A “Rules-Based International Order”: The “New” U.S. Foreign Policy Thrust?

The phrase “rules-based international order” seems to have become a job requirement for a top position in the U.S. foreign-policy apparatus. The U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s opening statement during his recent meeting with top Chinese officials was about “rules-based international order”. The alternative is a world in which might makes right and winners take all. The suggestion is that China, is not only out to dismantle the U.S.-led order but also out to bring back the days of “might makes right.”

But the distinction between the United States’ supposed commitment to a system of rules and China’s alleged lack thereof is misleading. First, it overlooks the United States’ own willingness to ignore, evade, or rewrite the rules whenever they seem inconvenient. Washington sometimes thinks it is perfectly okay for might to make right and for winners to take all. The collapse of the Soviet Union, when the United States took full advantage of a weakened post-Soviet Russia, is a perfect example. Then it was Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and many more, where might takes all – and then withdraws?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

But China accepts and even defends many principles of the existing order, although of course not all of them. That situation may change in the future, of course, but even a vastly more

powerful China would undoubtedly seek to retain whatever features of the present order serve its interests.

Statements such as Blinken’s imply that abandoning today’s rules-based order would leave us in a lawless, rule-free world of naked power politics, unregulated by any norms or principles whatsoever. This is simply not the case. All international orders—global, regional, liberal, realist, or whatever—require a set of rules to manage the various interactions that inevitably arise between different polities.

In short, the issue is not the United States’ preference for a “rules-based” order and China’s alleged lack of interest in it; rather, the issue is who will determine which rules pertain where. 

The differences between the American and Chinese conceptions are relatively  straightforward. The United States (generally) prefers a multilateral system (albeit one with special privileges for some states, especially itself) that is at least somewhat mindful of individual rights and certain core liberal values (democratic rule, individual freedom, rule of law, market-based economies, and so on). By contrast, China favors a more Westphalian conception of order, one where state sovereignty and non-interference are paramount and liberal notions of individual rights are downplayed if not entirely dismissed. 

In the short term, U.S. efforts to promote its preferred set of rules will benefit from commitment to active and constructive diplomacy, in sharp contrast to the bullying of the Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Merely showing up at major global forums, treating other participants with respect, and showing a degree of empathy for others’ concerns are going to play well. If Beijing remains committed to its self-defeating “wolf warrior diplomacy,” a U.S. charm offensive will be even more effective. In fact, it’s best for the U.S. to retrace the era of Theodore Roosevelt – “speak softly and carry a big stick”?

Reference:

China wants a “rules-based international order,” too, Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, 31 March 2021