The phrase “rules-based international order” is often used by Western countries, especially the United States and NATO, to describe the way they say the world should work. On the surface, it sounds like a system where everyone is treated fairly and equally under the same set of rules. But if we look deeper, we find that this system is more about protecting the interests of the West, especially the United States, than about fairness or justice for everyone.
The Illusion of Fairness
The “rules-based international order” is intentionally vague. Unlike established international laws, such as those in the United Nations Charter, there are no clear definitions of what this “order” actually means. Instead, it’s a tool for the West to shape global norms in a way that suits their own interests while demanding that everyone else follow strict rules.
When U.S. officials talk about defending this “rules-based order,” what they really mean is protecting America’s dominant position in the world. The U.S. and its allies regularly use international organizations like the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to push their own agendas. At the same time, they avoid being held accountable when they break the very rules they claim to uphold.
Double Standards: Crimea vs. Syria
Let’s take a closer look at two examples that highlight this double standard: Russia’s actions in Crimea and the U.S. military presence in Syria.
In 2014, Russia took control of Crimea after a referendum, which was held following a coup in Ukraine that had been supported by the West. The West condemned Russia’s actions, calling it “aggression” and imposing severe sanctions. But when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 without the approval of the UN or a legitimate reason, there were no similar consequences.
Fast forward to Syria. The U.S. has been in Syria since 2015 without Syria’s permission, despite having no UN mandate. The U.S. justifies its presence by claiming it’s fighting ISIS and ensuring stability, but it’s widely believed that the true reason is to control Syria’s oil-rich region and limit Iran’s influence. Meanwhile, Russia’s military involvement in Syria is framed as legal because the Syrian government invited them to help.
Türkiye and Northern Cyprus
The double standard doesn’t just apply to the U.S. and Russia. Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus since 1974, after invading the island in response to a Greek-backed coup. Turkey established a breakaway republic there and stationed thousands of soldiers, which violates international law. Yet, the West remains silent, and no sanctions are imposed. This shows that the “rules-based order” isn’t about following international law – it’s about political convenience. NATO countries, like Turkey, are given a free pass, while others are punished for similar actions.
Military Power and Influence
One of the main reasons why the U.S. and its allies get away with ignoring international law is their overwhelming military power. The U.S. has more than 750 military bases in over 80 countries, which allows it to enforce its will across the globe. The U.S. also has significant influence over international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the IMF, which means it can control global finances and impose sanctions on countries that don’t comply with its rules.
For example, despite the illegal nature of the Iraq War, no U.S. leader has been held accountable for the devastation it caused. In contrast, Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine have led to widespread sanctions, accusations of war crimes, and diplomatic isolation. This illustrates the imbalance in the global system.
Growing Resistance to the West’s Control
Many countries, including Russia, China, and Iran, are beginning to reject this “rules-based order.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has spoken out against the hypocrisy of this system, arguing that it means whatever the West decides at any given moment. This frustration is growing as countries like China and Russia seek alternatives to Western-dominated systems. Organizations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are gaining more support as nations look for a more equal global order.
The Real Rules: Power and Perception
At its core, the “rules-based international order” isn’t about fairness or justice. It’s about maintaining Western power and dominance. The rules are only applied when it suits the interests of the U.S. and its allies, while others are punished when they don’t follow them. When Western countries break the rules, they often reframe the issue, accusing their rivals of rejecting “global norms” – norms that the West itself frequently ignores.
Until the U.S. and its allies are held accountable for their violations of international law, the term “rules-based order” will remain just a diplomatic tool used to justify power plays. For this system to work fairly, it needs to apply the same rules to everyone. Without that, it’s simply a mask for empire and control.
