The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Contemporary International Relations

Since the winter of 2019, the sudden outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has lashed China and is now still ravaging the rest of the world. It has not only seriously threatened human life but also severely impacted the world economy and international relations. Following the pandemic, global affairs as well as state-to-state relationships are witnessing major, even qualitative, changes. As institutional construction and mechanism building in areas such as public health, economy, science and technology, politics and security in regions across the world usher in a new period, human society as a whole will eventually withstand the tough test and advance towards a better tomorrow.

Changes of Security Issues in Global Affairs and International Relations

Over the half century spanning the two world wars, the international community had been primarily concerned with addressing traditional security threats such as military conflicts and wars. Since the latter half of the 20th century, non-traditional security threats have been emerging and assuming an increasingly crucial position in security thinking, examples of which include the large-scale industrial pollution in the 1960s, the cross-border terrorist activities in the 1970s, the exacerbating global warming in the 1980s, and the Asian financial crisis that erupted in the 1990s. In the first decade

of the 21st century, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Indian Ocean tsunami, the global financial crisis, and epidemics such as SARS, Zika and H1N1 flu were increasingly clear warning signs, calling for the international community to pay attention and respond. Indeed, in the face of these nontraditional security threats, a consensus was reached between the countries and international cooperation was achieved. However, the United States later shifted its attention again to traditional security threats, and successively put forward its Asia-pacific “rebalancing” strategy and its “Indo-pacific strategy” in order to target the rise of China. The Trump administration even made a public declaration that China and Russia were strategic competitors and major rivals of the US. In recent years, traditional security issues such as geopolitical strategy, major-power competition and the arms race have again become the focus of global affairs and international relations, while non-traditional security issues have gradually taken a back seat.

The current COVID-19 pandemic sounded yet another alarm of nontraditional security threats. As a “super non-traditional security” threat, the pandemic has not only seriously affected the life and health of all mankind, but also prompted the international community to reinforce its response to non-traditional security threats while addressing traditional ones.

Having paid a disastrously heavy price, the international community has eventually woken up and strengthened joint efforts in combating the virus. The G20 Extraordinary Leaders’ Summit held on March 26 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic marked the formation of an international consensus, where leaders expressed their commitment to “present a united front against this common threat,” and dedicated themselves to “fighting the pandemic,” “safeguarding the global economy,” “addressing international trade disruptions,” and “enhancing global cooperation.” International organizations, notably the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN), have also stepped up international consultation and coordination, urging the world to jointly address the unprecedented tremendous challenge.

The overarching difficulty for the international community in the

joint battle against the coronavirus is the contradiction between the global nature of the pandemic and the national character of states’ responses. First, there are difficulties in coordinating the actions of the individual nations. In the face of COVID-19, which has now spread across the globe, countries have taken different countermeasures, with some going their own way and adopting a beggar-thy-neighbor approach. The resulting “barrel effect” creates a serious vulnerability for international anti-pandemic efforts. Second, there is difficulty in building coordinating mechanisms. So far, a highly authoritative mechanism in the field of public health has yet to take shape at the global level, and the open challenge from the United States has disrupted the coordinating role of the UN and the WHO. At the regional level, such a mechanism is absent either. Even within the European Union (EU), coordination is hard to come by as each country carries out its own policies. Some international borders which were originally open have now been closed. Third, there is difficulty in creating a consensus. Faced with the lifeand-death test of the pandemic, some countries have discarded the affinity between their populations and have embraced a variety of misconceived notions. Populism, nationalism, xenophobia and unilateralism have gained momentum and have collectively impacted effective international response to the pandemic. What is more worrisome is that most countries have been concentrating their energy on the “hard task” of fighting the pandemic and have been too busy to address the “soft task” of developing appropriate conceptions of moving forward from the pandemic. Once misconceptions have resulted in erroneous ideological trends across society, countries around the world will have a formidable task in handling and eradicating the negative consequences.

Acceleration of International Power Restructuring

The global epidemic prevention and control efforts are continuously catalyzing major transformation in the relative strengths between international powers. While the international structure remains stable

in one period, changes may take place, even at an accelerated pace, under special circumstances that undermine that stability. The current pandemic undoubtedly serves as such a strong catalyst.

First, major international powers are stepping up their reorganization. In the early years following the end of the Cold War, the West, headed by the United States, once dominated the overall landscape in the international balance of power. However, the international structure has been evolving in a direction more conducive to the relative balance of world major powers under the unceasing impact of multi-polarization and economic globalization. To date, the United States has lost its status as the sole hegemon while other developed nations in the West have been forced to discuss global economic affairs with major developing countries in the G20 format. During this COVID-19 pandemic which puts human life at stake, many US allies and partners are no longer following the orders of their leader. For example, the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting rejected Washington’s stigmatization and blame game against China. Fundamentally, the current system of alliances has been unable to address many challenges facing the world, and the political consensus that once ensured the cohesion of allies is undergoing substantial fluctuations.

Second, changes are taking place in the Western ideological appeal and political clout. Since the Age of Discovery in the 1500s, the West has been inspiring and influencing the rest of the world by its ideological theories. However, the birth of the first socialist country after the First World War and the founding of an array of socialist states and independent countries after the Second World War challenged the Western ideological and theoretical dominance. The current COVID-19 pandemic is another attack on Western ideological hegemony. Under the comprehensive and imminent threat to human life and safety, the conventional ethnic and religious differences, wealth and status distinctions, disparities in economic and social systems, and ideological rivalries have all taken a back seat. Now, for all but a minority of people in the world (including the President of the United States), preventing and controlling the spread of virus has become the greatest common

denominator for international solidarity and cooperation. The relations between China, Japan and South Korea have been significantly improving, while the European Union and China have both reciprocated the assistance offered by the other side. Even the Norwegian Prime Minister has openly asked for Chinese support despite previous disputes. The awareness of “a global village” and human community is strengthening under the COVID-19 threat, and an increasing number of insightful people are breaking through tangible and intangible barriers to think from the perspective of the human family, which transcends traditional Western ideology.

In the process of its relative decline, the West headed by the United States is counting on its ideology to help cement its global dominance, but that attempt is being frustrated. First, the glory days of Western influence are over. The “end of history” rhetoric in the early years after the Cold War’s conclusion proved to be a “joke of history,” and the slogan of “Make America Great Again” reflected the reality that America is no longer great. The Trump administration’s unilateral approach and withdrawal from various international organizations and agreements have demonstrated the country’s position as a spent force and its declining trend. On the contrary, major powers other than the US have advocated multilateralism and the improvement of global governance, especially in the difficult global battle against the pandemic. In addition, middle and small countries, whether developing or developed, have been emphasizing more the value of stateto-state mutual assistance. In short, the entire international community has shown the spirit of pulling together in times of disaster. Second, the United States’ military alliances oriented toward finding enemies and its global strategy based on geopolitical considerations are fundamentally unable to address contemporary global challenges. This has been repeatedly proven by the international terrorist attacks in 2001, the global financial crisis in 2008, and the current COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, with the increasing consensus on countering non-traditional security threats, other major powers are expanding and deepening their cooperation in fighting terrorism, tackling climate change, ensuring food security, and strengthening disaster

and epidemic preparedness and response. Third, the pursuit of a better life and good health has been a common theme of the international community. For countries and peoples around the globe, what is at stake is no longer great-power competition but world peace, and their common hope is to have a better life and greater health consistent with the progress of the times. During this pandemic, major developing countries and emerging economies have been grappling with issues of development and people’s livelihood, and are proposing a strategy of creating a better, more secure and healthier life, which has exerted profound influence and elicited broad support.

Third, the international balance of power is approaching an inflection point of qualitative change. In the post-wwii era, the international balance of power experienced two rounds of major changes under basically peaceful conditions. The first was the rise and fall of the bipolar structure, and the second was the short-lived sole American hegemony and the structure featuring “one superpower and multiple major powers.” During the current third round of changes in the international balance of power, a primary manifestation will be the making of important strides amid the relative stability and increasingly balanced relations between global powers. For an international structure that has lasted longer in peace than in time of war, the advent of qualitative change would usually require the impact of major events and a corresponding evolution of rules and mechanisms. Since the 1990s, the international power relations have been continuously developing in a more balanced direction, which has today become an irreversible trend. When we look back on the history after a longer period, the current antiepidemic battle may have heralded the inflection point of qualitative change in the international balance of power. Despite the inevitability of the overall trajectory, real qualitative change of this kind may still experience continued shocks as reflected in the still chaotic international cooperation in addressing terrorism, financial crisis and global pandemic. Given this dilemma, the international community should make continuous efforts, with adequate strategic vision and patience, to facilitate the early advent of the inflection point and ensure the sustainable evolution of the world order thereafter.

Adjusting to a New Great-power Strategic Arrangement and the Innovation of the International Mechanisms

On the eve of a qualitative change in the international structure, major powers in the world are getting prepared for a new strategic arrangement. First, the role of non-traditional security in the international strategic landscape will be significantly enhanced in the wake of the pandemic. Currently, due to historical inertia in issues regarding geostrategy and geopolitics, planning for different regions of the world usually comes before consideration of particular issues in a country’s international strategic arrangement. Second, the strategic status of public health in non-traditional security will be enhanced. In the future, it is probable that non-traditional security will feature “4+1” key areas, namely terrorism, cybersecurity, major epidemics, climate change, plus related issues like the flow of refugees. Third, major powers will work to coordinate with and accommodate each other, while at the same time vying with each other over their respective roles in the international strategic order, depending on changes in the overall situation and their priorities. Currently, most major powers, except the United States, have achieved greater consensus on non-traditional security issues than on traditional ones. Based on their agreement regarding their commitments to multilateralism, global governance and their response to specific events, the countries concerned should adjust their strategic arrangements, and make efforts to enhance coordination while reducing elements of friction.

The transformation of the international structure will surely lead to changes in the international mechanisms. Amid the current pandemic, the reality and severity of non-traditional security threats has been deeply felt by an increasing number of countries. To address the challenge, there has been a call for the activation of international rules, norms and mechanisms to mobilize and coordinate the forces of different countries. Given this, the international community should work to turn the crisis into an opportunity, and accelerate the upgrade and innovation of international regimes and mechanisms in order to have them better correspond to current and future

global affairs and better serve interstate relations.

Admittedly, the trajectory of historical development never follows a straight line, with reversion and retrogression often occurring. Therefore, there is still a long way to go before more just and more reasonable international mechanisms are established. One needs only to look at the building of international mechanisms since the beginning of the 21st century. The international anti-terrorism cooperation following the September 11 attacks not only failed to give birth to new global mechanisms, but also resulted in two wars that trapped the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. The G7 bloc, once marginalized in the wake of the global financial crisis, has attempted at a comeback to dominate world economic affairs, and has often disrupted the objective to turn the G20 into the major platform for the world economy. The current anti-pandemic battle is unlikely to call off the ill-intentioned attempts by the United States and certain countries, let alone change their nature. They will go all out to retrieve their prerogatives and interests lost in times of difficulty. However, most countries will uphold solidarity and cooperation in the spirit of mutual assistance, and will work to consolidate the hard-fought progress in this pandemic through global institutions and international norms. From a developmental perspective, the consensus achieved and efforts made by the international community in this anti-pandemic battle will eventually overcome the unilateralist approach of some countries, and translate into corresponding international regimes and mechanisms. Comparing the basic positions of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Health Organization at present and thirty years ago, we can find that the vast number of developing countries have won epoch-making rights and interests in terms of the international mechanisms during the period. We have full confidence that the prospects in the coming thirty years will be even brighter.

Head-of-state diplomacy and mass participation are two important components that stand at the two ends of international mechanisms. On the one hand, the role of head-of-state diplomacy has been enhanced by the realistic needs of the two world wars and the rapid facilitation of transportation and communications in early and mid-20th century, and reached its historic

climax in late 20th and early 21st century. The current pandemic is accelerating changes in the mechanisms of international exchange. As the most important form of international communication, head-of-state diplomacy is ushering in an age of “virtual summits.” Abbreviated meetings may become prevalent in the post-pandemic era, while host diplomacy will be conducted with new content and forms. The innovation this has made in the conduct of global affairs and the governance of international relations cannot be overemphasized. On the other hand, mass participation in world affairs and international relations has been undergoing continuous changes. Non-governmental organizations (NGOS) have become a crucial channel for popular involvement in international affairs in the post-wwii era. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, mass participation has further replaced the actions of single individuals, which is mostly due to the pandemic’s direct bearing on the life and safety of every man and woman. People of countries across the world have also transcended conventional channels of governments and NGOS, and turned directly to advanced and costeffective communication tools that helped mobilize the tremendous power of public participation. Hence, with major changes taking place both in headof-state diplomacy and mass participation, a corresponding transformation in mechanisms is sure to follow, which will influence world affairs and international relations to a greater extent and on a broader scale.

Common Historic Mission of China and the International Community

Currently, the world is simultaneously situated in the early stage of unprecedented changes and faced with a once-in-a-century pandemic. China and the international community shoulder a common historic mission. In response to the pandemic, China has waged a praiseworthy and deeply moving “people’s war” and “total war” and effectively controlled the domestic spread of the virus. In the early days of the epidemic, China received assistance from a great number of countries and organizations, and spared no effort to give back to the international community after achieving initial victory itself. For those

countries that once attacked and denigrated China, help was also offered out of humanitarian concern. From the height of international cooperation, China has also highlighted the crucial role of the WHO, and sent medical teams to share its successful diagnostic and treatment experience at the invitation of some foreign countries, while extending material and economic assistance within its capacity. China’s long-held cooperation concepts have been fully demonstrated amid this pandemic, and its principle of upholding justice while pursuing shared interests has been imbued with new meaning, thus enhancing our understanding of international relations in this new era and illuminating the direction forward for the international community.

Amid this unprecedented global struggle with the pandemic, China should stand at an even higher strategic position in the international community, and summarize the experience and lessons in addressing nontraditional security challenges such as this pandemic. China should work together with the international community to resolve the major issues facing the world in global affairs and international relations both now and in the future, strengthen the construction of the international order, and establish the trajectory for the future development of global governance and international collaboration. To achieve this, it is not only necessary to formulate relevant principles, but also essential to define priorities and action plans.

Today, China is closer than ever to making the goal of its national rejuvenation a reality. Meanwhile, in terms of building a new type of international relations and a new international structure, China is in the most favorable historical period since the 15th-century Age of Discovery. The construction of a more just and more rational international system is also proceeding on an unprecedented firm basis. In the new situation of fighting the pandemic, China and the international community need to more vigorously forge the new form of international relations featuring mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation, resolutely build a community with a shared future for mankind, and work for an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity.