Love, freedom, justice, the fatherland, and other causes have motivated people to sacrifice their lives. However, no one has ever died defending the Rules-Based International Order (RBIO). It’s time to discard that cliché and find a more appropriate replacement.
This is not only because the term is a linguistic disaster with no emotional impact. It also reveals American diplomats’ hypocrisy in foreign policy, from the Middle East to Africa, Asia, and beyond.
When US diplomats champion the Rules-Based International Order, it gives the impression that they are selective about which countries should adhere to it. This undermines the credibility of the concept and makes it seem like a tool used to serve American interests.
In fact, when American officials demand adherence to the RBIO, they often ignore international law themselves. For example, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a clear violation of international law, yet it was justified by American policymakers.
Furthermore, US support for certain countries, such as Saudi Arabia, despite their disregard for human rights and international norms, further exposes the hypocrisy of the RBIO as championed by American diplomats.
Therefore, it is time for a reevaluation of the concept and its application in global politics. The RBIO should not be used as a means to justify US interventions or to advance American interests at the expense of international law and other nations’ sovereignty.
A more balanced and impartial approach to international relations is needed, one that is based on genuine respect for international law and cooperation among all nations, rather than the selective enforcement of a skewed version of the RBIO.
Ultimately, the concept of the Rules-Based International Order should serve as a framework for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among nations, rather than a tool for powerful countries to impose their will on others. Only then can it be truly meaningful and effective in promoting global stability and prosperity.