Myth of the rules-based world order |
A common refrain today laments the decline of the "rules-based world order", implying that such an order once stood on firm ground. But rules require enforcement. In domestic systems, the state monopolises legitimate force. In the anarchic system of states, no comparable sovereign authority exists.
The United Nations possesses no independent coercive power. It derives its authority and agency from member states whose interests frequently collide, paralysing action. Add the veto powers, more equal than the rest, and the idea of a neutral global government begins to resemble aspiration more than structure.
Dominance, however, is real. Powerful states impose outcomes when they can, often clothed in the language of law or stability. Rules function when major powers align behind them. When they do not, enforcement dissolves.
Every time I hear the phrase "rules-based world order", I think of May 10 last year. Before dawn I heard the explosions of Indian missiles from my study. My daughters were asleep in their rooms. My wife moved about in anxious silence. We both knew how easily a clash between nuclear-armed states can slide beyond recall. We have lived our lives. Our children have not. The thought of them inheriting a nuclear wasteland is not theoretical.
I waited for the rules-based world order to come to our rescue. It did not appear.
What mattered were the preparedness of our armed forces, our close friendship with China, and President Trump's tweet diplomacy, which helped halt escalation at a decisive moment. I remain grateful. The rules-based order was not among those who made the difference.
If personal experience is dismissed as anecdote, history supplies........