America and the World: Strengthening or Undermining International Law (Part 2)

yep yep i know... you must be asking why is it that the first thing i post after my exam (hence signalling the start of my long weekend) is a serious article... well first of all, i do want to finish typing it, and second since everyone thinks intelligence is a factor, here i am, funny AND intelligent! LOL! (you guys know i'm kidding right)

okok back to the topic proper, here's the second part of the talk:

Mr. Mahbubahni raised the point earlier about how the US strengthened the International Law constitution with the advert of the UN Charter. In the years after its formation, however, it seems that the US has realized that there can be "too much of a good thing"; in this case, a strong UN infringing on her own interests. Thus, it is an open secret that the US has purposefully kept the UN weak with the appointment of ineffective secretary-generals. Mr. Kofi Annan has proved to be an exception, but with the recent blight of scandals that he is now embroiled in, it is no wonder that strong secretary-generals are a rare breed indeed.

American behavior in the UN Security Council has also been abysmal; the purpose of the council is to act as a global "fire department", extinguishing fires around the world if need be. Recent events, however, have highlighted the capricious nature of the US-led council. Notable examples include the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, as well as Bosnia, just to name a few. It seems that the behavior of the Security Council is strongly influenced by American interests. Such is the case for the IMF (International Monetary Fund) as well, with the slow aid provided to asian countries in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis contrasting heavily with the swift influx of aid during the Peso crisis. Such behavior has undermined global influence in key international institutions, thus stifling the emergence of increased levels of global cooperation.

The US has often failed to live up to its leadership role expected of the sole true global superpower of the modern era. One key example is the Law of the Sea Treaty, of which leaders of many countries negotiated for lengthy periods of time. Despite the compromises offered by many of the participating countries, the US did not sign it eventually, stating that the principles of sea-bed mining entailed by the treaty did not suit US interests. Many leaders were left aghast at such rogue behavior unexpected of a global leader seeking greater international cooperation.

Another example of such renegade behavior can be found in the negotiations of Cambodia's peace plans in the early 1980's. Many asian countries had agreed that when Vietnam leaves Camobodia, the country should be allowed to hold free elections to install a new government representing Cambodian interests. The Chinese, however, held strong objections to such a view: they insisted that the Khmer Rouge, the previous governing body before the Vietnamese arrived in Cambodia, be allowed automatic control, stating prevalent international laws as justification. The US, when called upon to make a stand, failed to support the cause for human rights; they insisted that the chinese position is right, because China is an "ally of the US", and that the asian countries should withdraw their objections to such a plan.

Mr Mahbubahni, due to a lack of time, touched briefly on the following examples of negative US behavior:
1. Non-adherence to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and how countries like Israel, Pakistan and India are not punished for possesive nuclear capabilities. This is a cause for concern, because other middle powers (i.e. Iran, Brazil) might be tempted to follow in their footsteps, given the lack of deterrence for such behavior.
2. US non-adherence to the Kyoto Protocol.
3. The US went to the Security Council to seek legitimization for invading Iraq (UN Charter, Article 51). When that failed, they proceeded anyway. What would the other countries think? What are the rules governing the game now?
4. The US has always been a strong advocate of Human Rights, but ever since the Guantanamo incident after Operation Iraqi Freedom, where it severely commited serious violations of human rights, the US is now in a postion where it has no moral high ground to comment on other countries, notably China.

In conclusion, Mr. Mahbubahni states that the US should seek to mend its dented image as a global leader, and actively seek to lead in the strengthening of the International Law. She must recognize that only the existence of a rules-based international order would benefit US interests in the long run.