US Exits Organizations, International Law Still Optional
Fox News breathlessly reported the Trump administration’s withdrawal from 66 international organizations, including UN groups, posing the question of 'who’s next?' (Fox News, 2020). The real question isn't 'who's next,' but rather, 'who cares?' for certain global players. This isn't groundbreaking policy; it's a reiteration of a playbook well-worn by administrations seeking to avoid scrutiny.
Consider the US's historical relationship with international law: withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 (under George W. Bush) and threatening sanctions against its officials, or the iconic 1986 rejection of the International Court of Justice ruling against US support for Contras in Nicaragua. Membership is always conditional—on the condition that the rules never apply to
us. This selective engagement strategy conveniently allows for unimpeded geopolitical maneuvers, like funding military endeavors abroad while defunding international health initiatives. It lets one champion 'democracy' while simultaneously dismissing international legal frameworks that might challenge its own actions. The narrative isn't about isolation; it's about curated impunity, ensuring that
when accusations of human rights violations or war crimes arise—say, involving weaponry supplied to certain allies—the US can simply ghost the international jury. (Does anyone remember the UN Human Rights Council? The US has been in and out more times than a cat with a screen door.)