Washington uses the dollar as a weapon through which it works to control, dominate, obtain resources and services, and make the balance of payments in its favor. In a previous article, I touched on how Washington uses it, which was confirmed by reality, reports, and the media. The Indonesian president indicated the need to protect transactions from potential geopolitical repercussions. . He said, "We must be very careful, we must remember the US sanctions against Russia (Visa) and (MasterCard) can become a problem."
The Indonesian president explained that the restrictive measures imposed by the United States due to the situation in Ukraine could create difficulties, as economic tools, including payment systems, could be used against countries believed to be involved in the conflict, as stated by the Indonesian ambassador to Moscow, Jose. Antonio Morato Tavares that Indonesia is studying the use of cards from the Russian payment system "Mir". According to a report published by the newspaper (New York Post) authored by Guy Neumann, abandoning the dollar will deal a heavy blow to the position of the United States. And (Bloomberg) reported: “The mistake in which American policy fell is its desire to control the countries of the world, which prompted most countries in the world to reject US sanctions and strengthened Russian influence globally.”
Just as Washington uses the dollar as a weapon, it uses international organizations as a weapon to control, dominate and control. It should be noted that these practices and the danger of using them politically for the benefit of the West. An example of this use is the International Criminal Court, which was basically established according to the protocol, the Establishment Charter, where Washington does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court, as it did not join the founding treaty of the court, the “Rome Statute”, and even sometimes takes measures against the International Court, and imposes inappropriate economic sanctions precedents, including against former prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who launched an investigation into American atrocities in Afghanistan, but even as the decision was overturned, the Biden administration made clear it still opposed “international criminal court action” in the Afghan and Palestinian situations. This dangerous duality illustrates the extent to which Washington employs these international organizations, bodies and institutions for its own purposes and for its own benefit only, because the West uses all international institutions to serve its purposes and objectives and seeks through them control and hegemony over the world.
Double standards pose a serious threat to global peace and security. That is why the French member of the European Parliament, Thierry Mariani, said that the propaganda work carried out by the International Criminal Court on the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin has nothing to do with justice.
Article (5) has specified
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Under this Statute, the Court has jurisdiction over the following crimes:
a) The crime of genocide.
b) Crimes against humanity.
c) War crimes.
d) the crime of aggression.
Article (7) defines crimes against humanity:
a) Premeditated murder.
b) Extermination.
c) slavery.
d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population.
Article (11)
1. The Court has jurisdiction only if a State becomes a party to this Statute after its entry into force. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction in respect of offenses committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless the State has made a declaration under Paragraph 3 of Article 12.
Hence, it is clear that the International Criminal Court did not apply the correct system, nor did it implement Article (31) of its system, which stipulates a number of reasons for refraining from criminal responsibility, most notably what came in paragraph 1/c, which prohibited liability if the person concerned acted on reasonable manner to defend himself or another person, or if in the case of war crimes he defends property indispensable to the survival of the person or another person or property indispensable to the accomplishment of military missions against the imminent and unlawful use of force, in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger which threatens this or that other person or property that is intended to be protected.
Disregarding laws and regulations and double standards and employing these and other organizations for the interest of the West makes the world a jungle in which to survive for brute forces that reject global pluralism.
Osama Yamani
