For decades, the international system has been presented—especially to the Global South—as a “rules-based order” founded on law, democracy, free trade, and equal sovereignty. Yet for many conscious elites, policymakers, and scholars, this narrative has long been understood as deeply misleading, if not outright deceptive.
The so-called rules-based international order has rarely been applied equally. In practice, it has functioned selectively: enforced rigorously against the weak, inconsistently against rivals, and almost never against the powerful.
In politics, trade, and economics, the application of international rules has been structurally asymmetrical. Sanctions, trade barriers, legal standards, and institutional pressure mechanisms are mobilized swiftly when weaker states deviate from prescribed norms, yet are ignored—or reframed as “exceptions”—when major powers violate the very same principles.
When Western Leaders Acknowledge the Contradiction
In recent years, this contradiction has increasingly been acknowledged—albeit cautiously—even by leaders within the Western establishment itself. During global forums such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, several Western officials, including Canada’s Prime Minister, have openly discussed the growing credibility crisis facing international institutions.
While not framed as a direct confession, the message has been unmistakable: the international system, originally portrayed as neutral and rule-governed, has in reality served as a vehicle through which dominant powers preserved strategic, economic, and geopolitical superiority. International institutions, rather than acting as impartial arbiters, have often functioned in ways that protect the interests of the already powerful while constraining the policy space of weaker states.
This is not a radical claim—it is an increasingly mainstream diagnosis. From the International Monetary Fund to global trade regimes, structural biases have limited development, undermined sovereignty, and prioritized stability for the center at the expense of the periphery.
Trump as a Disruptive Mirror, Not an Anomaly
Donald Trump’s political trajectory has deeply embarrassed large segments of the American and Western liberal elite—particularly those who genuinely believe in a fairer international system based on cooperation, justice, and mutual respect between nations.
Yet what many of these elites reluctantly acknowledge is that Trump did not create the underlying imperial logic of the system. He merely exposed it—crudely, unapologetically, and without rhetorical camouflage.
Trump’s rhetoric and policies stripped away decades of moral language used to justify American global dominance. Where previous administrations cloaked power politics in the language of democracy and human rights, Trump articulated ambition in transactional, nationalist, and openly coercive terms.
In doing so, he unintentionally revealed what many already knew: that behind every U.S. president operates a deeply entrenched power structure—often described as the “deep state”—that defines strategic priorities independent of electoral cycles.
Greenland and the Logic of Power
Trump’s demand for Greenland is a striking example. It was widely mocked, yet analytically revealing. The proposal had little to do with American public interest and everything to do with geostrategic competition, Arctic dominance, and resource control.
Such ambitions do not originate with Trump alone. They reflect long-standing strategic calculations within the U.S. security and economic establishment. Trump simply articulated them without diplomatic restraint.
Crucially, these ambitions offer no tangible benefit to ordinary American citizens. They serve corporate, military, and geopolitical interests—further reinforcing the argument that the international order is not governed by shared rules, but by hierarchical power.
Davos and the Crisis of Legitimacy
At Davos, the anxiety is palpable. Western elites are increasingly aware that the moral authority of the global system is eroding. The language has shifted—from confidence to concern, from celebration to damage control.
Discussions now center on “reforming globalization,” “restoring trust,” and “rethinking institutions.” Yet without addressing the foundational imbalance—the unequal enforcement of rules—these conversations risk remaining cosmetic.
The crisis is not merely geopolitical; it is moral and structural. A system that claims universality but practices selectivity cannot sustain legitimacy indefinitely.
Conclusion
The illusion of a rules-based international order is fading. What replaces it remains uncertain.
But one reality is clear: global consciousness has evolved. More states, elites, and societies now understand that international law and institutions have been tools of power far more than instruments of justice.
Trump did not cause this awakening—he accelerated it. And Davos did not expose the problem—it now struggles to contain it.
The question ahead is not whether the system will change, but whether it will do so through reform, rupture, or irreversible decline
