FT Discovers 'Rules-Based Order' Only Applies to Some
The FT's lament, 'The human cost of a world without rules,' decries the erosion of international humanitarian law. It's a touching sentiment, one might say, for a publication that often offers little more than boilerplate analysis when powerful states, especially those allied with Washington, decide to opt out of inconvenient 'rules.' This selective indignation conveniently forgets, for instance,
Washington's 2003 invasion of Iraq without UN mandate, or the decades of vetoes (1982-2024, 46 times by the US alone) shielding Israeli government actions from international accountability at the UN Security Council, directly undermining the very 'rules' they now champion. (Source: UN Dag Hammarskjöld Library) Perhaps the 'rules' are only for those without the financial firepower to lobby for
exemptions. One might wonder if the Financial Times truly believes in universal application, or if some states are simply 'too big to sanction,' irrespective of 'human cost.' It appears the 'world without rules' becomes a crisis only when the chaos is less...curated.