RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Monbiot writes: "A one-sided justice sees weaker states punished as rich nations and giant corporations project their power across the world."

The international criminal court has limited power. (photo: Daniel Pudles)
The international criminal court has limited power. (photo: Daniel Pudles)



Imperialism Didn't End. It's Now Called International Law.

By George Monbiot, Guardian UK

03 May 12

 

he conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is said to have sent an unequivocal message to current leaders: that great office confers no immunity. In fact it sent two messages: if you run a small, weak nation, you may be subject to the full force of international law; if you run a powerful nation, you have nothing to fear.

While anyone with an interest in human rights should welcome the verdict, it reminds us that no one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq. This fits the Nuremberg tribunal's definition of a "crime of aggression", which it called "the supreme international crime". The charges on which, in an impartial system, George Bush, Tony Blair and their associates should have been investigated are far graver than those for which Taylor was found guilty.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, claims that Taylor's conviction "demonstrates that those who have committed the most serious of crimes can and will be held to account for their actions". But the international criminal court, though it was established 10 years ago, and though the crime of aggression has been recognised in international law since 1945, still has no jurisdiction over "the most serious of crimes". This is because the powerful nations, for obvious reasons, are procrastinating. Nor have the United Kingdom, the United States and other western nations incorporated the crime of aggression into their own legislation. International law remains an imperial project, in which only the crimes committed by vassal states are punished.

In this respect it corresponds to other global powers. Despite its trumpeted reforms, the International Monetary Fund remains under the control of the United States and the former colonial powers. All constitutional matters still require an 85% share of the vote. By an inexplicable oversight, the United States retains 16.7%, ensuring that it possesses a veto over subsequent reforms. Belgium still has eight times the votes of Bangladesh, Italy a bigger share than India, and the United Kingdom and France between them more voting power than the 49 African members. The managing director remains, as imperial tradition insists, a European, her deputy an American.

The IMF, as a result, is still the means by which western financial markets project their power into the rest of the world. At the end of last year, for example, it published a paper pressing emerging economies to increase their "financial depth", which it defines as "the total financial claims and counterclaims of an economy". This, it claimed, would insulate them from crisis. As the Bretton Woods Project points out, emerging nations with large real economies and small financial sectors were the countries which best weathered the economic crisis, which was caused by advanced economies with large financial sectors. Like the modern opium wars it waged in the 1980s and 1990s – when it forced Asian countries to liberalise their currencies, permitting western financial speculators to attack them – the IMF's prescriptions are incomprehensible until they are understood as instruments of financial power.

Decolonisation did not take place until the former colonial powers and the empires of capital on whose behalf they operated had established other means of retaining control. Some, like the IMF and World Bank, have remained almost unchanged. Others, like the programme of extraordinary rendition, evolved in response to new challenges to global hegemony.

As the kidnapping of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife suggests, the UK's foreign and intelligence services see themselves as a global police force, minding the affairs of other nations. In 2004, after Tony Blair, with one eye on possible contracts for British oil companies, decided that Gaddafi was a useful asset, the alliance was sealed with the capture, packaging and delivery of the regime's dissenters.

Like the colonial crimes the British government committed in Kenya and elsewhere, whose concealment was sustained by the Foreign Office until its secret archives were revealed last month, the rendition programme was hidden from public view. Just as the colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to parliament about the detention and torture of Kikuyu people, in 2005 Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told parliament that "there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition".

Reading the emails passed between the offices of James Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt, it struck me that here too is a government which sees itself as an agent of empire – Murdoch's in this case – and which sees the electorate as ornamental. Working, against the public interest, for News Corporation, the financial sector and the billionaire donors to the Conservative party, its ministers act as capital's district commissioners, governing Britain as their forebears governed the colonies.

The bid for power, oil and spheres of influence that Bush and Blair launched in Mesopotamia, using the traditional camouflage of the civilising mission; the colonial war still being fought in Afghanistan, 199 years after the Great Game began; the global policing functions the great powers have arrogated to themselves; the one-sided justice dispensed by international law. All these suggest that imperialism never ended, but merely mutated into new forms. The virtual empire knows no boundaries. Until we begin to recognise and confront it, all of us, black and white, will remain its subjects.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+10 # Activista 2012-05-03 21:22
"no one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq" - Libya, Syria, Iran - virtual empire of NEOCONS is stronger than ever ...
Is USA able to produce main media to criticize the US criminal regime as does Guardian in GB?
Money talks ...
 
 
+7 # cadan 2012-05-03 22:36
I think this is a good article because it exposes more of the imperial infrastructure, and the way it is disguised.

Remember just a few weeks ago all the news about the new head of the World Bank, and how progressive it was that it was that he (Jim Yong Kim) was so much better than his predecessors?

But actually, the attention should have been on whether the World Bank and IMF and affiliated institutions should even exist.

Thank you George Monbriot.
 
 
0 # grouchy 2012-05-04 02:49
If you have a chance to vote on things, vote for greed since it usually wins!
 
 
+6 # rhgreen 2012-05-04 06:53
I am not always a fan of George Monbiot. I find him to be naive on some issues, for example global warming. However I must say that this article about the continuing methods used by the large powerful rich countries to project imperialism on the small poor weak ones is excellent. I cannot come up with any criticism of it at all. It is all-points dead on. Thanks.
 
 
+4 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-05-04 08:19
Meseems International Law is not the problem but unbalanced commitment & enforcement are. We wait & wait to see Bush & Co. in the Dock, & there’s no justice or law till they are....
 
 
+6 # Glen 2012-05-04 14:45
Interesting how few comments have been posted concerning this issue. These concerns are what are bringing down the U.S.
 
 
+2 # cadan 2012-05-04 17:28
You're right Glen.

But i think the reason is that it is sort of technical, there are all these organizations (World Bank, IMF), and all these characters in charge of the organizations.

In short, it is working as designed --- make it obscure, have some semblance of international involvement in decision making --- and then really exploit the target countries.
 
 
+1 # Glen 2012-05-05 05:16
Out of sight out of mind. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage, personality cults - all are immediate, identifiable and emotional, therefore take the stage. I know only a handful of people who research and understand how huge the system is and who is influencing everything on the planet. Of course, reading this article would be a start.

Most people don't understand at all why the IMF, and similar, have received protests.
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2012-05-04 21:04
Excellent article by Monbiot. It needs to be said that not only George Bush and his cabal need to be on trial for crimes against humanity; as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, every president since the Nuremberg Trials concluded has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, some more egregiously than others. This, of course, merely reinforces the point he was making that International Law is for the weak and vassal states, while the powerful, as ever, make the rules at the same time as they exempt themselves (and their clients, manservants and amanuenses) from them.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN