As the U.S. embarks on its latest role as enforcer of international law, even as it avoids the United Nations, it does so from a position of profound weakness. That’s not to say that the U.S. suffers from military weakness, far from it. But in the realm of international law, their weakness is hypocrisy. For any reader of history knows that there are few international laws that the U.S. hasn’t broken. It’s kind of like billionaire swindler Bernie Madoff complaining about pickpockets.
When the U.S. attacked Syria for its possession and use of chemical weapons against civilians, we conveniently have forgotten about the U.S. use of white phosphorus against the men, women, and children of Fallujah, in Iraq. Its use forced some 300,000 to flee their homes in terror. When Israel used those weapons in Gaza and slew hundreds of Palestinians, the U.S. had no condemnation. In fact, the U.S. supplied it. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it broke the most fundamental international convention there is: attacking a nation that did not attack them. Now they threaten to break international law again, because Syria has broken international law. Does that make sense?
Being an empire, it seems, means never having to say you’re sorry, or never having to follow international law. It is the law of the strong against the weak. It is the law of force. It is not the law of the just. Syria, like Iraq, is reduced to the status of a demonstration of imperial power. And that just ain’t right. From in prison nation, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal.
These commentaries are recorded by Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio.
