A refreshing, thorough analysis of current international political thinking. Instead of simply reciting the protestations of the Left, the article examines the Left’s underlying assumptions. Why does it go so far as to support a tyrannical military regime that seizes power by blatantly subverting a democratic election, raises money by drug trafficking, allies with other tyrannical regimes (Iran and China), and destroys a formerly vibrant economy? In short, because it reviles and rejects any assertion of US power — even in the Western hemisphere. And why is that? For the reasons set forth in this piece. This is a lucid explanation of the strange positions and presuppositions of the Left today. An explanation sorely needed to understand our world.
Great article, thank you. The critical piece of the problem is the hypocrisy of the left. Their complaints are always rooted in a double standard because all leftist philosophy is an attempt to justify theft from the successful to redistribute wealth to the so-called poor. In their minds, anyone who has anything they do not is somehow “priviledged”, so they should be allowed to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want from those who have worked hard and succeeded. International law is applied selectively to fit their framework, as you describe.
May I suggest, though, that the Russia - Ukraine situation is different. The Russians have legitimate grievances against the West since the collapse of the USSR. NATO was not supposed to expand to Russia itself. Western leaders have openly stated their goal of destroying Russia and taking its resources. Also, the Ukrainian fascists have severely persecuted the Russian population in eastern Ukraine. All of this should have been resolvable under international law, but since previous US presidents were part of the problem, it left Russia in the position of needing to push back on its own. I think the US would be justified in acting similarly if the roles were reversed. In other words, the West gave Russia the excuse it needed to invade and expand.
China, though, has no legitimate claim on Taiwan. The CCP is dedicated to conquest and expansion and cannot stand that Taiwan presents an alternative example for Chinese people. Taiwan is no physical threat to mainland China. The US could make a good argument that the West should actively defend Taiwan against Chinese invasion, under international law.
This is a terrible example to make a reasonable point, that any and all American action will be rejected by ideologies that have grown over the last 25 years or so.
It’s already clear that nothing about the regime in Venezuela will change, as the Venezualan people still have no voice in government. More desperate migrants, more drugs, just now more oil to American companies, with Papa Trump getting to wet his beak.
This is very well done. It occurs to me that this analysis also resonates powerfully when applied to Israel, which faces a strikingly similar presumption of illegitimacy. Like American power in your piece, Israeli sovereignty is perpetually on trial—not for specific policies but for existing and acting at all.
The same dual framework applies. Through the decolonial lens, Israel is cast as an inherently colonial project whose every assertion of power reinforces structures of oppression. Through the European legalist lens, Israeli military action is condemned for procedural deficiencies even when responding to existential threats that admit no time for multilateral deliberation. The result is identical: any exertion of Israeli power is treated as ab initio illegitimate, while the threats Israel faces are minimized or contextualized as understandable resistance.
The same contradictions emerge. International law is simultaneously dismissed as Western-colonial when it protects Israeli rights, yet invoked as authoritative when constraining Israeli action. Hamas's use of human shields and embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas is excused as asymmetric resistance, while Israeli responses are judged by standards applied to no other nation facing comparable threats. The procedural concern for "proportionality" and "authorization" matters more than the underlying reality: a democratic state defending its citizens against organizations explicitly committed to its annihilation.
A refreshing, thorough analysis of current international political thinking. Instead of simply reciting the protestations of the Left, the article examines the Left’s underlying assumptions. Why does it go so far as to support a tyrannical military regime that seizes power by blatantly subverting a democratic election, raises money by drug trafficking, allies with other tyrannical regimes (Iran and China), and destroys a formerly vibrant economy? In short, because it reviles and rejects any assertion of US power — even in the Western hemisphere. And why is that? For the reasons set forth in this piece. This is a lucid explanation of the strange positions and presuppositions of the Left today. An explanation sorely needed to understand our world.
Excellent essay!
Great article, thank you. The critical piece of the problem is the hypocrisy of the left. Their complaints are always rooted in a double standard because all leftist philosophy is an attempt to justify theft from the successful to redistribute wealth to the so-called poor. In their minds, anyone who has anything they do not is somehow “priviledged”, so they should be allowed to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want from those who have worked hard and succeeded. International law is applied selectively to fit their framework, as you describe.
May I suggest, though, that the Russia - Ukraine situation is different. The Russians have legitimate grievances against the West since the collapse of the USSR. NATO was not supposed to expand to Russia itself. Western leaders have openly stated their goal of destroying Russia and taking its resources. Also, the Ukrainian fascists have severely persecuted the Russian population in eastern Ukraine. All of this should have been resolvable under international law, but since previous US presidents were part of the problem, it left Russia in the position of needing to push back on its own. I think the US would be justified in acting similarly if the roles were reversed. In other words, the West gave Russia the excuse it needed to invade and expand.
China, though, has no legitimate claim on Taiwan. The CCP is dedicated to conquest and expansion and cannot stand that Taiwan presents an alternative example for Chinese people. Taiwan is no physical threat to mainland China. The US could make a good argument that the West should actively defend Taiwan against Chinese invasion, under international law.
Pure cynism. The cynism of a cretin.
Such solid analysis.
So right…
Brilliant
This is a terrible example to make a reasonable point, that any and all American action will be rejected by ideologies that have grown over the last 25 years or so.
It’s already clear that nothing about the regime in Venezuela will change, as the Venezualan people still have no voice in government. More desperate migrants, more drugs, just now more oil to American companies, with Papa Trump getting to wet his beak.
You would enjoy these two essays by the American Civil Rights Leader Bayard Rustin
Africa, Soviet Imperialism & the Retreat of American Power
https://www.commentary.org/articles/bayard-rustin-2/africa-soviet-imperialism-the-retreat-of-american-power/
The War Against Zimbabwe
https://www.commentary.org/articles/bayard-rustin-2/the-war-against-zimbabwe/
This is very well done. It occurs to me that this analysis also resonates powerfully when applied to Israel, which faces a strikingly similar presumption of illegitimacy. Like American power in your piece, Israeli sovereignty is perpetually on trial—not for specific policies but for existing and acting at all.
The same dual framework applies. Through the decolonial lens, Israel is cast as an inherently colonial project whose every assertion of power reinforces structures of oppression. Through the European legalist lens, Israeli military action is condemned for procedural deficiencies even when responding to existential threats that admit no time for multilateral deliberation. The result is identical: any exertion of Israeli power is treated as ab initio illegitimate, while the threats Israel faces are minimized or contextualized as understandable resistance.
The same contradictions emerge. International law is simultaneously dismissed as Western-colonial when it protects Israeli rights, yet invoked as authoritative when constraining Israeli action. Hamas's use of human shields and embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas is excused as asymmetric resistance, while Israeli responses are judged by standards applied to no other nation facing comparable threats. The procedural concern for "proportionality" and "authorization" matters more than the underlying reality: a democratic state defending its citizens against organizations explicitly committed to its annihilation.
Thank you, Zina. Quite clarifying, indeed. Call me, babe. ;)