Advertisement
Opinion | What the G7’s statement on Taiwan reveals about the ‘rules-based international order’
- The rules-based international order often invoked by the US and its allies is essentially a rebranding of the American liberal world order
- From the G7 foreign ministers’ statement on Taiwan, it is clear that this order is based on a selective and convenient application of rules
Reading Time:4 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
18
On August 3, G7 foreign ministers and the High Representative of the European Union issued a statement affirming their “shared commitment to maintaining the rules-based international order [emphasis added], peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and beyond”.
Advertisement
In China, this grouping has come to be known as the new Eight-Nation Alliance. The old eight – the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and Austria-Hungary – invaded China in 1900 and forced the Chinese to sign one of the most unequal treaties, the Final Protocol for the Settlement of the Disturbances of 1900.
The August 3 statement also said: “There is no change in the respective one China policies, where applicable [emphasis added], and basic positions on Taiwan of the G7 members.”
To me, this is a terrific statement in that it gives us a clue as to how the rules-based international order applies in a real case, such as the crisis caused by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. It shows the rest of the world and especially China what to expect under this order.
On the surface, “rules-based international order” is a new, neutral term meant to confer moral superiority on whoever is using it. The term has both legal and political significance and clearly originated from the United States, which is casting a wary eye on China’s rise.
Advertisement
As political scientist Joseph Nye suggested in 2019, if the growth of Chinese power means that the American liberal world order will have to shift, “it would be wise to discard the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘American’ and refer instead to the prospects of an ‘open and rules-based international order’”.
Advertisement