The United States has long championed the notion of a "rules-based order" as the cornerstone of its foreign policy. This discourse is frequently employed to discredit entities perceived as rivals, a strategy vividly exemplified in the Quad Leaders’ Joint Statement on March 12, 2021.

In the Join Statement, where China is insinuated as the chief threat, the "rules-based order" is defined around core liberal values, as well as those "rooted in international law to advance security and prosperity and (global) counter threats."

Principles are only as strong as their application in times of testing. In this regard, the ongoing Ukraine conflict and the recent Israel-Gaza crisis have served as a crucible for U.S. foreign policy, revealing a stark dichotomy between professed values and practiced realities. The U.S. response to these crises has raised poignant questions about the selective application of the "rules-based order."

Certainly, the concept of a rules-based order resonates with our common-sense values, making it difficult to dismiss outright. Antonio Gramsci, the renowned 20th-century Italian philosopher and activist, sharply distinguished between "common sense" – a worldview shaped by a melange of ambiguous and contradictory beliefs – and "good sense," which emerges from a more coherent worldview formed by critically refining these common values. However, upon a "good sense" reappraisal of the rules-based order, one encounters disconcerting inconsistencies that call into question the integrity of this narrative.

In the case of the Ukraine crisis, the U.S. has led the forefront in shaping global public opinion and casting Russia in a disproportionately negative light compared to Ukraine, all in the name of a rules-based order. For one thing, this campaign has effectively obscured from the global collective memory the U.S. involvement in regime change initiatives in Ukraine. These include the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan Revolution, which were significantly influenced by far-right groups. Such events set off a wave of violence against the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, a factor contributing to the persistent conflicts continuing into 2024.

The post-Maidan situation deteriorated further with Ukraine’s ban on the import of Russian-language books, artistic performances and media outlets associated with the opposition. Adding to the complexity, state-supported militias, some with Neo-Nazi ideologies, intensified attacks against civilians. These groups likened to Daesh for their tactics and war crimes, have also gained influence within the Ukrainian military, state and government. Moreover, there has been a rise in events commemorating Nazi-affiliated Ukrainian nationalists, complete with Nazi symbols and acts like swastika vandalism. These developments, indicative of the increasing complexity and volatility in Ukraine, have been documented by Western sources.

The U.S., in its handling of the ongoing conflict, has seemingly overlooked significant human rights violations that have been instrumental in fueling the crisis. Rather than addressing these abuses based on an objective, balanced and fair position, the U.S. has opted to escalate its support for anti-Russian factions, providing extensive financial aid, training, consultancy and logistical backing for armed conflict. This stance starkly contrasts the fundamental liberal values underpinning the rules-based international order.

What is particularly alarming is how much this support has strayed from liberal foundational principles. It has reached a point where it tacitly endorses hate crimes, representing a severe deviation from the ideals of liberty and human rights. Furthermore, such actions have manifested in the Western cultural sphere, suppressing a collective human legacy. The works of illustrious Russian figures such as Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, integral to the global cultural legacy, have faced bans and restrictions.

The current crisis in Ukraine prompts a comparative analysis of the Israel-Gaza situation. On the one hand, the U.S. stance in these conflicts shows a marked difference. In the Ukraine crisis, the U.S. strongly criticizes Russia’s military actions as an offensive actor. It holds it chiefly responsible for war crimes while seemingly overlooking any legal transgressions by Ukraine. In 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC), a cornerstone of the U.S. advocacy for a "rules-based order," has even issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin. In contrast, in the Israel-Gaza conflict, the U.S. appears to overlook war crimes resulting from Israel’s offensive actions, placing the blame predominantly on Hamas.

On the other hand, there are notable parallels in the U.S. approach to Ukraine and Israel, particularly in its unreserved support to escalate the conflict. The U.S. involvement, including deploying troops, warships and aircraft, has only exacerbated the conflict. This being said, this situation mirrors the intense anti-Russian sentiment, as the demonization of Palestinians has led to a rise in hate crimes against them in Western countries. Dissenting opinions are often suppressed and persecuted, undermining foundational liberal values. This dynamic significantly fuels the growth and homogenization of far-right movements and governments in the West, ultimately undermining the so-called "rules-based order."

Cycle of mutual reinforcement

When it comes to addressing human rights abuses and war crimes, taking sides and rooting for a favored party becomes irrelevant. The current situation perfectly reveals that anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Russian sentiments, and hostility toward Ukraine perpetuate each other in a cycle of mutual reinforcement. Such actions fuel extremism, aggravate the conflict, and lead to a situation where no involved party benefits. Independent of personal views, what is truly essential for humanity is thereby the presence of a responsible voice, a calm demeanor, and a constructive approach that resonates with humanity's inherent "good sense," in the words of Gramsci.

In this context, China's approach, embodied in its "Global Civilization Initiative," launched in 2023, presents a compelling alternative to the U.S.-centered "rules-based order." This framework is more inclusive and coherent, emphasizing the respect for the diversity of civilizations, the shared values of humanity, the significance of preserving and innovating within civilizations, and the promotion of extensive international people-to-people exchanges and cooperation.

The Israel-Gaza conflict points to the ever-increasing urgency of China’s Global Civilization Initiative. Against this backdrop, China has taken a stance that contrasts sharply with the U.S., focusing on peaceful and diplomatic solutions regarding this conflict. Instead of advocating for military involvement, China has emphasized de-escalation and taking "an objective and just position." Therefore, China’s response to the Gaza crisis seems to reflect a responsible and constructive approach and underscores its firm support for the two-state solution and its unwavering commitment to fairness and justice.

Central to China’s perspective is the immediate cessation of violent attacks against civilians and the violation of international humanitarian laws. China has actively encouraged the U.N. Security Council to demand a comprehensive cease-fire and to send a clear, decisive message against the displacement of Palestinian civilians. It has also called for the international community to significantly increase humanitarian assistance, showcasing its dedication to addressing the immediate needs of affected populations.

Perhaps more importantly, China has proposed the idea of a broad-based, effective and authoritative international peace conference under the U.N.’s leadership. China’s insistence that any future arrangements for Gaza must respect the will and independent choice of the Palestinian people further highlights its constructive and responsible stance.