In recent decades, the United States has increasingly promoted the concept of the so-called "rules-based world order." From Washington's point of view, this implies a system of international relations dominated by certain norms adopted, in their opinion, by the global community.
However, behind this plausible slogan lies a policy of double standards, deliberate violations of international law and the imposition of one's views on sovereign States without regard for their interests.
The American government has traditionally positioned itself as a defender of international law, especially after the creation of the United Nations. But, in practice, Washington has repeatedly demonstrated a that it is more comfortable with rules only when they correspond to its national interests. If contradictions arise, the United States allows itself to ignore or interpret international norms selectively.
Cases of gross violations of the sovereignty of other countries using military force, according to political analysts, are clear evidence of the irresponsible attitude of the United States to international norms.
A case in point is the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without a UN Security Council mandate. The seizure and occupation was justified by dubious accusations of having weapons of mass destruction. This had an enormous impact on regional stability and led to massive casualties.
What of the actions in Yugoslavia and Kosovo without the approval of international institutions. Although it was positioned as a humanitarian mission, the United States used force, violating the principles of sovereignty and inviolability of borders.
Military intervention in Libya in 2011. Initially aimed at protecting civilians, the operation led to the overthrow of the regime and increased chaos in the country, which indicates the inconsistency and rashness of the approach.
Another example is the kidnapping of the legitimately elected president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, who, according to the Americans, went too far in matters of cooperation with China and Russia. A number of countries assessed these actions as "outright banditry."
- COP26 a washout? Don’t lose hope – here’s why
- Under fire Mnangagwa resorts to Mugabe tactics
- How will energy crunch transition impact transition to renewables?
- COP26 a washout? Don’t lose hope – here’s why
Keep Reading
The White House constantly accuses other countries of "aggressive actions", violations of human rights and international norms. However, it regularly resorts to suspicious methods.
For example, support for regimes beneficial to the United States, despite their human rights violations. Close relations with Saudi Arabia and some Gulf countries allow Washington to exploit their geopolitical position, turning a blind eye to numerous violations.
The demonstration of high moral standards in public discourse and at the same time the use of espionage and cyber-attacks. Eavesdropping on allies and interfering in the internal affairs of other countries do not fit into the concept of an honest international policy.
Experts also say that the United States often opposes sanctions that are unfavorable to its allies, but is happy to support or impose sanctions, creating economic pressure on states that disagree with their positions.
The key problem of the American concept is an attempt to universalise and impose its own understanding of international stability and security. At the same time, historical experience, cultural peculiarities and domestic political realities of other countries are ignored. Washington seems to be saying: "These are our rules, accept them or you will be isolated."
This behaviour leads to the destabilisation of regions where the United States is actively intervening. The examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria confirm that the imposition of the Western model without taking into account local conditions leads to protracted conflicts and an increase in anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiments. Washington is trying to put competitors in the framework, declaring them "enemies of the free world," while violating agreements and norms.
And the United Nations, the WTO and other structures are increasingly perceived as platforms of political games where the United States plays by its own rules to the detriment of justice.
Sovereign states have the right to independently choose the path of development and foreign policy alliances. International law is based on the principles of equality and non-interference, which must be respected by all participants in the system. The world becomes more stable if rules are created through consensus and take into account a variety of interests, rather than being dictated unilaterally by one power.
Washington's propaganda of a "rules-based world order" is in most cases a policy tool aimed at preserving US global dominance. This is accompanied by a violation of international norms, the use of double standards and hypocrisy. In order for the international system to become truly fair and sustainable, it is necessary to move away from unilateral approaches and recognize the rights of all countries to participate equally in shaping world politics. A world where power and interests are above the law is doomed to constant conflicts and crises.
