Mining company gave $750K to dark money group that boosted Nevada GOP

By Matt Corley
August 13, 2021


Last year, Nevada Gold Mines, a mining company that describes itself as “the single largest gold-producing complex in the world,” deposited $750,000 into a dark money nonprofit that spent significant sums of secretly-sourced funds backing Republican candidates during the 2020 election. The disclosure of the contribution marks the first known revelation of a donor to the dark money group, the American Exceptionalism Institute, Inc., which gained notice in 2020 with large, anonymously-sourced contributions to super PACs.

The funds Nevada Gold Mines provided the dark money group appear to have flowed into a political committee that worked to elect Republicans to the Nevada state legislature. In 2020, the Democratic-led state legislature took initial steps that could ultimately lead to the state’s mining industry having its taxes raised for the first time in more than a century, which may help explain the company’s significant financial investment in state-level political committees.

Nevada Gold Mines is a joint venture between two mining companies, Newmont and Barrick. Newmont, which owns 38.5% of Nevada Gold Mines, disclosed the contribution to the American Exceptionalism Institute in a voluntary report the company released on its policy influence in 2020. Barrick operates the venture and owns 61.5% of the company.

In a footnote attached to Newmont’s description of its 2020 political giving, the company said that in 2020 Nevada Gold Mines “made $1,991,250 in political contributions to Nevada candidates and political action committees associated with Nevada campaigns.” The disclosure added that the total “included $750,000 to the American Exceptionalism Institute, a 501(c)(4) fund commonly referred to as a ‘dark money’ fund.”




The footnote in Newmont’s disclosure suggests that the dark money contribution was a point of contention in the relationship between the two companies that own Nevada Gold Mines. After noting that it has “no control over the political activities of Nevada Gold Mines,” Newmont stated that it was “not involved in and did not approve of any of” Nevada Gold Mines’ contributions and that its own political contributions policy “does not allow contributions to dark money funds.” Newmont said it informed Barrick’s management that it “does not support such contributions” and that it would disclose the contribution in the company’s annual sustainability report.

Organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code are not required to disclose their contributors, which is why they are often described as “dark money” groups when they engage in political activity. Advocates warn that the secrecy provided by dark money groups poses a serious corruption risk, a position that was validated last month when an energy company was required to issue a public statement as part of a settlement with the Justice Department stating that it “used the 501(c)(4) corporate form as a mechanism to conceal payments for the benefit of public officials in exchange for official action.”
Silver state spending

Newmont’s description of the contribution to the American Exceptionalism Institute makes clear that the money is related to state level political activity in Nevada, but it doesn’t spell out exactly how the dark money group was involved in the state’s elections — whether the group spent it directly or subsequently used the money to contribute to political committees. Additional available information suggests, however, that the Nevada Gold Mines contribution helped fund political contributions the American Exceptionalism Institute made in the state.

While there are no indications that the dark money group paid for any political ad campaigns or other election-focused communications in the state, the American Exceptionalism Institute did contribute a little more than $1 million in 2020 to Stronger Nevada PAC, a political action committee affiliated with former Nevada Lt. Governor Mark Hutchison, according to records filed with the Nevada Secretary of State’s office. The American Exceptionalism Institute was the largest contributor to Stronger Nevada PAC, accounting for 38.5% of the more than $2.6 million the committee raised in 2020.

At least, American Exceptionalism Institute was the largest contributor publicly reported by Stronger Nevada PAC. The committee’s second largest reported donor was Nevada Gold Mines, which gave $500,000 in two contributions. If $750,000 of the American Exceptionalism Institute’s contributions were reattributed to Nevada Gold Mines, as Newmont’s disclosure suggests it arguably should be, then Nevada Gold Mines would become the PAC’s top donor, accounting for 47% of the PAC’s total revenue. Notably, one of the American Exceptionalism Institute’s contributions, $760,000 given on September 21, 2020, nearly matches the $750,000 Newmont reported Nevada Gold Mines giving to the dark money fund.

What kind of activity did these contributions, both disclosed and undisclosed, support? According to the Nevada Independent, Stronger Nevada PAC, which paid for ads in several races, has been credited for “Republican success in down-ballot races” during the 2020 election when the GOP gained seats in both the state Assembly and the state Senate.

Republican state Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, who reportedly worked with former Lt. Gov. Hutchison on the PAC efforts, praised Stronger Nevada PAC’s impact to the Nevada Independent while attributing some of its financial success to business interests who were wary of Democratic power in the state legislature. “This was an instance where businesses that were feeling under attack by their state government decided to step up and take a stand,” Kieckhefer said. “And part of that was investing in the effort to gain legislative seats for Republicans. And we did that. So, this was a statement, and hopefully people are paying attention.”

When the Nevada Independent highlighted Nevada Gold Mines’ financial support for Stronger Nevada PAC, the nonprofit news outlet contextualized the contributions by noting that Nevada’s “mining industry soured on legislative Democrats after the 2020 summer session, where lawmakers pushed through three proposed constitutional amendments that would remove the cap on net proceeds of minerals,” which effectively meant the industry’s taxes could potentially be raised. Additional news reports on the mining industry’s 2020 political giving in the state, which included significant contributions from Nevada Gold Mines, also framed the spending around the potential for future fights over changes to industry’s tax liabilities.

Now, with Newmont’s disclosure of Nevada Gold Mines’ previously hidden contribution to the American Exceptionalism Institute, the mining industry’s investment in the 2020 elections are even more significant. Still unknown, however, is who else funded the little known dark money group’s spending in the state and if the other donors, like Nevada Gold Mines, have interests that could be affected by the lawmakers the money helped elect.

A rising dark money player

On its own, the American Exceptionalism Institute had no clear interest in the outcome of Nevada’s elections. When the group initially formed in 2017, it told the IRS in its application for tax-exempt status that it “was founded with the goal of researching and proposing domestic and foreign policies that promote the general welfare of the American people and assert America’s traditional role as a leading nation on the world stage.” Though the organization held out the possibility that it might engage in political activity in the future, the American Exceptionalism Institute told the tax agency it did not then have “any specific plans” to do so at the time.

For the first few years of its existence, the American Exceptionalism Institute largely stayed under the political radar. The group gained a little national attention in 2018 when it paid less than $100,000 to run an attack ad against Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tied to a Senate nomination fight, but otherwise remained quiet until 2020 when its political contributions began to draw attention.

While the American Exceptionalism Institute maintained a nearly invisible public profile in 2019 and early 2020, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t active. Though its most recently filed tax return, covering May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020, is not yet publicly available, the topline information from the return is available through an IRS database called the Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract. It’s also visible in the search results of databases like ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer and Guidestar that aggregate and summarize nonprofit data.

The data is eye popping. It shows that the American Exceptionalism Institute raised $13 million dollars by the end of April 2020 after raising no more than $50,000 the year before.




It didn’t take long for the group to start spending that money. In addition to the more than $1 million the American Exceptionalism Institute contributed to Stronger Nevada PAC in 2020, the dark money group gave $2.7 million to two federal super PACs, most of which went to a group called Security is Strength PAC that backed Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) reelection campaign. The group also gave to Georgia United Victory, which supported then-Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA).

It’s not altogether surprising that the American Exceptionalism Institute, which recently paid for emblazoned trucks criticizing Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) ahead of his announcement of a Senate campaign, would become a larger dark money player. What little was known about the American Exceptionalism Institute when it first appeared in public indicated that it had wider connections in the world of anonymous political spending.

In fact, CREW has since identified the group as part of a dark money network that’s responsible for tens of millions of secretly-sourced funds entering American elections. With several of the entities in the network shutting down recently, including some that had been targeted by Federal Election Commission complaints filed by CREW, the American Exceptionalism Institute may be stepping in to fill the void.

With all these groups, the ever-present question is who is funding their efforts to impact elections. In the case of the American Exceptionalism Institute at least, the public now knows that one of the group’s funders was a mining company with a major stake in the outcome of the elections.

American Exceptionalism

I left this comment at 1337hax0r blog about the latest WTO ruling in favour of Canada's soft wood indutstry.

The Americans, regardless of party in power, only obey laws they have made.It’s called American exceptionalism; we obey the laws/agreements we have signed except if we don’t want too.

Let me count the ways; the Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice, the ICC, the law of the sea, etc. etc. ad nauseaum.

As I said both the conservatives and the liberals in the U.S. adhere to American Exceptionalism, see the lastest Slate article about the softwood dispute;
The Outsourcing of American Law
Who needs federal judges when you have Canadians?

The streets of Washington, D.C., and Seattle may have been controlled last spring and fall by a new breed of antiglobalization progressives, but the old-fashioned, conservative anti-internationalists continue to hold sway among American policymakers. Although the United States has accepted the North American Free Trade Agreement and participation in the World Trade Organization, it has spurned important multilateral regimes relating to arms control, the environment, war crimes, human rights, and other emerging global issues.

This brand of anti-internationalism runs deep in the American political tradition, as any casual student of history knows, and its persistence is to be expected. More surprising is the respectability that the movement is winning among academics and policy analysts. During the Cold War, it was too closely identified with crude conspiracy theories and the isolationist legacy of the Versailles Treaty to attract serious support among policy elites. That has now changed: anti-internationalism claims a growing intellectual following. This group of academics -- many of whom are highly credentialed and attached to prestigious institutions or conservative Washington think tanks -- has developed a coherent blueprint for defending American institutions against the alleged encroachment of international ones. This school does not oppose international engagement per se and thus cannot be classified simply as isolationist. Rather, it holds that the United States can pick and choose the international conventions and laws that serve its purpose and reject those that do not. Call it international law ? la carte. Foreign Affairs - The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism ...

The picture of America as a shining city on a hill, standing virtually outside of history, still retains a powerful cultural appeal, but in this era of globization, powered by American corporate might, this positive impression increasingly has it's mirror oppositie, fueled by a wide perception that if there is an American exceptionalism, it definitely has a darker side as well. Especially in the era of the Bush Adminstration's Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine, and the sorting out of the aftermath if the Iraq War, scholars will inevitably consider the question of an American exceptionalism a useful entryway into larger problems of United States and world history. At the moment, concludes, Sean Wilentz, "the whole matter would seem to be more important as a myth that needs analysis than as a fixed historical reality requiring some global explanatory theory." american exceptionalism

Mr Bush's own family embodies the shift away from Euro-centrism. His grandfather was a senator from Connecticut, an internationalist and a scion of Brown Brothers Harriman, bluest of blue-blooded Wall Street investment banks. His father epitomised the transatlantic generation. Despite his Yale education, he himself is most at home on his Texas ranch. Looked at this way, the Bush administration's policies are not only responses to specific problems, or to demands made by interest groups. They reflect a certain way of looking at America and the world. They embody American exceptionalism. A nation apart | Economist.com

Americans have long embraced a notion of superiority, claims Howard Zinn. Governor Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony described establishing “a city on a hill,” to serve the world as a beacon of liberty. So far, so good. But driving this sense of destiny, says Zinn, was an assumption of divine agency—“an association between what the government does and what God approves of.” And too frequently, continues Zinn, Americans have invoked God to expand “into someone else’s territory, occupying and dealing harshly with people who resist occupation.” Zinn offers numerous examples of how the American government has used “divine ordination” and rationales of spreading civilization and freedom to justify its most dastardly actions: the extermination of Native Americans and takeover of their land; the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico; war against the Philippines; U.S. involvement in coups in Latin America; bloody efforts to expand U.S. influence in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The battle against Communism, often bolstered by arguments of America’s divine mission in the world, was merely a convenient excuse to maintain U.S. economic and military interests in key regions. Today, says Zinn, we have a president, who more than any before him, claims a special relationship with God. Zinn worries about an administration that deploys Christian zealotry to justify a war against terrorism, a war that in reality seems more about establishing a new beachhead in the oil-rich Middle East. He also sees great danger in Bush’s doctrines of unilateralism and pre-emptive war, which mark a great leap away from international standards of morality.MIT World » : The Myth of American Exceptionalism

Also See: Softwood

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
softwood, lumber, WTO, NAFTA, Canada, US, laws, Americanexceptionalism, Bush, Harper, Emerson, trade, fair-trade, free-trade

Americans' dwindling belief in American exceptionalism
Mark Hannah and Dina Smeltz, opinion contributors 

If in the past several years, you've started to think America has lost its superior standing in the world, you're not alone. For the past several decades, American foreign policy has been animated by a belief that the country possesses special traits which, as one leading policymaker put it, "can be put to work to advance both the national interest and the larger common interest." This defines American exceptionalism, the belief that America can and should single-handedly confront the world's problems, not just its own. Recently fashionable inside the Beltway, this conviction is dwindling in the face of our present reality.

© Getty Images Americans' dwindling belief in American exceptionalism

This past year has laid bare to many the myth at the heart of American exceptionalism. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) and the Eurasia Group Foundation (EGF) are out with two major national surveys of Americans' views about their country and its role in the world. As the lead authors of both reports, we were struck at how Americans' confidence in their country's global leadership has plummeted. As a snapshot, this is not terribly surprising. This year has been full of sobering events, from the botched response to the COVID-19 pandemic to racial unrest to the struggle against west coast wildfires.

But this isn't merely a snapshot. The CCGA survey documented a steady downward trend going back eight years in feelings of American exceptionalism. The EGF study found a strong correlation with age, with the youngest Americans most likely to think "America is not an exceptional nation."

As the heady Cold War victory recedes from memory, and as Americans' experience of their country's foreign affairs continues to be dominated by decades of discrediting and dispiriting adventures in the Middle East, Americans appear to have grown bearish on their country's international influence. This is not all bad news. In fact, these findings give us some cause for optimism. America's political leaders can better confront threats and respond to the world as it is if they shed that intoxicating sense of supremacy, which leads to foolhardy foreign policy choices.

As Matt Duss, an advisor to Bernie Sanders, commented in response to some of these findings, "We can and should be globally engaged without stoking ultranationalist chauvinism... upholding democracy, dignity, and the rule of law doesn't require, is actually undermined by, the belief that we are anointed by God [or] history."

Americans of all political stripes are tired of international interventions - including to protect human rights - as they seek to shift leadership of international problems to multilateral organizations and, crucially, see urgent human rights problems at home which need to be tackled first. When the Eurasia Group Foundation asked how peace is best achieved and sustained by the United States, a plurality of both Democrats and Republicans answered: "by keeping a focus on domestic needs and the health of American democracy, while avoiding unnecessary intervention beyond the borders of the United States." Thirty-five percent more survey-takers believe the U.S. should first fix its "own human rights problems" such as "mass incarceration and aggressive policing" than believe the U.S. should use "military intervention to stop human rights abuses around the globe."

According to the Chicago Council, fewer Americans today than at any time in the past eight years believe the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world - barely half, down from a high of 70 percent in 2012. While eight in ten Republicans continue to say the United States is the greatest country on Earth, this sentiment has taken a nose-dive among Democrats and Independents alike.

These declines are likely related to disappointment with how the government handles the domestic issues they deem top threats. Barely one in five Democrats say the government's response to the coronavirus pandemic has been effective, and fewer think the government has responded well to climate change, election interference, or racial and economic inequality. Mere minorities of Independents think the government responded effectively to the pandemic, political polarization, China's development as a world power, and racial inequality. Even among Republicans, fewer than half think the government is effectively confronting economic inequality, racial inequality, and political polarization, although these are not counted among the top threats.

Across both surveys, one thing Americans appear to believe is that America's strength abroad depends upon its strength at home. The US ranks 27th out of 31 countries in an OECD's social-justice index. Other recent surveys show the United States' global opinion is at or near new lows, with declining percentages worldwide saying America respects its citizens' personal freedoms. The virus is the latest challenge to national unity. Still, political polarization and economic tensions have long been simmering, and the prospect of a flagrant and flamboyant challenge to the integrity of American elections likely diminishes this stature further.

Jim Goldgeier and Bruce Jentleson recently argued the United States should have "a seat at the table but not always at its head." Americans appear to agree and would welcome a greater role for international institutions and agreements. Roughly 70 percent want the U.S. to reenter the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, and 66 percent think the U.S. should rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. A solid majority believes the U.S. should negotiate with adversaries to avoid a military confrontation. The largest group of respondents support a type of U.S. engagement characterized by fewer international military obligations and more diplomacy.

Far from a kind of confidence crisis, it's likely Americans are emerging from a period of overconfidence. Instead of trying to solve the world's problems single-handedly, they are taking a more realistic assessment of the threats their country faces. They want political leaders to emphasize cooperation over confrontation and protect America's power at home before projecting it abroad. In a democracy predicated on the popular will, those leaders would be wise to listen.

Mark Hannah is a senior fellow at the Eurasia Group Foundation. Dina Smeltz is a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

'American exceptionalism': EU travel bans show US is abdicating global leadership, former CDC head says

The European Union is set to reopen its borders starting July 1. Right now, the bloc is still deciding who it wants to let in, and it does not look like people from the US will be among them. 

June 26, 2020 · By The World staff Producer Christopher Woolf

As countries around the globe start to reopen, the big question is how to do it safely. 

The European Union is set to reopen its borders starting July 1. Visitors from the US and Russia are among those that are restricted from entering Europe, The New York Times reported on Friday.

Earlier reporting this week from The New York Times that alluded to that prompted Dr. Tom Frieden, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to tweet, "This is not what American exceptionalism is supposed to mean." 

This is not what American exceptionalism is supposed to mean. Until the US gets control of this virus, we will face barriers to travel and economic recovery. https://t.co/et7Dn7tdcC

— Dr. Tom Frieden (@DrTomFrieden) June 23, 2020

Frieden headed the CDC from 2009 to 2017. He's now president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, which focuses on preventing deaths from cardiovascular disease in low- and middle-income countries. Frieden joined The World's host Marco Werman from New York to talk about the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic. 

Related: Nicholas Burns: US' 'unusual absence' from world stage is bad for Americans

Marco Werman: Dr. Frieden, an interesting way to frame American exceptionalism. What did you mean in your tweet when you said that this is not what that's supposed to mean? 

Tom Frieden: Well, there's debate about what American exceptionalism is and different visions of it. But it was never supposed to mean that we continue to have tens of thousands of cases of COVID-19 disease every single day while Europe has essentially beaten the curve, and countries around the world are doing much better than we are. The key point here is that it's not a question of health versus economics. The only way we're going to get our economy back is to be guided by and fully support public health, so we can keep COVID-19 in its place and we can have more space in society. 

What do you make of the fact that this list puts the US in the same company as Russia and Brazil? Does that mean the US, Brazil and Russia, we're all at the bottom of the barrel? 

There are a lot of countries that aren't doing a good job, and there are a fair number of countries that are doing a really good job. I think the key is for us to continuously improve our response. We have great health departments around the country. We have very committed public health professionals. Congress has provided substantial resources. Now, we need to scale up our programs and show that we, too, can turn the tide and make huge progress against this pandemic. 

In parts of this country, we've done it. If you look at New York, New Jersey, many other places in the US, we have seen a huge decrease in cases. Now, we have to keep that up so we don't have large spikes. We know there are going to be clusters. That's inevitable. That's why we need really good public health systems to find those clusters early and stop them before they become outbreaks. That's what has to happen for us to be safer and for us to get our economy back. 

When you speak with colleagues overseas dealing with the pandemic, what do they say about how the US has handled the crisis? 

I get emails and text messages from all over the world just kind of shaking their head. What is happening? Why has the US response been so ineffective? Why isn't contact tracing scaled up? Why in the world has mask-wearing become a political statement in some places and for some people? I would say there's a kind of sadness and disbelief when people look at what's happening in the US now.

The US has for decades been a leader in global health. And now it's seen — unfortunately, accurately — as a laggard. I point out the need for federal leadership. I point out that public health has not failed in this pandemic. What has failed is the politicians' willingness to listen to public health advice and be guided by and support public health, because everywhere in the world where that is done, their communities do better. Fewer deaths and less economic destruction and devastation. 

How do you think the US handling of the pandemic is changing the way this country is seen around the world?

Well, I think it's done a lot of damage to our reputation as a leader, to our reputation as a country that could not only handle things here, but be relied on globally. When I think back to Ebola, the US led the global charge to protect the countries of West Africa and stop the epidemic there successfully. Now, the US is really not in that role.

Saying that we're going to leave WHO in the middle of a pandemic is not a sensible thing to do. Certainly, WHO needs to be better, but they're essential. And turning our backs on them is not going to help at this time. The US has a wonderful history of pragmatic, effective public health and political leadership. And if we get back to that, we can control this pandemic and the next one that comes along as well. 

I mean, you look at China, they recently had a cluster of more than 150 new COVID cases in Beijing. Officials sealed off neighborhoods, they launched a mass testing campaign, imposed travel restrictions. In the meantime, here in the US, we're getting reports that President Donald Trump wants to close 13 federally run testing centers just as infections are spiking in several states. Again, maybe the answer is obvious, but how does the US emerge from this and get on the list of responsible countries?

If we do the right thing, we'll get on the right list. I got an email this morning from a colleague in Australia. Incredibly impressive. They've got a cluster. They're ramping up testing. They're doing very intensive work. And really, the tale of two countries is the United States and South Korea. We've both had our first cases on Jan. 20.

If you had moved from the US to South Korea on that date, you would have been 70 times less likely to get killed by COVID-19. And these days, Korea is having 30 cases a day and they're really concerned about it. They're ramping up their efforts to clamp down on the virus. We have 30,000 cases, and there's still debate about whether people should wear masks. It's a little mind-boggling. 

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

THE IDEOLOGY OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: AMERICAN NATIONALISM’S NOM DE PLUME

 22 August 2022


In this article published by the Journal of Political Ideologies, USSC Associate Professor Brendon O'Connor, Macquarie University's Lloyd Cox and the University of Sydney's Danny Cooper argue that American exceptionalism is, in essence, a strand of American nationalism that only emerged in its distinctive modern form during the Cold War. The authors begin by unpacking this relationship between nationalism and exceptionalism in the first section and continue in the second section by examining the significance of two key thinkers on American exceptionalism – Alexis de Tocqueville and Seymour Martin Lipset. The third section crystallizes various meanings of the concept identified previously. The authors delineate three core pillars of exceptionalist thinking: a belief that the United States has a unique founding that set it on a path to having a special place in the world; that it is a land of unrivalled opportunity; and that it has a unique role to play in global affairs.

VIEW ON TANDFONLINE.COM →

BEHIND PAYWALL

Associate Professor Brendon O'Connor
Postgraduate Coordinator and Associate Professor in American Politics, United States Studies Centre (jointly appointed with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney)

Brendon O'Connor is jointly appointed between the US Studies Centre and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney as an Associate Professor in American Politics. He is the editor of seven books on anti-Americanism and has also published articles and books on American welfare policy, presidential politics, US foreign policy and Australian-American relations.

Exceptionalism and international law

Alfred de Zayas

September 25, 2024Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Exceptionalism is an expression of the aninmus dominandi of powerful nations who refuse to submit to established rules of human coexistence and reject customary international law. Instead, these actors invent new rules as they go along and pretend that their fabled “rules based international order” somehow has legitimacy. A recent study established by Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) for the UN Summit of the Future[1], provides an index ranking Barbados first and the United States last in the list of countries likely to support UN principles and international solidarity[2].

A close relative of exceptionalism is chauvinism, sometimes falsely labelled patriotism in order to make it sound more palatable, even noble, although the obvious imbalance makes us feel vaguely uneasy about it. Exceptionalism has been successful hitherto because its victims possess scarce power to effectively oppose it, weaker countries being blackmail victims, in fear of military and other intervention.  Exceptionalism is a manifestation of that old rule we remember from the Melian Dialogue[3] in Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War – “the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must”.  This also reflects the Latin saying “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” – What Jupiter can get away with, is not what we bovines are permitted to do.

Throughout history The Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Spaniards, British have practiced “might is right” with impunity.   Notable practitioners in the 21^st century are the United States, its NATO vassals, plus Israel, with the support and complicity of the mainstream media.  Indeed, public relations and relentless propaganda have succeeded in persuading many that exceptionalism and militant interventionism are O.K.  This perception prevails in the “collective West”, but the Global Majority in Latin America, Africa and Asia does not seem to agree with the pastel colours of US benevolence.  A new multipolar world is gradually emerging.

The spirit of exceptionalism pervades Western society and reveals itself in much of what our politicians, academics and journalists say and do. Thus, we remember US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s statement that the United States is the “indispensable nation”[4].  She is also remembered for an interview in which she expressed the view that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children (UNICEF estimates) “was worth it”[5] because of the ultimate positive goal to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  The end justifies the means. Her approach is not too far from the self-serving statements by George W. Bush before, during and after the Iraq war, or from Donald Trump’s pompous “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) slogan, or from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s jubilant admission, “we lied, we cheated, we stole”[6].  On an even lower moral plane we situate Hillary Clinton’s comment on Moammar Gaddafi’s killing as “We came, we saw, he died.”[7]  This was hubris at its worst.

Exceptionalism flourishes in the universe of American solipsism – only we matter.  In a certain sense, this Weltanschauung echoes a Calvinistic tradition carried by the Puritans to Massachusetts in the 17^thcentury[8]. The pious Pilgrims saw themselves as the “elect”, predestined to occupy the lands of North America as their rightful heritage, to be fruitful and multiply[9], successors as they were of old Jerusalem, the city on the hill.  They set the stage for the muscled American exceptionalism of later centuries, as proclaimed in the Monroe Doctrine and implemented in the geopolitics of Manifest Destiny[10].  This mental disposition made it possible to dispossess and ethnically cleanse North America of its native indigenous population, the Algonquins, Crees, Cherokees, Dakotas, Hopi, Iroquois, Lakotas, Mohawks, Navajos, Pequots, Seminoles, Sioux, Squamish, etc., who once numbered 10 million human beings and by the end of the 19^th century had been reduced to three hundred thousand[11].

Few Americans have been willing to recognize the magnitude of this tragedy, which Martin Luther King Jr. rightly called “genocide”.  In 1964, four years before he was assassinated, MLK published a remarkable book Why we can’t Wait.[12]  On page 141 we read:

“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it. »[13]  That too was a form of American exceptionalism.”

The relationship between international law and human rights

International law and human rights law are intimately related and mutually reinforcing.  Thus, when international law is breached with impunity, the entire system suffers, including the human rights protection mechanisms.  Applying international law in an arbitrary manner means that some human beings are not fully protected by the law, are left behind, while others enjoy privileges; it cements a Herrenmensch philosophy and entails a separate and distinct violation of the most fundamental principle of human rights :  The equality of all human beings.

Exceptionalism violates the dignity of the individual when the law favours some, but is used to exploit, oppress, and persecute others.  It contravenes article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stipulates “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”[14]

Exceptionalism also breaches article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): ”All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. »[15]

The exceptionalist approach to international law confirms the imperial prerogative to go to war, to engage in pre-emptive attacks on potential enemies.  It reflects the pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific philosophy of superiority.  In order to counter this outlawry, the ICCPR stipulates in its article 20: “1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[16]  It is no surprise that most of the countries of the “collective West” introduced reservations to the ICCPR stating that they would not accept Article 20.

This animus dominandi also violates article 4 of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[17]:  “States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination…”  Similarly, the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid[18] is violated – not only in South Africa before Nelson Mandela, but today in Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu.

In this connection it is also appropriate to recall the words at the beginning of the US Declaration of Independence of 1776: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…”[19]  In the same tenor, the 1789 French Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen[20], article 1 of which stipulates :  « Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. »

Now, how does the doctrine of exceptionalism in domestic and international practice impact this over-arching principle of equality?  In an op-ed published on 11 September 2013 in the New York Times, Vladimir Putin expressed a concern: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation…. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”[21]

Exceptionalism and the risk of nuclear confrontation

There are many dangers associated with exceptionalism.  Especially in the nuclear age, some exceptionalist attitudes may cloud our perception, lead us to misjudge how others think, and thus hinder our assessment of risk.  Countries that practice exceptionalism have traditionally exhibited a naive nonchalance about what they say and do.  They like to gamble.  They take risks for themselves and others.  They provoke and expect that the other side will not react, that the provocation will be “absorbed”.

Alas, in the nuclear age it is not only the safety of the exceptionalist provoker that is at stake, but the fate of all of humanity.  The US and NATO countries, notably the UK, have been playing vabanquefor years and they evidently think that they can do so indefinitely.  While it should be obvious to all that no one is going to survive a nuclear confrontation, the US, UK and some NATO countries continue playing with fire and irresponsibly escalating the Ukraine war, instead of looking for ways to end the conflict by diplomacy and negotiation.  This is yet another reason why the Global Majority in Latin America, Africa and Asia must become more vocal, because if NATO miscalculates, as it has done in the past, the consequences will be borne by all inhabitants of Planet Earth.

At the United Nations there is consensus that nuclear weapons must never be used.  Already in 1995, the Security Council adopted resolution 984[22] and indefinitely extended the Non-Proliferation Treaty[23].  In 2004 the SC adopted Resolution 1540, imposing binding obligations on all States to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  On 20 November 2022 Resolution 2663 decided “that the 1540 Committee will conduct comprehensive reviews on the status of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including through the holding of open consultations of the Committee in New York, both after five years and prior to the renewal of its mandate…” and called on States “to take into account developments on the evolving nature of risk of proliferation and rapid advances in science and technology in their implementation of resolution 1540 (2004)”[24].  Meanwhile the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons[25] entered into force on 22 January 2021, but the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, Israel are not states parties

Lip-service to international law is easy.  Everybody does it. But can we rely on a dysfunctional United Nations to protect the world from risky vabanque politicians?  The UN could not prevent NATO from violating the ius cogens prohibition of the use of force (Art. 2(4) UN Charter) and bombard Yugoslavia in 1999, destroying its territorial integrity under false pretences and in total impunity.  In 2003, again under a demonstrably phoney pretext of weapons of mass destruction[26], the United States put together the infamous “coalition of the willing” to invade and devastate Iraq, just to complete the assault on the people of Iraq and the pillaging of its resources, already begun in 1991.  The 2003 war, which Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned as an “illegal war”[27], constituted a rebellion against international law and the UN Charter by a considerable number of States ostensibly committed to the rule of law and human rights.  No one was held accountable.

Let us not forget that already in August 1945, when Japan had already lost the war in the Pacific and the Unites States was not under any existential threat by Japan, Harry Truman decided to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States, in its singular hubris, demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan and would accept nothing less, notwithstanding peace feelers extended by Japan since 1944[28].  Consistent with its exceptionalist philosophy, the United States decided to humiliate the Japanese and their Emperor.  The atomic weapon was used not for any legitimate military purpose but rather for psychological purposes – to terrorise the Japanese into submission and at the same time to warn the Soviets that hitherto the US was the only hegemon and that it would not hesitate to use the atomic bomb against any potential enemy, even pre-emptively. Hitherto only the United States has used nuclear weapons in war.  If it did it twice against Japan, can it do it again, this time against Russia and China[29]?

In the nuclear age this bravado lacks persuasive power.  The Russians have more nuclear warheads than the United States, and they also have hypersonic missiles to deliver them, which the US lacks.  It is time to revisit John F. Kennedy’s commencement address of 10 June 1963 at American University: “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”[30]

I fear that in the current world of fake news and manipulated narratives, in today’s brainwashed society, Kennedy would be accused of being an “appeaser”[31], even a traitor.  And yet, today the fate of all of humanity is at stake. What we really need is another JFK or Jimmy Carter in the White House.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that American exceptionalism contravenes the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, countless General Assembly Resolutions including 2625, 3314, 60/1.  Unilateralism is also incompatible with many articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides in its article 26 that treaties must be observed in good faith, pacta sunt servanda.  Among the treaties that must be enforced, we acknowledge first and foremost the UN Charter, article 103 of which, the supremacy clause, gives the Charter precedence over all other treaties, including the treaty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

There are plenty of United States academics that have warned us about the danger of nuclear annihilation and the necessity to deescalate. Among them we count Professors John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Stephen Kinzer, Francis Boyle.  Alas, they are modern Cassandras. The sad fact is that exceptionalism and unilateralism are part of the DNA of many of our political leaders in the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

Public relations and propaganda have convinced many that NATO is a “defense alliance”.  Yet, since 1991 and the dismantlement of the Warsaw Pact, NATO’s raison d’être disappeared, and it morphed into an aggressive military force whose function is not defence, but expansion for the sake of expansion, expansion to bully others into submission to the will of Washington and Brussels, an organization that pretends to usurp the functions of the United Nations.

NATO forces have committed aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. but the fake news that accompanied those wars by now have evolved into fake history, and many believe the apologetics of NATO’s criminal actions.  In a very real sense, NATO should be labelled a criminal organization within the meaning of the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 and articles 9 and 10 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal (London Agreement of 8 August 1945, ironically adopted two days after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and one day before the annihilation of Nagasaki).

Government lawyers bear significant responsibility for this outlawry, because instead of advising political leaders how best to implement the UN Charter and judgments of the International Court of Justice, how to keep the peace, how to practice international solidarity, they look for ways how to weasel out of international commitments, how to invent loopholes to treaties, how to formulate exceptionalist interpretations of international law.

On this 21^st day of September 2024, International Day of Peace[32], we are closer to annihilation than ever before since 1945. NATO is out of control.  What we need is an immediate cease fire and diplomatic negotiations to end the wars in Ukraine and in Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria. The Global Majority must reject the obsolete paradigms of exceptionalism and unilateralism and rediscover the spirituality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Pax optima rerum.

Notes.

[1] https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future

[2] https://impakter.com/the-nations-most-and-least-likely-to-support-un-principles/

[3] https://www.thecollector.com/melian-dialogue-thucydides/

[4] https://1997-2001.state.gov/statements/1998/980219a.html

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU

[8] David Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford 1992.

[9] Genesis,9:7.

[10] Richard Drinnon, Facing West, University of Oklahoma Press, 1997.

[11] Alfred de Zayas, Countering Mainstream Narratives, Clarity Press, Atlanta 2022.

[12] Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Why We Can’t Wait (New York: New American Library, Signet Classics, 2000); de Zayas, Countering Mainstream Narratives, p. 54.

[14] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

[15] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[16] Ibid.

[17] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial

[18] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf

[19] https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/resources/text

[20] https://www.elysee.fr/la-presidence/la-declaration-des-droits-de-l-homme-et-du-citoyen

[21] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_984

[23] https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/

[24] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n22/716/75/pdf/n2271675.pdf

[25] https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

[26] Hans Blix, Disarming Iraq, Pantheon, 2004.

[27] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

[28] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2049539

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/abs/japanese-peace-maneuver-in-19441/1B5B584A53782C211CB28AE71BA3EA56

[29] https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/27/united-states-middle-east-wars-asia-europe-same-time/

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/could-america-win-new-world-war

[30] https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/09/14/natos-death-wish-will-destroy-not-only-europe-but-the-rest-of-the-world-as-well/

NATO’s “Death Wish” Will Destroy Not Only Europe but the Rest of the World as Well

[31] https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/08/09/appeasement-reconsidered/

[32] https://internationaldayofpeace.org/

Alfred de Zayas is a law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18. He is the author of twelve books including “Building a Just World Order” (2021) “Countering Mainstream Narratives” 2022, and “The Human Rights Industry” (Clarity Press, 2021).

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Logo de Temu (marché)

On September 13, the Biden administration announced a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to “protect American consumers, workers, and businesses by addressing the significant increased abuse of the de minimis exemption.”

That’s a pretty bland way of saying that Biden and Friends are opening up a new front in the US government’s war on your ability to find and purchase the things you want at a price you find attractive.

The current targets of opportunity in that war: Chinese e-commerce outfits like Temu and Shein, which use the “de minimis exemption” to ship goods directly to American consumers at low prices.

Under the de minimis exemption, items worth less than $800 aren’t subject to the tariffs Donald Trump and Joe Biden have increasingly leaned on over the last few years as a way of rewarding  American business donors and organized labor supporters at your expense.

How things used to work: A US importer would order, say, $10,000 worth of, say, motorcycle helmets. They’d arrive in a big shipping container and if the tariff was 10%, the importer’s cost (passed on to retail customers, of course) now became $11,000 — and the customers’ cost came to that higher price plus the wholesalers’ and retailers’ markups.

How it works now: You find a motorcycle helmet you like online, priced with no tariff and fewer “middleman” markups. You click. You pay. It arrives. It’s not as quick as going to a local shop or ordering from Amazon, but it’s usually MUCH cheaper.

American customers love paying less for what they want or need.

American producers, wholesalers, and labor unions hate that you’re able to pay less for something you want or need … because they’re not getting their cut.

Domestic retailers, meanwhile, are increasingly eyeing the whole thing as a new supply chain streamlining opportunity. With so much commerce taking place online now, why not just drop-ship individual items directly from China to consumers instead of paying tariffs on bulk purchases that then require additional shipping and take up expensive shelf space until they’re bought  with the assistance of paid store staff?

Biden’s hoping Big Business and Big Labor will notice he’s ripping you off for their benefit and support Democrats in November. He’s also hoping voters won’t notice their lighter wallets.

Don’t buy Biden’s malarkey about “national security,” fentanyl, and “protecting” you from “abuse.” This is about paying political allies off with your hard-earned money, and that’s all it’s about.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.