America can only defend a system that benefits itself--not "return" to a system that exists independent of our power to shape and defend it.
Two concepts have been constantly used in discussions of international relations of late. One is a liberal international order and the second is a rules-based system. In the former, the term “liberal” does not have much to do with what Americans call liberalism. Rather, it describes an international system that is committed to human rights, free trade and related principles. The second is the idea that there is an agreed-upon system of rules governing the relationship between nations. Together, these notions are thought to create predictability and decency in the way nations interact with each other.
This issue came up during the administration of former President Donald Trump, who was accused of undermining these principles by, for example, imposing tariffs on China and questioning the value of NATO. The question is emerging again because the Biden administration, having come to power criticizing the policies of its predecessor, has made it clear that it intends to return to these principles.
Do read it all.
But that system never really existed. Which is why I never had much faith or respect for "international law." A course in graduate school did nothing to change my mind.
The international "rules-based" system is not some supra-national order that all states abide by. To the extent it exists, it is a system established by America after World War II. It benefits America and those who follow the rules. But it is not globally accepted. And even in the West, raw power often trumps rules.
And some of the system rested on the post-World War II economic dominance of America. Trump recognized that some of the field tilted against America can't be justified any more. American economic dominance is not of the same scale as it once was, either after World War II or even after the Cold War.
Yet even Trump's actions were just adjusting the terms of rules and not destroying that system.
Yes, China has succeeded impressively in this system over the last forty years. Yet China still challenges this system. Why? Because it isn't enough to succeed. China wants to dominate. And it seems to judge it must change the rules-based system-like framework to one under the rules the Chinese Communist Party writes.
We won't like such rules. Which is why America must defend the rules-based system we built. And maintain the power that allowed America to define those rules and benefit from them. Otherwise we can't attract allies to defend the system that has sustained all of us for this long.
If it was a truly global system of rules, it wouldn't be so hard to defend. Or even need defending.
