No real surprise here. The US bores everyone rigid with its constant hypocritical carping about it's fantasy "rules based international order". But it is indeed the US (closely followed by Israel) who are the nations that DO NOT bother following the UN, the official "rules based international order". #uspol https://johnmenadue.com/us-ranks-last-on-adherence-to-un-charter-pic-u-s-representative-to-the-un-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield/
@KarunaX but if you read the article it seems to really focus on things that aren't actually rules, at least rules that have been fully adopted.
So a bunch of countries propose a rule. That doesn't mean it's a good rule, or an actionable rule, or one that the US should follow.
So the analysis is a bit weak.
Yeah, sometimes the US doesn't do things that other people want it to do. That's not really hypocrisy, it's about sovereignty and the importance of writing rules that are generally workable.
A) participating even when things aren’t required is part of international cooperation.
B) the US consistently uses its Security Council veto to prevent binding decisions it doesn’t agree with.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that the nation that so often trumpets the importance of a “rules-based international order” demonstrably thinks those rules are only for others.
@DavidM_yeg you're missing my point that they seem to be focusing on rules that aren't actually rules.
At least not substantially.
So yes! That they use the veto to prevent things from becoming rules means they aren't rules.
Maybe a person thinks they should be rules, and that's fine, but it's a little silly to lean on this analysis to say that the US doesn't abide by rules that are arguably not rules in the first place.
Maybe it's bad, but it's not really hypocritical.
You’re missing the larger point, which is that despite the veneer of constant talk about the “international rules based order” they consistently act against it; launching illegal wars, toppling governments they don’t like, and disregarding their international obligations.
Sounds like hypocrisy to me, when ‘rules are for thee but never for me’.
@DavidM_yeg again you're missing that they aren't rules.
For example you cite international obligations while missing that those obligations don't exist.
You might say that the obligations don't exist because the US vetoes them, which is correct, since the US vetoes the obligations they aren't obligations, so they don't stand to be disregarded.
If you don't like what the US does, hey, I'm right there with you, but not because of international rules. The US does sketchy stuff that it probably shouldn't do, but that's because we keep electing crappy officials. It has nothing to do with international rules that don't exist.
@DavidM_yeg well right, the writing isn't surprising because it's the sort of rating that is biased from the beginning.
It gets the result it sought.
But it's not very informative. It's just really bias confirming, not particularly useful.
@volkris @DavidM_yeg If you think clear, unequivocal data is "biased", I give up. You can go on and continue supporting the US Empire as it drives the planet toward extinction, as it ignores the very principles of democracy and "rules based order" that it continually espouses.
@KarunaX supporting the US empire? What in the world are you talking about?
@volkris @DavidM_yeg You appeared to be trying to excuse the piratical, illegal, and immoral actions of US expansionism and its attempts at global control. Perhaps I misread your post and you, like I, heartily disprove of the US Empire and its deleterious effects on the world.
@KarunaX @volkris
Honestly, I really just don’t care about any about which hairs you want to split… the basic truth is that the US talks the ‘cooperation’ game and expects others to cooperate with them, but mostly has a history as a lone wolf, and not by a bit - by a lot… and a lot of that history is really awful. This rating is no surprise, nor is it out of line.