THE COLLECTIVE WEST IS AT WAR WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

Western powers decided post 9/11 that they MUST have an unimpeded right to strike wherever & whenever they saw fit without any restriction being placed upon them. This is why we are where we are now.

International law remains a barrier to the western powers doing as they wish across our planet. Though they have managed to ride roughshod across it many times in the past they would dearly like it to be dispensed with altogether. 

Going through the United Nations each time a regime change is deemed necessary, or an act of war of any kind, is a time-consuming and frustrating nuisance for the USA and its allies. For it is the United Nations more than any other institution within which the various structures regarding international law are maintained and adjudicated/decided upon in reference to agreed principles.

Instead of international law as it is now accepted and protected via the United Nations, the USA and its allies are determined to replace it with what they call ‘The International Rules-Based Order’. The rules will be decided upon by them and the punishments for breaking those rules will also be decided upon by. There would then be no need to hesitate when plans are drawn up that involve acts which would previously have been seen as acts of war breaking international law.

What has been the timeline for this attempt to move decision making on the geopolitical stage from 193 nations to a small group of around a dozen?

After 9/11 the USA and its allies began to experience some resistance to their plans to attack seven or more nations. The list of seven nations to be targeted and dealt with via regime change was revealed to General Wesley Clark, a retired 4-star U.S. Army general who was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 war on Serbia.

The following is a transcript of part of an interview with Clark in 2007:

“About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

At the United Nations in the run up to the attack upon and invasion of Iraq the USA and its allies found it impossible to obtain the mandate they needed to do so legally. Despite bugging the phones of delegates and exerting massive pressure on them, in the end the world community as reflected within the United Nations refused to countenance the war the western powers desired to initiate. As we know they went ahead anyway asserting that they had the mandate they required from the UN when in fact they did not. The then Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan stated as much on the 15th of September 2004:

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

The USA and its allies learned the lesson then and there that to do what they wished, eliminate and replace at least seven governments worldwide they would have to find some way of by passing the UN in future in order to spare themselves the bad publicity of bypassing it and doing what they wanted anyway.

Thus the war against international law was initiated. Diplomacy as a method of maintaining the peace between nations was abandoned by these same nations concurrently with this war being waged. Diplomacy would only be yet another hindrance to their plans, so it was dispensed with. From now on there would be an approach where only threats and demands, not dialogue nor diplomacy would be used. We can see this in all approaches these nations use now where geopolitical problems for them arise. See Ukraine and Yemen in particular.

9/11 brought about an end to all efforts centred around keeping the peace. The new reality after 9/11 would be about the USA and its allies destroying enemies with scarce any thought about adverse consequences for others, or even for themselves. The necessity to destroy and replace all entities that could possibly represent a future threat to the USA overwhelmed all other considerations. It was to be all… or nothing from then on. All menders of fences, bridge-builders, diplomats and peacemakers could be dispensed with. Why talk with, or try to find common ground with those you are intent on destroying and replacing at the earliest possible moment?

In the days and weeks after 9/11 the sea change in U.S. foreign policy was obvious. It remains obvious to this day. No compromise need apply. There is no Plan B. Any entity that stands against the USA or those under its umbrella, will be attacked and eliminated. No quarter to be given, no matter the knock-on effect or the magnitude of the consequences. To the political elites of the USA and its allies international law was not even of secondary importance, truly it was no longer of any importance at all. In truth it was merely a hindrance and a concept they required to be disappeared. THEY would decide everything and act accordingly from now on, and they would call this ‘The Rules-Based International Order’.