Might-is-right politics pushes rules-based order into obscurity

Might-is-right approach

Trump's might-is-right approach to foreign policy has triggered widespread criticism. The anxieties of US allies are reflected on the pages of Western newspapers, with Peter Beaumont's piece in The Guardian warning, "Trump's expansionism threatens the rules-based order that has been in place since World War II." 

He argues that the combination of Russia's assault on Ukraine and Trump's talk of acquiring Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and even his "suggestion" that the US would "own Gaza" is "fuelling a permissive environment that threatens long-recognised borders and the international rules-based order that has existed since the end of the war."

For her part, American political scientist Tanisha Fazal pens a piece in Foreign Affairs titled "The Return of Conquest". She notes that while the international community hasn't always adhered to the post-WWII aversion to conquest wars, Trump's rhetoric—especially his calls for Ukraine to surrender significant chunks of its territory to Russia—sets a dangerous precedent for other countries.

Back to Greenland. Even if Trump's claims that Chinese activity in the Arctic sea threatens American national security have merit, does this justify a US invasion? Hardly.

And as for his claims that trade between the US and Canada is unbalanced in favour of the latter, this, ironically, is the direct result of his own decision to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—a landmark economic accord that had long served the mutual interests of the entire continent.

A disappearing rules-based order

Today, the international rules-based order seems to be fading into obscurity. Nowhere is this more evident than in Gaza and Lebanon, where Israel has killed tens of thousands of civilians—mostly women and children—with impunity.

We now find ourselves living in a 'might is right' world where raw power has seemingly replaced diplomacy. Leaked conversations between Trump administration officials published by The Atlantic's editor-in-chief demonstrate this prevailing mindset. The exchanges about US air strikes on Yemen read more like sports fans celebrating their team's win rather than government officials discussing the execution of a carefully studied policy or action.

Has hypermasculinity hijacked the world? Have hegemons become so drunk on power that we are heading towards an authoritarian dystopia?

This seems to be the case, which means that competition between states could easily spark World War III. We are witnessing a global transformation that may take years to navigate and perhaps decades to resolve. In the meantime, the rule of law will continue to take a backseat.