many
territories or countries (especially island regions) where the United
States has military bases. For example, several major COVID outbreaks in
Okinawa have been traced to U.S. troops entering the island without
following local health protocols.

The US takes the cake for hypocrisy, however, when, in several COVID
lawsuits, it accused China—without evidence—of violating UN/World Health
Organisation (WHO) International Health Regulations by failing to notify
the United States and the rest of the world in a timely manner about the
outbreak of COVID-19. This is entirely refuted by the facts and the
well-established timelines: no other country has worked as assiduously
and as rapidly in investigating, ascertaining, and then notifying the
world of the initial outbreak, as well as sharing necessary information
to control it.

The US, however, has carved out a pandemic-sized exemption from
reporting any infectious diseases to the WHO if it deems it necessary
for its national security interests. Ironically, this exemption is
carved out for the single institution most likely to propagate it—the US
military: “any notification that would undermine the ability of the U.S.
Armed Forces to operate effectively in pursuit of U.S. national security
interests would not be considered practical.”

When the US disingenuously uses the term RBIO, or rules-based
international order, it may be playing at international law, but once
its applications are unpacked and defused, it becomes clear that it is a
weaponised fiction that the US uses to attack its enemies and competitors.

If “hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue,” the RBIO is the
vicious first tribute that the US sends to its law-abiding opponents to
undermine international order, no less dangerous for its falsehood.

K.J. Noh is a journalist, political analyst, writer and teacher
specialising in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region.

Nicole

unread,
May 29, 2022, 2:40:04 AMMay 29
to
In article <wsEkK.8616$6P....@fx38.iad>
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Flush.

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer

unread,
May 29, 2022, 2:17:20 PMMay 29
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages