Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, May 7th(International observation) Overbearing "rules" and hegemonic "order" — — Starting from the so-called "rules-based international order" in the United States
Xinhua News Agency reporter Zhu Ruiqing Ding Yi
"We often hear a saying called ‘ Rule-based international order ’ . This is an ambiguous statement, which is not in the Charter of the United Nations, nor in the declarations adopted by world leaders at the United Nations, nor in the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. We’ve always wanted to ask, the so-called ‘ Rule-based international order ’ What kind of rules are based on, who made the rules, and what is the relationship between these rules and the international order? " At the beginning of this year, Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, made this question at an open debate of the United Nations Security Council.
Some politicians in the United States now keep their mouths shut about the "rules-based international order", but they have never explained the above key issues to the world. This is not because they are "careless", but because they are intentional: they don’t want to define it clearly, and they don’t want to explain it clearly, because that will prevent them from labeling other countries at will, because they often play with "double standards" themselves, because the truth will puncture their hypocrisy.
Even if the United States does not say it, the world knows that the so-called "rules" in the mouth of the United States are its uncompromising hegemonic rules; The so-called "order" is the hegemonic order of "America first".
Looking for a statement: put on a legal coat for your illegal behavior
The phrase "rules-based international order" is not new. Paul Post, a scholar at the University of Chicago in the United States, said that this expression began to appear in the 1990s, and it was increasingly used by the US government after the US invaded Iraq in 2003, with the purpose of finding excuses for its violation of the UN Charter and international law.
After the end of the Cold War, the United States became the only superpower and gained the status of dominating the world. In order to get rid of the constraints of the United Nations system and international law, Americans concocted the phrase "rules-based international order" to beautify packaging hegemonism. The Iraq war is a typical example — — The United States has not been authorized by the United Nations Security Council, and its military operations division is unknown, even France, Germany and other allies strongly oppose it.
Stephen Walter, a professor of international relations at Harvard University in the United States, said that being able to use the term "rules-based international order" at any time seems to have become a job requirement for American politicians or officials.
Alexander gusev, director of the Russian Institute of Strategic Planning and Forecasting, pointed out in an interview with Xinhua News Agency that the United States deliberately keeps the definition of "rules-based international order" vague, because the less specific these so-called "rules" are, the more it can "dress up" them at will. Once a country violates the will of the United States, the United States can accuse it of "violating the rules" and there is reason to punish it.
According to Mohammad Jebouri, a journalism professor at Iraqi University, these so-called "rules" are embodied in action: politically, the United States pursues power politics and forces other countries to obey; Economically, the United States uses dollar hegemony and control over international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund to control the economic lifeline of other countries; In terms of security, the United States has set up a large number of military bases around the world and also monitored countries including allies; In science and technology, the United States monopolizes the core technology, obstructs other countries’ research and development by any means, and ensures its leading position; Ideologically, the United States advocates western values as "universal values" and forcibly instills them in non-western countries.
In the final analysis, in the eyes of the United States, obeying its demands and its will is "obeying the rules", otherwise it is "breaking the rules." In the words of Italian international expert Giancalo Elia Valori: "‘ Rule-based international order ’ It is actually another version of power politics. "
Double standards: "you must abide by international law unless you are the United States."
In the early morning of April 14, 2018, the fire tore the night sky in Damascus, the capital of Syria. The reason why the United States, Britain and France launched this air strike against Syria is that the Syrian government used "chemical weapons" to attack the armed opposition-controlled areas.
Bashar al-Jaafari, then Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, complained to the United States and other countries for slandering the Syrian government more than once at the United Nations meeting, but the United States turned a deaf ear to this and continued to impose sanctions and military strikes on Syria. Once, a photo of Jaafari sitting in the rest area of the United Nations Headquarters building was widely circulated on the Internet: he was tall and in a suit and tie, with his head down, his back slightly bent, his hands clasped, and his figure showed fatigue. Outside the window beside him, the "Peace Bell" hangs in a pavilion downstairs.
International public opinion feels the sadness and helplessness of "weak diplomats" from this photo. On the other hand, the experience in Syria highlights the contempt of the United States and its allies for international law.
After Syria fell into the civil war, the United States deeply intervened and frequently intervened militarily. Its military actions were not authorized by the UN Security Council, nor were they approved by the Syrian government. American scholar Margo Patterson said that on the issue of war, the United States has always shown that international law only applies to other countries, not to the United States itself.
As we all know, there is only one order in the world, that is, the international order based on international law; There is only one set of rules, that is, the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The United States advocates the so-called "rules-based international order", and its real intention is to set up another set outside the existing international law system. When international law conforms to the interests of the United States, it emphasizes the need to abide by international law, and vice versa, it does not talk about international law, but emphasizes the so-called "rule-based international order." In essence, what he has done is to take self-interest as the center, impose his own standards and will on others, and open the back door for "double standards" and "exceptionalism".
Wei Nanzhi, a researcher at the American Institute of China Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that after World War II, a global political, security, financial, trade and cultural order was established based on the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the predecessor of the World Trade Organization) and UNESCO. However, the United States has always used the international system with the United Nations as the core and the international order based on international law, and rejected them if they disagree.
In the political and security fields, the United States has despised the concepts of self-determination, sovereignty and peaceful settlement of disputes established by the UN Charter. Since the end of World War II, it has been waging wars or instigating a "color revolution", trying to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments and rudely interfering in democratic elections in at least 30 countries. In the economic and trade field, the United States frequently launched trade wars against other countries. The WTO clearly determined that the United States violated global trade rules against China and tariff war, but the United States ignored it and blocked the WTO Appellate Body from appointing new judges. In the financial field, the United States not only takes advantage of the dollar’s status as the main international reserve currency to collect "seigniorage" from the world, but also manipulates international financial organizations, asking recipient countries to implement financial liberalization and increase the opening of financial markets when assisting other countries, so as to reduce obstacles for American capital penetration and speculation; In the field of science and technology, the United States often packages its own "family rules" into international rules, such as the introduction of the Chip and Science Act and other bills to curb the scientific and technological development of other countries through long-arm jurisdiction.
Stephen Walter, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, once wrote on the website of Foreign Policy that when the United States thinks that the international order is not conducive to itself, it ignores, evades or changes the order according to its own wishes. Even American allies hope that the United States can abide by the order it advocates.
"You must abide by international law unless you are the United States." American historian Alfred mccoy said so.
Hegemonic decline: "‘ Rule-based international order ’ Are dying. "
In recent years, with the mass rise of developing countries, the relative strength and international influence of the United States and the West have continued to decline. In this context, the United States increasingly emphasizes the so-called "rules-based international order", aiming at maintaining its declining hegemony and hindering the evolution of the international pattern and the trend of world multipolarization.
In order to embody the so-called "values", the United States manipulated ideological tools, clothed the "rules-based international order" with "freedom" and "democracy", and demonized the "competitors" in the eyes of the United States as "authoritarian countries" that undermined "freedom" and "democracy", but such tricks could not blind the world.
Yu Jie, a senior researcher at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, believes that the "rules-based international order" implies that all countries in the world should implement the western democratic model. But this political system itself has a big problem. Over the past decade or so, developing countries have been more actively demanding to improve their right to speak on issues of international rules and international order. This appeal will be stronger in the future.
Yuan Sha, an American scholar at the China Institute of International Studies, pointed out that in recent years, the anxiety of the United States about the decline of its hegemony has risen sharply, so it wants to use the rhetoric of "rules-based international order" to contain and suppress non-Western countries such as China. Especially after Biden’s administration took office, it actively wooed allies and partners to build a small circle, established an exclusive and factional pseudo-multilateral system, and replaced the international rules under the United Nations system with "family rules", which hindered the construction of an inclusive and open international order.
The international community really needs rules and order, but they should be jointly formulated by the international community, rather than the one with thick arms and great strength who has the final say, let alone serving the interests of a few countries and minorities.
"The so-called ‘ Rule-based international order ’ Actually, it is unfair ‘ Western order ’ 。” Former French ambassador to the United States Gé rard Arrow said.
“‘ Rule-based international order ’ Is dying. " Andrew latham, a professor of international relations at Macalester College in the United States, said that some people have not yet recognized this reality.
In the final analysis, the "rules-based international order" that some American politicians talk about every day is just a high-sounding rhetoric. Its true meaning is, on the one hand, to "maintain hegemony" and try to continue its bossy and superior "exceptional" status, and on the other hand, to "escape from reality" and try to cover up its resistance to the rise of the non-western world. (Participating in reporters: Li Hualing, Liu Wei, Dong Yalei, Fan Shuai Shuai)