As countries like China continue to integrate into the world economy, the liberal “rules-based” order – centred around political governance and the military – needs to remain flexible.
The notion of a rules-based order (RBO) has a natural appeal, as integration into the world is more a reality than a choice, including for countries like China. Integration in the economic realm, most directly through trade and investment, is dictated by world economic geography. Integration in the realm of philosophies for domestic economic and political governance is contentious, in spite of insistence from liberal visions of order that see liberal triumph as both desirable and inevitable.
The military security realm is even more complex but order can be assumed to mean peaceful coexistence between countries. All these factors make continuation of international debates and discussions about rules and order worthwhile.
Views about how the world came to be ordered the way it is today reflect vantage points in different countries. Questioning from Chinese quarters about prevalent liberal versus illiberal orders stems, in part, from incompatibility in institutional memories. China was a non-participant in international institutions from the time of the First World War to 1971, when China joined the United Nations. It is important, therefore, to agree on a common vantage point that resists hierarchical, linear and ahistorical narratives.
As such, frames like ‘Liberal RBO’, ‘Conservative RBO’ or ‘Consensus RBO’ may turn out to be unhelpful – because they are more reflective of an ideology-led pre-supposition about who (which nation) has more right to define ‘order’ and to determine what brings about disorder.
Continue reading… Courtesy of Asialink.
Professor, International Political Economy – Peking University
Dong Ting is Assistant Professor, Center for International Security & Strategy – Tsinghua University
Comments
6 responses to “Keeping an open mind: rules based order needs to be malleable”
Traditional Chinese political culture emphasizes stability and rules. This is based on China’s political practice and experience for thousands of years. Therefore, it is easy to understand that the main theme of the current world order that the author sees is rules based order.
I also agree with this view, at least in part. Because both China and Australia benefited from such an order, miraculous economic growth.
But my other eye sees another world. The destruction of the environment by capitalism, the exploitation of people in backward countries, and the ongoing war crimes against countries in the Middle East.
What worries me even more is whether this order that benefits only a small part of human beings can be maintained for a long time.
The main bureaucrat of the Chinese government’s economic management, Liu He, was an outstanding scholar before entering the government. He believed that the world had not yet emerged from the 2008 economic crisis. Although the data looks better, this only delays the outbreak of the problem at the cost of a more destructive economic crisis in the future than in 2008.
In our generation, can we witness the recurrence of the Great Depression 100 years ago, and then the first global war brought about by the economic crisis? At least the “Spanish flu” that ended this war was revived last year.
Back to article
In my opinion, the subtext of this article is that as a beneficiary of fact and a potential competitor, China will respect the hegemony of the United States and the subsequent stability. Although we don’t like imperialism, we don’t like the chaotic world after the collapse of hegemony.
Just as Confucius described the era he lived in, it was an era of ruinous.
Good on John Menadue and editors for letting two highly qualified Chinese academics have a say in Australian media.
That’s almost as rare as meeting 孔子 (Confucius) on the way to do your shopping.
Hang on we already have an rule based order that’s extremely malleable. The rules are set to benefit neo-colonialism exploitation by Western powers and only apply to other people right?
Which rule did US follow when sanctioning judges of ICC for US war crimes in the Middle East?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527
Which rule did US follow when they refuse to appoint judge for WTO for it to function?
Which rule did US follow with WMD in Iraq?
Plenty of US’s own politicians have openly admitted powers like US ignore rules at will. Is the author naive or intentionally ignorant?
I suspect the authors are not familiar with the fine workings of the British Empire, which once ruled the waves, and waved the rules when convenient. Nor have they recognised that, as far as imperial America is concerned, it itself is not actually bounded by any rules. “Rules” are mainly a propaganda tool to brow-beat and to put pressure on the few countries which do not submit to its hegemony – China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela (North Korea is so isolated that America can’t put much pressure on it).
And since the authors have not covered these points, I fail to see what they are talking about!
China has been a rule base civilization for several millennium starting from Confucian teachings, Taoist teachings and dynastic laws. The adherence to the written word (law abiding) is not new in both East and West. Although both rule books look different, they essential have the same agenda, ie. to maintain law and order, dispensation of justice and morality (or allegiance). The current conflict bw East and West is not about each party breaking the rules, but each party have problems adopting the rules not written by them. Hence for world peace, all rules should be reviewed and a new set of consensus rules should be used and this set is then reviewed and improved on regular intervals. This way, all parties obey a universal set of rules which they have ownership.
I just like to refer my fellow readers to an article written in the Mandarin by Vince Chong titled “If not for peace, why does Australia favour a rules based order.” It provides a very clear and comprehensive idea of what that expression means:
https://www.themandarin.com.au/70225-rules-based-global-order-australian-shift/
RBO has been very widely used in international politics to construct a convincing narrative in order to deceive and garner political support. There really isn’t any internationally enforceable order, even those limited ones of the UN, which the US is almost exemplary in breaking whenever it suits its convenience.