'Free world' graveyard for laws and rules-based order

Even a cursory perusal of the op-ed "America breaks global rules as it defends the free world", published by the Financial Times last week, will be enough for the reader to know that its author, Gideon Rachman, supports the United States' strategy to contain China.

In the piece, Rachman urges Washington to replace its claim to be defending the "rules-based international order" with the assertion it is safeguarding the "free world", as he argues that this better portrays its rules-bending actions as efforts to prevent the world from being controlled by "authoritarian" regimes.

That Rachman has pointed out some anti-China US moves, including the exorbitant tariffs it imposed on Chinese electric vehicles, break international laws and the "rules-based international order" it claims to defend, does not mean he is supporting China in the face of the US' lawbreaking suppression.

As exposed by his China-related argument, Rachman's Cold-War mentality is even stronger than that of some of the armchair strategists in Washington, whose unruly actions he is encouraging.

Fundamentally, he argues that China, along with most other non-Western countries, is not part of the "free world". The US should take advantage of its strengths to prevent them from acquiring the ability, power and influence to threaten the interests and values of those countries that are part of the "free world". Even international laws and the so-called rules-based international order are expendable for that purpose.

Given China's influence and national strength, he believes that trade-offs have to be made with some countries that are not part of the "free world", and that is unavoidable in the struggle against "authoritarian" regimes.

That Rachman advises the US to resort to the "free world" discourse to justify its dogged support for Israel in the ongoing war in the Middle East lays bare his callous indifference to the consequences of the lawlessness he is promoting.

Not only does he regard those nations that are not part of the "free world" as being on a different "moral level" with their counterparts in the "free world", but also that the lives of their people are of less value than those living in the "free world".

It is ridiculous that some observers believe his article has exposed the hypocrisy of the US' China policy without realizing what poison Rachman has poured into the chalice he is offering Washington. He is by no means a defender of international laws or the rules-based international order but a gravedigger for them.