16 July 2023, NIICE Commentary 8697
Dr. Soumya Awasthi and Pooja Arora
Past few weeks have been an animated month for global geopolitics. The 11th Global Peace forum held in Beijing, China organized by Tsinghua University in collaboration with the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs concluded on 3 July 2023. The summit questioned the foundational ‘universal values’ that underpin the rules based international order established after the second world war. The treasury secretary of the United States, Janet Yellen also visited China on 9 July 2023, in an attempt to stabilize the relationship between China and USA with ambiguous results.
While China was busy deliberating on the rule based international order, a communique from the NATO summit concluded in Vilnius, Lithuania on 11-12 July 2023, acknowledging that China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge the interests, security, and values of the alliance. Indeed, the stage is set for a new ‘clash of civilizations’, with set of players and rules, with each side seems to harbouring a Manichean perspective, viewing the other as an adversary on opposite ends of the spectrum.
The foundations of what is commonly referred to as the liberal global order were established in the aftermath of World War II. During this time, a privileged few secured their nuclear privilege through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The ideological clash between liberalism and communism ignited the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. As fledgling nations wrestled with colonial legacies, a global framework advocating democracy and the dollar as a universal currency emerged, with the US donning the mantle of the world’s policeman.
Post 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union, the liberal world order asserted its dominance over alternative systems of governance with Francis Fukuyama’s concept of the “End of History.” However, the dawn of the 21st century has seen this order challenged by various quarters, with the most formidable opposition from China, a country that had previously profited from this very order. The very challenge spans from institutional and ideological realms, embodied in the term “Beijing Consensus,” seen as a counterpoint to the “Washington consensus”. The liberal global order, a staunch advocate of democracy, human rights, equality, and free trade, must now reckon with this burgeoning challenge from Beijing.
The economic interdependency between the United States and China, and latter’s growing military prowess, diplomatic footprint, and construction of parallel institutions has made it the strongest geostrategic competitor against the Washington DC.
Events of global importance in the twenty-first century, from the attack on Iraq (2001) and Afghanistan (2001) to the present conflict in Ukraine (2022) have only diminished the global faith in the institutions, norms, and values that underpin the liberal global order. The prolonging of the conflict by the opposing sides to the conflict has led to widespread discontent.
China Challenging the Liberal World Order
Meanwhile, China has been launching parallel institutions and expanding its membership in initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Global Civilization Initiative, Global Security Alliance, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in order to reinforce its hegemonic status. On the occasion of the 11th World Peace Forum in Beijing, many speakers accused the West of carrying a sense of civilizational superiority blithely sanctioning any regime that does not meet its ‘liberal standards.’
Chinese narratives often find the western obsession with multi-party elections, independent courts, or free speech futile. The Chinese vision for peace was described by Liu Jianchao, the Minister In Charge of the Communist Party’s International Department using the Chinese character for peace he which is formed by a mouth and rice stalks.
Furthermore, China has been dawning a new hat as a negotiator and mediator in the far north of the world which is usually considered to be the playfield of the US. In last few months, China successfully harboured peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia. With Beijing’s growing economic and political influence, China has shown the West that it can also be a significant player in resolving conflicts and disputes. Another occasion where China played a role of a facilitator was during negotiations between North Korea and other countries on Nuclear Disarmament, and China even played ‘dove’ in Korean Peninsula.
Nevertheless, one can counter argue that China followed this path only to serve its national policies and in ensuring its own stability. Xi Jinping very well understands its nations need for oil and because it’s a consumer of oil from both Saudi Arabia and Iran, he had to ensure a stable region. Similarly, China is ally of all those nations which are anti-US and, in this case, North Korea serves its purpose of anti-US strategy including its active role in South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.
In terms of its economic necessities, China is looking for consumers across the globe for its mass-produced products for which it needs market in Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia, hence the role of messiah for Xi Jinping.
China’s technological advancements in areas like 5G networks, artificial intelligence, outer space and surveillance technologies are also challenging the liberal world order’s dominance in these fields, while raising concerns about data privacy and security. Furthermore, China’s assertive foreign policy in territorial disputes, such as the South China Sea, undermines the liberal world order’s emphasis on international law, peaceful dispute resolution, and respect for sovereignty.
Beijing’s military modernization, increased presence in international organizations, and efforts to shape global narratives and institutions indicate its aspirations to reshape the international order to align with its own interests and values. The extent and impact of these challenges remain subjects of ongoing debate, with the response of liberal democracies and the evolving dynamics of international relations crucial in shaping the future trajectory of the global order.
A cursory comparison of the global order visions presented by China and the West reveals a stark dichotomy, with each viewing the other as an adversary. The West accuses China of debt-trap diplomacy, attempts of territorial encroachment in Tibet, and on India side in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, authoritarianism, and suppression of dissent in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Conversely, China charges the West with selective adherence to liberal principles, imposition of sanctions on Russia and Iran, violations of territorial sovereignty, and insensitivity to other countries’ civilizational ethos in Afghanistan and Middle East. This dynamic is an echo of the propaganda warfare waged by the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War in their quest for ideological supremacy.
As we navigate the intricacies of global politics, a question inevitably arises: Do the universal values that serve as the bedrock of the liberal global order still hold relevance? The unequivocal response is a resounding yes. Concepts such as democracy, human rights, equality, freedom of speech, and free trade are not merely lofty ideals or utopian dreams but form the very foundation of accountable governance and societal well-being. Historical precedents have time and again invalidated any system that fails to acknowledge and celebrate diversity in political, economic, and cultural spheres. One such universal value is the freedom of movement for both capital and people, a principle that has significantly fuelled China’s meteoric economic rise. This value is not just a theoretical construct but has found practical application and success in democratic societies across the globe.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the liberal global order is far from perfection. Its implementation has often resulted in pronounced disparities within and between nations. Western proponents of this order have frequently fallen short on their commitments, particularly in areas like technology transfer and climate finance. Global institutions such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have remained largely impervious to much-needed reforms. The privilege associated with the dollar has resulted in an economic imbalance, with wealth concentrated in the global north.
To borrow a phrase from Chinese wisdom, it is imperative to transform the crises of the 21st century into opportunities for reforming the global order. The continued relevance and validity of these universal values hinge upon such transformative changes. After all, only through constructive critique and progressive reform can we ensure that these universal values continue to resonate in an ever-evolving global landscape.
Dr Soumya Awasthi is Consultant at Tony Blair Institute, UK and Pooja Arora is PhD Scholar at School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru university, New Delhi, India.
