Readers Confront Global Double Standards in International Law Enforcement
The Guardian's letters section has become a forum for challenging what many correspondents describe as glaring hypocrisy in the enforcement of international law. Multiple readers have drawn direct comparisons between Western responses to the Gaza conflict and recent criticism of Donald Trump's Greenland ambitions, arguing that selective application of rules undermines the entire global order.
The Greenland-Gaza Comparison That "Beggars Belief"
One particularly pointed letter from Bernie Evans in Liverpool questions how critics can accuse Donald Trump of breaking international law over Greenland "when they did exactly that over Gaza." Evans argues that international law was effectively abandoned long before the Greenland crisis emerged, pointing to what he describes as Western complicity in Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
The correspondent highlights several specific concerns:
- Western nations providing military support to Israel while demanding sanctions against other nations
- Continued arms sales to Israel during the Gaza conflict
- Silence regarding illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank
- Limited humanitarian access to Gaza despite international law requirements
Gordon Brown's Proposal Meets Skeptical Response
Readers have responded critically to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent article calling for renewed global leadership and institutional reform. While acknowledging Brown's honourable intentions, correspondents question whether another charter or declaration can address fundamental structural problems.
Steve Razzetti from Cumbria challenges Brown's premise that the United States has recently abandoned principles it once championed. "Does he really believe that the US ever had these qualities?" Razzetti asks, listing numerous historical interventions from Chile to Iraq that suggest consistent pursuit of American economic interests rather than principled international leadership.
The Structural Problems Undermining Global Institutions
Multiple letters identify deeper structural issues that prevent effective international governance:
- The United Nations Security Council veto system that allows permanent members to block meaningful action
- The disproportionate influence of multinational corporations and billionaires on democratic processes
- The historical pattern of powerful nations dominating weaker ones despite international frameworks
- The gap between declarations and implementation in existing international agreements
Neil Blackshaw from Northumberland argues that "multilateralism seized up before Trump embarked on his campaign to test it to destruction," suggesting that the problems predate current political figures and require more radical solutions than Brown proposes.
The Corporate and Billionaire Influence Problem
Alan Healey from Shropshire identifies what he calls "the enormous elephant in the room" - the growing power of global elites, multinational corporations, and individual billionaires whose wealth can exceed the GDP of medium-sized countries. He argues that until this "illegitimate influence" is curbed, any new or reformed global institutions will struggle to achieve meaningful change.
"It will take a lot more than fine words to get the corporate and individual genies back in their bottles," Healey writes, suggesting that addressing power imbalances within nations must precede effective international reform.
A Call for Genuine Structural Reform
The consensus among correspondents appears to be that incremental changes to existing institutions will prove insufficient. Readers call for more fundamental reforms, including restructuring the UN Security Council, abolishing veto powers, and creating more inclusive decision-making processes that genuinely represent global interests rather than just those of powerful nations.
The letters collectively paint a picture of a rules-based international order that has been deteriorating for years, with recent events merely exposing long-standing contradictions and double standards that undermine global governance credibility.
