Globalism with ball-and-chain flail

Are some more equal in international law than others?

The United States began by denying international law. Their very war of independence was such a denial of the English king’s right to the North American colonies. Having already won that war, the newly formed States withdrew from international law and declared the Monroe Doctrine in 1823: ‘America for Americans’. The rest of the world should stay out of their affairs. In principle, it continues to this day.

Imposing one’s own will 

The Monroe Doctrine was a reaction to the European Holy Alliance’s attempt to establish its ‘globalisation’ and create a universal, including for America, international law. 

A hundred years later, the Yankees crossed over to the other side of the street and raised up the banner of international law, imposing it on the whole world. After WWI, having become creditors of an exhausted Europe, they decided to colonise it in return. 

For what it was necessary to force the ‘old Europe’ to sign a ‘small contract’ in addition to the debt obligations: the Charter of the International Universal Organisation of the League of Nations. Sounds nice? Well, yes... Only at the bottom of the treaty, as if seen in small letters: ‘Europe is becoming a colony of America’. 
President Woodrow Wilson, who brought the idea of the League of Nations to Paris, although he formally realised it (the League of Nations was created after all), returned to the US empty-handed. European politicians back then were craftier than American lawyers. They twisted the charter so cleverly that Americans refused to ratify their own brainchild. 
But they have developed a steady taste for rules and international law, as well as for a ball-and-chain flail. They fully satisfied it after WWII, after which Europeans were not just left without money, but literally became paupers. Yes, they were still reading both the small print and the large print, but they were no longer able to object. Literally, they had no right to object and became an American colony! 

  Voting machine 

Until 1961, when 17 African countries gained independence and became members of the UN, the United States had a voting machine in the organisation that stamped out Washington’s every whim. African countries established close contacts with the Soviet Union, and the ‘machine’ broke down. From that moment on, ‘distrust of the UN’ became Washington’s official doctrine. 
The pendulum swung back again only in 1987, under Gorbachev, who surrendered all, including diplomatic, positions of the USSR in international organisations. However, during those long 26 years — from 1961 to 1987 — the United States, often unable to ‘work’ formally and advance its interests within the UN, has learnt to ‘work’ informally. 

The White House has created a worldwide network of non-governmental international organisations that enjoy US support or deny it, but necessarily promote US interests. Washington created parallel UN structures, all kinds of ‘foundations’, ‘amnesties’, ‘commissions’ and even ‘courts’ that not only ‘paralleled’ and discredited the UN, but also entered into direct competition with it, and even replaced it. 

Such organisations became pocket organisations for the US not only in terms of finance, but also in terms of management. Curiously enough, Soros and ‘his money’ always found themselves in the place wherever the American government started another expansion! Can such coincidences be coincidental? And for 45 years? It is more logical to assume otherwise: the grey and black cash of the US government is being pumped through Soros where it doesn’t want to be in the public eye… 

Court and essence 

The parallelisation of the UN, which has lost its authority, has only intensified over the years. Thus, amid the ‘immobilised’ UN International Court of Justice, part of the organisation’s structure, a certain International Criminal Court (ICC) appeared in Rome in 2002... and immediately moved to The Hague, closer to the UN International Court of Justice to make them easier to confuse. A tactic of all crooks, including judges. 

Meanwhile, the two should not be confused. The ICC is nothing. Even the US has distanced itself from it by not recognising its jurisdiction, lest it become too obvious that the United States is behind all its ‘decisions’. I emphasise, all of them! 

And let no recent news be confusing. In late November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Jewish Defence Minister Yoav Galant for ‘alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity’ committed in Palestine.
Firstly, the decision was made by only three judges, i.e. the notorious ‘troika’. Secondly, no one is going to try to arrest either of them. It would be illogical for the US to first give all the necessary weapons to commit ‘alleged war crimes’ and then arrest them for it. That’s why Biden is ‘condemning’ the trial! And Senator Lindsey Graham is threatening to impose sanctions on countries if they help the court with the arrest. 

But then why, if the ICC is so pro-American (and it is!), does it issue such a bizarre judgement? Biden has to somehow tell Netanyahu not to overreact! Joe’s afraid to do it directly, so he’s using his judicial ‘bootlickers’. Let them yapp, if only for show.

As they say in the old gangster song: ‘The dog was barking at the dude!’ So what? 


Mysterious donor
Only those who can believe in the independence and ‘non-governmentalism’ of Soros can believe that this man has donated $34bn of his own savings to ‘the cause 
of democracy’ across 40 countries of the world.

Own diplomacy
In 1987, the then 5th Secretary General of the UN, the Peruvian Javier Perez de Cuellar, opened the score of renegade secretaries general and effectively closed the history of the UN as a universal, i.e. acting on behalf of all, international organisation. In his report on the work of the secretariat, Cuellar first introduced the concept of ‘UN diplomacy’... and thus took diplomacy away from all member states. So the American-led ‘victory’ of international law brought that law to a complete collapse: it simply disappeared as early as 1987!

By Vadim Yelfimov, political scientist, PhD in History