The International Rules-based Order was just a Synonym for Might Makes Right
Why the International Rules-based Order was Actually about Power and Control
I'm inclined to start this article by reusing the Spectre line, but that would be a lazy overuse, wouldn't it? Welcome to 2026, and this is the first article from the Great Southern Discussion Club. One after a series of events that have proven to be quite significant.
In early December 2025, the current White House Administration released their new National Security Strategy. From a perspective of pro-multipolarity, this document seemed to be rather bipolar in what it was saying. Whilst there were various statements claiming the United States reign of being the world's dominant superpower was at an end. There were also various statements that it should also continue to be the world's dominant superpower. The document also pointed to the Trump administration interpretation on a sphere of influence. Just after the Trump administration was inaugurated in 2025, we here at the Great Southern Discussion Club wrote an article called the New World of Sphere's. We discussed the fledgling Trump administration concept of a sphere of influence, summarising various perspectives of the time. At that time, the concept of a sphere of influence as a new-era in the organisation of United States International Power, was quite a niche concept only relegated to various foreign policy focused means of discussion online. These days, the mainstream press is talking about it like it's the most fashionable thing on the planet, particularly after the events of the first few days of 2026.
The Trump administration concept of a sphere of influence is more or less, at least rhetorically, looking like it is somewhat akin to what is in reality a neocolonial project across the entire Western Hemisphere. It is this author's understanding based on the various perspectives that I have learned to relate to the historical understanding of what a sphere of influence is. This has been regarded as softer in its approach than an overt colonial project. But they have been used in tandem with colonialism. Broadly, spheres of influence were largely agreements between other major international powers regarding the particular regions in which they would be focusing on. With the crux of the arrangement being that those other major powers wouldn't interfere with each other.
The Monroe Doctrine was supposedly one of these informal agreements, where the Americans agreed amongst their various partners, particularly in Europe. That others would largely economically stay out of the Americas and leave it to the United States as the major economic country in that particular region. This would by default lead to other countries, smaller countries in the Americas, to naturally partner with the United States on various economic matters. Naturally, in return, the United States made a promise to treat the Europeans in kind. But of course The Monroe Doctrine, shortly after its first public reading in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2nd, 1823. It effectively became a part of the US state myth where they could dictate what goes on across the Americas. I refer you to the series by Australian history enthusiast Jeff Rich (The Burning Archive) and his recent series regarding The Monroe Doctrine. Because otherwise we would be here all day reviewing history.
On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a military operation, code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their residence in Caracas. In the days since, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has become the acting president.
The attack from the Americans on Venezuela using an extraction team that flew into Venezuela and over Caracas using multiple Chinook Helicopters faced fairly little resistance given the international incursion. The main act of resistance being the Cuban security team defending Maduro in conflict with the extraction team, subsequently 32 specialists in the Cuban security team perished in the conflict. These particular dynamics have led many to suspect that there were insider dynamics occurring within the military and maybe the Venezuelan government, but the Venezuelan government denies such concepts of a broader conspiracy.
Other than the build-up off the coast of Venezuela that has been occurring since September 2025. This has probably been the most blatant action on part of the Trump administration to show what it means by having a sphere of influence. Or at least what the Trump administration believes to be a sphere of influence. And given that the Trump administration has also been extremely overt in the fact that they are doing these actions to obtain the natural resources of Venezuela by force and for free. This has led others with a pro-collective west mindset to question the move. Usually before the Americans do this type of thing, they try to find a justification amongst their various collective west partners to be able to facilitate these types of actions, take the various Iraq conflicts as examples. Frequently this involves various fairy tale-like language such as “we are doing it for freedom”, “we want to make sure that human rights are upheld”, or my favourite, “there is an international rules-based order”. It's highly unusual for the United States to just blatantly come out and say, “we need to get the oil”. Even though, with all of these various conflicts that the United States has entered in on the basis of human rights and other flowery language, since they have become the primary economic mover of the planet after World War II. They have obviously not been for those flowery or anticommunist ideas. The primary goal has always been economic control of the planet, where the United States and its various major owners are the primary beneficiaries. This has been an obvious fact for a long time to all of those who have sought to look at the world in objective reality. But to those in the mainstream press, it is now somehow a revelation, a “new post rules order”, “might make right returns”, NO! IT NEVER LEFT!
Whilst trying to justify his country’s rapprochement with the People's Republic of China to other collective west leaders. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, a man who is a rusted on collective west operative for much of his life, overtly pulled off the collective west narrative mask at the World Economic Forum in 2026.
“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.”
… “We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”
Until Collective West people manage to finally realise that the only way to have a world which has balance, rules, and mutual prosperity is to observe and learn from the various projects throughout Eurasia that are actually doing this. And when Collective West countries manage to drop the idea of the Collective West to then adopt and implement the ideas of mutual respect and prosperity currently being physically implemented throughout Eurasia, there will only be, might, makes right.
We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.
