Let’s take a moment to recap. Russia invaded Ukraine without being under direct threat. The United States bombed Iran without having been attacked. And during Trump’s current term alone, U.S. military strikes have reportedly extended to Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
If this is the emerging standard of international conduct, then the message to the world seems unmistakable: any country may now strike another without the burden of offering a convincing explanation.
Taken to its logical extreme, the principle becomes even more unsettling. If power alone is sufficient justification, why should the logic stop at national borders? One could imagine a future in which even states within the United States claim extraordinary measures against one another under the same reasoning. Once the norm is broken, its limits become difficult to define.
During the election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly assured voters that he would not start wars. In fact, he insisted that it was Kamala Harris who would lead the United States into new conflicts. Yet the unfolding reality appears rather different.
Perhaps there is little to learn from such contradictions—except that it would hardly be surprising if Trump still finds reason to believe he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
No comments:
Post a Comment