As in the film "A Pure Formality", terribly true and shocking, international reality has definitively shown the West its "geopolitical suicide". The "rules-based order", the one we Westerners wave in the face of totalitarianism, is simply a dolphinist theoretical construction, of pure academic "General Theory of Law". There can be no rule without a sanction and without due process. There is no rule of law without these legal foundations. There is only the Leviathan, the universal testament that Hobbes left us.
An international law conceived in this way has led to the modern devastation of the same principles that animated it and that supported it in the intentions of the founding States of the United Nations. What is the difference between a democracy that defends human rights and a totalitarianism that subjugates them, if that democracy does business with that totalitarianism? Today a powerful totalitarianism, already genocidal, Xi Jining's China, wants to "rewrite" those treaties not with a war, but from within the International Organizations themselves, saying, as in the best Marxist-Leninist thought that "human rights are subordinate to the state", to the elite that commands the people and their means of production. In 2012 he said: "we Chinese, are a global community with a destiny shared by humanity" and thus began the construction of the greatest geopolitical project in the history of man: the Belt and Road. We Westerners were the ones who foreshadowed Xi's expansionist and colonialist Napoleonic project, by allowing China into the WTO in 2001, in the full, malicious awareness that our "human rights" in violation of the international law that protected them "were subordinated" to a form of "gravely distorted" capitalism that exploited the Chinese people, their freedom and their dignity as human beings, through the instrumental use of the authoritarian political power of the CCP against its own people. But it mattered little: they were Chinese, not Westerners. In 2001 there had already been Tiananmen, but the West, for purely selfish geopolitical and geoeconomic interest, falsely considered and still considers Deng Xiaoping (the exterminator of the Tibetans with Mao first and then of the young Chinese libertarians), as the architect of the opening to democracy and freedom: nothing more hypocritical. On this basis Xi Jinping said in 2012: "we Chinese, are a global community with a shared destiny for humanity" and thus began the construction of the largest geopolitical project in human history: the Belt and Road. The future geopolitical events that await us are already written in the events narrated in history books and in those of Greek and Latin philosophy.
by Nicola e Gabriele Iuvinale
The "rules-based order", the one we Westerners wave in the face of totalitarianism, is simply a dolphinist theoretical construction, of pure academic "General Theory of Law".
International law has been simply subjected to Machiavelli's "Reason of State" and always will be.
How many times have the human rights protected by post-WWII treaties been and are sacrificed in the name of reason of state?
Always.
How many countries recognize the International Criminal Court despite having ratified the international treaties that sanction the violation of human rights?
Very few and the great powers none.
How many post-WWII wars have started, been carried out and concluded in compliance with international law?
None.
No sentence, except for the detention of Milosevic pending sentencing, which never arrived.
No Hague trial against those who violated international law, not even against Saddam Hussein.
Never.
And this West that "wrote and wanted" those millenary, very just principles (also conquered with blood) of the primacy of man and his freedom over the State itself (freedom understood as ius naturalis), has then, always, violated those principles by agreeing to do business with totalitarianisms, today Chinese (and before also with Nazism and Putin), profiting, enriching them and leading them to challenge what we fictitiously call '"order based on rules".
Our "order based on rules", the Western one.
A rule cannot exist without a sanction and without a fair trial.
There is no rule of law, without these legal foundations.
There is only the Leviathan, the universal testament that Hobbes left us.
An international law conceived in this way has led to the modern devastation of the same principles that animated it and that supported it in the intentions of the founding States, the United Nations.
What is the difference between a democracy that defends human rights and a totalitarianism that subjugates them, if that democracy does business with that totalitarianism?
We have done business with Putin as long as it suited us and we will do the same with Xi Jinping's China.
And then, ....., then as always there will be war.
Because "war is within us and around us, it is the place of life and death and the way to survival".
As for the BRICS and China that these days occupy the pages of newspapers:
Xi Jinping's China is not the one that signed the UN treaties, that sat at those tables: it was not politically, nor economically, nor ideologically.
Today a powerful totalitarianism, already genocidal, wants to "rewrite" those treaties not with a war, but from within the International Organizations themselves, saying, as in the best Marxist-Leninist thought that "human rights are subordinate to the state", to the elite that commands the people and their means of production.
In fact, this is what the West has always perpetrated, accepting, in a business-like manner, agreements in violation, in fact and in law, of "its" international law.
And I am referring precisely to the globalization desired with China.
When the subprime crisis broke out in the United States in 2008, Hu Jintao, then President of the CCP, decided that the time had come for the Chinese Communist Party to demonstrate to the world that "we Westerners" were simply "fakes" and that our political and economic system had brought the "black plague of financial disaster" even into the homes of the Chinese people.
Was he wrong?
On this basis, Xi Jinping then said in 2012: "we Chinese, are a global community with a shared destiny with humanity" and thus began the construction of the greatest geopolitical project in human history: the Belt and Road.
We Westerners foreshadowed Xi's expansionist and colonialist Napoleonic project, by allowing China into the WTO in 2001, in full, malicious awareness that our "human rights" in violation of the international law that protected them "were subordinated" to a form of "gravely distorted" capitalism that exploited the Chinese people, their freedom and their dignity as human beings, through the instrumental use of the authoritarian political power of the CCP against its own people.
But it didn't matter: they were Chinese, not Westerners.
In 2001 there had already been Tiananmen, but the West, for purely selfish geopolitical and geoeconomic interest, falsely considered and still considers Deng Xiaoping (the exterminator of the Tibetans with Mao first and then of the young Chinese libertarians), as the architect of the opening to democracy and freedom: nothing more hypocritical.
Pure propaganda.
To put it in Francis Fukuyama's words, that of a classical liberalism (so defined in the US) that cannot give up anything and that has no rules: not even those that impose respect for the founding principles of democracies and the international law that we wanted after the horrors of the Second World War.
On these evident, yet disastrous contradictions, Xi Jinping has built a new world order: one that wants human rights subordinated to the power of the state, politically modifying international law; and he will do so, on the non-existent foundations of an international law that we have never really respected.
As a legal positivist, I see it like Mortati, Bobbio and others, otherwise it is like living in a jungle "where human ingenuity easily manages to insinuate itself, within the mesh of this fragile mass that crawls on the bottom". The phrase is by Marguerite Yourcenar, Memoirs of Hadrian.
The future geopolitical events that await us are already written in the events narrated in history books and in those of Greek and Latin philosophy.
댓글