The author John Schwarts opened his article on the American website Intersept by asking, “Will the United States hinder the International Court in Gaza? It has done it before.” This was in response to the interim ruling of this international court in the case brought by South Africa against Israel regarding Gaza, affirming that it “commits genocide in a clear violation of the Genocide Convention.”
The author believes that the United States will now intervene to prevent any implementation of the Court’s decision. He pointed out a similar ruling that the Americans completely forgot today, which is the same Court’s response to Nicaragua’s complaint in the 1980s, ruling that the United States violated international law in various ways by planting mines in Nicaraguan ports and supporting the Contras (right-wing rebel groups funded by Washington) in their attempt to overthrow the Sandinista government in the country.
He commented that this dramatic background “tells us a lot” about the way the United States views international law, meaning that it completely disregards it, considering it merely a tool that can be used sometimes “against our enemies,” but “can never be applied to us or our allies” such as Israel.
Throughout the 20th century, the United States repeatedly intervened in Nicaragua’s policy to ensure that the government did not harm American investors’ profits.
All of this was “wonderful” from the United States’ point of view. But in 1979, something “terrible” happened when the last leaders of the socialist Sandinista movement were overthrown.
Looking back in history, Washington intervened again in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan’s administration saw the destruction of the Sandinistas as a top priority. To achieve this goal, it funded and organized the Contra forces, most of which were from the former regime’s National Guard. These forces fought the Sandinista army while also slaughtering large numbers of civilians.
Nicaragua’s petition to the Court argued that the United States was violating the United Nations Charter, the Organization of American States Charter, and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States since 1933. Within a month, the Court issued provisional measures ordering the United States to stop mining Nicaragua’s ports and respect the country’s sovereignty.
The United States responded by completely ignoring this. It quickly announced that it would not even appear before the Court, stating that it did not intend to participate in “any other proceedings concerning the case.”
Returning to the International Court’s decision on whether Israel is committing genocide, the author believes that it will likely take years for the Court to issue a judgment. But according to the United Nations Charter, Israel must comply with the Court’s provisional demands immediately, just as the United States was required to comply with the Court’s demands in 1984.
However, the author believes that whether this will happen can be judged by the words of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month when he said, “Nothing and no one will stop us, not The Hague, nor the axis of evil, nor anyone else.”
The article ended with the assertion that, like Nicaragua decades ago, South Africa will have no refuge other than to demand the United Nations Security Council to take action, and the United States will have to decide once again whether it will confirm that it and its allies can safely ignore and reject international law.
