News
 International
   Global Views
   Asia-Pacific
   America
   Europe
   Middle East & Africa
 National
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Business
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Taekwondo
 Media
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Life
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Housing
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 Job
 English Teaching
 Translation/Writing
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Business
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Entertainment
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Community
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 PenPal/Friendship
 Volunteers
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
  America
Op-Ed Special
About That "Rules-Based International Order"
Special Contribution
By Thomas L. Knapp
US President Joe Biden
The Biden administration has taken to frequently asserting its intention to return — versus the Trump administration's departure therefrom — to something called a "rules-based international order."

What is this supposed "order?" What obligations does it impose, and upon whom? Which governments meet those obligations. Which don't?

Google returns about 197,000 results on the phrase "rules-based international order." The top result leads to a paper from the United Nations Association of Australia, which defines it as " a shared commitment by all countries to conduct their activities in accordance with agreed rules that evolve over time, such as international law, regional security arrangements, trade agreements, immigration protocols, and cultural arrangements."

The US government, on the other hand, usually invokes the term when making unilateral demands of, or militarily intervening against, other governments. Washington defines it as "the US makes the rules; the rest of the world must do as it is ordered."

On the rare occasion that it takes an even slightly broader view, that view — as voiced by an anonymous US State Department official in a recent press briefing — is that a handful of governments (in this case the G7 group) "has a global perspective, which is not true of every country in the world." The (US-dominated) G7 makes the rules; the rest of the world must do as it is ordered.

A major problem with the "rules" in question, in addition to the US government wanting to enforce them pursuant to its own agenda while violating them whenever it pleases, is that the US government can't be trusted to follow the rules even when it makes, and explicitly agrees to, them. Two recent examples:

The Trump administration, in violation of US and international law ("the rules"), began shirking its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka "the Iran nuclear deal," in 2018. Instead of bringing the US back into compliance as promised during the 2020 presidential campaign, the Biden administration continues to attempt to negotiate new conditions for holding up its end of a binding international deal.

After two decades of war, the Trump administration negotiated an Afghanistan peace deal with the Taliban, under which US troops were required to exit the country by May 1 of this year. The Biden administration hemmed, hawed, and reneged on that obligation, pushing the withdrawal back by more than three months.

Absent a powerful referee (the US regime loves to style itself the world's "only remaining superpower," immune to pressure from lesser regimes or even the United Nations), the only possible basis for a "rules-based international order" is trust. And the US regime continually proves itself untrustworthy.

If the Biden administration really wants a "rules-based international order," the first step is to start following the rules.



Related Articles
    Powell Lied, People Died: Justice Delayed Was ...
    "No First Use": An Empty Gesture That Would ...
    Facebook Gives the Most Dangerous Extremists a ...
    Wuhan Lab Leak: It's Not a "Theory"
    A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than ...
    Joe Biden Reaffirms Washington's Message to ...
    "Vaccine Passports" and the Holocaust: An ...
    Same as the Old Boss, Julian Assange Edition
    Biden's Iran Dilemma: Serve Obama's Third Term ...
    COVID-19: The Way the Music Died?
    How Joe Biden Can Score a Major Foreign Policy ...
    Trump Regime vs. the ICC: The Wrong Side of ...
    Stop Blaming Russia, China for US Disarmament ...
    NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog! ...
    North Korea Nuclear Freeze? Finally, a ...
    US War on Iran: Evil, Stupid, Self-Damaging
    US Should Stop Meddling in Spratly Dispute
    John Bolton Vs. International Criminal Court: ...
    Syria: Is Trump Finally Putting America First?
    Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
    More Korean War Is "Worth It?" To Whom?
    A Korean Spring after the Winter Olympics Is ...
    Microsoft Corp. vs. United States: Jeff ...


The above writer, Thomas L. Knapp, (Twitter: @thomaslknapp), is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

 

back

 

 

 

The Seoul Times Shinheungro 25-gil 2-6 Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Email:seoultimes@gmail.com
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange