The Rules Based Order

[PurpleTree]

Recently i‘ve often heard the term.

Mostly because they say Russia etc. is going against it.

Who set up the rules based order. Was it mostly the US, or US + western Europe, or the UN, was the Soviet Union heavily involved?

Is it the rules based order that helped China develop their economy?

What does it consist of. Dollar as a main currency? 

[MrTruf]

explicit and implicit rules on how the world should work, established after ww2.

i feel it's a bait thread tho

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, MrTruf said:

explicit and implicit rules on how the world should work, established after ww2.

That i know, doesn’t have much to do with the questions i asked.

2 minutes ago, MrTruf said:

i feel it's a bait thread tho

What’s a bait thread?

[MrTruf]

6 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

That i know, doesn’t have much to do with the questions i asked.

9 minutes ago, MrTruf said:

Well, if you know that, you know that it's result of US leadership, with institutions, such as UN, WTO and such, as tools to implement it, in order to establish stability. Did china benefit from it? I mean, yeah ofc. Tho, now we see that they increasingly see it as not fair. But you know that.

[zazen]

16 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Recently i‘ve often heard the term.

Mostly because they say Russia etc. is going against it.

Who set up the rules based order. Was it mostly the US, or US + western Europe, or the UN, was the Soviet Union heavily involved?

Is it the rules based order that helped China develop their economy?

What does it consist of. Dollar as a main currency? 

The rules based order was born after WWII. Its a US led system of global governance to promote stability, trade, and economic growth which defo merely benefited China. The Bretton Woods system anchored currencies to the US dollar, which was backed by gold (US had the most gold and was the strongest most intact country after world war 2).

The deal was that countries would trade using the dollar in exchange for US security guarantees and access to markets. It reinforced US dominance in exchange for economic stability and protection, but has allowed the US to abuse that power with impunity. Majority of the world now seek to create a more just, fair system where US power and the dollar can’t be weaponised against them. That system is BRICS - a summits being held right now in Kazan, Russia which Western media won’t cover for obvious reasons. 

By Arnaud:

An interesting observation is that in many ways this war is the "rules-based order" vs "international law".

We're seeing a wholesale and unprecedented attack on all institutions meant to preserve international law: the UN (with even a physical destruction of their offices in Gaza, and I'm not even mentioning the 100+ UN workers killed so far!), the WHO, the ICJ, the ICC, etc. And of course on the very laws and principles they were set up to defend and represent (be it humanitarian law, the rights of the child, the law of war, etc.).

By who? By Israel and, ultimately, their backer the US who defend the "rules-based order", meaning a system outside of international law that essentially defends whatever the US judges is in its and its allies' interests at any moment in time. 

So if one takes a step back, that's a key aspect of the battle at play here. Which is of course immensely ironical because many of these institutions and principles under attack were set up by and within the rules-based order, often in order to preserve and entrench the interests of the order!

But the world has changed, many countries have adapted to the actual rules of the order and so respecting the rules, respecting international law, has evolved from being a burden on others to being a burden on those who created them... Which is why there's now such a huge gap between the actions of the proponents of the "rules-based order" and what they should be doing if they respected international law.

The other immense irony is that countries of the global South - China, ASEAN countries, South American countries, African countries, etc. - have now become stronger advocates for those multilateral institutions defending international law than the West. Because they're the ones who adapted to those rules, in many cases much more successfully than the West.

All this to say that when you're told that global South countries seek to upend the "rules-based order", you need to be very clear about what you're speaking about. They seek to change the situation whereby the US and its allies can do whatever they want and thereby make a mockery of international law. In fact what they want is actual rules that everyone respects: they want international law! And those who really want to upend the rules and essentially do whatever the hell they want regardless of any rule - as we're witnessing right now in Gaza - are the West, those seeking to gaslight us into thinking THEY defend a "rules-based order".

How will this end? I know how I want it to end: I strongly believe we do need a set of international rules everyone needs to abide by, especially on matters of war and peace, sovereignty, meddling in other countries affairs, etc. I don't want a "might is right" world where you can just slaughter thousands of children in total impunity if you happen to be the stronger party.

But I am also a realist and I am afraid that the only way we'll ever get such a world is if the mightiest states want it to be like this. And I've totally lost any confidence in the US to ever do the right thing in that regard. Which is why I look forward to and encourage a world of reduced American influence and power where other wiser powers might succeed where America failed.

If the horrors that are happening in Gaza have any silver lining, it should be this: to impress on the peoples of the world the need to ditch the US's unhinged "rules-based order" in favor of international law.

 

[PurpleTree]

10 minutes ago, zazen said:

That system is BRICS - a summits being held right now in Kazan, Russia which Western media won’t cover for obvious reasons. 

Western Media is covering the meeting so pls retract that statement.

I’ll read the other parts of your post after your acknowledgment of you spreading falsities and apology. Thanks for your long post already though.

[zazen]

My bad, good that they are. I just haven’t seen it on front page news for the significance of the event - it’s tucked away like some side story.

Most of the commentary I’ve heard isn’t covering it so much as they are spinning it.

The Sirius report is a very good follow that covers a lot of this btw.

Edited Thursday at 10:34 AM by zazen

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

 In fact what they want is actual rules that everyone respects: they want international law! 

What kind of rules do they want. They surely don’t want human and workers rights etc. in China, Russia, Saudi etc.

imo they are mostly just using it to advance their own gains and power nothing else. We might end up with a "fairer" world because of it though which is good.

[enchanted]

19 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Recently i‘ve often heard the term.

Mostly because they say Russia etc. is going against it.

Who set up the rules based order. Was it mostly the US, or US + western Europe, or the UN, was the Soviet Union heavily involved?

Is it the rules based order that helped China develop their economy?

What does it consist of. Dollar as a main currency? 

Remember the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, enchanted said:

Remember the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Remember this door rule. The last one closes the door.

[enchanted]

3 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Remember this door rule. The last one closes the door.

What do you mean? I've never heard that one

[MrTruf]

3 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

What kind of rules do they want. They surely don’t want human and workers rights etc. in China, Russia, Saudi etc.

imo they are mostly just using it to advance their own gains and power nothing else. We might end up with a "fairer" world because of it though which is good.

Exactly. They wan't more freedom to do what they want.

[What Am I]

Any predictions on what happens to those living in the US if the power shifts in this way? Would it be something like a massive drop in quality of life? I wonder if other nations would seek retribution for what they consider as decades of unfair treatment.

Edited Thursday at 03:28 PM by What Am I

[sholomar]

It wo

10 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Any predictions on what happens to those living in the US if the power shifts in this way? Would it be something like a massive drop in quality of life? I wonder if other nations would seek retribution for what they consider as decades of unfair treatment.

https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp

We'll probably lose the competitive advantage we've had over the decades. Quite frankly with housing prices like this it amazes me anyone bothers to participate in the system at all, in any nation on this planet.  No more 4 bathroom houses with 3 stall garages with 6 cars parked in the driveway. It's not really sustainable for 8 billion people to live this way, even if it is an enjoyable life.  Those who have theirs don't care though, as long as they have theirs.

What amazes me is that current US housing prices are still "cheap" from a global perspective.  I better buy my house before it's priced way outside my earning potential. They are still not that bad where I live. They've doubled, but are still in the realm of affordable for one person making what I make. 

The entire planet is on a money printing spree right now though, so who knows how it turns out. Seems like we have a parasite class of super rich that are pricing their respective middle classes out of the system on a global level, a reversion back to how things used to be. It started in 2008 when they invented something called quantitative easing, which is a way to bail out the investor class and keeps the system flooded with excess liquidity. It's why, for example, stocks are trading at double their historical valuations.

Edited Thursday at 03:38 PM by sholomar

[What Am I]

12 minutes ago, sholomar said:

The entire planet is on a money printing spree right now though, so who knows how it turns out. Seems like we have a parasite class of super rich that are pricing their respective middle classes out of the system on a global level, a reversion back to how things used to be. It started in 2008 when they invented something called quantitative easing, which is a way to bail out the investor class and keeps the system flooded with excess liquidity. It's why, for example, stocks are trading at double their historical valuations.

I have this exact same impression. It seems like we're moving globally from a scenario that allows average individuals to rise up and live better than kings from the past (current middle class) into a system that is much more of a forced two-tiered, where the 99% live in equally shitty conditions while our leaders enjoy enviable conditions. At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I'm not so sure it'd be accurate to say this is all accidental.

Edited Thursday at 03:48 PM by What Am I

[zazen]

On 24/10/2024 at 11:47 AM, PurpleTree said:

What kind of rules do they want. They surely don’t want human and workers rights etc. in China, Russia, Saudi etc.

imo they are mostly just using it to advance their own gains and power nothing else. We might end up with a "fairer" world because of it though which is good.

Of course its a natural aspect of each country to seek their own self interest, but it's about how its done. Pursuing self interest through imperialism is worse than through influence. Non-Western nations don't go around claiming to be the most moral countries and lecture the whole world.

The great irony of the West’s mission to spread democracy is that its own actions keep many countries locked in anti-democratic, authoritarian systems. The West behaves anti-democratically abroad, which causes countries to remain so out of fear of opening up and inviting chaos, subversion and regime change that they've seen the West specialize in for the past century. The West uses regime change, economic warfare, and covert operations to destabilize nations, all under the guise of promoting freedom. Countries are forced to centralize power and become authoritarian just to survive the constant assault. 

Rights grow from strength, development and stability. A nation must build itself up, become economically secure, and grow strong internally before it can begin to deal with its own human rights issues. But when the West destabilizes countries, they rob them of this chance. These nations are stuck in a defensive position, needing to suppress dissent and centralize power for stability. Democracies are easier to subvert and many authoritarians are backed by the West for their own interest. Look up the School of the Americas to see how the US trained Latin American dictators.

The West loves to lecture about human rights, yet its interference keeps these nations weak, keeps them trapped in their current state. The very thing the West claims to defend - democracy and human rights - is what their foreign meddling makes impossible. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy. Nations need time and space to grow strong on their own terms. Only then, through development and real stability, can they evolve into systems that might respect rights. But the West doesn’t allow that, and so these human rights issues persist, not because these nations are inherently repressive, but because they’re never given the chance to outgrow it.

 

Edited 13 hours ago by zazen

[PurpleTree]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Of course its a natural aspect of each country to seek their own self interest, but it's about how its done. Pursuing self interest through imperialism is worse than through influence. Non-Western nations don't go around claiming to be the most moral countries and lecture the whole world.

The great irony of the West’s mission to spread democracy is that its own actions keep many countries locked in anti-democratic, authoritarian systems. The West behaves anti-democratically abroad, which causes countries to remain so out of fear of opening up and inviting chaos, subversion and regime change that they've seen the West specialize in for the past century. The West uses regime change, economic warfare, and covert operations to destabilize nations, all under the guise of promoting freedom. Countries are forced to centralize power and become authoritarian just to survive the constant assault. 

Rights grow from strength, development and stability. A nation must build itself up, become economically secure, and grow strong internally before it can begin to deal with its own human rights issues. But when the West destabilizes countries, they rob them of this chance. These nations are stuck in a defensive position, needing to suppress dissent and centralize power for stability. Democracies are easier to subvert and many authoritarians are backed by the West for their own interest. Look up the School of the Americas to see how the US trained Latin American dictators.

The West loves to lecture about human rights, yet its interference keeps these nations weak, keeps them trapped in their current state. The very thing the West claims to defend - democracy and human rights - is what their foreign meddling makes impossible. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy. Nations need time and space to grow strong on their own terms. Only then, through development and real stability, can they evolve into systems that might respect rights. But the West doesn’t allow that, and so these human rights issues persist, not because these nations are inherently repressive, but because they’re never given the chance to outgrow it.

 

This post is a good example of why i have you on ignore. It’s fine though not that it matters do your thing. I read your posts in this thread though.