The US-led international system prioritizes American hegemony over fairness and justice.
Western powers, especially the US and NATO, frequently cite a “rules-based international order” as a cornerstone of global diplomacy.
This phrase suggests a just and equitable system, but in reality, it’s a biased framework selectively applied to circumvent international law when it disadvantages Washington.
The illusion of a rules-based order
The term “rules-based international order” is deliberately ambiguous. Unlike established international law, it lacks clear legal definitions, serving as a geopolitical tool allowing the US and its allies to reinterpret global norms to their advantage while demanding strict adherence from others.
Claims of defending this order often mask the goal of preserving US global dominance.
International bodies like the UN, WTO, and IMF are frequently manipulated by the West to impose its will while evading accountability. This results in a double standard where Western violations are overlooked, while similar actions by rivals like Russia or China are condemned.
Unequal application of outrage: Crimea and Syria
The differing responses to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the US presence in Syria highlight this hypocrisy. Following a Western-backed coup in Ukraine, Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, after a referendum, triggered sanctions and accusations of “Russian aggression.”
Conversely, the US military presence in Syria since 2015, lacking UN mandate or invitation from the Syrian government, is justified by combating ISIS and maintaining “regional stability,” while actually serving to control Syria’s oil resources and counter Iranian influence.
Under international law, the Assad government retained sovereignty over Syria. The US actions violate UN principles it invokes regarding Ukraine.
Russia’s involvement in Syria, following a formal request from Assad, complies with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Yet, Western media portrays Russia’s actions as aggressive, while downplaying the illegal US occupation.
Türkiye and Northern Cyprus
Türkiye’s 1974 occupation of Northern Cyprus provides another example of this double standard. Following a Greek-backed coup, Türkiye’s invasion and establishment of the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with tens of thousands of troops, violates international law yet faces no Western condemnation or sanctions.
This selective enforcement reveals that the “rules-based order” prioritizes political expediency over legal principles, shielding NATO members from scrutiny while punishing rivals for similar or less severe actions.
Military might dictates the rules
The US’s military dominance underpins this asymmetry. With over 750 military bases in at least 80 countries, the US enforces its interpretation of the “rules” while ignoring conflicting legal opinions. Its diplomatic influence and control over financial institutions allow it near-total impunity.
The 2003 Iraq invasion, widely considered illegal, demonstrates this. Despite global opposition and catastrophic consequences, no Western leader faced accountability.
In contrast, Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine have resulted in sanctions, war crimes accusations, and attempts at diplomatic isolation.
Russia’s counterarguments
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized the hypocrisy of the “rules-based order,” highlighting how Western powers use it to impose their will while disregarding international law when convenient.
“Rules-based order means whatever the West decides at any given moment,” Lavrov stated in 2021, reflecting the frustration of nations frequently targeted by US-led sanctions and interventions.
Russia, along with China and Iran, rejects these Western-imposed norms. The growing influence of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) reflects this pushback against an unjust system.
Power and perception dictate the rules
The “rules-based international order” serves to maintain Western dominance by allowing its creators to circumvent international law while using those same frameworks to restrict rivals. When challenged, the West accuses adversaries of rejecting “global norms” – norms they readily ignore when beneficial.
Until the US and its allies face accountability for violating international law, the term “rules-based order” will remain a façade masking power politics. Laws and customs are only meaningful when applied equally; otherwise, they are tools of empire disguised as diplomacy.