July 13, 2023:
Information Clearing House
-- What exactly is the
rules-based order, the most frequently used term
in US diplomacy? It has never been precisely
defined, until a recent trending tweet unveiled
its true mafia-style nature.
Nury Vittachi, a Sri Lankan-born and Hong
Kong-based veteran journalist, put down 10
definitions on rules-based order on Monday,
including: The US rules the world; the US makes
all rules; no one can know what the rules are,
only that they exist; the US will be in charge
of the flexibility provided by the rules'
non-existent nature; alternative rules of
governance which work successfully (cf. China,
Singapore) must always be derided as
"authoritarianism;" unfair global dominance by
the 13 percent Western minority (cf.
totalitarianism) must always be referred to as
"democracy."
At least two points can be dug up in the
definitions. Firstly, no one knows what the
rules-based order is and how it is formulated
apart from the US. Washington has been
deliberately avoiding offering a detailed
explanation, as vague rules offer more
flexibility for the US to interpret them as they
see fit. Secondly, the excessive self-centered
hegemonic practices of the US have long caused
dissatisfaction among many countries and
individuals worldwide. This widespread
discontent has been ignited by this tweet, which
gained popularity and supportive comments.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
If one examines major decisions that the US
has made in recent years, they will find
Vittachi's definitions are a perfect match. A
latest example is the case of cluster bombs. In
February 2022, then White House press secretary
Jen Psaki called the use of cluster bombs a "war
crime." A year later, the US altered its "rules"
and decided to send these cluster bombs to
Ukraine.
The rules-based order suppresses anything that
challenges US hegemony, such as China's rise.
Consequently, the US believes it is "righteous"
to impose unilateral sanctions or export
controls on China. But when China introduced its
own set of export control rules on gallium and
germanium, Karin Jean-Pierre, a White House
spokeswoman, accused China of exerting pressure
through the economy, underlying it is not fair
play.
Also, in the context of containing China, the US
has a rule - Taiwan island must not be reunified
by the Chinese mainland. It does not care
whether the Taiwan question bears on China's own
sovereignty and territorial integrity, if China
does not accept the US' rules, it would mean a
violation of the rules-based order, Shen Yi, a
professor at Fudan University, told the Global
Times.
For the US, the rules-based order must also
serve its own interests. For example, when free
trade benefited the US, Washington vehemently
opposed any involvement of the government in the
markets of other countries. But when free trade
no longer yields significant benefits for the
US, Washington makes no hesitation in
implementing measures such as Inflation
Reduction Act, which the EU finds has put EU-based
producers at a disadvantage, as they are
compelled to compete in a distorted market with
subsidized US-based producers.
This is not a rules-based order, but a
dictatorial order, a mafia international order.
It only proves that when the US brags about how
democratic it is at home, it is pursuing
authoritarianism abroad.
To be honest, this is even worse than a mafia
order, as a mafia boss may to some extent follow
certain moral gangster rules. But the US no
longer has moral principles, Shen said. All it
has is selfishness.
More importantly, the US is running out of
strength to maintain this selfish order. US
hegemony is riddled with holes, like a leaking
ship. Thanks to either wars directly waged by
the US or proxy wars fanned by it, the
superpower has caused severe civilian casualties
and property damage worldwide, leading to huge
humanitarian disasters one after another, which,
in turn, jeopardized US comprehensive national
strength and international reputation. Not to
mention signs over crumbling US dollar hegemony
are bubbling.
The international community is awakening to what
the rules-based order really is. More emerging
countries are seeking a multipolar world. This
has surely upset the US. Washington is making
more effort in peddling its values and
ideologies to bind its Western allies to its
side. However, as former Singaporean diplomat
Kishore Mahbubani put it, even Washington's
staunch allies "might be secretly planning for
alternative scenarios" for US decline.
The louder the US is over the rules-based order,
the more it proves the US is incapable of
maintaining it. Otherwise, there is no need to
talk about it all day long in such a
high-profile manner. What the US needs the most
now is other countries' recognition of this
order. However, all the deeds the US has made,
with double standards or multiple standards, to
serve US short-term interests, will only erode
other countries' acceptance of US' rules.
The expression of the rules-based order itself
is neutral, and can even be understood as an
idealized order. However, the power to define it
should belong to the mainstream international
society, not the US alone.