Trump is also making war on the “multilateral myth”
Every act that reasserts American sovereignty—on Iran, on trade, on immigration, on energy—is an act of regime change against the supranational order that has governed American life, foreign and domestic, for at least 70 years. The strikes on Khamenei’s compound are a demonstration that a sovereign nation, acting in its own interest, does not need institutional permission. The Trump Administration just showed that the veto that the multilateral order spent decades embedding into American foreign policy—through think tanks, through NGOs, through carefully managed BRICS adversaries—can simply be ignored.
I assume she has a reason for saying that this viewpoint “has governed American life … for at least 70 years,” but I think that time frame isn’t correct. I think “governing” American life came considerably later, although the idea or the effort to do it probably predates 70 years.
I agree, however, that Trump’s policies are absolutely the antithesis of those goals and that this is one very good reason why the Western European elites oppose nearly everything he does and everything he says. He is the epitome of American bluster and power and is much less afraid than previous American presidents in recent years to use both, if necessary, to advance the interests of this nation. Sometimes those interests actually benefit other nations, as well – as presently is true for the Iranian people and even for the safety of Europe. But Western Europe’s leftist leaders don’t want to admit it.
In law school long ago, I studied international law. I was a Democrat back then, but I quickly decided that international law was a very limited instrument, good for deciding certain relatively minor disputes between nations that had already decided to submit to its rulings, and good for little else.
In 2006 I wrote on the topic and reposted it in 2024. Here are some excerpts:
Furthermore, there’s a general principle involved, one that should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of sense:
To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.
The International Red Cross has neither over Hezbollah at this point. The only way it would get that power–and it could never obtain #1, only #2–is by a military defeat of Hezbollah, a capture of its leaders, and the act of subsequently bringing them before an international tribunal.
And, of course, to defeat Hezbollah would require a response the International Red Cross already has already condemned as violating the principles of proportionality, since Hezbollah is well aware of the value of hiding behind civilians, and does so purposely and frequently. So, how in heaven’s name would any international court ever get authority over Hezbollah, except to try them in absentia? And a fat lot of good that would do, except as meaningless theater.
It’s all empty posturing, although many people accept it as valid because they want it to be valid. I also would like for nations to beat their swords into ploughshares, as in Isaiah. But meanwhile, there is “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”
NGO = No Government Oversight, which in practice means they consider themselves unaccountable to elected representative governments. A law unto themselves, our insect overlords.
A pox on all of them.
Possibly the only good reason to study international law is to get hooked up with organizations that will send you on all-expenses-paid trips to groovy overseas destinations. Where you may skip out on attending the meaningless conferences and panel discussions that are the presumptive reason for your trip to have fun at your groovy destinations.
And yet, in a very real sense, an NGO that accepts / depends upon government money is *not* an NGO: it’s a sort of pseudo- or quasi- Government Organization
. . . if you ask me, which you did not. (Yes, a pox on all of ’em. [om, 4:40 pm])
The post-WWII age is over and so is all it underpinned. Trump in a way is channeling Mao.
We are also witness to the death of a major political party. They’ll be back under new name and management which is good . For all ideas must have opposing voices or we’ll become Democrats
Probably a distinction should be made between NGOs which accept government grants and those which don’t.
I would say that the effort to launch a supranational order began with the failed League of Nations but really got going with the establishment of the UN eighty years ago.
Kate (6:42 pm), I readily accept your friendly amendment!
Marisa (7:18 pm), seems to be about right.
Gulliver is breaking free of his restraints.
We await his call to put out a fire, eh, crasey? Heh
Kate on March 6, 2026 at 6:42 pm said:
“Probably a distinction should be made between NGOs which accept government grants and those which don’t.”
But I think you will agree that an NGO taking federal money and dishing it out to its “friends” is just extending the government payouts into a labyrinth of slush funds for political advancement.
In thinking about Hillsdale College as famous for not taking any federal money, they would still admit they are the beneficiaries of much government spending for infrastructure and for the feeder K-12 system that supplies their students [in addition to their own efforts to improve that K-12 process.]. Or the judicial and national security systems that protect us all. No one can get fully away from our governmental influences, but that is the balance our Founders worked to achieve.
From Data Republican: “The Trump Administration just showed that the veto that the multilateral order spent decades embedding into American foreign policy—through think tanks, through NGOs, through carefully managed BRICS adversaries—can simply be ignored.”
I wonder if there will end up being a particular judicial ruling that will be so egregious that Trump will also just simply ignore it.
No wonder ‘they’ hate Trump so. I mean beyond his unfortunate habit of calling names in a fashion perfected on the playground.
He has reminded everyone that their world order is meaningless without the acquiescence of the United States.
I sometimes think that one of the most significant events since the end of WWII was the defeat of Trump in 2020. During his time in the wilderness he honed a ruthlessness that had been previously inhibited to some extent. It gave him four years to meditate on how to exercise power.
I am reminded of the cartoon of a bull, with a recognizable face, roaring through a china shop.
If I were a UN bureaucrat I would not sign a long term lease in NYC.
Pax Americana is more than an empty phrase.
Oldflyer wrote:
“No wonder ‘they’ hate Trump so. I mean beyond his unfortunate habit of calling names in a fashion perfected on the playground.”
This well-turned phrase gave me a laugh. I agree that Trump can be rude. On the other hand, I think his crudity is often calculated, and his bluntness is refreshing. As verbal aggression, it communicates that he isn’t “playing”.
I enjoy it when he afflicts the comfortable; they have certainly been unsparing of him.
I still have those moments myself sometimes, maybe due to my New England upbringing, where I feel Trump is “not Presidential”. Should be “more diplomatic”. But all you need to do to justify Trump is look at his enemies. The Democrats. The Euros. Maduro and Khameini. Bauxite. And what he’s accomplished. Then you realize complaining about his “tone” is just petty carping.
The lion shall lie down with the lamb. Endless peace, right? Can’t fail, right.?So there should be no problem if I’m the lion, right? Right?
FOAF I’m with you, and yes I’m a New Englander too (HMMM). Pretty Much Trump’s style is that of a New York Real Estate operator (Surprise! Surprise!!!). The only presidents that he seems even close to in actions are Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. But the alternative is SOOOO bad that Trump’s idiosyncracies are far preferable to the Mess that was Biden or what Ms, Harris would have been . I look forward to 2028 with hope, Either Vance or Rubio would serve well. It is critical we have Presidency and house/senate in 2028 and across 2030 so the census will not be fiddled with to favor blue states.
And Mr. Aubrey the lamb may lie down with the lion, but if we have not reached the Second Coming and the new world it had darn well better sleep with one eye open lest it end up lamb chops.
Over the last several months I’ve been learning about Allied escort vessels during the Second World War. And before the war began there were treaties which specified what naval vessels a country could build, how many, and maximum tonnage.
I had two thoughts:
–and what would happen to a nation if it said “heck with that, we’ll build what we want”? attack? armed conflict? super serious sanctions???
–nations found ways of getting around the treaty stipulations without violating them (Britain built destroyers with firepower which meant they punched like cruisers)
Who enforces “international law”? and how? And how will nations find ways to get around international law without directly violating it?
Yes, China, we see you back there.