Comment by mmooss
14 days ago
> You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.
The democratic countries follow the pattern of status quo powers. Is that because they are democratic or because they are status quo, or some of both?
The rules are of the status quo powers (matching their political cultures), by the status quo powers, for the status quo powers. Of course they follow those rules and support them. The rules seem to require a country to be a democracy to be legitimate - I agree with that as necessary to legitimacy (not sufficient), but obviously that doesn't suit non-democratic countries.
And like status quo powers, when they break the rules - most prominently the US many times, such as the Iraq war; the EU treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants; and currently by Israel with US sponsorship - then they let themselves off the hook. They engineer technicalities, such as the weak UN resolution arguably authorizing the Iraq invasion; or just look the other way. They say they can't be handcuffed etc. (And some of those actions may be the right choice - I'm not judging - but they certainly violate the rules.)
> The rules are of the status quo powers (matching their political cultures), by the status quo powers, for the status quo powers
That might seem so, and all individuals have some degree of hypocrisy at times, the more a body of multiple countries. Without rules this devolves into warring tribes and fiefdoms, a lesson the societies in the west had learned themselves.
Everyone is invited to be critical and keep your representatives in check. When the people speak loud and clear about what they accept and what not, representatives will have to listen.
I will add that Western elites were handcuffed by those international rules, it went against their interests. So no, it is also a self-restriction. The west certainly did have the power to exploit other countries, but instead self-restricted by abolishing colonies. There are certainly cases of ifs and buts, but the whole idea is that you stand by your values.
You mentioned the US making transgressions. That they get this room internally is certainly a problem of society and the state of ethics. Let´s not devolve in relativism, it will make things worse!
I generally agree; I'm not saying the status quo power - the US-led rules-based international order - is completely corrupt. They do follow the rules sufficientlty to have legitimacy, and there are many good things in those rules, such as univeral human rights, which have accomplished good outcomes. Overall, the world from WWII to about 2015 was the 'best' it's ever been - an explosion of freedom, security, and prosperity.
At the same time, there is some of the same status-quo-power corruption going on.
> Overall, the world from WWII to about 2015 was the 'best' it's ever been - an explosion of freedom, security, and prosperity.
Good point. If we do not halt the corrupting forces we will loose out on the above.