The Guardian’s view on the US, Russia and the International Criminal Court: Trump’s attack on the rule of law intensifies | Editorial

OhOn Friday, Donald Trump reaffirmed his belief that might is right and that the rule of law is an obstacle rather than a cornerstone of the international order. First there was the escalation of attacks against the International Criminal Court (ICC), sanctioning the body itself. Then he announced a deal with Russia to buy diesel.

The United States has long resented the idea of ​​being bound by the rule of law it has publicly defended. This hypocrisy now appears to be a lesser vice. The president said “my own morality” was the only one that constrained him. His blatant disregard for the law, support for dictators and rhetorical attacks undermine global norms.

Weeks before the midterm elections, Mr. Trump blames high diesel costs on Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy facilities. It was his own illegal war against Iran that drove up prices. The weekend’s attacks on Riyadh’s international airport, believed to be the work of Yemen’s Tehran-backed Houthis, underscored that it cannot simply leave this conflict aside when it suits it.

The Moscow agreement is unlikely to result in significant deliveries; the Russian army runs on diesel. But Ukraine is supposed to heed his message: to make life easier for Vladimir Putin. It was Mr Putin (against whom the ICC has issued an arrest warrant) who launched the illegal war and whose troops launched deadly attacks on civilians this weekend. But in a world in turmoil, Mr Trump blames Volodymyr Zelenskyy for failing to reach a peace deal and says the democratically elected leader should go.

It is equally perverse to apply measures intended to target human rights violators and war criminals against those who seek to defend their victims. Mr. Trump’s attack on the ICC was fueled first by his investigation into Afghanistan – although it suspended scrutiny of US actions there – and then by the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant. The court is preparing for these measures. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said the companies had six months to end their relationship and that US allies must rein in the court: “Either the ICC will end its threats or we will end the ICC.”

In a stark (and intentional) contrast, the Nobel committee announced the same day that this year’s peace laureate was Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge and chair of the UN commission that concluded last year that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. It is not only a recognition of a remarkable career that began under apartheid South Africa, but also a reminder that institutions that uphold universal principles are under increasing pressure and must be defended. “Peace requires justice,” the committee said.

As the ICC says, it cannot operate alone. The UK, EU and others were also right to criticize the US decision and declare their commitment to the Court; invoking blocking laws against sanctions would add weight to the rhetoric. They must show the same determination by standing with Ukraine.

There is one advantage to Mr. Trump’s overt hostility to the rule of law: No one can explain it or assume that it is narrowly limited. The war with Iran, the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president, extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and threats against Greenland and Canada have shown how far he will go and overturned assumptions that the allies are safe. It is clear that the problem is not a “rogue court,” as Mr. Rubio claimed, but a rogue superpower.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.