On a mission to multilateralism
China’s pursuit of modernization without hegemony differs from selfish US-led international order
As the Joe Biden administration promised to “bring multilateralism back”, the “rules-based international order” has become a buzzword in its diplomatic rhetoric.
In essence, the so-called rules are defined and interpreted by the United States; and the “rules-based international order” is also dominated and controlled by the US. So, what the US pursues is a selective multilateralism in the US style, often formulating its own “rules”, in line with its national interests.
The term “rules-based international order” and its use highlights the US-style selective multilateralism and serves as a more covert and misleading alternative to the “liberal international order”. The US support for multilateralism was mainly driven by its core national interests aimed at seeking legitimacy, sharing responsibilities, and maintaining leadership in international affairs, and it had a strongly practical and instrumental aspect.
From this comes the common double standard of the US in international affairs, based on what is known as “American exceptionalism”.
On the one hand, it requires other countries to abide by rules advocated by the US. On the other hand, it refuses to abide by rules that are unfavorable to it or incompatible with the kind of rules that it has in mind. This sort of instrumentalist and opportunistic approach of “using the rules if they are compatible and discarding them if they are not” is not true multilateralism, but selective multilateralism.
Openness and inclusiveness are the essence of true multilateralism, and they also mark the watershed between genuine multilateralism and selective multilateralism.
China has always adhered to the principles of openness and sharing. At the global level, China upholds the authority and effectiveness of multilateral institutions represented by the United Nations. At the regional level, it has initiated the establishment of organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and promoted the launch of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. China seeks strategic alignment and complementary advantages without replacing existing international mechanisms or forming exclusive cliques.
Inclusiveness means that the construction of the international order and the formulation of international rules must be able to accommodate and tolerate differences, whether they are in development, social system, or ideology.
In global climate change governance, China adheres to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Regarding WTO reforms, China insists on special and differential treatment for developing countries. These are examples of inclusiveness. Some Western powers have long considered themselves as standard setters of the world. They fear that China’s increasing influence on international norms may change the game rules they are comfortable with.
China, a representative of developing countries and emerging powers, should adhere to international law, take the lead in safeguarding the authority of international law, disprove the theory of “a strong country must seek hegemony” with concrete actions, and transcend the world historical narrative of the periodic law of hegemony.
The fragmentation of international law still persists to a considerable extent, with significant inadequacies in dialogue, consultation, and coordination among various regions, mechanisms, and arrangements, as well as a lack of global toplevel design.
China’s proposals for global development and security initiatives feature inclusiveness (aiming at all countries worldwide), equality (“initiatives” rather than “strategies” or “guidelines”), and sharp focus (on development and security). The initiatives are capable enough to promote synergies among international mechanisms and arrangements.
In the post-hegemonic era, no single country can set rules for the world and support the effective operation of international systems. A pluralistic international community does not accept any single country dominating international affairs. Multilateralism and pluralistic co-governance are the inevitable choices. This objectively requires all countries in the world to abandon hegemony, confrontation, and “zerosum” thinking and choose the path of consultation, dialogue, and winwin results.
Currently, global governance is challenged by a lack of international public goods. International institutions and legal rules are needed to help tackle governance failures and promote the provision of public goods. As a responsible major country, China has launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a public good for the international community.
In the future, from the perspective of the international rule of law, while adhering to the multilateralist stance of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, efforts should be made to formalize and institutionalize the Belt and Road cooperation with enhanced legal governance. In this way, the BRI will become a sustainable international cooperation platform that is easier to expand.
The concepts of the “Chinese path to modernization” and the “new form of human civilization” support and advance multilateralism. Chinese-style modernization is a modernization that follows the path of peaceful development and does not seek hegemony, expansion, or spheres of influence. This is of particular significance for the multilateral international order and the rule of international law.
The author is deputy directorgeneral and research fellow at the International Cooperation Bureau at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a professor at the Law School at the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.