Rules-based order is a hoax, needs shake up

On Israeli side, the civilian death toll stood at 1,139 by the time of writing this article last week.  In both these conflicts, flagrant disregard for rules of engagement has been a key feature, with a huge toll on civilian lives and infrastructure.

As all these apocalyptic events happen, leaders at the highest level tout respect for international law, Geneva conventions (1949) on war; the rules-based order, conventions against genocide, and other established humanitarian protocols. These wars should offer the world an opportunity to reflect on whether there was any rules order in the first place.

The United Nations system, having stood the test of time at the apex, has either become compromised or the architecture got overwhelmed by developments and cannot keep pace. The chief promoter of fair play is not democratic, and member states, especially from the Global South, have increasingly voiced concerns for reform. With a Security Council of 15 out of 193 member states, and each of the five permanent members with a veto capable of overriding any decision, such arrogance and bullying has over decades become untenable to the smaller members.

The advisory nature of the General Assembly resolutions has rendered the UN  a talking shop for the majority, and the Security Council,  a hallowed  convenient platform for power politics, not solutions. Little wonder that not much gets done whenever the big players are involved in war (as with Russia) or their proxies (as with Israel)!

Casual observers will know that the US is the only World Bank shareholder with a veto on several governance and policy aspects of the bank. Ultimately, it is the US that decides who will lead the bank at any one time.

The International Monitory Fund is no different, where decisions and voting powers are based on quotas.  These banks, therefore, aren’t really enforcing any rules other than those of their biggest shareholders.

The international justice system too is not spared. Most disturbing is the International Criminal Court, where non- signatories to the Rome Statute, like the US often purport to move the court to hold international war criminals accountable. Without equity, it’s impossible to discuss justice on lopsided premises, especially in view of the reality that most heinous crimes of the 20th and 21st centuries have so far been committed either by great powers, or with their backing and or acquiescence. 

Have the institutions of the south demonstrated that they can do better? Mostly, and sadly, no.  Continental, regional and sub-regional frameworks like the African Union and the BRICS remain weak, and largely reliant on funding from these very Western donors.

When top diplomats take to the podium to talk of the “rule based order”, they are in fact just touting a game that is roundly rigged in favour of the strongest.

A context where a power calls on a weak side to respect rules and imposes arms embargoes and sanctions, while at the same time supplying their ally with deadly arms, vetoing all efforts to call combatants to meaningful dialogue, and taking their allies’  side against third parties can no longer be accepted as part of “fair play”, if at all such was to  be expected,  in international relations.

The writer works with Tripartite Initiative for Resource Governance in Africa (TiRGA)