There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
The US has reportedly terminated Biden-era agreements to jointly police “disinformation”
The US has withdrawn from a series of international agreements aimed at countering alleged foreign “disinformation,” effectively ending joint efforts with EU governments to police online content, the Financial Times has reported, citing unnamed European officials.
The US State Department notified participating nations last week that it would terminate memoranda of understanding signed under the Biden administration, according to the report published on Monday. The agreements with 22 countries, mainly in Europe and Africa, were part of a broader initiative led by the now-defunct Global Engagement Center (GEC).
The GEC was formally disbanded in April after congressional Republicans blocked a funding renewal in December. Originally established in 2011 to fight online terrorist propaganda, the center’s mandate was later expanded to cover alleged foreign state-backed “disinformation.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously characterized the GEC as a taxpayer-funded tool for political suppression, alleging that it was used by the Biden administration to target conservative voices under the guise of combating propaganda. “Under the previous administration, this office… spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving,” Rubio said in April.
The move marks another step in a broader campaign by President Donald Trump to dismantle “ineffective” institutions perceived as vehicles for political censorship. Since taking office, Trump has also defunded the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees the Cold War-era broadcasters Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), widely regarded as Western propaganda outlets.
Washington has also pushed back against the EU’s Digital Services Act, which mandates the removal of content deemed illegal or harmful. US diplomats were reportedly ordered in August to lobby against the legislation, calling it a threat to free expression and a burden on American tech firms. Critics of the EU law have argued that it institutionalizes censorship across the bloc and unfairly targets non-EU media and platforms.
The EU imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian media after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Outlets like RT, Sputnik, and RIA Novosti have all been banned across the bloc, while their personnel have been targeted with sanctions. Moscow described the crackdown as “global censorship and a regime of zero tolerance for dissenting opinions.”
Photo courtesy of the House Select Committee on the CCP
Communist China’s military provocations have escalated dramatically as Beijing races toward its 2027 military modernization deadline.
In April 2025, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted its largest military drill of the year, code-named “Strait Thunder 2025A,” involving 76 aircraft, 15 naval ships, and China’s aircraft carrier Shandong maneuvering within 24 nautical miles of Taiwan, the closest approach ever recorded.
For the first time, Beijing practiced actual blockade operations and simulated precision strikes against Taiwan’s critical energy infrastructure.
Since 2022, China has systematically increased military incursions around Taiwan, establishing what analysts call a “new normal” of constant military pressure designed to normalize threat levels while avoiding triggering immediate American intervention.
Communist China’s military modernization follows a calculated timeline tied to symbolic anniversaries and strategic objectives that directly threaten American national security.
The most urgent concern centers on 2027, marking the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army’s founding.
U.S. intelligence assessments confirm that Chinese President Xi Jinping has explicitly instructed the PLA to “be ready by 2027 to conduct a successful invasion of Taiwan,” as confirmed by former CIA Director William Burns and cited in multiple U.S. government reports.
Xi unveiled this 2027 target in a milestone speech around March 2021, establishing it as the first key phase in a three-step military modernization plan spanning 2027, 2035, and 2049.
The regime’s goal calls for “accelerating the integrated development of mechanization, informatization, and intelligentization”, a holistic transformation rather than sequential development.
Mechanization involves updating or replacing legacy platforms across all services, informatization focuses on networking these systems for seamless data-sharing and coordination, while intelligentization deploys artificial intelligence, quantum computing, big data, and machine learning across military operations.
Burns emphasized, this represents a “be ready by” date rather than a firm decision to invade in that year, though Pentagon analysts warn the distinction may prove academic if Beijing achieves overwhelming military superiority.
The 2027 milestone will also coincide with Xi Jinping’s likely bid for an unprecedented fourth term as Communist Party leader.
Xi is already serving his third term after having the constitution modified in 2018 to remove presidential term limits, theoretically allowing him to remain leader for life.
This creates potential domestic political pressure to demonstrate military strength and validate his consolidation of power.
The timing aligns with Taiwan’s next presidential election cycle, when Beijing historically escalates pressure to influence democratic outcomes.
Beijing aims to complete modernization of its armed forces by 2035, representing a direct challenge to American military dominance.
This intermediate goal includes fielding an estimated 1,500 nuclear warheads, triple China’s current stockpile, while achieving technological parity with advanced Western militaries in key areas that have historically guaranteed American security.
Defense spending has risen substantially to support these ambitious goals, growing from approximately $180 billion in 2015 to an estimated $250 billion in 2025—a 39% increase over the decade.
While this represents only about one-quarter of U.S. defense spending, those dollars stretch significantly further in China where the average salary is $600-800 per month compared to $6,000-7,000 in America, and where PLA soldiers earn $200-400 monthly versus $3,000-4,000 for U.S. troops.
This purchasing power advantage allows Beijing to field substantially more military capability per dollar spent on labor, manufacturing, and equipment production.
Recent PLA exercises like Strait Thunder 2025A demonstrate China’s transformation from a ground-dominant force to an integrated military capable of coordinating land, sea, air, rocket forces, and civilian agencies.
This restructuring has elevated the Rocket Force and Strategic Support Force while establishing a Joint Logistics Support Force for sustained multi-theater operations, as evidenced by carrier battle group drills near Iwo Jima.
China has deployed new amphibious assault capabilities including specialized landing vessels and bridge-laying equipment. The construction of civilian-amphibious landing barges like the Shuiqiao-class maintains plausible cover while supporting invasion logistics.
The pace of naval construction reflects China’s timeline urgency.
Admiral Samuel Paparo warns that China produces six to eight submarines annually versus one to two for America, and launches 20-25 major warships compared to just two to three for the U.S.—a “rapid boil” fundamentally altering the Western Pacific balance. China’s shipbuilding capacity exceeds U.S. production by more than 200-fold.
The PLA has significantly expanded its missile arsenal with over 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Taiwan, including advanced hypersonic weapons.
The Rocket Force has deployed hypersonic systems and nuclear-capable H-6N bombers as U.S. intelligence projects China will field 700 nuclear warheads by 2027, growing to over 1,000 by 2030.
As China approaches its 2027 deadline, Beijing’s accelerating military preparations suggest the Communist regime is positioning itself for potential military action if its objectives cannot be achieved through intimidation and economic pressure alone.
The ultimate objective targets 2049, when Beijing seeks a “world-class” military capable of displacing U.S. global supremacy as part of China’s broader “national rejuvenation” goal.
Xi Jinping has repeatedly stated that the Taiwan issue “cannot be passed down from generation to generation,” reflecting personal urgency to resolve the matter during his leadership.
For Americans, China’s military buildup represents a direct challenge to the post-World War II order that has guaranteed American prosperity and security for decades.
If China succeeds in dominating the Indo-Pacific by 2027, it would control the world’s most critical shipping lanes, leverage American allies into submission, and position itself to challenge U.S. interests from the South China Sea to the Panama Canal.
The stakes extend far beyond Taiwan, China’s success would fundamentally alter the global balance of power and potentially end the era of American leadership that has preserved peace and prosperity for the free world.
Europe’s Self-Inflicted Irrelevance: Why the Paris Summit Is a Sideshow
Today, the great and the good of Europe are gathering in Paris for yet another emergency summit, this time to discuss Ukraine and “security in Europe.” The spectacle will be grand, the rhetoric will be lofty, and the statements will be full of self-importance. But make no mistake – this meeting is little more than a diplomatic mirage. Europe has been sidelined from serious strategic decision-making because it has long refused to be a serious player in defense and security. The real discussions about Ukraine’s future aren’t happening in Paris; they will take place in Saudi Arabia, where the United States and Russia will engage in actual negotiations that determine the trajectory of the war. Europe has been reduced to bystander, offering commentary while others make the real moves. This is the logical outcome of decades of strategic neglect and delusions of moral leadership without the hard power to back it up.
For years, European leaders have clung to the fantasy that they could shape global affairs through soft power, economic leverage, and moral posturing. Meanwhile, they have gutted their militaries, outsourced their security to the United States, and hoped that history had somehow moved beyond the need for deterrence. The result? When war returned to the continent, they found themselves utterly unprepared. NATO’s European members have scrambled to rearm since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but their efforts remain lackluster. Germany, despite its grand proclamations of a “Zeitenwende” (historical turning point), is still struggling to meet even its own modest defense targets. France, despite having one of the most capable European militaries, lacks the resources to lead continent-wide efforts. The United Kingdom, under successive governments, has allowed its military capabilities to erode, leaving it struggling to project power beyond token gestures.
The numbers tell the story of a continent that simply refuses to take its own security seriously. In 2022, the European Union’s total defense spending was just 1.3% of GDP. Some countries, like Ireland, spent as little as 0.2%. Meanwhile, Russia has ramped up its defense spending by over 40% in 2024, surpassing the combined military budgets of all European nations. China, too, continues its meteoric rise in military spending, further cementing its status as a global power capable of shaping security dynamics far beyond its borders. Europe, by contrast, remains fragmented, underfunded, and strategically incoherent.
This is why the U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia are happening without European leaders at the table. Washington and Moscow know that Europe – despite all its declarations of unity and resolve – simply does not matter in the high-stakes diplomacy that will determine Ukraine’s fate. The war in Ukraine has underscored Europe’s dependence on American military might, as European states deplete their own stockpiles to send weapons to Kyiv, only to beg Washington for replacements. The uncomfortable truth is that without American support, Europe’s ability to sustain Ukraine’s war effort would collapse almost immediately. And if the U.S. were to shift its focus elsewhere – say, to Taiwan – Europe would be left exposed.
The exclusion of Europe from these negotiations should serve as a wake-up call, but there is little reason to believe that it will be. The Paris summit itself is already plagued by internal divisions, with several EU states voicing frustration at being excluded from the Elysee Palace talks. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has openly criticized the selective invitations, highlighting just how fractured Europe remains. Far from projecting strength, the gathering in Paris is yet another reminder that the continent cannot even coordinate among itself, let alone influence the broader global order.
Even if European leaders were given a seat at the table in Saudi Arabia, what exactly would they bring to the negotiations? They have no unified military strategy, no credible deterrence posture, and no leverage beyond empty diplomatic statements. Worse still, European capitals remain divided on fundamental questions about Ukraine’s future. Some leaders, like Emmanuel Macron, flirt with the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine in a desperate bid to remain relevant. Others, like Germany’s Olaf Scholz, continue to drag their feet on military aid while wringing their hands over the supposed risks of escalation. Such incoherence makes Europe not only a weak actor but a liability in serious strategic discussions.
The only way for Europe to reclaim its place in global security decision-making is to fundamentally rethink its approach to defense. This means abandoning the illusion that the world can be shaped through international law and goodwill alone. It requires acknowledging that power still matters, and that military strength – not moral rhetoric – is what ultimately guarantees security. The European Union must transition from being a loose economic bloc with fragmented defense capabilities into a genuinely capable security actor. This will require a radical shift in priorities: sustained investment in defense industries, deeper military integration among member states, and a willingness to act decisively without waiting for Washington’s approval.
There are signs that some European nations understand this. Poland has embarked on an ambitious military buildup, recognizing that the threats it faces require hard power solutions. The Baltic states have taken proactive steps to bolster their defenses, understanding that deterrence is their best insurance policy against Russian aggression. But these efforts remain the exception rather than the rule. The broader European project is still hamstrung by an unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices for security.
The Paris summit will conclude with the usual platitudes about “European unity” and “standing with Ukraine.” Leaders will shake hands, pose for photos, and issue carefully worded statements meant to project strength. But behind the scenes, the reality is clear: Europe is a geopolitical spectator, not a player. And as the real negotiations unfold in Saudi Arabia without them, European leaders have only themselves to blame.
If Europe wants to matter, it must change. It must invest in real military capabilities, not just paper commitments. It must build a credible deterrent that does not depend on the goodwill of Washington. And it must be prepared to act, rather than endlessly debate. Until then, summits like the one in Paris will remain exactly what they are today – a sideshow to the real events shaping the future of global security.
Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with DefensePriorities, a think tank in Washington, DC.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
Establishment media outlets have often resorted to dumbing down societies by reducing global events to shallow soundbites or clickbait that reinforces convenient stereotypes
by Gillian Schutte, film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist, public intellectual
The moment has come to question the wisdom of continuing to battle a wounded but still formidable behemoth: Western corporate media. For decades, it has held an almost unassailable grip on the global narrative, buoyed by wealth, political patronage, and an entrenched belief that it alone possesses the authority to define reality. Yet the years of reflexive sensationalism, patent double standards, and top-down editorial dictates have eroded the very legitimacy Western outlets once took for granted. The cracks in their façade are now impossible to ignore, with disillusioned viewers, readers, and even former insiders acknowledging that something profoundly dysfunctional lurks at the heart of so-called “mainstream” news.
Where does this leave those in what we might call the Global South, or the emerging multipolar alliance—countries previously relegated to the margins of a story that was never truly theirs to begin with? Too often, they have had to settle for representation that flattens their complexities and frames their societies either as exotic backdrops or perpetual sources of crisis. They have been told they must prove themselves worthy of Western approval, emulate Western editorial models, or else risk being dismissed as unprofessional or “biased”. But this old thinking—that the path to legitimacy is to follow the leads of media conglomerates in New York or London—can no longer stand in the face of new realities. A fresh era is dawning, and nowhere is that more evident than in the swelling tide of alternative networks within Russia, China, India, and beyond.
China’s CGTN and China Daily have asserted themselves on the global stage, offering views on geopolitics, technology, and cultural exchange that Western cameras rarely bother to capture. Crucially, these networks have also ventured far beyond traditional broadcasting, building diverse digital platforms that range from video-on-demand services to online text articles dissecting both global and national issues. RT in Russia, meanwhile, has assembled some of the world’s most sharp-witted commentators and thought leaders in wide-ranging talk shows and debates, questioning NATO-centric narratives and championing a multipolar vision of world affairs—while similarly strengthening its online reach through multimedia content. Indian outlets such as WION have also begun to carve a niche, reminding anyone who will listen that “international” does not necessarily equate to “Western”, and extending their influence with digital formats that engage audiences across multiple platforms. These ventures prove that when a nation or region invests wholeheartedly in its editorial independence—and leverages modern digital tools—it can powerfully impact global discourse. The Western monopoly on truth was always a myth; now it is visibly fraying at the seams.
Nowhere is the imperative to strike a unique path more pressing than on the African continent. South Africa’s Independent Media Group stands as a testament to what can be achieved when local ownership, innovative leadership, and social commitment converge. Under the guidance of visionary figure, Dr Iqbal Survé—who has insisted that “our media must reflect the transformation of society”—Independent Media has, time and again, defied the unipolar logic that demands everything be funnelled through a Euro-American filter. The group’s news titles have held space for diverse voices, for cultural movements, for sober debates on the direction of the country’s young democracy, and for investigations that challenge the status quo. Yet even this is but a glimpse of what is possible if Independent Media’s existing infrastructure is expanded into a fully digital, video and text, hyper-media driven platform connecting multiple partners across the Global South, BRICS, and other multipolar alliances.
Such an expansion is more than just a technical undertaking; it represents the birth of a new media culture. Western outlets have often resorted to dumbing down societies by reducing global events to shallow soundbites or clickbait that reinforces convenient stereotypes. Middle-class audiences, in particular, have been swept up in the spectacle—fed a diet of polarising headlines and commentary that ignore both local realities and deeper systemic questions. Grassroots communities, meanwhile, see their struggles either sensationalised or erased altogether.
A revitalised media platform that spans continents could change that equation. By treating audiences as active, thinking agents rather than passive consumers, it would promote real debates around social justice, economic development, and cultural identity. It would also speak directly to the concerns of the middle classes—those who have the resources to engage with more thoughtful content but have often been alienated by Western outlets’ biases. Critically, such a platform would honour the knowledge and experiences of grassroots communities, ensuring they are no longer simplified or silenced, but instead recognised as vital contributors to the global tapestry.
Imagine a transnational network of digital channels, podcasts, and investigative teams spanning Johannesburg, New Delhi, Beijing, São Paulo, and Moscow, sharing resources, training journalists, and broadcasting in multiple languages. The infrastructure is there. The talent is there. The audience, fatigued by the monotonous lens of Western reportage, is ready. All that remains is the collective will to see it through—to cultivate a media environment that uplifts local complexities while forging alliances across borders.
Throughout history, the power to define a people’s narrative has always been the power to govern its destiny. Steve Biko warned that “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed,” a maxim that resonates in the media realm as much as in the political. Dr Survé has articulated that same imperative in contemporary terms, reminding us that a press unattuned to its community’s aspirations merely perpetuates entrenched inequalities. Rather than fighting to be recognised by a media sphere in decline, the emerging multipolar community can—and must—build its own house.
Critics will label this aspiration “propaganda”, but that refrain has long been a tactic used to discredit any challenge to Western hegemonic norms. The reality is that the Global South’s move towards editorial sovereignty is neither utopian nor sinister; it is pragmatic. There is simply no reason to remain tethered to an old hierarchy whose cracks have become too large to ignore. The gradual ascendancy of China’s CGTN, Russia’s RT, and India’s WION has already revealed that audiences respond to, and often prefer, a multiplicity of worldviews when they sense authenticity and intellectual rigour.
Indeed, the era of Western media’s uncontested sway is drawing to a close, a process hastened by endless political spin, shallow sensationalism, and an unquestioned alignment with powerful state and corporate agendas. Viewers and readers everywhere, especially across BRICS countries and the broader Global South, feel the numbness that comes from being patronised or omitted altogether. Consequently, they are looking for stories that acknowledge their experiences with complexity and humanity.
Why, then, compete with a dying system? The more fruitful path is to recognise the seeds of something new. Independent Media in South Africa exemplifies how a robust foundation can be laid—one that might be scaled up through digital convergence, transnational content sharing, and fresh collaborations among media professionals in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and beyond. This is not about disavowing global engagement; it is about reshaping who gets to speak and on what terms.
Of course, this is not a simple transition. It demands financial agility, political resolve, and a willingness to challenge entrenched cultural attitudes. It also requires a spirited defence against the propaganda onslaught that will inevitably come from those who wish to maintain the status quo. But with each passing day, the need for a new media renaissance grows more urgent. Disillusioned by the failings of Western outlets, the youth, middle-class audiences and citizens are more open than ever to platforms that respect both their intelligence and their cultural vantage points. Grassroots communities are increasingly prepared to articulate their own narratives and push them onto a global stage, no longer content to be represented—or misrepresented—by distant editors.
Ultimately, such a shift could reshape not only the information ecosystems of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but the global media order itself. We stand on the cusp of a world in which Western corporate news no longer holds an unchallenged monopoly, and where alliances like BRICS step forward as equals in shaping public consciousness. This is our greatest opportunity—to reclaim the narratives that define daily life for billions, reverse the dumbing down that has stifled genuine debate, and spark dialogues that resonate across cultures.
The question, then, is which of the superpowers will truly come to the table. China, Russia, and India have demonstrated through CGTN, RT, and WION that they have the will and the capacity to support alternatives to Western mainstream models. Brazil, too, is making strides in forging regional media initiatives, and South Africa’s Independent Media has laid a solid groundwork for continental innovation.
If these forces combine—guided by mutual respect, shared infrastructure, and a commitment to editorial independence—they can help inaugurate an entirely new chapter in global journalism, one defined not by outmoded hierarchies but by the sheer vibrancy of plural voices. It is an invitation not merely to resist but to build—and in building, to show the world that information, community, and the future of public discourse belong not to the corridors of old power, but to the boundless energy of those determined to shape tomorrow.
From Kosovo to Crimea, the hypocrisy of Washington’s ‘rules-based order’ would be funny if it weren’t so serious
By Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Substack.
While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right.” International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states.
Constructing the hegemonic rules-based international order
The process of constructing alternative sources of legitimacy to facilitate sovereign inequality began with NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 without a UN mandate. The violation of international law was justified by liberal values. Even the legitimacy of the UN Security Council was contested by arguing it should be circumvented as Russia and China veto of humanitarian interventionism was allegedly caused by their lack of liberal democratic values.
The efforts to establish alternative sources of authority continued in 2003 to gain legitimacy for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, called for establishing an “Alliance of Democracies” as a key element of US foreign policy. A similar proposal suggested establishing a “Concert of Democracies,” in which liberal democracies could act in the spirit of the UN without being constrained by the veto power of authoritarian states. During the 2008 presidential election, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain argued in favor of establishing a “League of Democracies.” In December 2021, the US organized the first “Summit for Democracy” to divide the world into liberal democracies versus authoritarian states. The White House framed sovereign inequality in the language of democracy: Washington’s interference in the domestic affairs of other states was “support for democracy,” while upholding the West’s sovereignty entailed defending democracy. The aforementioned initiatives became the “rules-based international order.” With an imperialist mindset, there would be one set of rules for the “garden” and another set for the “jungle.”
The rules-based international order created a two-tiered system of legitimate versus illegitimate states. The paradox of liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often demand that they dominate international institutions to defend democratic values from the control of the majority. Yet, a durable and resilient international system capable of developing common rules is imperative for international governance and to resolve disputes among states.
International law in accordance with the UN Charter is based on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality as “all states are equal.” In contrast, the rules-based international order is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. Such a system of sovereign inequality follows the principle from George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ that stipulates “all animals [states] are equal but some animals [states] are more equal than others.” In Kosovo, the West promoted self-determination as a normative right of secession that had to be prioritized above territorial integrity. In South Ossetia and Crimea, the West insisted that the sanctity of territorial integrity, as stipulated in the UN Charter, must be prioritized over self-determination.
Uniform rules replaced with a tribunal of public opinion
Instead of resolving conflicts through diplomacy and uniform rules, there is an incentive to manipulate, moralize and propagandize as international disputes are decided by a tribunal of public opinion when there are competing principles. Deceit and extreme language have thus become commonplace. In 1999, the US and UK especially presented false accusations about war crimes to make interventionism legitimate. British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the world that the Yugoslav authorities were “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. It is no exaggeration to say that what is happening is racial genocide.”
The rules-based international order fails to establish common unifying rules of how to govern international relations, which is the fundamental function of world order. Both China and Russia have denounced the rules-based international order as a dual system to facilitate double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign MinisterXie Feng asserted that the rules-based international order introduces the “law of the jungle” insofar as universally recognized international law is replaced by unilateralism. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly criticized the rules-based international order for creating a parallel legal framework to legitimize unilateralism:
“The West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law – all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialized agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognized structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same ‘values’ is never easy, they take unilateral action.”
The rules-based international order does not consist of any specific rules, is not accepted internationally, and does not deliver order. The rules-based international order should be considered a failed experiment from the unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a requirement for stability and peace.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 