Madess Continues as the U.S. House Speaker Threatens the World Court

Richard Mellor
HEO/GED
Afsc,me Local 444, retired
5-26-24

In different times I would have referred to comments like these as the arrogance of US imperialism in a world that it dominated for a while after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was before the dream of Full Spectrum Dominance became a nightmare.

I share some comments below from Arnaud Bertrand whose comments I have shared before. He is someone I follow on X or Twitter as most people still call it. and his comments are usually very interesting and informative as are those below. However,

What we are witnessing is the global unraveling of the capitalist system. There is no doubt that the existence of nuclear powers has acted as a deterrent preventing global conflicts between the major powers, China, the US, Russia and European nuclear power not to mention India and Pakistan. In the place of a repeat of the two World Wars we have had many regional conflicts, never ending wars as we call them now. But as we find ourselves in late stage capitalism, and as the world's number one player loses its influence, there is a danger that a nuclear conflict could break out. I do not think it likely, but it can't be ruled out. As things go, environmental catastrophe or nuclear war are definitely part of the program.  No hegemon walks off the stage willingly and the U.S. ruling class will do much more damage before it leaves the stage.

No ruling class commits class suicide and the US ruling class is no exception. Mr. Bertrand is right to be shocked by the statement by the US House Speaker Mike Johnson in the video. We are used to it here though; the U.S. Congress is full of people like him. He is a right wing Christian that wants to re-introduce anti-Sodomy laws, is against gay rights, and wants to enforce Christian dominion over all aspects of society. He hates unions and workers rights he's a little more cautious in his approach to that issue though. 

Johnson blames  abortion for the school shootings.  It's not just Republicans. The Democrats, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy are no different; Biden is quite the warmonger.

Also, with workers rights, Biden and the Democrats are all for unions as long as they don't hurt the economy. The blocking of the rail workers strike showed that.  They are all for protests, as long as they are ineffective, what they call peaceful. Same with picket lines, they are OK as long as they don't halt production which is what they are supposed to do.

What we are witnessing is the deepening political crisis in the US as the era of the domination of the two parties of capitalism comes to an end. This unraveling if you like, is not limited to the U.S. but the global capitalist system

Mr. Bertrand is right to be shocked and his comments are rational and make sense, and I'm sure there are plenty of workers and capitalists that would agree that "common sense" will prevail. But as the capitalist system degenerates apace, its leaders reflect the same degeneration.  The Zionists have gone mad, that is clear for all to see. Perhaps all that's keeping them from nuking the resistance or nuking Iran, is that they are too close for comfort and Israeli's will be victims also.  It's a horrible situation over there.

I am optimistic, barring a nuclear conflict, that at some point the working classes of the Middle East and the world will enter the stage and face accept the task that history has set for us. I am convinced this will occur, when is a different matter. Either way, I see no other solution. For Palestine/Israel, there is no possibility of a two state solution. A single democratic state is raised but I do not believe that can occur under capitalism. A single democratic socialist state as part of a federation of democratic socialist state sin the Middle East and throughout the world is ultimately the only solution to this madness.

Here's MR. Bertrands, comments; they are useful.

Arnaud Bertand
On Twitter (X) @RnaudBertrand

I do not think it likely as Mr. Bertrand concludes, that the U.S. will come to its senses and that "restoring unipolarity is a pipe dream and that abiding by common rules is inevitable and for the greater good."

I'm actually genuinely shocked by the amount of Americans who commented on this  saying it was perfectly normal for the US not to be bound by international law, and arguing for "America first" as if there was some sort of opposition between international law and American interests.

The current framework of international law, centered around the UN Charter, was drafted by the victors of World War II, very much including the US, to establish common rules and prevent a recurrence of the devastating conflicts and horrors that characterized the first half of the twentieth century.

The US is not on a different planet, it benefits like all others from living in a world with rules. And in fact it probably benefits more from that than most given how connected it is to the rest of the world and given how biased the rules are in its favor, given they're the ones who wrote them in the first place... As a reminder, only five countries have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council so by definition these countries are at a huge advantage compared with others.

Bhutan for instance, the isolated Himalayan kingdom, doesn't care much one way or another if some rules are drawn on, say, international maritime trade regulations. They are not a major player in that domain, and their economy is not heavily dependent on global trade routes. The impact of such regulations on their daily lives would be negligible.

The US however, as global player, would be not only hugely impacted by such rules, but it is unequivocally in its interests that these rules exist. The reason is because, in this instance, without such rules, trade would collapse: the risk premium of sending a container ship on the ocean would skyrocket due to the resulting instability and unpredictability of not having the rules... As a reminder, trade accounts for 26% of US GDP, it enables millions of American jobs and it's also a significant factor in the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency. Looking at things "America first", you actually want international law to exist.

The US also cannot continue having its cake and eating it too, i.e. expect the world to comply with rules while it (and the West in general) doesn't. It might have been possible during a very short period of time when we were in a unipolar world with the US as the sole great power. But in the multipolar world we find ourselves in today, it's completely unsustainable because the US has lost the power to compel other countries to follow its will. If the US doesn't respect rules, all it does is destroy the rules for everyone, and ultimately ends up undermining its own interests.

This current transition from unipolarity to multipolarity is actually the very reason why there is that anti-international law movement in the US today. It is the US realizing that they're now in a world where they not only cannot unilaterally dictate terms anymore but will also need to accommodate others' interests. And having limitations when you previously didn't is always hard to take... Hence the kneejerk reaction.

It will undoubtedly take a while for the US to realize that restoring unipolarity is a pipe dream and that abiding by common rules is inevitable and for the greater good. In a way it needs to relearn the same lessons it did learn after both world wars: hopefully this time around a world war won't be necessary for these lessons to sink in...