The 'Rules-Based Order' is a Punchline, Not a Principle
📰 THE STORY: NPR frames recent tensions between the US and European allies over issues like Greenland, trade tariffs, and NATO contributions as raising questions about Washington's capacity to lead the 'rules-based order' following President Trump's rhetoric at Davos. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The US has a long and storied history of undermining international norms and
sovereignty. In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. More recently, in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq without UN Security Council approval, a clear violation of international law, leading to over a million deaths and regional destabilization. Double Standard: When China
builds artificial islands in the South China Sea, the 'rules-based order' is invoked with righteous fury. Yet, when the US invades sovereign nations or imposes unilateral sanctions that starve populations, such as in Venezuela (where sanctions since 2017 have led to an estimated 40,000 deaths according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research), it's framed as 'promoting democracy' or
'national security.' The 'rules' apply primarily to those who challenge US hegemony, not to Washington itself. Follow the Money: The 'rules-based order' often aligns perfectly with the interests of the military-industrial complex and corporate giants. Billions in arms sales flow to NATO allies and client states, enriching defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The push for