China’s Concept of New International Order and the Post-war System

China’s concept of new international order conforms to the trend of the times and addresses public concerns, thereby representing the progressive development of human history. The current international order is not a perfect one, and it needs improving and developing, which requires both respecting tradition and innovation, as well as both construction and deconstruction.

In recent years, with its growing international influence, China has been making tireless efforts to improve the global governance system through innovation. However, for a variety of reasons, some Western politicians have made unjustified assumptions, even malevolent misrepresentations, about China’s concept of international order, claiming that China is challenging the current post-war international order. In November 2015, then US Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that China is “undercutting the international order” which is under US stewardship.1 Also, US Vice President Mike Pence stated that China is “contesting [America’s] geopolitical advantages and trying [in essence] to change the international order in their favor.”2 In October 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo even accused China of “threatening the free and open international order” by coercion.3

On the contrary, China has always remained firm in safeguarding the current international order, stating that “we will not overthrow the international system and order that we ourselves had built back then, nor do we have the intention to start all over again and build a new one.”4 In

addition, President Xi Jinping has stressed on several international occasions that China will safeguard the post-war world order.5 In September 2020, China issued the Position Paper on the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations, insisting on championing multilateralism, safeguarding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, defending the Un-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, and working together to make international relations more democratic, rulesbased and equitable.6 Currently, with once-in-a-century transformations unfolding in our world, we are entering a period of turbulence and change. Thus, it is of great theoretical as well as practical importance to deliver the voice of reason out of chaotic world opinion, and clearly define the relationship between China’s concept of new international order and the postwar system from both policy-making and theoretical perspectives.

Original Design of the Post-war International Order

While discussing the matter, notions such as the “post-war international order” or the “prevailing international order” are frequently used by Chinese leaders and scholars. While there necessarily are many connections between the two, they do express diverse meanings in different contexts.

On one hand, although the definition of the “post-war international order” involves broad and narrow interpretations, its meaning is generally explicit. In a narrow sense, the “post-war international order” lays stress on the political and security arrangements which has been constructed by the victorious nations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter before and after the

victory of the World Anti-fascist War. Thus, the order is also referred to as “postwar peace order.” In a January 2015 meeting with then French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, President Xi underlined the need “to work jointly in safeguarding the victory of the Second World War as well as the post-war peace order.”7 One scholar defines the fundamental principles of the “post-war peace order” as the following: cooperation between major powers, seeking common ground while setting aside differences, respecting and negotiating with each other as equals, appreciating national self-determination, and establishing the United Nations.8 In a broad sense, the concept of the “post-war international order” contains not only the political and security order, but also an economic order, which is represented by the global economic, trade and financial system based on institutions including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Overall, China’s policy community recognizes the post-war international order as the political and security order formed by international legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Un-centered international norms and institutions based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

On the other hand, the “prevailing international order” is subject to changes due to maneuvering between the parties. Regarding the international order designed at the end of World War II, some scholars believe that it has never really been realized, and some elements of the “prevailing international order” were not produced at the end of WWII. Therefore, although people now often talk about maintaining the post-war order, they actually “confuse the conceptual one with the prevailing one.”9 This view is reasonable but somewhat extreme. It is true that the international order designed at the end of WWII has not been fully realized, but it is an exaggeration to say that it has not materialized at all. The punishment of defeated countries and

the establishment of the United Nations is an important part of the “postwar international order,” thereby laying the foundation of the “prevailing international order.” In addition, some scholars believe that the “post-war international order” refers to “the international order led by the United States, the Soviet Union, and other major victorious countries after WWII, which was aimed at avoiding warfare and seeking lasting peace, stability and prosperity, formed through consultations and negotiations, centered on the UN system, ruled by international law and norms, and constantly evolving over time.”10 This understanding of the “post-war international order” is basically broad. However, due to the ambiguity of “evolving over time,” it is difficult for us to distinguish it from the “prevailing international order.” Rather, the “prevailing international order” is composed of mechanisms and norms that originated from the “post-war international order” and has gradually begun to play a role in the world through interaction of different forces. It is currently undergoing transformation.

Since the “prevailing international order” is a product of geopolitical machination by a variety of forces, facing multiple shocks and challenges, there are obvious divergences in the stances of different countries with regard to it. Some people think that it is still a “liberal international order”11 characterized by liberalism and dominated by the United States. Some emphasize the decline of Western influence and call it a “post-western order.” For China, the “prevailing international order” is a Un-centered multilateral international framework composed of relevant international institutions such as the WTO and the World Bank.12 It can be seen that, with different views

and positions, the perception and definition of the “prevailing international order” displays a certain degree of subjectivity.

The original design of the post-war international order was created to solidify the victory of the world anti-fascist war, which embodies the principles of international justice and the aspirations of the international community, unprecedentedly restricts the expansion of national military forces, significantly magnifies the impact of common human values on international norms, and places more attention on the demands of non-western countries.13 Therefore, the rationality and progressiveness of the post-war international order is beyond doubt. As an important participant in the construction of the post-war international order, China takes safeguarding lasting world peace as its starting point, adheres to the principle of non-expansion, and takes fairness and justice as the basic norms of international relations. China supports the establishment of a strong United Nations as the core of the collective security system, and remains firm in cooperation between, as well as the special role of, major powers within the UN framework. It also advocates national selfdetermination and decolonization.14 Hence, from principles and standpoints to specific practices, what China strives to maintain is primarily the post-war international order in a relatively narrow political and security sense.

The post-war international order has had a profound impact on world peace and development. Since modern times, the Western-dominated international system has had a common feature, that is, it fundamentally lacks balance and equality by first dividing the entire world into two parts with the sovereign states enjoying the status of colonial powers on the one side, and vulnerable nations without sovereign status in colonies, protectorates, trust territories and great powers’ spheres of influence on the other.15 After WWII, the strength of veteran colonial powers such as

the United Kingdom and France declined significantly, and the defeated fascist countries such as Germany and Japan were severely punished and restrained. In order to prevent colonial battles from triggering wars, and in order to respond to the progressive aspirations of people around the world, the United Nations Charter was established on the principle of sovereign equality, and “All countries, big or small, strong or weak, are sovereign and equal” has become the most fundamental principle of the international order. Compared with the previous international order, small and weak countries are no longer regarded by Western powers as “sovereign exceptions” that can be arbitrarily disposed of. The signal indicating this is the granting of UN membership to these countries. Also, as a supplement to the principle of sovereign equality, collective security and major-power consultation have also been recognized as crucial components of post-war international norms.

The United Nations is the most important symbol of the post-war international order. The design of the organization originated from the idea that even without a world government but with a well-designed international institution, world affairs can be managed and coordinated just like domestic affairs.16 Paul Kennedy believes that “the founders of the United Nations created a new world order,” injecting the inclusiveness of “bringing all major powers in”17 which was unseen in previous orders designed after 1648, 1815, or even 1919. The UN embodies the ideal of a “world government” while upholding the concept of nation-state and the principle of multilateralism. It also reflects the strong desire of most countries and peoples in the world for peace and development. Thus, from the perspective of the development of human society, it is historically progressive. Following the League of Nations, the UN became the second global collective security system. The purpose of collective security is to deter aggressive behavior and create fear in any country that intends to launch a war of aggression that it would face

collective countermeasures by other countries. The UN is the core of the collective security mechanism, and regional and sub-regional organizations can play a role under UN authority in resolving regional issues.

Maintaining consensus among major powers is another important tenet of the post-war international order. After WWII, the five major powers in the anti-fascist coalition, recognized as having made more prominent historical contributions and enjoying stronger strengths, were given more important international responsibilities. The United Nations Security Council gives veto power to the five permanent members. The original intention was to ensure consensus among major powers and avoid conflicts and disputes among them. Therefore, it entails more responsibility than special rights.

However, it is undeniable that the post-war international order is still mainly based on human historical experience dominated by the West. In particular, the post-war economic order is basically dominated by the United States and the West, which greatly benefits Western developed countries. Moreover, in the design process, the order was not decided through democratic procedures, but rather a few major powers played a leading role. Therefore, certain negative factors are inevitable, and under certain conditions, these will restrict or even damage the effectiveness of the post-war international order.

Disturbance of the Post-war International Order

Although the original design of the post-war international order reflects universal recognition of a number of major principles that include sovereign equality, collective security, and coordination among major powers, many principles of the post-war international order have been practiced under the combined influence of power politics and monopoly capital, leading to many shortcomings in the prevailing international order.

Disruption of the post-war international order by power politics

After World War II, the international order with the United Nations at its core ended the global colonial system dominated by great powers.

However, power politics did not become history. Some emerging powers have abused their strength and advantages in the attempt to restore the old thinking and old rules in a disguised form, which disruptes and undermines the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

First, the domination of a few major powers in post-war arrangements has undermined the principle of sovereign equality of the United Nations. During WWII, most of the decisions on post-war arrangements were conducted between or led by the three great powers of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. The three countries often ignored the sovereignty and will of the countries involved in forcibly drafting international treaties and dividing their spheres of influence, which runs counter to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. For example, the Yalta Agreement that divided the spheres of influence in Europe and the Far East after the war was mainly carried out between the US and the Soviet Union. Even China, which is nominally listed as one of the “top five,” was often excluded. As the Chinese government’s negotiator Wellington Koo said, many treaties were drafted and signed by two, three, or four top countries, and “I was shocked by the undemocratic nature of the procedure.”18

Second, the Us-soviet Cold War undermined international norms such as collective security and major-power coordination. After the Cold War broke out in 1947, the Us-soviet confrontation replaced international cooperation. By building regional military blocs, both the United States and the Soviet Union formed exclusive military alliances and unilateral security systems that bypassed the UN institution and violated the principle of collective security.19 The United States has deviated from the collective security principles of the UN Charter and concluded a series of regional alliance treaties. Moreover, it has also set up military bases and stationed troops directly at strategic points all over the world.20 The Soviet Union followed suit, deploying its troops directly 18 Gu Weijun (Wellington Koo), Memoirs of Welllington Koo, Vol.5, Zhonghua Book Company, 1987. 19 Zhou Qi and Zhang Yongyi, “The Paradox of the United Nations’ Collective Security: From the Perspective of American Hegemony,” Contemporary World and Socialism, No.4, 2006, p.2.

20 Wang Wei, “American Alliance System: An Institutional Analysis,” American Studies, pp.34-51.

No.4, 2013,

in all socialist countries except China and the DPRK.21

The Cold War also made major-power consultation somewhat moot. In spite of opposition of the Soviet Union and other countries, the US pursued its policy of occupying Japan alone, and led the drafting and signing of the peace treaty with Japan. As a result, the Soviet Union refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and neither the Chinese Communist Party nor the Chinese Nationalist Party were invited to participate in the San Francisco Conference. In the early days of the UN, with only a few member states, the US relied on its great strength to manipulate the voting mechanism. George Kennan, former Director of Policy Planning of the US State Department, once said, “Our position implies a theory that, in the final analysis, the United Nations is not a world organization, but just a tool for 51 countries to resist the Soviet Union.”22 In addition, due to obstruction of the United States, New China was excluded from the United Nations for a long time.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union used their power to control and interfere with small and weak countries, sabotaging the principle of sovereign equality. Also, the two countries both attempted to put Asian, African, and Latin American countries under their sphere of influence by “continuous control, subversion, interference and even invasion.”23 Professor Odd Westad of Oxford University pointed out that the Cold War was a continuation of colonialism, only slightly divergent in terms of practices. Although “Washington and Moscow both claimed their opposition against formal colonialism,” what they conducted was “very similar to their immediate predecessors - the British and French colonial projects in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”24

Third, under the guise of establishing a “free world order,” the United States has fraudulently pulled together like-minded countries while alienating

its opponents. In 1991, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, the US became the so-called “Cold War victor.” The simplistic winner-loser dichotomy has obscured and eased the catastrophic consequences of the decades of intervention in the Third World by the two superpowers.25 Since the end of the Cold War, America has fallen into a fantasy of unipolar hegemony, trying to build the “Pax Americana” by establishing a “free world order.” There are three pillars of the Us-led “free world order”: first, the overwhelming military power and alliance system that are capable of interfering in global affairs; second, the institutional design that controls the operation of the world economy and the dominant position of the dollar in the international financial system; third, the self-claimed “universal” value system and a series of supporting concepts. As an extension of the Western order, the “world order” led by the United States does overlap with the Un-centered international system, but their differences are notable: for security, it depends on a military alliance system in which the security needs of allies overrides the interests of non-aligned countries; politically, it seeks to transform non-western members to bring them into accordance with Western political systems and value models.”26 And it should be noted that the US takes advantage of the UN only when it fits US interests and ignores it when it doesn’t. Moreover, the Us-dominated “free world order” is not tolerant of China. China is rejected by the US military alliance system in terms of its security interests and is regarded as an “alien” in terms of its values. In addition, some countries that do not agree with or even challenge the “free world order” are labeled as “rogue states,” and became constant targets of the US to carry out forced transformation, including regime change.

Erosion of the post-war international order by monopoly capital

Power politics is not the only challenge to the post-war international order. Since the 1970s, the force of monopoly capital, which seems to override sovereignty and political power, has been growing stronger, ignoring the principles 25 Odd Arne Westad, The Cold War: A World History, p.416.

26 Fu Ying, “Promote Cooperative Security, Common Development and Political Inclusiveness to Jointly Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind.”

of sovereign independence and fairness and justice, and trying to break down the borders and barriers of all sovereign nations. In this process, monopoly capital and the American hegemon, whose relationship went from interdependence to mutual restraint, have jointly eroded and sabotaged the post-war international order.

First, transnational capital is embedded in international mechanisms and controls some key international organizations. As a global social force, transnational monopoly capital does not exist in the form of political entity, nor does it possess any direct channel to exert legitimate violence. Its policing actually relies on the United States and the military alliances under its leadership. Transnational monopoly capital exerts its influence on international institutions, and the most notable result is the emergence of all kinds of non-state actors among sovereign states. These non-state entities controlled by monopoly capital have evolved into new actors that cannot be ignored by the international community, which include some international economic organizations responsible for coordinating sovereign governments’ policy decisions, such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. Some international industry associations, rating agencies and accounting institutions responsible for supervising market entities also fall into the category. Additionally, some social organizations with a promotional or educational function including think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, universities such as the University of Chicago, and non-governmental organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, constitute what Antonio Gramsci calls the capitalist “fortresses and emplacements” which represent the social defense line of transnational monopoly capital.27 Further, in some developing countries, government management has existed in name only, while the intricate informal economic organizations have begun to fill the vacuum without being recorded in books or controlled by the government.28 When transnational capital governs the world, it also constantly takes

advantage of so-called “civil society” to exert influence on sovereign states, forcing them to pass bills and policies conducive to capital expansion.

Second, transnational capital transforms international norms in an attempt to break through the protection barriers of sovereign states. After the end of the Cold War, multinational capital gradually replaced national capital. And what Lenin called “a single world trust that will swallow up all enterprises and all states without exception”29 began to emerge. Different from the expansion of national capital from the inside to the outside, transnational capital runs rampant from the outside to the inside, challenging the traditional international system composed of sovereign states. Both the multilateral international system with the United Nations at its core and the unilateral international system that the United States attempts to dominate are facing a sovereignty crisis under the impact of transnational capital. The basic tenet of the post-war international order, namely the principle of sovereignty, is fundamentally threatened. Some multinational companies have become the incarnation of monopoly capital, taking the lead in breaking through sovereign barriers. Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt revealed that multinational companies engage in “borderless economic activities” through transnational financial networks, which is “beyond the reach of the nation-state.”30 Through trade, multinational corporations connect two distant territories, breaking through the restrictions of various political norms and cultural customs, and threatening the authority and effectiveness of the government’s implementation of policies on behalf of the people, resulting in the gradual loss of a sovereign state’s ability to control its territory.31 In addition, transnational monopoly capital is also trying to manipulate international economic organizations in order to have an impact on sovereign states. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, revealed that some international organizations used 29 Collected Works of Lenin, Vol.27, People’s Publishing House, 1980, pp.144-145. 30 Yuan Ming, ed., Modern and Contemporary History of International Relations, Press, 2005, p.383.

31 Richard J. Barnet and John Cavanagh,

Order, p.7.

Peking University

Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World

loans as bait, which means that, by way of “privatization, capital market liberalization, price marketization, and trade liberalization,” they essentially made many developing countries give away their economic sovereignty.32

Third, transnational capital, by surpassing traditional state power, makes the transformation of international order even more complicated. After the end of World War II, Western countries generally implemented a certain kind of “regulated capitalism,” namely Keynesianism. Some political economists characterized it as “embedded liberalism” to indicate that market processes and corporate activities are still within the network of political and social restrictions.33 Under the guidance of Keynesianism, the function of the government is still emphasized. Countries generally adopt “financial repression” policies, strictly limiting the private sector’s participation in international financial business, and cross-border capital flow is stringently controlled.34 However, since the United States fell into a stagflation crisis in 1973, monopoly capital began to seek new value-added channels on a global scale, and increasingly overcame state sovereign and even powerful countries, resulting in the complete reversal of the status of capital and power. As David Harvey said, “There had, of course, always be a delicate balance between financial and state powers under capitalism, but the breakdown of Fordism-keynesianism evidently meant a shift towards the empowerment of finance capital vis-a-vis the nation state.”35

With the rise of neoliberalism, the power to manipulate economic globalization has indeed gradually shifted from the domination of America into the hands of transnational capital. “Neo-liberalization has meant, in short, the financialization of everything.”36 Under the embedded governance of transnational capital, powerful countries have initiated the process of de

industrialization. As government elites and the public are being hoodwinked by capital and welfare respectively, the risk of financial crises is on the rise. The political system of the United States is increasingly being manipulated by the force of capital, and plunged into a “sovereign crisis” because of deindustrialization, unregulated financialization, decline in national power, and damage to people’s well-being. As a result, populism and anti-globalization spring up as countermeasures. As the well-known scholar Robert Keohane pointed out, the real problem is that “we did not pay enough attention as capitalism hijacked globalization.”37 Therefore, “the fading liberal world order is neither liberal nor worldwide nor orderly.”38 American political scientist Ian Bremmer predicted: “The American-led international order is finished. It is not coming back.”39

Since the destructive factors have been lasting for more than 70 years, various mechanisms of the United Nations are proving ineffective. Thus, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter have not been fully demonstrated, and injustice in international relations has occurred from time to time. However, we shall not say that the international system with the UN at its core is outdated. On the contrary, the problem is that the purposes and principles of the UN Charter have not been seriously fulfilled. Also, we shall not assume that economic globalization itself is wrong, but admit that as transnational monopoly capital takes the position of a small minority of people, the goal and path set for economic globalization are inappropriate.

China’s Concept of New International Order Safeguards the Rightful Contents of Post-war International Order

As Henry Kissinger put forward in his book

World Order,

“A reconstruction 37 Jeff D. Colgan and Robert O. Keohane, “The Liberal Order is Rigged: Fix it Now or Watch it Wither,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.96, No.3, May/june, 2017, pp.36-44.

38 Richard N. Haas, “Liberal World Order, R.I.P.,” March 21, 2018. https://www.project-syndicate.org/ commentary/end-of-liberal-world-order-by-richard-n--haass-2018-03.

39 “The End of the American Order: Ian Bremmer Speech at 2019 GZERO Summit,” Eurasia Group, November 18, 2019, https://www.eurasiagroup.net/live-post/end-of-american-order-ian-bremmer-2019gzero-summit-speech.

of the international system is the ultimate challenge to statesmanship of our time.”40 The Communist Party of China is a party that seeks happiness for the Chinese people and contributes to progress for humanity. In recent years, with increasing strength, China has become more and more capable of influencing and promoting the transformation of the current world order. Thus, it has begun to place much more attention on issues like balanced global development and the reasonable demands of the international community for reforming and improving the international order. It is a complete misunderstanding and simply a malicious smear of China’s intentions and practices that China is a challenger to the current international order, as alleged by some countries. Being the first nation to sign the United Nations Charter, China participated in the design and construction of the post-war international order. Chinese leaders have repeatedly emphasized the need to maintain the post-war international order, and pointed out that “Obviously, the current international order is not a perfect one. But as long as it is rulesbased, aims to be equitable and pursues win-win outcomes as its goal, such an international order should not be discarded at will, still less should it be dismantled and rebuilt all over again.”41

Judging from the original design, the legitimacy and rationality of the post-war international order still cannot be surpassed. “The current international system was built by our forefathers from the ashes of the Second World War. It is the result of our collective efforts and wisdom. It’s like a well-designed building with multilateralism being its cornerstone and the UN and other international organizations being its key pillars. Over 70 years has passed, so there has been some wear and tear, to be sure. But the building still shields us from wind and rain and still plays an irreplaceable role in promoting world peace and development.”42 Thus, what motivates China to maintain the post-war international order or reform the current 40 Henry Kissinger, World Order, translated by Hu Liping, China CITIC Press, 2015, p.486.

41 Xi Jinping, “Keeping Abreast of the Trend of the Times to Achieve Common Development,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, July 25, 2018, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/zgbd/t1580493.htm. 42 “Foreign Minister Wang Yi Meets the Press,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, March 8, 2017, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1444204.shtml.

international order is the will to implement the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Wang Yi, China’s State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, once pointed out: “To this day, the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter are not outdated, but still practical strategies for solving various international issues. The turmoil and chaos in the world today are rooted in failing to implement or even violating these purposes and principles.”43 Therefore, to a large extent, China’s efforts to establish a new international order are aimed at correcting deviations and promoting the unfinished cause of the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter. “What we should be doing is to renovate the building rather than constructing another structure. On the other hand, the international system cannot stay unchanged; it must be reformed so that it can better reflect the new reality, meet countries’ needs and catch up with the changing times.”44

However, the current international order “is a product of history after all and is subject to the limitations of the designers,” and thus “the rebalance of the international order is not an accident, but a historical necessity.”45 The rebalance of the international order requires mainly to reform its unreasonable or unsuitable elements according to the times, rather than to abandon rightful contents that reflect the demands of human progress and embody the principles of fairness and justice. “A good international order should be able to accommodate the interests of all members. Although the current international order with the United Nations as the main body is imperfect in terms of efficiency and execution, it is already an international framework close to the ideal of human justice. At the same time, the internal improvement of this international order must be carried out and the endogenous motivation for its reforms must be stimulated. China does not want to create a new set of rules apart from the current international

order, but hopes to see a common ‘roof of the world,’ which is broad enough to respect diversity and tolerate the interests and values of countries with different social systems and development levels. Thus, improving and developing the prevailing international order requires both respecting tradition and innovation, as well as both construction and deconstruction.”46

In the face of the new international situation, how do we make the international order conform to the trend of world history and the interests of most countries, and realize the reconstruction with the United Nations as the core, and sovereign equality and multilateralism as the cornerstone? China’s plan is to foster a new type of international relations and build a community with a shared future for mankind.

The new type of international relations is the Chinese solution to reconstructing the world order and the principal path leading to a community with a shared future for mankind. The difference of this new type of international relations from traditional international relations lies in three keywords. One is mutual respect. It requires total abandon of the traditional law of the jungle, of bullying the weak, and insists that all countries are equal irrespective of their size, strength or wealth, and that domestic affairs within the sovereignty of each country can only be managed by its own government and people. Also, it respects the right for each country to choose the path of development that is consistent with its own national conditions and resolutely opposes the interference of external forces in internal affairs. The second keyword is fairness and justice. It adheres to the proposition that the destiny of the world must be controlled by the people of all countries, and that the affairs of the world should be handled by the governments and people of all countries through consultation. We must respect each other’s concerns and take care of each other’s interests, safeguard the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the common norms of international relations, promote the elaboration of international rules concerning the interests of all parties, and ensure that 46 Fu Ying, “Promote Cooperative Security, Common Development and Political Inclusiveness to Jointly Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind.”

all countries have equal rights for development, opportunities, and rulesmaking. The third keyword is win-win cooperation. It insists on pursuing the new concept of win-win cooperation in both bilateral and multilateral spheres, and abandoning the outdated thinking of zero-sum game and winner-take-all. In addition, it calls for all countries, big and small, to take into account the legitimate concerns of other countries when pursuing their own interests, combine their own interests with the common interests of all countries, and strive to expand the convergence of all parties’ common interests to enhance progress for humanity. In other words, the fruits of development shall be shared by all countries and by their people. The new type of international relations transcends the international relations of the past four centuries which had capitalist power politics as the core content, and the bipolar system that featured the Cold War mentality of ideological confrontation; instead, it fully embodies and develops the rightful essence of the post-war international order, and reflects the expectations of emerging economies and developing countries represented by China for a new international order.47

A community with a shared future for mankind is the ultimate goal and destination of China’s outlook on international order, the core of which is to build an open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security and common prosperity. Politically, it promotes mutual respect and equal consultation and calls for a total rejection of the Cold War mentality and power politics by forging a new path that chooses dialogue over confrontation and partnership over alliance. In terms of security, it persists in resolving disputes through dialogue, dispelling differences through consultation, coordinating responses to traditional and non-traditional security threats, and opposing terrorism in all its forms. Economically, it calls on all parties to work together to promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and make economic globalization more open, inclusive, balanced and beneficial for all. Culturally, it remains firm in respecting the 47 Guo Shuyong, “A New Type of International Relations: China’s Proposal for Reconstructing the Word Order,” Red Flag Manuscript, March 2018.

diversity of civilizations, encouraging communication rather than isolation, mutual learning rather than conflicts, and coexistence rather than unilateral superiority. Ecologically, it persists in environmental friendliness, cooperating in tackling climate change, and protecting the earth on which mankind depends. The above principles cover not only the political, security and economic development issues of the post-war international order, but also take into account the cultural identity crisis and environmental challenges brought about by globalization and point the way for human society to move towards a world of harmony.

Conclusion

China’s concept of new international order emphasizes the preservation of the post-war international order, which not only shows respect for the original design of the post-war international order, but also represents a return to the original spirit of that order. The world today is undergoing once-in-a-century transformations which have largely been compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. We are entering a period of turbulence and change.48 In the face of major changes, the world looks forward to a new order that responds to the development of the international situation and the voice of people of all countries. China’s concept of new international order conforms to the trend of the times and addresses public concerns, and represents the progressive development of human history. Hence, in the process of advancing the concept of new international order, China must not forget its original aspirations, and cherish and carry forward the spirit of World War II and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. On the other hand, it must oppose power politics and monopoly capital, and effectively contribute to the peace and progress of mankind.