51吃瓜

In his infinite ignorance, Donald Trump  world leaders to the White House for a face-to-face meeting at the end of June. Unlike the other countries in the G7, the United States has yet to get the coronavirus pandemic under control. One of the hotspots that the White House itself  is none other than Washington, DC. And because of a poorly implemented reopening of the economy, the American South is already beginning to experience a of infections 鈥� in parts of Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas 鈥� that will gather force by the end of June because Trump  another lockdown.

Meanwhile, the president himself is reluctant to  or even : 鈥淲earing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens 鈥� I just don鈥檛 see it,鈥� he said back in April. He  snake-oil treatments for COVID-19 that, incredibly, he swallows himself. The virus has  his inner sanctum.

As if that鈥檚 not bad enough, I wouldn鈥檛 put it past Trump to add three stops on a G7 itinerary 鈥� a nursing home, a prison and a meat-packing plant 鈥� just to demonstrate that the United States is open for business (or to infect the world leaders that he has always despised). 聽French President Emmanuel Macron, these world leaders have not jumped at the chance to set foot in the global epicenter of the pandemic. Naturally, they鈥檙e concerned about their own health.

Sanction America

Really they should be concerned about the health of American democracy. Instead of giving Donald Trump the legitimacy on the world stage that he so desperately craves, the leaders of the other G7 nations should be considering a boycott of the United States. They should threaten to sanction America as well, for that is the only language Trump understands. The G7 has done it before 鈥� with Russia. In March 2014, after it annexed Crimea, Russia was indefinitely expelled from what was then the G8. The United States, the European Union and several other countries also imposed economic sanctions on Moscow because of its actions in Ukraine. Most of those sanctions are still in place.

Cleaning Up Trump鈥檚 Global Mess

READ MORE

Trump hasn鈥檛 invaded and annexed any foreign territory, though he鈥檚 been  for some time now. But under Trump, the United States has violated several international laws, unraveled numerous international agreements and trampled on one democratic institution after another at home. He is a rogue president in a rogue party presiding over a rogue power.

As the president attempts to extend his reign of error to a second term, the international community should consider sending a message to the American people: Donald Trump is an illegitimate leader who is a threat to the planet. Mere criticism of the United States is not enough. The G7 should get the ball rolling by refusing to meet with Trump, in Washington or anywhere else.

I anticipate the Twitter backlash: Isn鈥檛 it unpatriotic for Americans to call for a boycott of their own country? Quite the contrary. It鈥檚 proof of just how far patriotic Americans are willing to go to save our country and stop the violations of international law.

Violations at the Border

In one of the first acts of his administration, Trump  on travel to the United States from seven countries, all of them predominantly Muslim. Federal courts almost immediately blocked the executive order. Trump reissued an almost identical travel ban. The courts blocked him a second time. Trump tried a third time, throwing in North Korea and Venezuela to obscure the intention of the order. Although the federal court system again blocked the Muslim ban, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to implement the policy as it reviewed the case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the ban by 5 votes to 4.

Although the Supreme Court has decided by a slim margin that Trump鈥檚 action is legal in the US context, his Muslim travel ban remains a violation of international law. It  all the UN conventions against discrimination, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also violates the Refugee Convention. Imagine the uproar if a country promoted a Christian travel ban. The United States would be first in line to apply sanctions.

But the Muslim travel ban was just the first volley in the administration鈥檚 attack on border crossers and international law. Within a few months of taking office, the Trump administration began to tear apart migrant families. Before the courts could intervene, over  were separated from their parents. Even worse, the administration  these family separations, so it couldn鈥檛 guarantee that children could reunite with their families. Even when a judge blocked the policy in June 2018, the administration continued its 鈥渮ero-tolerance鈥� policy, simply under a different name, and separated another 1,100 children from their families. This is not just a violation of international law. It鈥檚 a moral outrage.

It鈥檚 gotten even worse. During the pandemic crisis, the administration has violated US anti-trafficking laws by expelling hundreds of young people from the country. Nomaan Merchant and Sonia Perez in The Washington Post: “Under a 2008 anti-trafficking law and a federal court settlement known as the Flores agreement, children from countries other than Canada and Mexico must have access to legal counsel and cannot be immediately deported. They are also supposed to be released to family in the U.S. or otherwise held in the least restrictive setting possible. The rules are intended to prevent children from being mistreated or falling into the hands of criminals.”

Even before the pandemic hit, the administration was violating non-refoulement laws. In July 2019, the administration  to force the desperate to apply for asylum in a third country before reaching the United States. The result has been the wholesale rejection of asylum claims. Only  under the Migrant Protection Protocols had been granted asylum through the end of January, and only  have been granted refuge since March. According to the principle of non-refoulement, asylum-seekers can鈥檛 be returned to countries where they might face persecution.

The July 2019 action was only the latest barrier the administration has placed before asylum seekers, all of which constitute  of the non-refoulement principle. In November 2018, Trump  to block all asylum seekers from entering the United States through Mexico. A federal court ruled the policy illegal and prevented him from doing so.

This March, the administration tried again, using the pandemic as a new rationale. It generated pushback, but the administration  the possibility of asylum anyway. And it has started  as part of the Remain in Mexico program. Taken together, the Trump policies on immigration, refugee and asylum policies are a massive affront to decades of patiently constructed international laws.

Targeted Assassination

So many people have been assassinated by US drones that Americans have become dangerously inured to this violation of international law. The Obama administration was responsible for the expansion of this program, but Trump has  even on Obama鈥檚 expansion. Worse, according to a new policy implemented last year, the administration no longer reports on the number of drone strikes and resulting civilian casualties outside of active warzones, which include Pakistan and Somalia.

Whether these drone strikes constitute a violation of international law hinges on whether they represent assassination, which is illegal, or lawful targeting in armed conflict. If the latter, they are permissible if done in self-defense or are approved by the United Nations. According to these standards, administration officials argue that the drone strikes the United States conducts in a warzone 鈥� for example, Afghanistan 鈥� are indistinguishable from more conventional aerial bombing.

But because so many US drone strikes take place outside war zones where the United States is a declared combatant, international law experts like Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killing, have  that they often violate international law. Alston was particularly concerned about the CIA鈥檚 role in conducting drone strikes, which the Obama administration eventually scaled back after steadily increasing them. Trump, however, has .

Most of Trump鈥檚 drone strikes have been quiet and anonymous, at least so far as US media is concerned. The targets have also been, for the most part, non-state actors, so-called terrorists. The assassination in January of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran鈥檚 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was a different matter. He was a representative of a state with which the United States is not at war. The Trump administration might consider him a 鈥渢errorist.鈥� But according to international law, the drone strike that killed him was an assassination, no different than if a US attack had taken out Iran鈥檚 president.

The Trump administration claimed that the strike was done in self-defense and that Soleimani was planning an attack or attacks on US targets. But it  any real proof of these imminent attacks. Soleimani鈥檚 past record, however noxious, does not constitute sufficient legal rationale for assassination.

Other Trump administration military actions have  international law, such as the 59 Tomahawk missiles it rained down on Syria in April 2017. The administration didn鈥檛 even bother to seek UN authorization. Nor did it do so a year later when it launched another missile attack on Syria in response to the government鈥檚 alleged use of chemical weapons.

The Trump administration could have argued that it was protecting a civilian population from extermination. But the missile attack came before a fact-finding mission could determine whether chemical weapons had been used. In any case, neither then nor subsequently has the Trump administration seemed to care much about protecting the lives of Syrian civilians. But these Syrian attacks point to another reason to boycott the United States: the Trump administration鈥檚 fundamental disregard for international institutions and agreements.

International Agreements Sundered

The Trump administration has been gradually ripping up the international arms control regime that has been in place for decades. First, it stepped away from the Iran nuclear agreement, which blocked the country鈥檚 path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Last year, it withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement, a high point of US-Russian efforts at arms limitation. And then, last week, it  it would no longer participate in the Open Skies agreement, another landmark achievement to prevent an accidental war that was negotiated in 1992.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to resume testing nuclear weapons, something that hasn鈥檛 happened in nearly 30 years. Technically, because the United States is not party to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Trump鈥檚 action would not violate an international agreement. But if the United States were to go ahead with a test, it would put  on the CTBT, which 184 nations have signed.

The administration鈥檚 arms control policy has become positively Orwellian. Trump鈥檚 arms control envoy, Marshall Billingslea, for instance, seems to believe mistakenly that he was appointed head of the Pentagon. 鈥淲e know how to win these [arms] races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion,鈥� he  in a recent videoconference. What part of 鈥渃ontrol鈥� does he not understand?

In addition to abandoning arms control, the Trump administration has hindered efforts to control carbon emissions by trashing the Paris climate accord. It has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council. It quit UNESCO. It has threatened to leave the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization.

So, at what point does the international community decide that it has been attacked enough to strike back in self-defense? A boycott and economic sanctions seem more than justified given these three areas of violations: international human rights law, the laws governing the use of force and the deliberate destruction of international agreements and institutions.

The Downsides of Boycott?

Okay, so what if the Trump administration deserves to be boycotted. That doesn鈥檛 mean that it鈥檚 strategically wise to do so. After all, if all the globalists gang up on Trump, won鈥檛 that create a rally-around-the-president effect just in time for the November election? The very tactic designed to delegitimate Trump might end up boosting his reelection prospects.

Then there鈥檚 the perennial problem that name-and-shame tactics often don鈥檛 work with people or countries that refuse to be shamed. Virtually the entire international community agrees that the human rights situation in North Korea is abysmal. But the North Korean state doesn鈥檛 really care about the reputational damage it suffers as a result of all the official protests, UN inquiries and grassroots campaigns. Trump seems to be similarly unshameable.

Finally, there is the challenge of collective action. The United States, despite its current difficulties, remains a powerful global actor. It鈥檚 not easy to pull together a coalition in the face of an administration determined to make deals with specific countries to destroy the unanimity required to implement a boycott and sanctions.

The first two counterarguments are unpersuasive. At this point, nothing the international community can do will significantly alter Trump鈥檚 approval ratings. He has played his nationalism card so many times that the gambit can no longer win fresh converts. But there are still some independents and perhaps even some Republicans who would be swayed if the rest of the G7 censured the United States. These swing voters might still feel shame, too, if the international community repeatedly broadcasts the administration鈥檚 multiple violations of international law.

But let鈥檚 face it, the collective action problem is probably insurmountable. The G7 nations don鈥檛 have the guts to stand up to the United States. Trump acts with impunity, and they appease him. Thanks to the Chamberlains of the world, Trump has celebrated a Munich practically every day of his administration.

So, it鈥檚 up to popular movements to challenge Trump鈥檚 illegal actions and the international community鈥檚 appeasement of them. In developing a Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) campaign against the Trump administration, activists can take inspiration from the groups that worked with South Africans in the 1980s to bring down their apartheid regime.

I know, I know: Everyone is hoping that Americans will solve this problem themselves in November. But that might not happen. So, people of the world, you鈥檇 better build your BDS box, paint 鈥淏reak Glass in Case of Emergency鈥� on the front and stand next to it on November 3. If Trump wins on Election Day, it will be mourning in America. But let鈥檚 hope that the world doesn鈥檛 mourn: It organizes.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.