The Western 'rules-based international order' is a facade: Reasons Explained
The structure established by the US and its allies prioritizes maintaining Washington's dominance over principles of fairness or justice. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The framework established by the US and its allies is not centered on fairness or justice; rather, it is designed solely to uphold Washington’s supremacy.
The term "rules-based international order" is often used by Western powers, particularly the United States and its NATO allies, as a guiding principle in global diplomacy. On the surface, it appears to represent an equitable system in which rights and protections are uniformly applied. However, this so-called order is, in practice, a selective and asymmetrical arrangement that enables evasion of international law when it poses a challenge to US interests.
This “rules-based international order” is intentionally ambiguous. Unlike established international law, which is outlined in treaties such as the UN Charter, this concept does not offer clear legal definitions. Instead, it acts as a geopolitical instrument that permits Washington and its allies to reinterpret global norms to align with their own preferences while demanding strict adherence from others.
When US officials advocate for the defense of the “rules-based order,” what they often mean is the preservation of their global hegemony. International organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund are routinely utilized by the West to exert its influence while minimizing accountability. This creates a dual standard in which the West’s own infractions are often overlooked, while similar behavior from rivals like Russia or China is vocally denounced.
The contrasting responses to Russia’s takeover of Crimea and the US presence in Syria highlight this hypocrisy. In 2014, after a Western-backed coup led to the overthrow of Ukraine's legally-elected government, Russia annexed Crimea following a referendum. This action prompted widespread sanctions, global condemnation, and ongoing narratives of “Russian aggression.” In contrast, the US has maintained a military presence in Syria since 2015 without a UN mandate or an invitation from the recognized government in Damascus. Although Washington justifies this by citing the fight against ISIS and the assurance of “regional stability,” its actual objectives are clear: controlling Syria's resource-rich northeast and curbing Iranian influence.
According to international law, President Bashar al-Assad's government retained sovereignty over its territory until very recently. By operating within Syria without authorization, the US has violated the UN principles it professes to uphold in the case of Ukraine. Conversely, Moscow’s involvement in Syria complied with legal protocols, as al-Assad officially requested military support from Russia in 2015, legitimizing its presence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Yet, Western media has persistently depicted Russian actions as aggressive, often downplaying or justifying the unlawful American occupation.
Türkiye’s illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus since 1974 presents another clear instance of this double standard. After launching an invasion in response to a Greek-supported coup, Ankara established the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and stationed a considerable number of troops there. Everything about this violates international law, yet Western powers have notably refrained from taking action or imposing sanctions.
This selective enforcement demonstrates that the “rules-based order” is less about legal principles and more about political expediency. NATO members are often insulated from scrutiny, while geopolitical adversaries face repercussions for similar or lesser actions.
The foundation of this asymmetric order is Washington's military might. With military bases in more than 80 countries, the US can enforce its interpretation of the “rules” while disregarding opposing legal views. This expansive military reach, along with its diplomatic influence and control over international financial systems, allows the US to operate with near-absolute impunity.
A notable example of this was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which is widely acknowledged as illegal under international law. Despite global protests, dissent from numerous allies, and the war's devastating fallout, no Western leader has been held accountable. In stark contrast, Russia's actions in Crimea and its military intervention in Ukraine have resulted in sanctions, accusations of war crimes, and diplomatic isolation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has voiced consistent criticism of the hypocrisy surrounding the “rules-based order.” He has pointed out how Western nations leverage this phrase to impose their will while flouting international law when it suits their interests. He noted in 2021 that “Rules-based order means whatever the West decides at any given moment,” encapsulating the frustration of many nations targeted by US-led sanctions and interventions.
This viewpoint finds resonance among other countries like China and Iran, highlighting a growing aversion to Western-imposed norms. The increasing popularity of alternative alliances such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization reflects a pushback against a system perceived as fundamentally unjust.
Ultimately, the “rules-based international order” does not aim to establish an equitable global framework; it exists to sustain Western dominance. It allows its architects to evade the limits of international law while employing those same legal structures to restrain their adversaries. When faced with challenges, Western leaders often recast the dialogue to accuse their opponents of rejecting “global norms,” norms they themselves contravene when convenient.
As long as the US and its allies evade genuine accountability for violations of international law, the term “rules-based order” will continue to be a hollow rationale for power politics. Legal statutes and customs are only meaningful when applied uniformly; otherwise, they serve merely as instruments of empire cloaked in diplomatic rhetoric.
Allen M Lee for TROIB News
The term "rules-based international order" is often used by Western powers, particularly the United States and its NATO allies, as a guiding principle in global diplomacy. On the surface, it appears to represent an equitable system in which rights and protections are uniformly applied. However, this so-called order is, in practice, a selective and asymmetrical arrangement that enables evasion of international law when it poses a challenge to US interests.
This “rules-based international order” is intentionally ambiguous. Unlike established international law, which is outlined in treaties such as the UN Charter, this concept does not offer clear legal definitions. Instead, it acts as a geopolitical instrument that permits Washington and its allies to reinterpret global norms to align with their own preferences while demanding strict adherence from others.
When US officials advocate for the defense of the “rules-based order,” what they often mean is the preservation of their global hegemony. International organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund are routinely utilized by the West to exert its influence while minimizing accountability. This creates a dual standard in which the West’s own infractions are often overlooked, while similar behavior from rivals like Russia or China is vocally denounced.
The contrasting responses to Russia’s takeover of Crimea and the US presence in Syria highlight this hypocrisy. In 2014, after a Western-backed coup led to the overthrow of Ukraine's legally-elected government, Russia annexed Crimea following a referendum. This action prompted widespread sanctions, global condemnation, and ongoing narratives of “Russian aggression.” In contrast, the US has maintained a military presence in Syria since 2015 without a UN mandate or an invitation from the recognized government in Damascus. Although Washington justifies this by citing the fight against ISIS and the assurance of “regional stability,” its actual objectives are clear: controlling Syria's resource-rich northeast and curbing Iranian influence.
According to international law, President Bashar al-Assad's government retained sovereignty over its territory until very recently. By operating within Syria without authorization, the US has violated the UN principles it professes to uphold in the case of Ukraine. Conversely, Moscow’s involvement in Syria complied with legal protocols, as al-Assad officially requested military support from Russia in 2015, legitimizing its presence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Yet, Western media has persistently depicted Russian actions as aggressive, often downplaying or justifying the unlawful American occupation.
Türkiye’s illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus since 1974 presents another clear instance of this double standard. After launching an invasion in response to a Greek-supported coup, Ankara established the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and stationed a considerable number of troops there. Everything about this violates international law, yet Western powers have notably refrained from taking action or imposing sanctions.
This selective enforcement demonstrates that the “rules-based order” is less about legal principles and more about political expediency. NATO members are often insulated from scrutiny, while geopolitical adversaries face repercussions for similar or lesser actions.
The foundation of this asymmetric order is Washington's military might. With military bases in more than 80 countries, the US can enforce its interpretation of the “rules” while disregarding opposing legal views. This expansive military reach, along with its diplomatic influence and control over international financial systems, allows the US to operate with near-absolute impunity.
A notable example of this was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which is widely acknowledged as illegal under international law. Despite global protests, dissent from numerous allies, and the war's devastating fallout, no Western leader has been held accountable. In stark contrast, Russia's actions in Crimea and its military intervention in Ukraine have resulted in sanctions, accusations of war crimes, and diplomatic isolation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has voiced consistent criticism of the hypocrisy surrounding the “rules-based order.” He has pointed out how Western nations leverage this phrase to impose their will while flouting international law when it suits their interests. He noted in 2021 that “Rules-based order means whatever the West decides at any given moment,” encapsulating the frustration of many nations targeted by US-led sanctions and interventions.
This viewpoint finds resonance among other countries like China and Iran, highlighting a growing aversion to Western-imposed norms. The increasing popularity of alternative alliances such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization reflects a pushback against a system perceived as fundamentally unjust.
Ultimately, the “rules-based international order” does not aim to establish an equitable global framework; it exists to sustain Western dominance. It allows its architects to evade the limits of international law while employing those same legal structures to restrain their adversaries. When faced with challenges, Western leaders often recast the dialogue to accuse their opponents of rejecting “global norms,” norms they themselves contravene when convenient.
As long as the US and its allies evade genuine accountability for violations of international law, the term “rules-based order” will continue to be a hollow rationale for power politics. Legal statutes and customs are only meaningful when applied uniformly; otherwise, they serve merely as instruments of empire cloaked in diplomatic rhetoric.
Allen M Lee for TROIB News
