What has been the worst foreign-policy decision by US President Donald Trump’s administration?
Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement was bad. Pulling out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal sent a signal that the US does not honor international agreements signed by previous administrations.
More recently, the US government’s successful intimidation of the International Criminal Court could have dire consequences for global governance and world peace.
However, Trump’s worst decision of all has not received the attention it deserves.
With his sudden recognition on March 25 of Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981, Trump in his typical cavalier fashion abandoned a principle — the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force — that has underpinned international stability since World War II.
His recognition of Israel’s annexation establishes a highly dangerous precedent for the Middle East and beyond.
After 1945, the world’s nations unanimously repudiated territorial expansion by force to discourage states from invading and occupying their weaker neighbors. Attempts to violate this principle — such as by Iraq in Kuwait, Russia in Ukraine, and Israel in East Jerusalem and the Golan — were universally condemned.
The principle was included in the preamble of UN Security Council Resolution 242 following the 1967 Six-Day War in the Middle East, during which Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria. It has been a fundamental principle of international law since the mid-1990s.
US officials have tried to justify Trump’s decision by saying that Israel acquired the Golan Heights in a “defensive” war.
Furthermore, Syria is embroiled in a civil war, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad does not deserve to get the land back, they say.
However, the defensive-war justification does not hold water. Western governments, international human-rights organizations and legal experts — including some from Israel — say that in prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force, international law makes no distinction between a defensive or offensive war.
This is mainly because both sides in a war can claim to be acting defensively. Whereas Israel maintains that it started the June 1967 war preemptively because it feared an assault from Egypt, Arabs dispute this and commonly refer to the conflict as an aggression against them.
Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights is already having a destabilizing effect.
As soon as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned from Washington after the Golan decision, he began talking about annexing portions of the West Bank. Such a move would completely destroy the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution.
Moreover, Trump’s decision has given other nations a green light to resolve territorial disputes with their neighbors by force. If acquiring territory through war is now legitimized, then it becomes much harder to object to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Saudi Arabia’s claim to parts of Yemen or Iraq’s demand that Kuwait be its 19th district.
Numerous other countries in Africa, Asia and Europe might also feel more tempted to retake by force parts of neighboring countries to which they have some historic or tribal claim.
Finally, recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights could jeopardize international legal protections for the Syrian population there.
These include the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which aims to protect civilians under belligerent military occupation until peace is restored and their territories relinquished by the conquering armies.
In particular, the convention prohibits an occupier from moving its civilian population into the occupied territories — hence all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.
This was affirmed in a 2003 decision by the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s construction of a wall deep in occupied Palestinian territory.
Moreover, an occupying power cannot legally take natural wealth, artifacts and resources from occupied areas, and annexation is completely prohibited.
For decades, successive US Democratic and Republican administrations, for all their support of Israel, refused to recognize unilateral Israeli actions in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. They also insisted that Geneva Convention rules must apply.
However, the Trump administration has recklessly reversed this long-standing policy. It has denied the existence of an Israeli occupation, moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, recognized the illegal Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights and refused to discuss Netanyahu’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank.
Trump’s actions will hardly help the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan that the US is said to be preparing, nor will the effects of his recklessness regarding the Golan Heights be limited to the Middle East.
The most dangerous consequences of Trump’s worst foreign-policy decision might be yet to come.
Jonathan Kuttab is a cofounder of the independent Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq in Ramallah, Palestine.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US