3 August 2024, NIICE Commentary 9394
Princess Nicole Nasol
On July 23, in a notable diplomatic development, the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah reached an agreement in Beijing. This deal, facilitated by China, seeks to end a decade-long division and promote Palestinian unity. The deal includes forming a temporary national unity government to oversee Palestinian institution unification and Gaza’s reconstruction, organizing general elections under the Central Election Commission, and implementing a unified leadership framework. Despite this progress, past agreements between the factions have failed, and the success of this new initiative will depend on its implementation. While Arab nations, China, and Russia support the agreement, Israel and the United States oppose Hamas’s inclusion, labeling it as a terrorist organization. The Beijing Declaration also advocates for an international conference to address a two-state solution, end Israeli occupation, and tackle the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, showcasing China’s leadership in fostering regional stability and peace.
In another case of China’s diplomatic engagement, the country played a pivotal role in easing tensions between the Philippines and China over the Second Thomas Shoal. Following a June 17 confrontation, China and the Philippines quickly advanced negotiations to prevent further incidents. On Saturday, Philippine officials successfully delivered supplies to the shoal, which has been closely monitored by Chinese forces, without encountering previous obstructions. This agreement, reached through discussions in Manila, aims to manage activities at the shoal while preserving territorial claims.
Moreover, China’s role in diplomatic efforts extended to Japan and Ukraine. During ASEAN meetings in Laos, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa agreed to continue communication despite disagreements over Japan’s release of treated Fukushima water and other issues. Similarly, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba’s visit to Beijing from July 23-24 marked Ukraine’s first engagement with China as a mediator since the war with Russia began. Kuleba’s visit was part of Ukraine’s broader effort to set the stage for direct negotiations with Russia, though Wang Yi noted that conditions for talks were not yet favorable.
These diplomatic engagements underscore China’s proactive approach to global security and conflict resolution, positioning itself as a central player in international peace efforts. China is actively spearheading global diplomatic initiatives through its Global Security Initiative, with recent efforts reflecting its role as a leading mediator in international conflicts.
The Global Security Initiative (GSI)
Introduced by Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum for Asia annual conference in April 2022, the Global Security Initiative (GSI) reflects China’s traditional foreign policy and security principles. A concept paper released by China’s Foreign Ministry in February elaborated on the GSI’s “six commitments” and identified key areas for international collaboration.
The GSI is based on six core commitments:
- Ensuring common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security.
- Respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.
- Adhering to the objectives and principles of the United Nations Charter.
- Resolving disputes and differences between countries peacefully.
- Maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional areas.
- Upholding the principle of “indivisible security.”
While most principles in the GSI are consistent with longstanding Chinese policies, the concept of indivisible security is a notable addition. Although this idea has appeared in other contexts, such as in the charter of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, it gained prominence in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act aimed at easing tensions between the U.S. and Soviet bloc. Indivisible security originally suggested that no country should enhance its security at the expense of another.
Russia has recently reinterpreted indivisible security to justify its actions in Ukraine, claiming NATO expansion threatened its security. This use of the concept connects the GSI with Russia’s rationale for its invasion. A think tank linked to China’s Ministry of State Security has explicitly tied this idea to the GSI, arguing that NATO’s actions violated the principle of indivisible security and led to the current crisis in Europe.
Beijing has actively promoted the GSI on the global stage. At the BRICS summit in June, Xi Jinping urged the member countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa—to support the GSI and foster a “new type of international relations” that avoids hegemonism and zero-sum games.
China has linked the Global Security Initiative (GSI) to various regional security efforts. In Africa, the China-Africa Cooperation Vision 2035 and the Outlook on Peace and Development in the Horn of Africa highlight China’s aim to enhance its role in regional stability. The GSI has also been connected to climate change initiatives in Pacific Island nations like the Solomon Islands and has received early support from Nicaragua and Uruguay in Latin America. Additionally, China is using the GSI to strengthen ties with India by relating it to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the Bandung Spirit, and by aligning it with its 2021 Global Development Initiative (GDI).
Despite these efforts, the GSI has faced scepticism. European countries doubt its potential to improve European security or resolve issues such as Cyprus’s division, focusing instead on bolstering NATO in response to China’s stance on the Ukraine conflict. Japan and India, along with ASEAN countries with territorial disputes with China, have also expressed concerns, particularly regarding the concept of indivisible security.
Conclusion
China’s Global Security Initiative challenges Western concepts of an international order based on liberal values. The GSI prioritizes national sovereignty over interventionism, collective security over military alliances, and development over democracy and human rights. It emphasizes government-to-government interactions and offers limited engagement with civil society.
The GSI reflects China’s aim to reform rather than dismantle the international order, seeking to influence and reshape it through a multilateral approach that builds on but goes beyond the American model. Although Western nations and countries with territorial disputes with China remain cautious, the GSI has received support from many countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The Chinese Foreign Ministry claims over 100 countries and international organizations support the GSI, reflecting a desire for a more equitable global system and dissatisfaction with perceived Western double standards.
The decline in Western influence, highlighted by the Gaza crisis and perceived Western hypocrisy and instability, underscores a broader trend of diminishing Western dominance. The shift in approach, with Ukrainian President Zelensky seeking to end the war by engaging with China rather than relying on traditional Western moral, military, and financial support, reflects this trend. Additionally, Western-allied countries adjusting their relations with China after years of confrontation further indicates the instability of Western power. As emerging powers across various regions express discontent with Western policies and leaders, the GSI poses a challenge to the current global order.
It is too early to fully assess the GSI’s impact and effectiveness. Its success will depend on China’s ability to uphold its commitments to a multipolar, rules-based international order, the willingness of global partners to adjust their relations with China, Sino-U.S. relations, and China’s capacity to use its influence to promote global peace and prosperity. Beyond its rhetoric, China will need to demonstrate concrete contributions to global stability and cooperation.
Princess Nicole Nasol is a Research Intern at NIICE who is currently pursuing her BA in Global Affairs and Diplomacy at Miriam College, Philippines.
