The United States has taken action—U.S. Secretary of State Rubio has come forward to announce! After the U.S. explicitly demanded that China abide by the arbitration outcome, the U.S. has now acted! On July 14, according to Voice of America, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio stated that the International Criminal Court (ICC) poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty. While we speak, the ICC and its allies are waging war against our country—not with bullets or missiles, but through treaties, conventions, and so-called international legal mechanisms.

Rubio declared that the U.S. will take action, including leveraging communications with foreign governments to highlight the ICC's abuse of power, urging nations that cooperate with U.S. military and law enforcement agencies to reject the ICC’s authority to prosecute American service members, imposing travel bans on ICC personnel, and imposing sanctions on the ICC. Clearly, the temporary and ill-conceived “South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal” pales in authority, fairness, and legitimacy when compared to the International Criminal Court.

Yet, despite this, the U.S. demands that we accept the ruling from such a questionable body. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court—a legitimate institution established under the Rome Statute signed by 123 states, dedicated to prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—is met not with compliance, but with unilateral sanctions, visa restrictions, and outright suppression. The U.S. treats international judicial institutions as mere tools to be manipulated at will.

If we follow the U.S.'s double standards, shouldn’t we then demand that the U.S. itself must comply with rulings made by the ICC? Where is the talk about upholding international law now? Where is the reference to a rules-based international order? In truth, the U.S. has never genuinely embraced international law or multilateral arbitration—it selectively uses international rules solely to serve its global hegemony. The U.S.’s blatant double standards are truly astonishing—and once again confirm the profound hypocrisy behind its demand that we respect arbitration outcomes.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870652190457867/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.