So-called US-led global order operates on World War II era rules. UK's Chatham House says no modern agenda has been decided for "rules-based international order." But please tell us who in the "US" agreed that US would police the world in the first place? US voters never agreed to this

.
6/10/2018, "European Union President Donald Tusk worries about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama legacy being dismantled: “What worries me most is the fact that the rules-based international order is being challenged, quite surprisingly, not by the usual suspects, but by its main architect and guarantor: the US.”"

6/10/18, "EU President Donald Tusk Worries About “New World Order” Being Dismantled–The Peasants are Revolting," tcth, sundance (Pal, challenges to the so-called Rules-Based International Order were noticed at least 3 years ago). 

Question: Exactly who in the US was the "guarantor" of a so-called "rules-based international order" whose "rules" apparently haven't been updated since World War II?: 

"Just as the current order was constructed with the clear aim of avoiding a repeat of the nationalism, totalitarianism and conflict of the 1930s and 1940s, a modernization effort should reflect a reforming agenda intended to tackle the problems of the 2000s and 2010s. Who decides this agenda, and what it should contain, remain open questions."

Source: 

2015: "Challenges to the Rules-Based International Order," chathamhouse.org (Chatham House is UK's Royal Institute in International Affairs. Queen Elizabeth is its patron)

"Economic and political upheavals are emboldening challengers to the rules-based international system, and to the liberal Western values it embodies....

The danger today is that this questioning of US global leadership has opened the space for other countries to pursue a ‘might is right’ approach to their own policy priorities....

The longevity of the current international system may have led to the assumption that it was in some way the natural order of things, requiring only occasional repair and defence against particular challengers. This has bred complacency.

Many aspects of the [US led international] order are in fact revolutionary, disruptive and disorderly. They provoke violent and understandable resistance from those who see themselves as champions of their own established order, based on different rules....

These fears do not provide a case for the West changing its approach, withdrawing or accepting cultural relativism.

However-the West must recognize how radical its agenda can be, realize the depth of the opposition it may provoke, and sometimes tailor its policies accordingly.... 

Just as the current order was constructed with the clear aim of avoiding a repeat of the nationalism, totalitarianism and conflict of the 1930s and 1940s, a modernization effort should reflect a reforming agenda intended to tackle the problems of the 2000s and 2010s.

Who decides this agenda, and what it should contain, remain open questions.

The West has the opportunity to take the initiative, to decide now what sort of revised rules it would like to establish, and how far it is willing to take into account the interests of its rivals or alternatively to fight for its own priorities. If the leading Western powers do not take this opportunity--and at the moment there is little sign that they will--there are now plenty of others who might."

London Conference 2015 - Background Paper - Session One.pdf 

"Chatham House delivers independent, policy-relevant analysis and new ideas to decision-makers around the world, much of it achieved through government briefings, high-level roundtables and conferences, testimony to parliamentary committees and dissemination of the institute's research."
............. 

Comment: I can't find any record that US taxpayers agreed to finance a global police force any time in the past 70 years.






......