CHI­NESE-STYLE MA­JOR-COUN­TRY DIPLO­MACY BREAKS NEW GROUND IN GLOBAL GOVER­NANCE

Breaks New Ground in Global Gover­nance

China Today (English) - - FRONT PAGE - By HE YAFEI

The new con­cepts, philoso­phies, and strate­gies that Chi­nese Pres­i­dent Xi Jin­ping has raised on Chi­nese-style ma­jor-coun­try diplo­macy have achieved steady progress in the coun­try’s state­craft.

THE world is chang­ing and evolv­ing, and so is China. Each fu­els the other’s in­ter­ac­tions and in­ter­plays. Stead­fastly pur­su­ing the path of peace­ful de­vel­op­ment, China is a ma­jor mo­tive force for pro­mot­ing world peace and pros­per­ity. In re­cent years, the new con­cepts, philoso­phies, and strate­gies that Chi­nese Pres­i­dent Xi Jin­ping has raised on Chi­nese-style ma­jor-coun­try diplo­macy have achieved steady progress in the coun­try’s state­craft. All con­trib­ute sig­nif­i­cantly to­wards es­tab­lish­ing a new model of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions, one which, cen­tered on win- win co­op­er­a­tion, will make the global gover­nance sys­tem more just, fair, and rea­son­able, and ul­ti­mately build a com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny for all hu­mankind.

Re­form and Im­prove the Global Gover­nance Sys­tem

Driven by the In­dus­trial Rev­o­lu­tion, Western coun­tries came to the fore in re­cent cen­turies and built a West-ori­ented struc­ture of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions. The sup­port­ing global gover­nance sys­tem, en­com­pass­ing politics, econ­omy, science and tech­nol­ogy, and cul­ture, took shape dur­ing this process. Cer­tain de­vel­op­ing coun­tries that suc­ces­sively ob­tained in­de­pen­dence af­ter WWII be­came main con­stituents of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions. The ad­just­ments to the sys­tem they im­pelled were man­i­fested in the for­ma­tion of the United Na­tions and its core or­gans, no­tably the Se­cu­rity Coun­cil. Over the past seven decades, this or­ga­ni­za­tion has un­doubt­edly played a key role in safe­guard­ing world peace and pro­mot­ing global econ­omy.

How­ever, cer­tain as­pects of it, due to his­tor­i­cal fac­tors, are undeniably in­equitable, un­just, and hence un­rea­son­able. Mean­time, rapid glob­al­iza­tion and the growth of emerg­ing economies are dra­mat­i­cally al­ter­ing the bal­ance of world power. They high­light the ris­ing di­chotomy be­tween progress and the es­tab­lished on­go­ing sys­tem of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions and global gover­nance, un­der­lin­ing the im­per­a­tive need for its re­form and im­prove­ment.

The so­lu­tion lies in whether or not the world should ret­rogress to the con­fronta­tions and con­flicts of re­cent his­tory, or jet­ti­son ob­so­lete bi­ases and em­bark on a track of peace­ful de­vel­op­ment and win-win co­op­er­a­tion. The

world must se­ri­ously con­sider and de­vise ways of re­form­ing the pre­sent global gover­nance sys­tem to fa­cil­i­tate a smooth tran­si­tion of its in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions.

China, un­der this new cir­cum­stance, is com­mit­ted to peace­ful de­vel­op­ment. The key to China’s suc­cess lies in mak­ing its own and global op­por­tu­ni­ties in­ter­change­able. This would achieve mu­tual ben­e­fit and win- win out­comes through be­nign in­ter­na­tional in­ter­ac­tions, or in other words, re­turn­ing fa­vors with fa­vors. China and other coun­tries may then cleave to peace­ful de­vel­op­ment rather than ad­vanc­ing in op­po­site di­rec­tions. Such peace­ful de­vel­op­ment, how­ever, should not be at the cost of a coun­try’s le­git­i­mate rights and in­ter­ests or core ben­e­fits.

Re­form usu­ally stems from free think­ing. Ef­fec­tive and deep re­form of sys­tems and mech­a­nisms can only be achieved through pro­gres­sive per­cep­tions and philoso­phies. Re­forms to the global gover­nance sys­tem are no ex­cep­tion. The fi­nan­cial cri­sis that broke out in 2008 and the eco­nomic cri­sis that fol­lowed in its wake ended the Western mo­nop­oly on global eco­nomic gover­nance. So­cial re­al­ity aban­doned Ne­olib­er­al­ism and the Washington Con­sen­sus, up­held by Western coun­tries for decades, to pur­sue full pri­va­ti­za­tion, mar­ke­ti­za­tion, and lib­er­al­iza­tion. The world has since re­flected on and sought re­form of the global gover­nance sys­tem.

Through­out its diplo­matic and do­mes­tic ad­vance­ment, China has de­vel­oped the­o­ries, based on ex­peri- ence, that are ben­e­fi­cial both to it­self and the world as a whole. Their key el­e­ments con­sti­tute the prin­ci­ples of Chi­nese- style ma­jor- coun­try diplo­macy. In con­tribut­ing to the con­struc­tion of a new model of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions and re­shap­ing the global gover­nance sys­tem, China pro­motes a new con­cept based on mu­tual re­spect and win-win co­op­er­a­tion. Un­der its guid­ance, as it takes the chance to re­form the In­ter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, China hopes to pro­mote new ideas on the in­ter­na­tional fi­nan­cial sys­tem that bet­ter re­flect the chang­ing bal­ance of world power and give emerg­ing economies more say in its op­er­a­tion and rule mak­ing.

Com­bin­ing this new con­cept with ex­pe­ri­ence gained from glob­al­iza­tion and re­gional in­te­gra­tion, China ini­ti­ated the joint build­ing of the Silk Road Eco­nomic Belt and 21st-Cen­tury Mar­itime Silk Road (Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive) through con­sul­ta­tion with the 60 or more coun­tries along these routes, so ac­com­mo­dat­ing the in­ter­ests of all. China has more­over taken the lead in es­tab­lish­ing new-type in­ter­na­tional fi­nan­cial in­sti­tu­tions, no­tably the Asian In­fra­struc­ture In­vest­ment Bank and the Silk Road Fund, which will pro­vide fi­nan­cial sup­port for the Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive.

Dif­fer­ent from rev­o­lu­tion, the tar­get of re­forms is or­derly ad­just­ments to the ex­ist­ing sys­tem. There­fore, the U.S. and other Western coun­tries may rest as­sured that China has no in­ten­tion of over­turn­ing the cur­rent sys­tem

and set­ting up a brand new one. Hav­ing ben­e­fited from glob­al­iza­tion and the ex­ist­ing sys­tem of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions and global gover­nance, China, as it ad­vances, in­te­grates deeper into in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions and par­tic­i­pates more in global gover­nance. For ex­am­ple, cog­nizant of the long road to World Trade Or­ga­ni­za­tion mem­ber­ship, China nev­er­the­less went all out to join this global as­so­ci­a­tion. Even though the Doha Round seemed to por­tend the or­ga­ni­za­tion’s dis­so­lu­tion, China per­sisted. It called in­stead for the stream­lin­ing and in­te­gra­tion of more than 400 free trade agree­ments across the world to es­tab­lish a new trade ar­range­ment that would fa­cil­i­tate free global trade and in­vest­ment. There can be no ret­ro­gres­sion on the road to glob­al­iza­tion and en­act­ment of global gover­nance. Mu­tu­ally ben­e­fi­cial co­op­er­a­tion led by re­forms and in­no­va­tions con­sti­tute the sole long-term path to restor­ing the economies of de­vel­oped coun­tries and help­ing emerg­ing economies to over­come dif­fi­cul­ties while main­tain­ing their growth mo­men­tums. Ef­fect­ing re­forms to the global gover­nance sys­tem should take into ac­count the in­ter­ests of all par­ties, rather than de­vel­op­ing one’s own at the cost of oth­ers’. Pros­per­ity is mean­ing­ful only when it is achieved on all sides.

Forge an In­ter­de­pen­dent Global Part­ner­ship

China urges all coun­tries to en­hance their aware­ness of a com­mu­nity of shared in­ter­est, re­spon­si­bil­i­ties, and com­mon des­tiny wherein hu­mankind may forge an in­ter­de­pen­dent global part­ner­ship.

This goal in­deed in­volves the in­ter­na­tional or­der. In this era where the new in­dus­trial and in­for­ma­tion rev­o­lu­tions are spread­ing, re­la­tions be­tween China, the emerg­ing power, and the U.S., the in­cum­bent power, along with those be­tween China and the rest of the world are chang­ing dra­mat­i­cally. There has never been such an im­mi­nent and ur­gent de­mand for the world to set up a com­mu­nity of in­ter­est, re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and com­mon des­tiny for all hu­mankind.

Nev­er­the­less, there re­mains a big gap, due to his­tor­i­cal fac­tors and pre­sent re­al­i­ties, be­tween the ex­ist­ing in­ter­na­tional or­der and the com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny to which coun­tries as­pire. It is dis­turb­ing to ob­serve how the cur­rent global gover­nance sys­tem is patently inca- pable of tack­ling a good num­ber of global prob­lems, and that it is un­der­mined by geopol­i­tics.

In re­cent years, Pres­i­dent Xi has pub­licly con­firmed on sev­eral oc­ca­sions that China is com­mit­ted to build­ing, hand-in-hand with other coun­tries, a har­mo­nious and co­ex­is­tent com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny for all hu­mankind. A rel­a­tively free flow of peo­ple, cap­i­tal, and goods in the glob­al­iza­tion era closely binds each coun­try’s des­tiny. In a sense, no prod­uct to­day is pro­duced out­side the glob­al­ized con­text. Pro­duc­tion and value chains – whether of air­craft, smart­phones, or foods served on our ta­bles – are planned and op­er­ated from the per­spec­tive of global dis­tri­bu­tion and al­lo­ca­tion. That is to say, no sin­gle coun­try can merely fo­cus on it­self or see the world from an out­dated vantage point. Its fu­ture progress will oth­er­wise be ham­pered.

But what is the ba­sis for a com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny – the UN Char­ter’s avowal that sov­er­eign states, large and small, are equal mem­bers of the in­ter­na­tional com­mu­nity? Or the law of the jun­gle whereby only the strong­est sur­vive? The trend of ne­gat­ing a coun­try’s sovereignty has pre­vailed in re­cent years. Cer­tain Western coun­tries, due to their great na­tional strength and mil­i­tary prow­ess, have dis­played will­ful­ness in this re­spect. Cer­tain great big pow­ers in the West, for in­stance, al­leged that Iraq possessed weapons of mass de­struc­tion. They there­upon dis­patched troops there, a move that re­sulted

in regime changes, death, and de­struc­tion. Worse still, a few years later these troops were with­drawn, leav­ing the coun­try in ru­ins and tur­moil. What kind of in­ter­na­tional or­der is this? What hap­pened to eq­uity and jus­tice? The “Color Rev­o­lu­tions” led by cer­tain Western coun­tries have also spread through­out the world. Peo­ple are eas­ily in­sti­gated into protest­ing against any­thing they’re not sat­is­fied with. Such protests evolve into civil strife that brings regime changes, eco­nomic chaos, and ru­ined lives.

Con­sid­er­able in­stances of power politics have oc­curred over the last decades that are in di­rect op­po­si­tion to the phi­los­o­phy of a com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny. But the rea­sons for con­fronta­tions and in­jus­tices through­out the world to­day are not due to ob­so­les­cence of the pur­poses and prin­ci­ples for­mu­lated in the UN Char­ter. Rather, be­cause democ­racy in in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions, as em­bod­ied in the UN Char­ter, is not fully ex­er­cised.

Sov­er­eign equal­ity is the core of a com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny. It is on this ba­sis that China ad­vo­cates the forg­ing of a global part­ner­ship fea­tur­ing in­ter­de­pen­dence, mu­tual trust, and equal­ity. As a foun­da­tion on which to build the com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny, the part­ner­ship will act as a net­work for equal sovereign­ties to carry out mu­tu­ally ben­e­fi­cial co­op­er­a­tion and de­vel­op­ment. At the same time, it is an ef­fec­tive shield that can pro­tect smaller and weaker coun­tries.

Es­tab­lish­ing a com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny for all hu­mankind re­quires shared right­eous val­ues and cul­tural di­a­logues. The key to sound re­la­tions be­tween states lies in the affin­ity be­tween their peo­ples, which stems largely from mu­tual un­der­stand­ing. In his speech at the Boao Fo­rum for Asia An­nual Con­fer­ence 2015, Pres­i­dent Xi raised the idea of hold­ing a “di­a­logue of Asian civ­i­liza­tions.” In sub­se­quent speeches he has also stressed the per­cep­tion that it is pos­si­ble for the var­i­ous cul­tures of dif­fer­ent coun­tries to co­ex­ist in a di­ver­si­fied and multi-po­lar world.

The thought some pow­ers hold that coun­tries of dif­fer­ent val­ues can­not get along does not con­form to the re­al­ity wherein our world’s cul­tures and val­ues are be­com­ing more di­ver­si­fied. It vi­o­lates the very law of de­vel­op­ment of hu­man civ­i­liza­tion. Such a thought is more­over likely to pro­voke in­ter­ven­tion­ist ten­den­cies to will­fully med­dle in the in­ter­nal af­fairs of other coun­tries, on the pre­text of hold­ing the moral high ground. Con­trary to this, the com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny high­lights a har­mo­nious coexistence where coun­tries re­spect one an­other’s val­ues, de­vel­op­ment modes, and po­lit­i­cal sys­tems. Mean­while in­ter-coun­try gov­ern­men­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tion and cul­tural ex­changes are also en­cour­aged, to make the best of all par­ties and pro­mote the progress of all hu­mankind.

De­velop a New Se­cu­rity Con­cept

China sup­ports a new se­cu­rity vi­sion that is com­mon, com­pre­hen­sive, co­op­er­a­tive, and sus­tain­able. It ex­pects all coun­tries to co­or­di­nate de­vel­op­ment and se­cu­rity – im­prov­ing se­cu­rity through de­vel­op­ment while safe­guard­ing de­vel­op­ment through se­cu­rity – so cre­at­ing a vir­tu­ous cir­cle.

Se­cu­rity and de­vel­op­ment are the cru­cial el­e­ments of a global gover­nance sys­tem. The world is not at peace, and a zero-sum Cold War men­tal­ity re­mains. The Mid­dle East, source of huge num­bers of es­cap­ing refugees, has suf­fered dev­as­tat­ing dis­or­der due to the in­ter­ven­tion of cer­tain Western pow­ers and the im­pact of the so-called Arab Spring. The Ukrainian cri­sis, which con­tin­ues to rumble on, is in­flu­enc­ing se­cu­rity in Europe, as well as U.S.-Rus­sia and U.S.-Europe re­la­tions. Many hot is­sues re­mained un­re­solved af­ter the Cold War ended, and con­tinue to plague the coun­tries and re­gions in­volved.

In hopes of un­der­stand­ing and deal­ing with in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions from the per­spec­tive of a com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny for all hu­mankind, we ad­vise aban­don­ment of the old way of think­ing – that of en­sur­ing one’s own se­cu­rity at the ex­pense of oth­ers. We are as well firmly op­posed to the overt zero-sum men­tal­ity in to­day’s Asia. On the pre­text of its strat­egy of re­bal­anc­ing to­wards the Asia-Pa­cific, the U.S. has in­creased its mil­i­tary in­vest­ments in this re­gion, par­tic­u­larly in East Asia and the West Pa­cific. It has at the same time built up mil­i­tary al­liances and car­ried out more fre­quent large-scale mil­i­tary drills. The U.S. is more­over di­rectly in­ter­ven­ing in the South China Sea is­sue, so ex­ac­er­bat­ing the East Asian se­cu­rity sit­u­a­tion. Mo­ti­vated by this U.S. stance, some Asian coun­tries, no­tably Ja­pan and the Philippines, are re­in­forc­ing their arms with a view to achiev­ing their spe­cific aims.

At pre­sent, East Asia tends to rely on China for econ­omy and to de­pend on the U.S. for se­cu­rity. Sep­a­rat­ing de­vel­op­ment from se­cu­rity is not sus­tain­able, and could lead to in­se­cu­rity, so ham­per­ing de­vel­op­ment. Re­solv­ing global and re­gional gover­nance over se­cu­rity and progress is a pri­mary con­cern. Guided by the new se­cu­rity vi­sion, a new se­cu­rity or­der must be set up in East Asia – even across the en­tire con­ti­nent. The sus­tain­able se­cu­rity gen­er­ated by col­lab­o­ra­tion and com­pre­hen­sive poli­cies and strate­gies will guar­an­tee vig­or­ous de­vel­op­ment in the re­gion. Big pow­ers are ex­pected to play an ap­pro­pri­ate lead­ing role in this re­spect. There­fore, it is im­por­tant for China and the U.S. to build a new model of ma­jor-coun­try re­la­tion­ship fea­tur­ing no con­flict, no con­fronta­tion, mu­tu­ally re­spect, and win-win co­op­er­a­tion. On the other hand, the Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive of­fers a roadmap and feasible plan for China and re­lated coun­tries to launch mu­tu­ally ben­e­fi­cial co­op­er­a­tion and con­struct the com­mu­nity of com­mon des­tiny.

China urges all coun­tries to en­hance their aware­ness of a com­mu­nity of shared in­ter­est, re­spon­si­bil­i­ties, and com­mon des­tiny wherein hu­mankind may forge an in­ter­de­pen­dent global part­ner­ship.

Chi­nese For­eign Min­is­ter Wang Yi (right) holds talks with his Ja­panese coun­ter­part Fu­mio Kishida in Bei­jing on April 30, 2016.

The Fifth Meet­ing of the Min­is­ters of For­eign Af­fairs of the Con­fer­ence on In­ter­ac­tion and Con­fi­dence Build­ing Mea­sures in Asia is held in Bei­jing on April 27 to 28, 2016.

Chi­nese Pres­i­dent Xi Jin­ping at­tends the Fourth Nu­clear Se­cu­rity Sum­mit in Washington, D.C. on April 1, 2016.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China

© PressReader. All rights reserved.