When the British singer-songwriter, Chris Rea, released ‘You Can Go Your Own Way’, in 1994, no clairvoyant could foretell the symbolic resonance with President Trump’s Make America Great Again “America First” political ideology 31 years later in 2025. A reasonable characterisation of America First is U.S. domination, economic nationalism, exceptionalism, muscularity, and trade protectionism. The ideology unabashedly redefines, and reinforces American interests and pre-eminencein domestic and foreign policy, given the country’s economic, military, scientific, and technologicalsuperiority.
Substantiation of the America First ideology encompasses President Trump’s execution of a plethora of Executive Orders (EOs). EOs are exceptions to the rule which establishes Congress as the legislative arm of the U.S. government under the trifecta separation of powers between the executive, the judiciary, and Congress; with jurisprudential foundations in Article 2 of the U.S.Constitution 1789. EOs, therefore, are practical examples of delegated legislation and have been freely exercised by U.S. Presidents since George Washington’s term (1789-1797).
Since Trump’s political reincarnationas the 47th President on January 20, 2025, up to and including February 6, 2025, he has signed over 54 EOs. These include EO 14150 “America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State” of January 20, 2025. It establishes that “the foreign policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.” EO 14169 of January 20, 2025 revaluates and realigns U.S. Foreign Aid. Section 2 of this EO stipulates that “it is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”
EO 14155 of January 2025, withdraws the United States from the World Health Organisation.EO 14199 of February 4, 2025 withdraws and/or otherwise fundamentally recasts the United States relationship with the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Commission, UN Economic, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Invoking International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) 1977, and other statutes, President Trump, on February 1, 2025, executed three executive orders imposing new tariffs on all goods from Canada, Mexico, and China effective February 4, 2025. However, on February 3, 2025 the United States imposed a moratorium on the economic tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico until March 4, 2025subject to negotiations. Correspondingly, Canada suspendedtit-for-tat tariffs against the United States.
Concurrently, the EO imposing 10 per cent tariffs on all goods from China remains in force. China, in turn, has declared retaliatory against the United States effective February 10, 2025.That’s tip of the iceberg – which again is entirely consistent with the overwhelming democratic mandate accorded the Presidentby the American electorate in November 2024 elections.
Business-as-usual? No! Diplomatic niceties in U.S. relations with the global community? No! Sacrosanct relations with traditional European, NATO, Western allies? No! Blood-and-thunder ideological response to real and perceived threats to U.S. exceptionalism? Yes!
Well, here’s the rub. America First notwithstanding, the United States is a critical part of the global community. Analytical propriety for that assertion being the subsisting interdependences between the United States, and various countries, institutions, and multilateral agencies.
Should sovereign nations shudder and wither because theirown foreign policy objectives collide with America First? Will the United States global influence increase or decrease because of an unbending dirigisteideological nexus to America First? Is there any civilised nation in the world which does not put nor seek to put its own people, nation, and geostrategic interests first?
What does America First portend for the patently imperfect, but aspirational, rules-based global order of the rule of law? What geostrategic precedent does United States pre-eminence set for authoritarian rulers, decadent regimes, dictators worldwide, and for nascent democracies in the Global South, if it selectively picks,and arbitrarily chooses, which international laws and regulations toapply? How is American exceptionalism objectively justifiable if, like the ICC, both are committed to the rule of law?
These are mighty posers which, fundamentally, impinge upon sovereign autonomy. American sovereignty is certainly not in doubt, nor is it being impugned. America First simply re-establishes it by additional force of law, ideology, indeterminism, policy, and mercurial presidential willpower. Sovereign autonomy however, is not the exclusive preserve of the United States.
Truly independent countriesexercise sovereign autonomy, with constitutional powers to make, and enforce,any law/s, policies and regulations, for self-determination, defence and security, the welfare, and economic advancement of citizens, whilst safeguarding national interests.
Example? Section14 (2) (a), (b), of the 1999 Constitution (as amended): “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its power and authority”; “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”In a utopian world, the ICC would lack a raison d’être, because nations would responsibly abide by domestic and international law, and treaty obligations.
Conversely, in today’s virulently contested dystopian orthodoxy, there are genocidal conflicts, civil wars, extremist dictators, terrorist campaigns in hotspots. Notably, theRussia/Ukrainian war which began on February 24, 2022; thedecades old Israel/Palestinian wars, the most recently which commenced on October 7 2023 (albeit with temporary ceasefire); the Syrian Civil war effective June 12, 2012; ditto, Sudan Civil war April 15, 2023.
However, perpetrators and key dramatis personae of these pernicious crisis, despite grave criminal acts somehow manage to evade justice because of corrupt and compromised domestic judicial systems and processes, which negateobjectively accepted standards of the rule of law.
Whilst there is no universally accepted definition of the rule of law, enlightened and progressive nations characterise it as access to justice; equality before the law; legal certainty, as distinguished from whimsicality; protection for fundamental freedoms; punishment fitting the crime; impartial and independent adjudicatory tribunals; reasonable limits on state power, via meaningful separation of powers between the constitutional trifecta of the executive; legislature; and judiciary.
The material question then is whether progressive nations and the international community should ignore these patently obvious crises, which threaten global peace and security, and therefore, act; especially against the historical backdrop of atrocities like the Bosnian War (1992-1995) which claimed over 100,000; the Nigerian/Biafra Civil War (1967-1970) which claimed over 1,000,000 lives; the Congo Crisis (1960-1965), which claimed approximately 100,000 lives, amongst others? The only reasonable answer is yes, however imperfectly formed aspirations for a rules-based global order are! Ergo, should proactive measures be taken to ensure the risk of war is minimised globally? Totally! Does the ICC have a role to play here? Incontestably!
Article 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Court 1998 established the ICC, effective 2002, with jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. The ICC currently has 125 member states. Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Statute empowers the ICC to investigate and, as justified, try persons charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression; whilst complementing national criminal courts’ jurisdiction.
The preamble to the Rome Statute affirms inter alia that the severest crimes “of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation.”
Pursuant to these statutory provisions, the ICC’s raison d’être directly impinges global geopolitics, in that some sovereign nations consider its aims as undermining sovereign autonomy, domestic criminal jurisdiction, and foreign policy. Upon that foundation, those countries have never ratified the treaty. China, Russia and the United States are notable examples of countries which refuse to ratify the ICC treaty. The U.S. robustly guards its sovereignty, consistently projects its ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power either directly or via strategic alliances globally and weaves a complex strategically ambiguous relationship with the ICC.
So, where there is contestability between America’s and ICC’s strategic interests, the former will prevail. This proposition is markedly reinforced by the American Service Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) 2002 aimed at supplanting U.S. government support for the ICC; against the backdrop of the U.S.-led Iraq war of aggression in 2003 which never received UN Security Council approval!
The seminal legislation required the United States “to enter into agreements with all ICC signatory states to shield American citizens abroad from ICC jurisdiction, under the auspices of Article 98 of the Rome Statute.” Plus, the U.S. exercised Bilateral Immunity Agreements at the time “which guarantee immunity from ICC prosecution for all American citizens in the country with which the agreement is concluded.”
Philosophically, where the United States, a UN Security Council permanent member with veto powers, leads, its allies, like Israel, follow; again, upon the prospectus of aligned strategicinterests.
The inference from the foregoing is that the ICC’s raison d’être directly conflicts with America First. That thesis is further evidenced by President Trump’s Executive Order of February 6, 2025, which sanctions the ICC for “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.” The unmistakable backdrop to this EO was the ICC’s arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, where the court affirmedthe existence of “reasonable grounds” that Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and (Palestinian) Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif bore “criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
In the final analysis, although clearly unforeseen, Chris Rea’sGo YourOwn Way, is emblematic of the America First ideology. However, in an increasingly interdependent world, exceptionalism and going “your own way”expose practical limitations. Thus far, American sanctions against the ICC, appeartobreach Article 70 of the Rome Statute, which creates offences against the administration of justice.
Subsections (1) (d) and (e) therein criminalise impeding and intimidating ICC officials and retaliating against them in their official duties. Where, then, is America’s moral leadership, counterbalanced against itsmulti-dimensional pre-eminence; which remains a pivotal strategic advantage?
Nonetheless, it needs geostrategic allies globally without impugning its strategic interests. The inference therefore is that its foreign policy demands nuance, international cooperation, where sovereign nations’ geostrategic interests will occasionally clash. Hard-nosed America First doctrinaireis not an exact science! The inexorable quadrant of exceptionalism, muscularity, realpolitik, and compelling strategic leadershipought, reasonably, to square the circle of effective diplomacy within an interwoven global construct, notwithstanding the enormous challenges of competing interests and uber determined rivals.
Little wonder, Ursula von der Leyen, European Union President, emphasised that the “ICC guarantees accountability for international crimes and gives a voice to victims worldwide. It must be able to freely pursue the fight against global impunity. Europe will always stand for justice and the respect of international law.”
Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development.
