Why the current global disorder will continue
Current events point to an increasing global disorder. A broad set of rules agreed upon decades ago to ensure peace, coexistence and development are increasingly ignored - or worse, blatantly violated.
Ukraine, Gaza and other theatres of conflict are a constant reminder of this dire situation.
In recent days, Israel has seized the boats of many different countries in international waters as they travelled towards Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid. At the same time, it has de facto extended its sovereignty over the waters off the coast of Gaza, in another clear violation of international law.
In principle, there is widespread agreement that for a truly stable and just international system to function, a consistent standard is required. Nations must be held accountable for illegal actions, and for violations of the territorial and political integrity of other nations, whether through military intervention or economic coercion.
But today, even one of the previously sacrosanct principles of the international system has been flouted: the inviolability of diplomatic and consular missions, and the right of states to conduct their diplomacy securely, within the bounds of the host country’s laws.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Recent history shows that during the Kosovo War in 1999, Nato military jets bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Beijing never believed the official explanation that it was an accident.
During the 2010s, an embarrassing situation between allies occurred following revelations that the roof of the US embassy in Berlin hosted a large array of surveillance equipment that was used to spy on government institutions, all the way up to then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone.
And last year, Israel bombed Iran’s diplomatic premises in Damascus, killing several people. It openly claimed this illegal act, asserting that it was not an embassy or consulate, but a military facility.
Embassy impasse
In the intricate world of international diplomacy, embassies are powerful symbols of a nation’s presence and priorities, and of the complex web of bilateral relations.
Today, a contentious planning dispute is ongoing over the proposed new premises of the Chinese embassy in London. For years, the Chinese government has pursued plans to move its embassy in the UK from its current location in Portland Place to a wider, more modern site at Old Royal Mint Court.
On the surface, this would appear to be a routine diplomatic upgrade. But the project has been mired in local opposition and security concerns, leading to an impasse.
The principle of state sovereignty should be respected equally by all. It cannot be a flexible concept applied selectively by western democracies
Beijing views this as a violation of diplomatic protocols, arguing that as a sovereign state, China has the right to secure its diplomatic missions adequately - a principle enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It views the UK rejection as a politicised move, influenced by broader western suspicions of China’s rise, and an affront to its sovereignty and dignity.
This also appears to be another case of blatant double standards - an area where western democracies have excelled of late - considering that the huge new US embassy building by the Thames River did not encounter similar problems.
It is likely that the US applied pressure on the UK to review the Chinese embassy location. But it would be odd for the Starmer government - which recently showed boldness in breaking away from the US position on recognising a Palestinian state - to accept American interference on such an exclusively internal matter.
Beyond this specific issue, in the 21st century, the principle of state sovereignty should be respected equally by all. It cannot be a flexible concept applied selectively by western democracies.
Undermining the global order
Washington often positions itself as the primary guarantor of a “rules-based world order” - a system built upon the Westphalian principle of state sovereignty. But its actions have frequently been criticised as undermining that very principle.
The historical record is long and contentious, from the war in Kosovo in 1999, to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by debunked claims of weapons of mass destruction and conducted without a clear UN mandate - an act widely condemned as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
In addition, extensive US drone warfare programmes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, resulting in “targeted killings” on foreign soil without any war underway, present a modern challenge to the principle of sovereignty. While the US argues these are necessary acts of self-defence against non-state terrorists, the targeted countries have every right to view them as a violation of their territorial integrity.
Furthermore, the application of extraterritorial US laws, such as sanctions on companies doing business with countries like Iran and Cuba, effectively forces foreign entities to comply with American policy, or face exclusion from the US financial system. To many, this is a clear case of US overreach.
The contrast is stark. When the US breaches the sovereignty of other nations, it is often justified within the framing of global security, human rights, or preserving the international order. But when China moves to uphold its diplomatic rights, it is held to a different standard, and roadblocks emerge via planning committees and “security” concerns.
The row over the Chinese embassy in London is thus a microcosm of the dysfunctional dynamic within global politics. In the modern world, the principle of sovereignty is not an immutable law, but a diplomatic tool - one wielded with flexibility based on a nation’s power and geopolitical alignment. Too bad.
Sovereignty cannot be a one-way street. Until the world’s major powers can agree to apply this foundational principle equally to themselves and their rivals, the very foundations of international law and mutual respect will remain shaky, fostering distrust and instability for years to come. The current global disorder we are experiencing will continue - and it may get worse.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
