Get our FREE US Election Countdown newsletter
Important news about money and politics in the race for the White House
The foundational tenet of Western foreign policy, the “rules-based international order,” has long suffered from some tragic flaws. It’s a term that means nothing to the average person. As a result, it’s an entirely uninspiring concept. People may go to war to defend their freedom or their homeland. No one will fight and die for the RBIO.
Yet Western policymakers seem enamored with the idea. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was keen to tout the rules-based international order during a visit to China. British Chancellor Rishi Sunak has made the RBIO central to British foreign policy. His potential successor, former lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, is likely to be similarly enthusiastic about the idea.
In his opposition to Russian aggression, Blinken argues that the US stands up for a world based on rules, not force. It’s an attractive idea. But rules have to be consistent. And the US’s own actions are undermining a key part of the rules-based order.
The past two weeks have laid these contradictions brutally on display. The Biden administration’s 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles are effectively incompatible with international rules on trade. “The tariffs shatter the idea that the United States intends to abide by World Trade Organization rules,” a paper from the think tank Bruegel said.
The US response to the possibility of the International Criminal Court indicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on war crimes charges was also indicative: Far from supporting the court’s efforts to enforce international law, Foreign Secretary Blinken told US Congress that the administration would consider imposing sanctions on the court.
The United States could, of course, make arguments to justify such a move. It could argue that the ICC has exceeded its jurisdiction or that it has improperly intervened in an ongoing conflict. It also alleges that China has violated international trade rules for decades.
But as the saying goes, in politics, when you explain, you lose. In many parts of the world, America’s claims to defend the rules-based international order are the subject of ridicule. So what can be salvaged from this mess? One answer is for Blinken and others to talk less about the rules-based international order and more about defending the free world. That would be a more accurate and understandable explanation of what Western foreign policy actually consists of.
The United States, the EU, the UK, and other democracies like Japan, South Korea, and Ukraine are currently struggling to contain the territorial and political ambitions of authoritarian states, especially China and Russia. A more powerful world will be less safe for free people and nations.
Unlike the defense of a rules-based order, which implies absolute consistency, the defense of the free world involves accepting some degree of inevitable contradiction. During the Cold War, the United States and its allies formed several tactical alliances with undemocratic regimes as part of a broader effort to contain and ultimately defeat the Soviet Union.
In today’s world, the United States is once again making uncomfortable trade-offs as part of a larger struggle with major authoritarian powers. The tariffs the U.S. has imposed on Chinese-made EVs to defend the rules-based order make little sense. They make much more sense when viewed as an effort to prevent China from dominating the industries of the future.
In challenging China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, the United States has accurately accused Beijing of violating the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The problem is that the United States itself has not ratified that treaty. So why not acknowledge that the United States’ primary motivation is not to uphold international law in its own interest, but to prevent important trade routes from falling under the control of dictatorial states?
And what about Israel? Domestic politics explain much of Biden’s behavior. But his staunch support for Israel is also rooted in an instinct to protect democratic allies. It is hard to believe that the United States would not consider the idea that Netanyahu may have committed war crimes in Gaza. But it is easy to understand the U.S. discomfort with a process that sees the Middle East’s only democracy being put on trial while the leaders of Syria and Iran escape prosecution for their crimes.
Toning down the rhetoric about a rules-based international order should not mean abandoning international law altogether. That would invite global anarchy. It is also unwise and impractical. International laws abound, and violating them can be very damaging. President Vladimir Putin, and perhaps soon Prime Minister Netanyahu, will find his travel plans severely restricted by an ICC warrant.
Russia and China constantly insist that their actions are consistent with international law — even when they clearly are not. The United States may have to do the same from time to time. International legal battles are part of a new struggle between democracies and authoritarian states.
This does not mean that they are on the same moral level: As with the Cold War and other struggles of the early 20th century, the world’s democracies need not apologize for taking brutal action to defend free societies.