International Laws? You Kidding Me?

At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.

On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.

Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”

In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.

Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.

Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.

In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”

Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?

Deep Blue

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Wang Yi just put the world on notice. "The international situation is getting more turbulent and intertwined," he said. "Unilateral bullying is intensifying. The sudden change in Venezuela has drawn high level of attention from the international community."

He then added: "We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman, nor do we agree that any country can claim itself to be an international judge."

This isn't diplomatic chitchat. Wang Yi added that "the sovereignty and security of all countries should be fully protected under international law." It's a warning shot fired directly at Trump's so-called "New Monroe Doctrine"—and it signals China will push back hard against neo-colonialism. One story from China's past shows exactly what that means.

The Incheon Gamble

In mid-September 1950, MacArthur pulled off the audacious Incheon landing—later hailed as "the most successful gamble" in military history. He bet everything on one card: that North Korean forces would be lax defending a port with terrible geography. The bet paid off. US forces achieved total surprise, cut enemy supply lines, and reversed the early disasters of the Korean War.

The Korean Peninsula was strategically vital to both China and the Soviet Union. They planned to back North Korea. At 1:00 a.m. on October 3, Zhou Enlai urgently summoned K. M. Panikkar, India's ambassador to China. His message was blunt: "If US forces cross the 38th parallel, we cannot stand by—we will have to step in."

The CCP's official Party history records this moment and emphasizes one critical word: "管" (to intervene). The Chinese term posed a translation challenge. If the wording was too soft, the Americans might miss China's intent. So Premier Zhou asked his foreign affairs secretary, Pu Shouchang, to choose carefully. Pu used "intervene"—making China's intention crystal clear. China would step in and interfere. The message reached Washington quickly through India. Yet "the US side chose to ignore it, and US forces brazenly crossed the 38th parallel on October 7."

Crossing the Yalu

American troops didn't just cross the 38th parallel—they surged in force toward the Yalu River and raced along the China-North Korea and North Korea-Soviet borders to the Tumen River. What happened next? On October 19, 1950, the Chinese People's Volunteers crossed the Yalu River. After five successive campaigns, they drove UN forces back from the Yalu area to near the 38th parallel.

On July 27, 1953, China, North Korea, and the UN Command signed the Korean Armistice Agreement. Many believe Mao Zedong's decision to send troops delivered China a stunning victory—a weaker power defeating a stronger one. People now say China "won so hard it felt unreal."

MacArthur—that "godlike general"—couldn't let it go. After his success at Incheon, the more he thought about it, the more he wanted to expand his gains. He proposed a radical escalation to Washington: first, blockade China's coast; second, use naval and air power for unlimited bombing to completely destroy China's industrial production and infrastructure; third, bring in Nationalist (KMT) forces to "retake the mainland" and tie China down. Then fourth, MacArthur went even further with a wild proposal—drop 20 to 30 atomic bombs on China and create a radioactive "death zone" along the Yalu River between China and North Korea.

Trump's MacArthur Moment

Today's Trump thinks arresting Venezuela's president and his wife means he can bulldoze the whole world. One moment he talks about "taking over" Venezuela. The next he claims he can make personnel arrangements for that country, sending Marco Rubio to serve as a "governor." Meanwhile, US oil giants are poised to "swallow up" Venezuela's petroleum assets. Trump's ambition follows the same logic as MacArthur's back then.

MacArthur's recklessness enraged America's allies. They feared World War III. More importantly, the Soviet Union—which also possessed atomic weapons—was deeply dissatisfied with the US and warned that "bombs can be answered with bombs." President Truman faced an impossible choice: keep his war hero or keep the peace. He chose peace. On April 11, 1951, Truman fired MacArthur—ending the career of America's most celebrated general. MacArthur became one of the century's biggest cautionary tales.

 

The lesson is simple, direct, and brutal. Trump thinks everyone is scared of him and that he can keep throwing out ever more outrageous "deals" at will. That will invite disaster—because it crosses the tolerance threshold of the great-power balance. The major powers will have to "intervene."

How will they intervene? Great powers have many tools in their toolbox. Think of Schrödinger's cat—you open the box yourself and you'll find out the outcome. This isn't a joke. Do you dare try?