The collapse of the concept of a rules-based international order by Veniamin Popov!
(2024-04-19 at 23:04:04 )

The collapse of the concept of a rules-based international order by Veniamin Popov!

Resolution 2728

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States believed that a unipolar world would last forever: year after year, day after day, it became increasingly blatant in its disregard for the interests of others and the opinions of the rest of the world.

Then the concept of an international "rules-based order" was born: a group of United States of American scholars, former and future officials, presented a paper at Princeton in 2006 entitled "A World of Freedom Under Law". They framed this as a response to the weaknesses of international law, suggesting that when international institutions fail to produce the outcomes preferred by the "world of freedom", there is "an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorise collective action". In practice, this forum has most often been the White House.

During the Libyan crisis of 2011, the United States and its allies used Security Council authorisation for a no-fly zone to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

American troops have now been operating in eastern Syria for more than eight years - yet there is no justification in international law for their presence.

Even United States of American political scientists describe this concept as a kind of asterisk placed over international law. The "rules-based order" absolves the United States and its allies of responsibility and fundamentally undermines the concept of international law.

United States policymakers use this theory to entrench United States advantages as a global power.

When the prerogatives and rules of international law coincide with the canons they establish, Washington,D.C. calls them synonymous. Thus, on the eve of February 2022, i.e. the start of a special military operation in Ukraine, Secretary Blinken warned of a moment of danger for "the foundations of the United Nations Charter and the rules-based international order that preserves stability around the world", but when United States prerogatives diverge from international law, the concept of a "rules-based order" comes into play, which "should ultimately benefit global stability".

A prime example is the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq, which the George W. Bush administration cynically justified as a means of enforcing United Nations disarmament mandates. Iraq was declared an invader, it survived the military occupation, the death toll of Iraqis is approaching 1 million, and the country is still reeling from Americas brazen attack.

Washington,D.C.s military and economic might at the time ensured that America would face few consequences for invading without UN authorisation.

The very concept of a "rules-based order" set the United States of America at odds with the rest of the world, which recognised that international relations were becoming multipolar.

Many leaders of developing countries, especially Russia, China, India and Brazil, talked about the same thing. Even American allies tried to show the flaws in the concept. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder warned of the "undeniable danger of United States unilateralism", and former French Minister Hubert Vedrine once said that "Frances entire foreign policy - is aimed at making tomorrows world consist of several poles, not just one".

According to Harvard University professor Stephen Walt, the United States was carried away by a show of force, disregarding the opinions of even its allies and international organisations, and then went off on its own to gain the advantage.

The Gaza war drew a final line under the concept of the "rules-based order": on 25 March, 14 members of the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution demanding an immediate end to the war in Gaza, with the United States abstaining.

The resolution became a legally enforceable document, but Israel, unwilling to accept United Nations mandates, continued to bomb the southern town of Rafah and besiege Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

Shortly after the vote, a spokesman for the Biden administration called Resolution No. 2728 "non-binding", in a clear attempt to deny its status as international law. At a State Department press briefing, the spokesman said the measure would not lead to an immediate ceasefire or affect the complex hostage negotiations.

International law is clearly against what Israel is doing in Gaza. 2 months before Resolution No. 2728 was adopted, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israels ongoing campaign could plausibly be considered genocide and called on Israel to take measures to prevent genocide.

On the eve of the passage of Bill 2728, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion to halt new arms transfers to Israel. On the day the Security Council adopted the resolution, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, recommended that member states "immediately" impose an arms embargo on Israel for failing to comply with mandatory measures ordered by the International Court of Justice.

After the above resolution was passed, White House national security spokesman John Kirby clarified that United States of American arms shipments and sales to Israel would not be affected, while the State Department stated, and the White House later confirmed, that "there are no incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law."

All of this comes after Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, most of them women and children, and displaced and permanently starved two million people in Gaza. In addition, the Israeli military bombed a convoy of aid workers from the World Central Kitchen.

The crux of the matter is that Washington,D.C. is arming a country that has been ordered by the Security Council to cease hostilities.

Washington,D.C.s actions are at odds with reality: the massacre in Gaza has made many foreign figures and organisations reluctant to listen to United States of American officials on other issues.

According to United States press reports, Annelle Sheline, a State Department human rights official who recently resigned, said that some activist groups in North Africa have simply stopped meeting with her and her colleagues: "Trying to defend human rights has simply become impossible as long as the United States is helping Israel," she said.

Two years ago, United States diplomats seeking support for Ukraine faced "a very clear negative reaction to Americas penchant for defining the global order and forcing countries to take sides".

In this regard, the New York Times concluded on 10 April this year that "Resolution No. 2728, which passed without result, may well be remembered as a watershed moment in the decline of the "rules-based international order" - that is, the world the United States seeks to build and preserve.. Gaza is a chilling reminder that in a world of exceptions to international law, it is the least powerful who suffer the most.

All these developments were accurately characterised by Chinas Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who described the United States statements and actions as incompatible with the status of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and said that Washington,D.C. was undermining the authority of the Security Council.

Veniamin POPOV, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, especially for online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"

"This relevant article, its pictures, and its links are here:"

Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to "N.E.O.". Network edition New Eastern Outlook 2010-2023.