The Hypocrisy at the Heart of the Rules-Based International Order

"Trump has confirmed that his ‘morality’ sets the constraints on the U.S."

If Donald Trump has contributed anything of significance, it is his willingness to articulate the underlying principle of geopolitics openly: ‘might is right’. In doing so, he has acknowledged what many have long suspected—the rules-based international order (RBIO) is a charade.

One might choose to disregard the rhetoric from Trump and his administration and instead examine the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which I have previously analysed.

Meanwhile, allied states such as the United Kingdom remain largely silent, constrained by their limited influence and perhaps embarrassed by their complicity in this hypocrisy.

Let's be honest, the RBIO functions as a rhetorical device, providing a protective justification for Western military interventions, which are often framed as being in the interests of humanity.

Moreover, Trump has confirmed that his ‘morality’ sets the constraints on the U.S.; I’m sure we are all comfortable with that. Yes?

And with that, he implicitly acknowledges that the RBIO was never designed to regulate the actions of the U.S. and its Western allies; rather, it is intended to control less powerful states.

Consequently, when dominant powers engage in military action, it is labelled a 'policing action,' whereas similar actions by others are classified as war crimes.

Following World War II, the victorious powers, led by the U.S. and its Western allies, established the RBIO primarily to advance their own interests.

This framework, ostensibly designed to prevent chaos and aggression, encompasses institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as various treaties that claim to promote peace, human rights, and economic stability.

As the RBIO evolved into what is now termed the 'liberal international order,' economic institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assumed prominent roles, alongside legal frameworks such as the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998.

Fundamentally, the RBIO purports to create a global system in which nations adhere to shared norms and violations are addressed through accountability.

However, even a cursory analysis reveals a significant asymmetry: Western powers designed this system to enforce rules globally, yet they apply those rules selectively, holding adversaries accountable while exempting themselves and their allies from equivalent scrutiny.

This double standard not only undermines the principles the RBIO claims to uphold but also effectively nullifies them. As a result, many states are increasingly unwilling to maintain the pretence of adherence.

Western nations, including the United States, Britain, and France—all permanent members of the Security Council with veto power—positioned themselves as the architects and guardians of this system. The stated objective was to replace 'might is right' with rule-based diplomacy, a goal that is noble in theory but ineffective in practice.

Even before Trump threw this system into disarray, it was fundamentally structured to favour these powers. The veto mechanism allows them to block any resolution that targets them or their allies, thereby institutionalising impunity and hypocrisy.

This selective enforcement is overt. Western states often impose sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military threats on other countries.

However, when Western interests are at stake, adherence to these rules often disappears. For example, the U.S. has promoted the RBIO while refusing to ratify key treaties, such as the Rome Statute, thereby ensuring that its military actions remain outside the ICC's jurisdiction. This approach enables Western states to advocate for human rights and sovereignty while disregarding these principles when convenient.

Endless examples could be given on this subject, but I will be content to cite the following. In the 1960s, Laos—one of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries—was subjected to a covert bombing campaign. The total tonnage of bombs dropped on tiny Laos matched that used in World War II.

Between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. dropped an estimated 270 million cluster bombs on Laos, averaging 33 bombs per inhabitant.

Approximately 200,000 Laotians were killed—about 10 per cent of the population—while 400,000 were injured and 750,000 displaced. These actions were justified as support for the U.S. war in Vietnam, despite Laos not being a party to that conflict.

And anyway, the U.S. lost that war because it had never defeated an enemy who wore flip-flops. 

Consider the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which was presented as a preemptive strike against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and a mission of liberation. The operation lacked United Nations Security Council authorisation, making it illegal under international law, according to numerous legal experts.

Yet, the Bush administration argued that resolutions from the 1990s provided justification, though this rationale was widely rejected. No WMDs were found, hundreds of thousands of individuals died, and no Western leader was prosecuted.

In contrast, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S.advocated for accountability, resulting in swift United Nations-backed retaliation. This demonstrates that the RBIO enforces consequences for non-Western violators while protecting Western states from similar repercussions.

Another example is NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya. Although authorised by UN Resolution 1973 to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s crackdown, the mission quickly shifted towards regime change, with NATO airstrikes facilitating the advance of rebel forces and ultimately leading to Gaddafi’s death.

This intervention exceeded its original mandate, transforming a humanitarian mission into an operation for regime change without further United Nations approval, thereby constituting a clear violation of international law.

Following this, Libya descended into significant instability and civil war. Western leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, described the operation as a success. However, when Russia intervened in Syria under comparable 'humanitarian' justifications, Western states responded with sanctions and public condemnation. This contrast exposes the RBIO’s double standard.

The ICC exemplifies Western avoidance of accountability. Although established to prosecute war crimes and genocide, it has primarily targeted African leaders, revealing a clear pattern of bias.

When the ICC initiated investigations into U.S. actions in Afghanistan or Israeli conduct in Palestine, the response was severe. The United States, which has not ratified the Rome Statute, imposed sanctions on ICC officials, judges, and prosecutors and declared any investigation into American or allied forces illegitimate.

On that occasion, even European Union officials condemned these actions as a significant setback for global justice. This illustrates a tendency to demand ICC accountability for adversaries, such as Russian officials in Ukraine, while rejecting it when it is directed at Western states.

Western support for Israel further exemplifies this pattern. More than 200 United Nations General Assembly resolutions have condemned Israeli actions in the occupied territories, where settlements are deemed illegal under international law. The U.S. has responded by vetoing numerous Security Council measures and by continuing to provide military aid.

This ongoing hypocrisy not only fosters global cynicism but also contributes to the erosion of the international system.

It is therefore unsurprising that the U.S. views China with apprehension. Recent trade conflicts initiated by the Trump administration indicate that the U.S. no longer holds uncontested dominance.

For sure the 'America first' policy has diminished U.S. influence, even among traditional allies, while China steadily expands its global presence through trade, exchange programmes, and infrastructure initiatives.

Going off on a tangent, we may gain insight into how all this may play out. Male chimpanzees frequently form temporary alliances, or coalitions, to increase their standing and gain access to resources such as mating opportunities and food. 

These alliances are dynamic and often shift depending on the situation and the individuals involved. A dominant male, or ‘alpha,’ must constantly manage these relationships, often breaking up fights and maintaining social order to preserve his position. That includes sharing resources, cooperating, and being seen as fair.

The process highlights the intricate social dynamics and political manoeuvring inherent in chimpanzee societies, where status is determined by a complex interplay of physical strength, intelligence, and the ability to form and maintain strong alliances.

Alpha males who fail to cooperate with others and share are eventually ousted by a coalition of other males. I do wonder whether Trump ever watched a lecture by Jane Goodall.