Gideon Rachman je v Financial Timesu podal eno najbolj pritlehnih, da ne rečem zavržnih, argumentacij glede “izstopne klavzule” ZDA in drugih zahodnih držav iz sicer zavezujočih pravil mednarodnega pravnega reda. Njegovo stališče je, da lahko ZDA in druge zahodne države kadarkoli odstopijo od “globalnih pravil“, saj s svojimi dejanji po definiciji zgolj “branijo svobodni svet“. In tega jih (dobesedno) ni treba biti nič sram.

Rachman svoj komentar lepo začne z opisom očitnega kršenja mednarodnih pravil s strani ZDA:

As an organising principle for western foreign policy, the “rules-based international order” has long suffered from some disastrous flaws. It is a phrase that means nothing to a normal person. As a result, it is a deeply uninspiring concept. People might go to war to defend freedom or the motherland. Nobody is going to fight and die for the RBIO.

Nonetheless, senior western policymakers seem to be in love with the concept. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is fond of appealing to the rules-based international order when he visits China. Rishi Sunak, Britain’s prime minister, has put the RBIO at the centre of UK foreign policy. His likely successor, Sir Keir Starmer, a former lawyer, will be just as committed to the idea.

In opposing Russian aggression, Blinken argues that the US is standing up for a world based on rules rather than raw power. That is an attractive idea. But rules are meant to be consistent. And America’s own actions are undermining vital parts of the rules-based order.

The past fortnight has brutally exposed these contradictions. The 100 per cent tariffs that the Biden administration has imposed on Chinese electric vehicles are virtually impossible to reconcile with international rules on trade. As a paper for Bruegel, a think-tank, puts it: “The tariffs . . . quash any notion that the US intends to abide by World Trade Organization rules.”

America’s response to the prospect that the International Criminal Court will bring war crimes charges against Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, was also telling. Rather than supporting the court’s effort to enforce international law, Blinken told the US Congress that the administration would consider imposing sanctions on the ICC.

No, po tem lepem uvodu, s katerim se zaradi njegove evidentnosti v praksi lahko strinja celotna svetovna populacija, pa Rachman nato zaide v iskanje »escape clause«, torej v iskanje opravičila, zakaj naj bi bile ZDA upravičene v kršenje »globalnih pravil«, ki so jih same postavile in jih tako rade zagovarjajo nasproti tretjim državam … ko jim to ustreza. In to opravičilo Rachman najde v tem, da naj se ZDA namesto na »mednarodni red« oziroma »globalna pravila« v svojem ravnanju raje sklicujejo na to, da »branijo svobodni svet«:

So what can be salvaged from this mess? One answer is for Blinken and co to talk less about the rules-based international order and more about defending the free world. That is a more accurate and comprehensible description of what western foreign policy is actually about.

Zakaj? Ker naj bi bil svet, v katerem bi postale bolj močne nekatere avtoritarne države, »manj varen za svobodne ljudi in države«:

The US, the EU, the UK and other democracies such as Japan, South Korea and Ukraine are currently struggling to contain the territorial and political ambitions of authoritarian countries — above all, China and Russia. A world in which those countries are more powerful will be less safe for free people and countries.

Rachman pravi, da je v tem svetu pač treba »sprejeti nekaj nujnih nekonsistentnosti«. Sem nekam spada ameriško neposredno politično in vojaško podpiranje izraelskega masakra v Gazi, eksplicitno zavračanje odločitev obeh najvišjih mednarodnih sodišč v okviru OZN (ICC in ICJ) in celo ameriške uradne grožnje obema s sankcijami. In nekam sem spadajo povsem nelegalne (glede na določila WTO) carine na kitajske električne avte, ker pač gre za »prizadevanje za preprečitev prevlade Kitajske v panogah prihodnosti«. Ha!

Unlike the defence of a rules-based order — which implies absolute consistency — the defence of the free world involves accepting some necessary inconsistency. During the cold war, the US and its allies made some tactical alliances with undemocratic regimes, as part of the broader effort to contain and ultimately defeat the Soviet Union.

In today’s world, the US is once again making uncomfortable trade-offs as part of a larger struggle with the major authoritarian powers. America’s tariffs on Chinese EVs make little sense as a defence of the rules-based order. They make much more sense when seen as an effort to prevent China dominating the industries of the future.

In nato Rachman elokventno zaključi, da se ZDA kljub temu ne ni smele odpovedati mednarodnemu pravnemu redu, ker bi to lahko pomenilo »recept za globalno anarhijo«. In to bi bilo nepraktično in tudi ne modro, kajti v “globalnih pravilih” je mnogo koristnih – za uporabo proti neželenim osebam ali praksam. Kadar to ustreza ZDA.

Po Rachmanu imajo demokratične zahodne države pravico, da odstopijo od mednarodnih pravil, kadar »branijo svobodni svet«. In še več – »svetovnim demokracijam se ni treba opravičevati za neusmiljenost v obrambi svobodnih družb«:

Dialling down the rhetoric about the rules-based international order should not mean abandoning international law altogether. That would be a recipe for global anarchy. It would also be unwise and impractical. There is a lot of international law and finding yourself on the wrong side of it can be very disadvantageous. Vladimir Putin — and perhaps soon, Netanyahu — will find that their travel plans are severely restricted by ICC warrants.

Russia and China always argue that their actions are consistent with international law — even when they blatantly are not. The US will sometimes have to do the same thing. International lawfare is part of the emerging struggle between democratic and authoritarian powers.

That does not mean that the two sides are on the same moral level. As in the cold war and the earlier struggles of the 20th century, the world’s democracies do not need to apologise for being ruthless in defence of free societies.

Torej, če niste razumeli do sedaj, boste od sedaj naprej. Zahodnim političnim voditeljem ni treba biti nič nerodno, kadar pohodijo pravice določenih manjšin, saj »branijo svobodni svet«. Če Rusija ali neka nezahodna država zaščiti pravice svoje manjšine v drugi državi, gre seveda za eklatantno kršenje »mednarodnega pravnega reda« oziroma »globalnih pravil«, ker Rusija ni demokratična država in zato po definiciji »ne brani svobodnega sveta«.

Zahodnih politikov ni treba biti nič sram, če napadejo kakšno tretjo državo, saj le »branijo svobodni svet«. ZDA so v Afganistanu, Iraku, Libiji, Siriji itd. zgolj »branile svobodni svet«. Ko Rusija napade Ukrajino, da bi zaščitila veliko rusko manjšino, gre seveda za eklatantno kršenje »mednarodnega pravnega reda« oziroma »globalnih pravil«, ker Rusija ni demokratična država in zato po definiciji »ne brani svobodnega sveta«.

In če še niste razumeli – Izrael v Gazi zgolj »brani svobodni svet«.

Če ste zahodna država – z vlado, ki je po okusu Washingtona – lahko delate kar hočete, saj z vašimi ravnanji zgolj »branite svobodni svet«. Če niste zahodna država ali če niste avtoritarna država, ki je po okusu Washingtona, z vsemi svojimi dejanji v svojem bistvu »ogrožate svobodni svet«, zato vas ZDA lahko kaznujejo mimo vseh pravil mednarodnega pravnega reda.

Konec debate. Kadija te tuži, kadija ti sudi.