Rogue Based World Order, a matter of principles

 The Americans are trying to con the world about Rules Based World Order as the panacea for peace and stability. Some scholars have tried to explain this Rules Based World Order as an American World Order, with the rules written by the Americans for the rest of the world to follow but the Americans, being the rule maker, are above the laws. In reality, this American so called Rules Based World Order is more like a Rogue Based World Order.

The Americans and their predecessors, the savages from Europe, practised this Rogue Based World Order from the time they set out to conquer and rule the world by force, by wars and killings and plundering. The savages from Europe ganged up to divide the world among themselves. They cut continents like Asia, Africa and the Americas into pieces and shared among themselves. The rest of the world belonged to them by the use of force. They were very successful in doing that with no opposition as they had the monopoly of modern weapons, the guns and big cannons and warships. As long as the rest of the world became their possessions, the people of the world and their lands and assets belonged to the Europeans, directly or indirectly, it was peace and stability under the European Empire, with the rest of the world serving and prospering the Europeans. The world was their colonies.

The Europeans ruled the world under their Rogue Based World Order. They are the superior beans. They are the top dogs, they deserved the best. The rest of the world would be the smaller dogs and cannot be richer and better than the Europeans. Any country that attempts to be better and richer than the European countries would be taken down. Japan tried but was cut down. 

In the recent decades, things have changed dramatically with many countries of the world getting richer and stronger. And this is unacceptable to the European powers, especially the Americans. According to the Americans, no one is allowed to be better, richer and more powerful than them. They would come down hard to take down any country that tried to do that, even going to wars. They proudly said that China cannot be allowed to be richer and better than them. Is this kind of rogue behaviour acceptable? Why is it that no one is condemning this rogue behaviour of the Americans, that a stronger state can not only bully a weaker state, but can also stop and prevent a weaker state from becoming richer and stronger?

In a smaller way Singapore had experienced what it was like when bigger states decided that Singapore could not be richer and more prosperous than them. To stop Singapore from prospering, to keep Singapore down, Malaysia under Mahathir refused to sell sand to Singapore, threatened to cut off Singapore's water supply, even talking about war. What Mahathir did were exactly what the Americans are doing and saying to China. China cannot be richer and stronger than the US and the Americans think it is right and proper to take down China by all means.

Can the world live with this rogue principle that bigger and more power countries have the right to bring down countries, to keep countries poorer and weaker than them? It may be unpleasant and undesirable for countries when in competition, to not want to trade with another country. But to go all out to cripple another country, to put obstacles against another country, to threaten to go to war, to form gangs, to bring down another country, is a totally different proposition. If this principle of interstate relations is acceptable, then smaller and weaker countries would never have a chance to be richer and better than the big and powerful countries. Accepting this rogue principle would be saying it is ok for our neighbours to put obstacles in our path to economic growth and prosperity, blocking our trade routes, ganging up to put us down, to keep us poor and weak. Can small countries like Singapore live with this rogue principle and think it is ok?

The Rogue Based World Order hyped by the Americans is exactly about using force and unfair and unethical means to put down another country. They are openly saying it, forming alliances with Japan, with India, and with other AngloSaxon countries and European countries to stop China's economic growth, to stop Russia and many countries they declared as enemies, with economic sanctions and threatening wars. And no country is principled enough to stand up and say this rogue principle in international relations is unacceptable. The UN is also very quiet about it and condoning this rogue principle, that the Americans can go about crippling China or any country from becoming richer and stronger, by foul and unethical means.

How many countries think this Rogue Based World Order is acceptable and willing to live with it, to live with the rogue principle that the big and powerful can use might and force to prevent other countries from becoming rich and prosperous through peaceful means and hard work?

The American Rogue Based World Order is based on the principle of rogues and savages, of gangsters and mafias, that they can decide who can be rich and prosperous, and how rich and prosperous to be determined by them, definitely cannot be richer than them.

What do you think?