Statements made by Ambassador Tammy Bruce, the United States' permanent representative to the United Nations, during a UN Security Council session in New York on Monday, 29 December 2025, shed light on important realities shaping today’s world order. The meeting was held to discuss Israel’s recognition of the independence of the “Somaliland” region.
Israel became the first country in the world to officially recognize the independence of the “Somaliland” region, which, according to the United Nations and international law, is an integral and inseparable part of the territory of the Federal Republic of Somalia.
Ambassador Bruce’s remarks highlighted big differences among countries, groups, and alliances over core concepts that underpin the international system created after World War II. These differences concern how states interpret international law and manage relations within a system where the state remains the central actor.
Bruce expressed surprise that the Security Council convened an emergency session to discuss Israel’s recognition of “Somaliland,” while it did not hold a similar session, in her words, to express concern when several UN member states, including Security Council members, recognized the State of Palestine last September. She described those recognitions as acknowledging a state that does not exist.
As a result, the US envoy accused the international community of applying “double standards.” This accusation is often directed at the United States, but it is rare to hear it voiced by a US representative against a broad segment of the international community.
These statements revealed a real and deep rift in the way many important issues on the agenda of international relations are viewed, described, and addressed.
This divide did not emerge recently or as a result of these statements alone. It has been growing for nearly four decades, particularly since the early signs of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its bloc appeared in the late 1980s.
However, this rift often proceeded within the realm of what was “left unsaid” in terms of disagreements and divergences among states in the context of the daily management and routine operation of international relations.
The roots of this divide can be traced back to France’s push, under late President François Mitterrand, for UN recognition of what he called the “right of humanitarian intervention.” Mitterrand, a leader of the French Socialist Party, served two presidential terms after winning elections in 1981 and 1988.
France then went further by making a major effort to codify this concept, not merely treating it as a political notion, but pressing for its integration into the framework of international law in general, and international humanitarian law in particular.
This French move came in response to the use by the government of the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of chemical weapons against part of the Iraqi people, namely the Iraqi Kurds, during the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran (1980–1988), and more specifically in March 1988.
Although the French effort failed due to strong opposition from many Global South countries, it marked two important developments. These countries objected on the grounds of core principles enshrined in the UN Charter, such as state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, while acknowledging the limited exceptions already outlined in the Charter.
Reservations also came from some Western governments, legal experts, and international humanitarian organizations, including Western ones.
The first development was the gradual emergence of a major divide between the views of several Western states, especially major powers, and those of most Global South countries. The disagreement centred on whether changing global conditions required new interpretations of international law, humanitarian law, and the UN Charter, or whether long-standing interpretations should remain intact.
The second development was the rise of parallel efforts to reshape the foundations of the world order at a time when the Cold War was ending, and the Soviet bloc appeared defeated. Some viewed this moment as a victory for Western values, which they believed should become universal standards used to judge the behaviour of all states.
Over time, debates and disputes resurfaced around these issues. Concepts that initially failed to gain acceptance were reintroduced under new names and with partial adjustments.
We are not here concerned with judging any of these concepts or assessing their usefulness in international relations; rather, we are dealing with them through the lens of the challenges they pose to concepts and principles that have become deeply rooted in the collective consciousness of the international community over decades, and, for some, over centuries.
Thus, over the two decades following the emergence of the concept of the “right of humanitarian intervention,” concepts such as “responsibility to protect,” “human security,” and “human development” appeared, all of which took into account some, but not all, of the criticisms and reservations previously directed at the concept of the “right of humanitarian intervention.”
Moreover, major international practices and events that occurred on the ground prompted the majority of the Global South countries to speak once again about the “double standards” practised by some or many Western states, the predominance of interests over principles, and attempts to justify actions that violate international law, international humanitarian law, and the principles and objectives of the UN Charter. They did so by pushing for reinterpretations of those principles and concepts that had long been agreed upon in principle.
Examples of such actions include the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and of Iraq in 2003.
In response, Western states pointed to internal developments in Global South countries that they argue have harmed the international community. These include violence that evolved into terrorism at regional and global levels, as seen in the 11 September 2001 attacks, which were linked to domestic political, social, and economic conditions.
Western countries also cited civil wars, famines caused by poor economic management, or the absence of “good governance," all of which contribute to large-scale migration and refugee flows that the international community struggles to manage, especially when they occur suddenly.
These fundamental disagreements remain unresolved and are unlikely to be settled soon. Each side continues to promote its own interpretation of the principles governing the international system, while seeking broader support for its vision.
New concepts and proposals may continue to emerge, some of which are seen by critics as attempts to redraw political maps or reshape strategically important regions.
No side will easily relinquish its convictions or abandon its assumptions, and any change in the positions of any party, if it occurs at all, will necessarily be slow, gradual, and partial, unfolding over a long period of time.
Each party in the equation of world politics will continue to demonstrate the validity of its approach by citing examples that support its position, while striving to refute those examples that undermine its core assumptions and premises.
Short link: