Who defines the rule sets in the emerging world order?
The world would have to deal with a quadruple problem if rogue regimes were to be allowed to hatch rule sets that they deem would serve their ‘interests’.
1. The interests of rogue regimes are bound to be roguish, and therefore detrimental to the welfare of the population under their yoke and to the democratic and legitimate aspirations of their neighbors.
2. Globally, the Rogue-Regime Club would expand if regimes standing on the brink of roguishness tip over toward a comfort spot whereby they can work out strong peer alliances. A race toward ‘roguedom’ would ensue. Global mischief would spread and globalization U.S.-style would decline.
3. The moral standing of the rule-setter would be tarnished.
4. In any game, and regardless of the number of players, there can be only one rule maker. A new ballgame would emerge with each additional rule-maker that enters the fray. The resulting scene of global chaos would be quite exciting to watch. It would be akin to a situation whereby baseball players with bats, gloves, caps and all, would show up on a tennis court to play football against an ice hockey team, with water polo referees and to an audience expecting a cricket game. Only the real thing would be bloodier than the simile.
Witness the case of a regime, a rickety one at that, that has – for decades - been setting its own disruptive rules not only within its national borders but also far beyond. This regime has been engaging in acts of systematic terrorism with impunity and has now leveled clear and credible threats of terrorism on a broader scale if its will were to be challenged in any way.
Pity the superpower, for it has inherited more power than it can handle.
