Rules-Based International Order and Its Transformation under Emerging Multipolarities

For a very long time, the “Rules-Based International Order” has remained the West’s choicest phrase to denote a global governance order under the US leadership, built on liberal values, capitalist democracy and global cooperation. However, behind this persuasive rhetoric is a system which has been viewed by many non-western countries as a geopolitical instrument to advance US interest and stifle other rising powers, especially China, in the recent times. As global geopolitics enfolds, this system is under increasing pressure with the global landscape rapidly changing; however, current US rhetoric remains stuck in the past. In actuality, this US-led liberal order is undergoing a profound transformation with the rise of a multipolar world order and the US is no longer its chief architect.

The US century of dominance and hegemony is coming to an end with China’s rapid economic and military ascendency being unprecedentedly peaceful and non-intrusive. However, the US has continued to establish global power relations as part of a zero-sum game. It has continuously refused to accept that a more balanced multipolar world order is not necessarily a threat to peace and global cooperation but can be an opportunity for a just system of global governance. With the rise of several international institutions like BRICS and its developmental bank, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a global system that bends solely to US interests in no longer possible today.

As the global system is transforming, it will be a contested space where norms will be established by multi-civilizational axes of power. Hence, more cooperation is needed instead of geopolitical posturing and quests for domination. The US-led global order is not neutral; it has always been about power and those who wield it. However, it is high time for the US to accept that cooperation with China is not a defeat, but something essential and mutually beneficial. It must also accept a key new fact in today’s history: emerging powers will undoubtedly influence the shaping of future global governance structures and international mechanisms.

For a very long time, the “Rules-Based International Order” has remained the West’s choicest phrase to denote a global governance order under the US leadership, built on liberal values, capitalist democracy and global cooperation. However, behind this persuasive rhetoric is a system which has been viewed by many non-western countries as a geopolitical instrument to advance US interest and stifle other rising powers, especially China, in the recent times. As global geopolitics enfolds, this system is under increasing pressure with the global landscape rapidly changing; however, current US rhetoric remains stuck in the past. In actuality, this US-led liberal order is undergoing a profound transformation with the rise of a multipolar world order and the US is no longer its chief architect.

Igbal Guliyev, Maria Ginzburg:
The Impact of Trump’s Tariff Policy on Food Security for BRICS States

The rules-based international order is actually a rebranding of the Liberal International Order (LIO) that originated and developed in two periods of US preponderance: the post-World War II era and the post-Cold War era. Grounded in international institutions including the UN, the IMF, and chiefly NATO, it claimed to promote prosperity, global peace and economic cooperation; however, it has perpetually reflected US strategic and economic interests. However, the period of US unipolarity is now but history as it cannot unilaterally establish international norms as other rising states, particularly China, assert their own visions of global governance. A gradual decline in US supremacy, rise in nationalistic politics, and the increasingly weary Global South perceptions of western “global” norms have paved way for a seismic shift in global governance: multiple axes of power now have their own fair share of influence on international affairs.

Unlike Washington’s narrative, China does not seek to unravel the international order altogether. Instead, China has made economic progress because of its integration with the US-led international order. It accepts and supports many global governance institutions; however, it does reject some of its aspects which it considers as hegemonic or ideologically prejudiced such as the West’s emphasis on interventionism. China’s rhetoric is more Westphalian, resting on state sovereignty, noninterventionism and collective development. China’s BRI and its contribution to meaningful multilateralism offers an alternative approach that is both rooted in western liberalism, and emphasizes economic pragmatism and respect for state sovereignty. This is not to say that such an approach is ideal; however, China has proven to be a key player in shaping the future world order.

As US politicians and strategists often champion themselves as leaders of the liberal order, emphasizing democratic values, there are glaring contradictions. The US has vehemently criticized China’s behavior in the South China Sea, referring to its economic rise as coercive and predatory. However, the US appears to continue to use the outdated Cold War mentality, finding military solutions to global problems; from Afghanistan to Iraq and Libya, as well as Ukraine. Similarly, while it criticizes China’s claims to Taiwan, it does not adopt the same strategy for Palestine. In fact, Israel has wreaked havoc in Gaza with complete support from the US. Since the end of the World War II, the US has remained involved in 80% of global conflicts [1] and often without UN authorization, as proven by its actions in Iraq. [2] Therefore, whenever US leaders invoke the liberal world order as a God-sent formula to fix global problems, many in the Global South view it as a facade for advancing interests and a means for political gains. It is not hard to see that the rules in the rules-based order are not neutral; they are in fact rules made by the powerful to defend and perpetuate power politics. As many Chinese scholars have noticed, this liberal world order is a threat to China’s one-party political governance system and economic rise and that is the reason that China views this as a thinly veiled containment policy. [3]

Alexandra Morozkina:
OECD Unable, BRICS Unwilling: Can the International Development Assistance System Change?

This power struggle between the previously dominant and the currently rising powers has led to a fragmented Indo-Pacific region as it has become a hotbed of this power rivalry. The US and its allies, through military alliances and pacts like QUAD, AUKUS and BECA, have doubled down on the strategic containment of China. QUAD, initially an alliance for maritime cooperation, has now assumed a military posture with joint naval exercises based on power projection. BECA and other Indo-US defense pacts allow real-time intelligence sharing and logistics support and cooperation. Similarly, AUKUS will provide nuclear submarines to Australia. These military-focused alliances led by the US are reminiscent of US policies during the Cold War era. The US may view these efforts as deterrence against China, but the Chinese leaders consider it as part of a containment and encirclement plan. Resultantly, there is an increasingly securitized and fractured Indo-Pacific region, that is witnessing political bloc formation and perpetual brinkmanship.

The US century of dominance and hegemony is coming to an end with China’s rapid economic and military ascendency being unprecedentedly peaceful and non-intrusive. However, the US has continued to establish global power relations as part of a zero-sum game. It has continuously refused to accept that a more balanced multipolar world order is not necessarily a threat to peace and global cooperation but can be an opportunity for a just system of global governance. With the rise of several international institutions like BRICS and its developmental bank, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a global system that bends solely to US interests in no longer possible today.

As the global system is transforming, it will be a contested space where norms will be established by multi-civilizational axes of power. Hence, more cooperation is needed instead of geopolitical posturing and quests for domination. The US-led global order is not neutral; it has always been about power and those who wield it. However, it is high time for the US to accept that cooperation with China is not a defeat, but something essential and mutually beneficial. It must also accept a key new fact in today’s history: emerging powers will undoubtedly influence the shaping of future global governance structures and international mechanisms.

1. https://californiaman.substack.com/p/list-of-us-wars-and-interventions

2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

3. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/10/responding-to-china-s-complicated-views-on-international-order-pub-80021#