Stephan Walt, a leading American expert on International politics, once rightly remarked that what America exports is not liberalism, but the illusion of a rules-based order that it never truly followed itself. The rules, norms, and international regulations are what provide legitimacy to the order and appeal to smaller and greater powers. However, being the building blocks of the order, the US, the champion and staunch advocate of the liberal order – has a long history of violating and selectively applying international norms. Those who can serve the subjective interests of the West are objectively exempted, and those who assert themselves for their security and survival which may help reduce Western dominance are outlawed. In this broader strategic malpractice, the Western media, the US-led organizations, and every accomplice of the US are entrancedly indulged.
This phenomenon of duplicity is evident in the latest American conduct during Israel-Iran war. Arguably, the safety and security and the international norm of ‘not attacking nuclear facilities’ is a fundamental principle of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Any attack on such facilities is interpreted as a breach of international law, as it can result in severe nuclear contamination. The UN charter also forbids the use of force against another country’s territorial integrity unless in self-defense or authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Despite having no imminent military threat from Iran, with the help of 125 US military aircraft, including B-2 stealth bombers, the US attacked Iran’s three nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, violating the core principles of the NPT, IHL and the UNSC.
The US media is also involved in this campaign of severe duplicity. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) , a leading US-based platform, last week published an opinion which encourages such measures against Iran. It argues, “Those who argue that Israel should live with a nuclear Iran should look no further than India’s bitter experience with its nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan”. It also advocates to roll back Pakistan’s strategic program. It accuses China of providing tested nuclear bomb blueprint. Additionally, it subjectively declares Pakistan’s strategic program the worst national security blunder of India. It ignores India’s own nuclear tests. Arguably, its analysis falls short of empirical and impartial rational data and fails to grip the regional security dynamics: that Pakistan’s nuclear test was in response to India’s nuclear tests, a country which was conventionally stronger than Pakistan yet preferred to go nuclear. Though the author claims that India’s nuclear tests were a response to China as the former was conventionally insecure and preferred asymmetric response, but there are evidences which show that India started to develop nuclear weapons program even before the Chinese nuclear test. India was the first to nuclearize South Asia and continues to modernize its military capabilities.
Another fallacy the column bears is of irrelevant comparison between Iran and Pakistan. The strategic cultures, the threat perceptions, and the policymakers of both countries are different in many senses. Pakistan’s responsible behavior with nuclear weapons, especially in the Balakot Crisis and Operation Bunyan Marsoos depicts its commitment to global norms. Pakistan is a democratic country with robust decision-making and accountability mechanisms and is not motivated by a hardline approach. Despite facing cross-border terrorism and geographical proximity with Jihadists in Afghanistan, its nuclear assets are safe under a vibrant command and control structure.
The hawkishness in the essence of the opinion is unprecedented. It justifies preemptive strikes on countries, allowing violation of territorial integrity and breach of sovereignty, which is a clear violation of International Law. Radicalization, war and escalation are legalized unless it diverges with the Western interests. This analyses ignores the very fabric of norms on which the entire global order rests.
The concealment intent of Western media is also evident from Israel’s inhuman actions and genocide in Gaza. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) notes that more than 50,000 children were reportedly killed alone since the start of the war, and 2.1% of the 2.3 million pre-war population were reportedly killed. The Western media justifies these killings by saying that the war was triggered by Hamas and Israel only responded to the attacks which have caused massive destruction. They forget Israeli usurpation, its violation of the partition plan, and its illegitimate expansionism.
George Kennan reminds us that moralism and legalism in foreign policy are always self-defeating and self-destructive. Moral utopianism has often been weaponized to undermine the lawful and legitimate concerns of the states. The so-called liberal order is mired in rules that do not apply equally to the weak and the strong. Therefore, global resentment has intensified in the shape of China’s rise, Russian resurgence, and assertion of middle powers like Iran and North Korea. This growing backlash signals a deepening crisis of credibility and legitimacy in the so-called liberal order.
