BEIJING, July 7 (Xinhua) -- The United States has long treated international rules as optional rather than binding -- honored when useful, but discarded when inconvenient. A recent attempt by President Donald Trump to influence an international sporting event perfectly illustrates this double standard.
The incident itself matters less than the underlying rationale. Rules gain legitimacy through consistency and impartiality, not through the influence of those seeking exceptions. Once decisions are shaped by political pressure rather than established procedures, trust in the entire system begins to erode.
This pattern extends far beyond the playing field. The United States has long touted itself as the guardian of a "rules-based international order," but its track record reveals a stark double standard. It vigorously enforces rules that serve its interests, while demanding exemptions, rewriting terms, or simply bypassing the system when the same rules become a liability.
By paralyzing the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement mechanism while accusing others of trade violations -- and by imposing unilateral tariffs and extraterritorial sanctions outside multilateral frameworks -- Washington has repeatedly signaled that rules are applied selectively rather than universally.
The world order cannot endure if powerful countries reserve the right to bend or ignore the rules at will. The credibility of any system rests not on the influence of its strongest members, but on the impartial application of its principles to all.
Regulations retain meaning only through equitable enforcement. When exemptions become the entitlement of hegemonic actors, the framework ceases to function as a rules-based order, reverting instead to a system dictated by raw power. ■
