Give up on the international order based on rules

Give up on the international order based on rules

Give up on the international order based on rules

Washington often excludes itself and its allies, particularly Israel, and only employs RBIO against adversaries like Russia. The globe is dubious of this US RBI strategy, particularly in South America, Asia, and Africa, where nations are under pressure from Washington to stand with the West against China and Russia, yet often refuse.

When American diplomats only employ the rules-based international system, American foreign policy seems hypocritical.

For many reasons, including love, freedom, justice, and fatherland, people have given their life. However, no one has ever lost their life while defending the international order founded on norms. It's time to throw out that cliche and use something more relevant in its stead.

This isn't simply because the term is a grammatical horror straight out of Orwellia, with all the emotional resonance of a PowerPoint presentation. It is also a shibboleth that casts American foreign policy from the Middle East to Africa, Asia, and beyond as contradictory, particularly when employed by American diplomats.

The earlier and somewhat distinct (but equally nebulous) idea of the "liberal international order" has been supplanted by the term RBI in recent years. This picked up speed as the government of President Joe Biden entered office, which was meant to represent a return to a more moral foreign policy than that of Donald Trump. Biden and his envoys have discussed the rules-based international order so extensively that Harvard Kennedy School academic Stephen Walt—a student of the strict "realist" tradition—has mocked the term as a "necessity of the job."

The globe is dubious of America's position, especially in South America, Asia, and Africa, where nations are under pressure from Washington to stand with the West against China and Russia, yet often refuse. Meanwhile, dismantling US double standards is simpler for Beijing and Moscow. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, said at a gathering in the Global South that the RBIO is really a front for American exceptionalism, allowing the US to "make rules" at will and then "order" everyone else.

Of course, this is rich with the guy who invaded the independent country of Ukraine and ordered thousands of its children to be abducted and its inhabitants killed, so rich that The Hague's International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him to stand trial. for crimes of war. Nevertheless, the accusation of American hypocrisy is heard in several capitals.

Washington often excludes itself and its allies, particularly Israel, and only employs RBIO against adversaries like Russia. South Africa has filed a complaint against Hamas in the Gaza Strip at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a UN body unconnected to the ICC, alleging that Israel committed genocide during its war. Because the judges find the claims to be so credible, they have the authority to impose an order that functions as an injunction until they make a judgment.

In contrast, the Biden White House does not have to wait for the ruling of a tribunal that, one would assume, regards the RBIO with the same respect as any other organization on the planet. "Meritless, repugnant, and completely without any basis" was how one spokeswoman for the President's National Security Council described South Africa's situation.

This suggests an underlying issue. John Dugard, a former judge of the International Court of Justice and professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands, claims that the reason the US pushes its RBI so hard is because it is unable to fully embrace and adhere to an ancient, straightforward concept. Desires: Of global law.

It would be tough for Washington to adhere to that criteria since it is universal rather than subjective like the RBIO. Multilateral accords, many of which the US assisted in drafting, form the basis of international law in part. However, the United States of America declines to ratify several agreements, such as the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Agreement on the Rights of the Child as well as the Persons with Disabilities, the 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, however, the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, and numerous more.

As a result, Washington lacks standing to criticize China for endangering the Philippines in the South China Sea since it is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. He doesn't acknowledge the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in fact sanctioned ICC prosecutors when they looked into claims of crimes by US forces in Afghanistan, therefore he cannot properly join the ICC in accusing Putin of war crimes.

According to Dugard, this is the reason the Biden administration gives RBIO precedence above international law. Unlike attorneys, RBIO does not really establish rules. There isn't a dispute resolution procedure or tribunal. It also doesn't give a damn whether nations decide to join or leave. Rather, the rules-based international order allows the US to state its national interests while being adaptable enough to indicate the presence of standards.

A valid objective of foreign policy is defining national interests, and the US should not be afraid to use its unique (although waning) strength to further these goals. In international relations, this is referred to as realism. However, as the horrors of the previous century's international wars and genocides have shown, governments must use conventions and laws to restrain both their own and other people's power. We refer to this as idealism. America has performed at its best throughout the previous eight decades whenever it has incorporated these two elements in its foreign policy for the benefit of both itself and the rest of the world.

Send a staff document to Biden and other Western leaders, urging them to abandon the rules-based world system and swear fealty to international law in all of their remarks. Then hold Israel, the United States, China, and Russia to that standard as well as, if needed, Iran.

Although Washington won't always find this adjustment comfortable, it will strengthen Washington's ties with the rest of the globe and lead to a better, more wealthy, free, and peaceful world. The new pitch could seem more appealing and genuine than that weird-sounding international rules-based structure. What could be more American than law and order, after all?