A COLUMN WRITTEN BY KALIOPATE TAVOLA, PUBLISHED IN ISLANDS BUSINESS, JAN 2023

Rules-based order (RBO) and rules-based approaches (RBA) are synonymous. The ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy of the US’ (IPSUS), specifically under ‘Our Indo-Pacific Strategy’, Objective No. 1: Advance a free and open Indo-Pacific, states, for example: “We will build support for rules-based approaches to the maritime domain, including in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.”

Lyle Goldstein of DefenseNews.Com referred to RBA in his critique of IPSUS – see my IB article of April 2022 issue (Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States: Too Anodyne to be Utilitarian). He wrote: “Thus, acute issues ranging from the Sino-Indian border to the reefs of the South China Sea to the ultimate flashpoint of Taiwan are simply glossed over with anodyne references to ‘rules-based approaches’ and ‘integrated deterrence’”.  

In Goldstein’s view, the IPSUS’ RBA to resolving those geostrategic flashpoints, mentioned in the Strategy, are likely to be so dull and ineffectual and are not likely to bring any degree of resolution to the disputants. This is so since the treatment under the RBA is likely to be too covertly brief to be informative and is thus misleading.

IPSUS, at the end of last September, then followed up with its ‘Declaration on U.S.-Pacific Partnership’ which I critiqued – (see ‘Declaration on U.S.-Pacific Partnership Abrogates Established Order’ – IB: Nov 2022 issue). My reference to ‘order’ here is not to be confused with either RBO or its equivalent RBA above. My reference is specifically one of ‘regional order’ in the context of Pacific regionalism – Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). The abrogation of the order, I referred to, came about from the intended general application of the effects of the Declaration’s 11 commitments on PIF, when PIF members of Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) are not party to the Declaration.

Further abrogation of the regional order is implied in the recognition of the Pacific Island Countries (PICs), excluding ANZ, as prospective partners for an optional regionalism. I did point out, however, that regardless of it being an abrogation, in the current regional context, it could have a silver lining by giving precedence to a PICs-only forum – a concept that has been actively discussed in the region for some time.

In my critique last November, I started questioning the nature and validity of any order that could pass as RBO/RBA. I queried how ANZ would be engaged under the above-mentioned Declaration when they are not signatories of the Declaration. I mused about the probability of ANZ engaging with the business of the Declaration indirectly under the auspices of the QUAD, Indo-Pacific, AUKUS, or Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP). For ANZ, they have direct access to all those bodies either through membership or through their relations with the US. In any case, any indirect external approach to PIF is likely, in the words of some regional commentators, ‘rides roughshod over established regional processes’

Moreover, I questioned the validity of the Declaration’s seventh commitment on ‘respect for the ability of nations to make sovereign decisions in the best interest of their people.’ It should be noted that the US had clearly spurned the bilateral agreement that the Solomon Islands Government (SIG) had reached earlier with China. This is clearly a contravention of the provisions and the spirit of the Declaration.

Negotiators later agreed to remove any mention of China in the Declaration which, for one reason or another, persuaded SIG to subsequently append its signature to the document. This, however, is neither here nor there. The damage had been inflicted: and a question can be raised whether there are exceptions to the US’ RBO/RBA in the context of PICs.

As a matter of fact, questions are being asked outside the region as what RBO/RBA really are. Ben Norton of Multipolarista published at the end of last November what the former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud had said about this subject. The good Ambassador “publicly criticised Washington, saying it frequently violates international law and that its so-called rules-based order is actually an unfair Western order.”

This is interesting commentary coming from a member of the Western alliance. This only goes to show that as far as RBO/RBA are concerned – their characteristics and applications, there is disunity within the group. So much so that the good Ambassador placed all the blame on the Americans. He said: “US diplomats…for insisting that Washington must always be the ‘leader’ of the world….” He stressed as an alternative “that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, ‘on an equal basis,’ in order ‘to find a compromise with other interests.” He then added his punchline: “West must ‘try to see the world from Beijing.’”

The good Ambassador insinuates above at American propaganda that is shaping American foreign policies and thus those of the Western alliance. John Pilger threw light on this subject in his publication; ‘Silencing the Lambs – How Propaganda Works’ last September. He quoted from playwright Harold Pinter who said before he died in 2008 about the US foreign policy as “best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in. It is as simple and as crude as that. What is interesting about it is that it’s so incredibly successful. It possesses the structures of disinformation, use of rhetoric, distortion of language, which is very persuasive, but are actually a pack of lies…..”

Pinter further elaborated when accepting his Nobel Prize for Literature. He said, “The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

For PIF, and especially PICs, my best advice is that, on the basis of the provisions of RBO/RBA in the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States and as well as in the ‘Declaration on U.S.-Pacific Partnership’ – especially in the light of the specific abrogation discussed above – do not be hypnotised! Continue probing the US as regards its RBO/RBA. ‘The Strategist’ of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is assisting the probe in its ‘Who will rule the rules-based order?’ published last January. ASPI is in tune with the status of geopolitics in the region and globally. It posed the question: “Will the West remain committed to the rules-based international order when it is no longer the one making the rules?”

Ben Scott of The Lowy Institute is sensibly inquisitive. He posed “Rules-based order: What’s in a name?” in June last year. His enquiry is persuasive. After an excellent historical account of the concept’s derivation – connected to the liberal international system, he advocates: “But (it) requires a shift in emphasis away from defending the RBO and towards building an RBO – especially in this region.” Scott justified his ‘shift in emphasis’ as he sees that ‘the development of a more rules-based order for the Indo-Pacific remains a daunting challenge.”

Author Alfred W. McCoy also acknowledged the daunting challenge for the Pacific region in his 2021 publication: ‘To Govern the Globe – World Orders and Catastrophic Change: “Can this liberal international system survive the ongoing erosion of US global power and the potentially catastrophic heating of the planet?”

The challenge is on the US now to start building RBO/RBA specific and meaningful dialogue with the region. It can do so by using its next Post-Forum Dialogue session to launch the joint discussions for shared results.

---

© Kaliopate Tavola and kaidravuni.com, 2025. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kaliopate Tavola, kaidravuni.com and Islands Business with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.