A key issue has to do with the so-called “rules-based order.” Russia and China both reject the notion that the U.S. and its allies, and “allies,” get to make the rules, pointing out that there is a system of international rules and norms set forth in the United Nations Charter.
See, for instance, Sergei Lavrov’s comments at https://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/meropriyatiya_s_uchastiem_ministra/-/asset_publisher/xK1BhB2bUjd3/content/id/4760543, where he refers to “a universal format based on the UN Charter. In general, the UN embodies multilateralism as nothing else in this world. We will uphold this approach, especially in the face of our Western colleagues’ attempts to promote an alternative concept, which they call a ‘rules-based world order.’ Almost all manifestations of this concept show that it is not universal. It is designed to impose Western ideas and values that are not shared by many other countries on everyone else as an absolutely indispensable criterion.”
Or, here https://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4759576, where Lavrov states that “some Western states are trying to demolish the UN-centric system of international law and to replace it with their own rules-based order. Moscow and Beijing consistently advocate the creation of a more equitable, democratic and therefore stable polycentric international order. This system should reflect the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world and the natural striving of nations to independently determine their development path.”
See, also, the article in The National Interest, “Why UN Members Can’t Agree on the Rules for a Rules-Based Order.”
Apart from the question as to who creates the rules, there is yet another aspect to the U.S.-promoted “rules-based order.” What is the content of the rules and what sort of order is sought to be established? Do these rules apply equally to all state actors? Do they apply to the war in Yemen? Do they have relevance to the situation in Gaza? Were they the “rules” or the “order” implemented in the overthrow of Muammar Khadafi in Libya? Do the “rules” of the “rules-based order” justify the U.S. presence in Syria, which does not even seem consistent with the U.S. Constitution?
Or does the proposed “rules-based order” represent another facet of American exceptionalism, where different rules apply to different states, and where the rules are best promulgated by the U.S., because “We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”
The US foreign policy elite seem to be intent on writing itself out of the script. After twenty years of failing wars, threats and sanctions have become our only tools. Meanwhile China and Russia draw closer as the Eurasia Century becomes a reality. Our allies in Europe are watching Biden’s team closely and seem unenthusiastic about Cold War 2.0.
A key issue has to do with the so-called “rules-based order.” Russia and China both reject the notion that the U.S. and its allies, and “allies,” get to make the rules, pointing out that there is a system of international rules and norms set forth in the United Nations Charter.
See, for instance, Sergei Lavrov’s comments at https://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/meropriyatiya_s_uchastiem_ministra/-/asset_publisher/xK1BhB2bUjd3/content/id/4760543, where he refers to “a universal format based on the UN Charter. In general, the UN embodies multilateralism as nothing else in this world. We will uphold this approach, especially in the face of our Western colleagues’ attempts to promote an alternative concept, which they call a ‘rules-based world order.’ Almost all manifestations of this concept show that it is not universal. It is designed to impose Western ideas and values that are not shared by many other countries on everyone else as an absolutely indispensable criterion.”
Or, here https://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4759576, where Lavrov states that “some Western states are trying to demolish the UN-centric system of international law and to replace it with their own rules-based order. Moscow and Beijing consistently advocate the creation of a more equitable, democratic and therefore stable polycentric international order. This system should reflect the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world and the natural striving of nations to independently determine their development path.”
See, also, the article in The National Interest, “Why UN Members Can’t Agree on the Rules for a Rules-Based Order.”
Apart from the question as to who creates the rules, there is yet another aspect to the U.S.-promoted “rules-based order.” What is the content of the rules and what sort of order is sought to be established? Do these rules apply equally to all state actors? Do they apply to the war in Yemen? Do they have relevance to the situation in Gaza? Were they the “rules” or the “order” implemented in the overthrow of Muammar Khadafi in Libya? Do the “rules” of the “rules-based order” justify the U.S. presence in Syria, which does not even seem consistent with the U.S. Constitution?
Or does the proposed “rules-based order” represent another facet of American exceptionalism, where different rules apply to different states, and where the rules are best promulgated by the U.S., because “We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”
The US foreign policy elite seem to be intent on writing itself out of the script. After twenty years of failing wars, threats and sanctions have become our only tools. Meanwhile China and Russia draw closer as the Eurasia Century becomes a reality. Our allies in Europe are watching Biden’s team closely and seem unenthusiastic about Cold War 2.0.