From May 13-14, the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD), which works under the direction of the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee (IDCPC) hosted the Fourth Wanshou Dialogue on Global Security, themed as “Universal Security in a Turbulent World: The Responsibility of Major Countries”. Liu Jianchao, Minister of the IDCPC, attended the event and delivered a keynote speech.
More than 50 international security experts from over 30 countries, including Pino Arlacchi, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Andrey Kortunov, former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, Benny Octaviar, former head of the Indonesian Military Research Centre, Douglas Bandow, a special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan and a senior research fellow at the Cato Institute, and Zizi Kodwa, a member of the National Executive Committee of the African National Congress (ANC) and former Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture of South Africa, attended the event.
The participants held in-depth discussions around four topics, namely Pressing Issues of Global Security, The Responsibility of Major Countries Amidst Once in a Century Transformations, Major Country Relations and Security in the Asia Pacific and Pathways to Universal Security.
Friends of Socialist China was invited to participate in the dialogue and we were ably represented by Dr. Jenny Clegg, a Member of our Advisory Group, who is the author of ‘China’s Global Strategy: Towards a Multipolar World’, a Vice President of the Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU) and a leading member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the Stop the War Coalition.
We reproduce below Jenny’s report of the event as well as the text of her speech, which was delivered to the panel session on Major Country Relations and Security in the Asia Pacific.
We also reprint the report of the opening session which was originally carried on the IDCPC website.
The CPAPD website carried a brief report on the event as well as a meeting with Peng Qinghua, Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC).
Labour Outlook also carried an article, based in part on Jenny’s speech.
Without multilateralism, multipolarisation is dangerous
‘Let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend’: this ancient Chinese wisdom was evident at a recent Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD) conference titled “Universal Security in a Turbulent World: the Responsibility of Major Countries”. Nearly 40 speakers were brought together: a former deputy chair of NATO’s military committee, representatives from leading US think-tanks, former defence ministers from Austria and New Zealand, mixed with those from the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (Foundation), the South African Communist Party, and the International Peoples Assembly. The majority were from the Global South – scholars, researchers, former ministers including from South Africa, Vietnam and Ethiopia as well as military figures from Malaysia and Indonesia.
Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee (IDCPC), opened: the world is undergoing a once-in-a-century transformation yet the basic norms of international relations are being challenged and the international system with the UN at its core is under threat. The consequences for global security are becoming very serious. Multilateralism needs renewal; an inclusive common security needs a foundation in development. China will continue to be a stabilising force – for peace, progress, and construction in a turbulent world.
Pino Arlacchi, former UN Under Secretary General, saw the Global South as a ‘testing ground’ for peace and construction, contrasting this to the EU and its ‘apocryphal mindset’, falling back into a destructive mode. Tackling poverty, the cause of conflict, should be the priority, not chasing after enemies.
Andrey Kortunov, a former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, questioned whether the US, so deeply divided, could really be a responsible power. A new round of globalisation driven by continuous technological progress could create new opportunities for cooperation towards a true multilateralism.
Douglas Bandow, CATO Institute and former adviser to US President Ronald Reagan, seeing a world in turmoil, looked to the G7 to take more account of the views of emerging powers – India, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia – so as to share responsibilities. The US and China should draw lessons from history, not fall into the abyss of war but adhere to peaceful coexistence, working through differences for the sake of a future prosperity.
Zizi Kodwa, a member of the National Executive Committee of the African National Congress (ANC) and former Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture of South Africa, argued that amidst global transformation – in technology and the environment, along with ongoing wars – how major countries act will have unprecedented impact: rather than seeking peace through dominance, they should serve as guardians of security pursuing responsible competition.
Over two days we explored the complex intertwining of traditional and non-traditional security threats globally: the impact of climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic, terrorism, worsening conditions of poverty and population displacement, driving conflict; uncertainty increasing with the spread of new disruptive technologies, cyberattacks, the rapid development of military technologies amidst threats of nuclear proliferation. Small countries suffered most in the chaos; multiple crises threatened to set off a chain reaction. At a time when international cooperation and regulation is needed most, multilateralism is eroding as countries abandon values to maximise national interests driving militarisation and global competition, and with regional hotspots at risk of exploding into wider war.
Multipolarisation without multilateralism is dangerous: major countries had to accommodate the rise of new powers, but how? Seen from the Global North, competition between regional powers is intensifying – India-Pakistan, the Middle East with Türkiye, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. More critical views highlighted problems of underdevelopment, the drive for dominance, how the global technology elite extracts value from economies without accountability; the capitalist pursuit of profit, with little left over for the vulnerable. If emerging new powers disrupt the existing order does this also contain the seeds of global transformation?
The US and China were called upon to work harder to get along. But, came the question, can the US ever treat China as an equal? How can they cooperate when they don’t agree on a single principle? The Americans present seemed dazed, evidently disempowered by the chaos unleashed by Trump. US-China competition is likely to intensify, warned Chinese researchers, calling for risk control mechanisms.
On Europe, speakers disagreed. A former Austrian minister of defence advocated ‘peace through strength’: Europe was surrounded by conflict – Eastern Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, the stability guaranteed by the US now gone. Conversely, it was claimed Europeans were completely lacking in self-understanding: the Ukraine war was the outcome of 35 years of failure of common security as, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, US President George HW Bush and German Chancellor Kohl agreed a united Germany should join NATO regardless of the views of the Soviet Union/Russia. How to change the European mindset?
Others observed that Europe, once a model of peace and prosperity, had squandered all its achievements of arms control, the OSCE [Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe], the Arctic Council and so on. Was ASEAN, the southeast Asian regional bloc, more effective, seeking parallel mutual actions rather than legally binding agreements? However, now prosperity in the region was at risk of US-China conflict impacting the entire world. More threatening than India-Pakistan tensions, argued one Chinese scholar, was the Korean situation. With the failure of US-China cooperation, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) had gone nuclear. Now a two bloc rivalry was shaping up between Russia-North Korea and the US-Japan-South Korea. Maybe this could prove the turning point in US-China cooperation with China being essential to finding a resolution?
Could small groupings – minilaterals – help rebuild multilateralism, escaping US-China competition to pursue a development agenda? Past groupings of middle powers had acted with a certain strategic autonomy, opposing the Iraq war for example and advancing alternative ideas. Unlike these like-minded ‘liberal democracies’, such as France and Germany, today, BRICS+ has to manage diversity. However, as one speaker argued, through the Belt and Road Initiative, and the pursuit of China’s Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative, countries were being drawn towards the new-style international relations epitomised by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
With lack of development surely a breeding ground for conflict, does economic development depend on preconditions of peace? Security determines Europe’s economic agenda; for ASEAN economic integration and development comes first. China and India, for example, may disagree on a number of issues but are nevertheless major economic partners. Then again, globalisation – the expansion of economic interconnectedness – has not made the world safer, rather major power competition intensifies.
One researcher from China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) argued that the post-war cycles of capitalist crises were reaching a peak and the situation was not just a repeat of a previous bipolarity; China would no longer be dragged into situations created by others, rather the international order was undergoing fundamental change.
Summing up, Dr. Tao Tao, Deputy Secretary General of the CPAPD noted that world peace and development are being seriously challenged: all players should act to prevent war, building pathways to peace. From the left and right, there was unity in opposition to Trump’s unilateralism and the overall zero sum ‘I win, you lose’ approach. What is Trump’s endgame, wondered Zizi Kodwa – to destroy the UN? I wonder about that too, said the CPAPD’s Yan Yinhua, but whatever, the Chinese government will continue to address the main contradiction between the country’s unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s growing needs for a better life because that is what the Chinese people expect.
Pooling perspectives, suggestions, and lessons drawn from history, the conference challenged participants to face the bigger picture: some eyes were maybe opened, but it’s unlikely that any mindsets were changed. Many speakers called for peace through justice not force; many identified underdevelopment as the root cause of insecurity, a solid foundation for the global economy being seen as the ultimate the pathway to peace.
Where there was universal agreement was on the importance of people-to-people exchange: inward-looking trends, in China as well as the US and the West, had to be reversed otherwise future generations will not understand each other, but rather will view each other with hostility and therefore slide more easily into war.
Jenny Clegg: The US-dominated international order is in deep crisis
The US-dominated international order which has lasted for 80 years is in a deep multiple crisis.
Biden’s liberal internationalist strategy to build an alliance of so-called democracies against so-called autocracies has failed spectacularly: for all the arms poured into Ukraine, Russia could not be defeated. But more than this the moral authority of Western leadership has now truly died a death along with 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza. [The current figure is in excess of 55,000]
Then came the shock of Trump’s about-turn on Putin – putting allies in a spin. Realising they can no longer rely on the US for security, these allies are now dramatically accelerating their own militarisation.
Now Trump’s tariffs are causing the biggest disruption of global trade seen in nearly a century, sending financial markets haywire.
These three crises – of Western moral authority; the uncertainty of US security guarantees; and the crisis of international economic security – have brought the world to a crossroads, a choice I suggest between two visions of multipolarity, and indeed two meanings of security.
Two Multipolar Visions
1.Trump sees a multipolarity of rival fortresses – America, Russia, China: his object being to make America great again, manipulating Russia so as to beat China. His tariff threats aim to delink the world economy from China, reshaping it around US economic, military and technological strengths.
The first stage has been to get key allies and partners to increase military spending; the second step now is to advance military-industrial cooperation – joint production, shared innovation, joint command and control systems – locking economies into US-controlled supply chains.
2. However, a rising Global South has been creating a counter-current: with the West preoccupied with the Ukraine war, new trading patterns of South-South cooperation have been growing. Failed again and again by the West – the broken promises on climate funds, vaccine apartheid, hiked-up interest rates worsening debt burdens – countries in the Global South are coming to the realisation that Western priorities are not theirs and that they have to find their own solutions to their problems through cooperation.
At the same time, showing a concern for peace, countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the African Union-7, as well as China, all gave suggestions to settle the Ukraine war.
This moment of crisis then constitutes a polarisation between two visions of multipolarity – one of rivalry in which military power is paramount, and one of a negotiated multilateral framework for peaceful development. Involved here is a clash between two contradictory notions of security: one based on deterrence, prevailing over adversaries; the other of cooperation on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.
The Asia Pacific
As the main theatre of US-China interaction, the Asia Pacific is a fulcrum in which these two visions play out.
Countries in the region more closely allied to the US have accommodated to the rise of China, balancing economic and security interests. Meanwhile, the US has still found ways to advance its goals through the more flexible arrangements of AUKUS and the Quad. AUKUS Track 2 serves as something of a template in new US-led networks covering AI, quantum computing and space in a comprehensive integration of military, economic and technological domains.
Now Trump’s tariffs are unsettling the region’s comfortable compromise, attempting to force a choice between economy and security. His scattergun approach may sharpen to a strategic focus on a few key framework deals, for example with Japan, South Korea and India to build momentum in his favour and to strengthen and expand the Quad and AUKUS.
China, in response, has accelerated regional economic cooperation. Responding to Trump’s tariffs, ASEAN, Japan and South Korea have joined with China to issue a joint statement against protectionism, committing to further develop the regional trade and financial infrastructure through the Chiang Mai initiative and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) so as to reduce reliance on the US.
Much depends on China, which seeks to offer a stable harbour amidst Trump’s storm. With huge potential for domestic consumption, China offers the prospect of a vast market as well as a chance for developing Asia to leapfrog into a digitised and green future.
What to choose: economy or security? The uncertain political situations in Japan and South Korea may impede tariff negotiations. Or will they offer an opportunity for Trump to press for advantage? Should things start to go the wrong way for the US, Trump may still ratchet up tensions in the seas around China to stoke fears and undermine the cooperation trend.
China has recently started to articulate a different kind of security to hold to the UN order. Its Global Security Initiative combines the concept of indivisible common security with the Bandung spirit of mutual benefit, equality and peaceful coexistence. In this it draws together the two oppositions to the first Cold War – opposition to the arms race, the nuclear disarmament movement of the 1980s;and Third World calls in the 1970s for a new international economic order to secure the right to develop.
With Trump alienating key allies, people say China may be the main beneficiary. But we should not underestimate the determination of the US ruling class: they are not afraid of plunging their own economy together with the rest of the world into recession in an effort to unlock a further round of capitalist renewal as we saw in the 1980s when Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, jacked up interest rates.
Conclusion
So, we are at a crossroads between two multipolarities and two concepts of security. How will the future world be restructured? Will a new concept of common security prevail?
The US has launched into an economic trial of strength with China, putting South-South and East Asian cooperation to the test. Will the Global South resist or fragment? Will growing global uncertainties breed more fear or impel greater international cooperation?
Can the world beyond Trump find common ground on markets and security to forge new rules and renew multilateralism? Will Asia Pacific pragmatism inch-by-inch rebalance reliance on US security? Can we revive the spirit of Bandung and re-energise the peace movements of the past to stiffen the resolve of states to say no to Trump?
I’ll just finish by noting that my own country, Britain is this minute sending its Prince of Wales aircraft carrier group to the South China Sea and quite possibly the Taiwan Strait. The UK is a nuclear weapons state; it is also a Pacific state, part of AUKUS. With a recent surge in right-wing populist demands to ‘Make Britain Great Again’, as in the past, peace activists have a huge task ahead to even begin to stem the militarisation trend.
Fourth Wanshou Dialogue on Global Security Commences
Beijing, May 13th (IDCPC) —The Fourth Wanshou Dialogue on Global Security, themed “Universal Security in a Turbulent World: The Responsibility of Major Countries”, commenced here today. The event was organized by Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament. Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee (IDCPC), attended the event and delivered a keynote speech. More than 50 international security experts from over 30 countries, including Pino Arlacchi, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Andrey Kortunov, former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, Benny Octaviar, former head of Indonesian Military Research Center, Douglas Bandow, a special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan and a senior research fellow at the Cato Institute, and Zizi Kodwa, a member of the National Executive Committee of the African National Congress (ANC) and former Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture of South Africa, attended the event.
Liu said, currently, the basic norms of international relations are being challenged, the international system with the United Nations at its core is under threat, and global security is facing challenges. The more turbulent the world becomes, the more attention is paid to major countries. What kind of responsibility should major countries undertake? As President Xi Jinping has repeatedly pointed out that major countries should act like major countries. Major countries should set an example in upholding equality and mutual respect, taking the lead in advocating fairness and equality, respecting the sovereignty of other countries and the development paths independently chosen by their people. Major countries should also take the lead in safeguarding peace and tranquility, promoting harmonious coexistence and mutual assistance, and act as the ballast for maintaining world peace. In promoting common development, major countries should take the lead in advocating win-win cooperation and common development, ensuring that the fruits of development benefit every country and every person more equitably. In practicing multilateralism, major countries should take the lead in upholding rules and the rule of law, and resolutely safeguard the international system with the United Nations at its core, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms of international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Liu said, China has always treated others as equals. Shortly after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, it proposed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and has adhered to them as the cornerstone of its foreign policy for over 70 years. China has always pursued peaceful development and has written it in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Constitution of the CPC, making overall provisions for following a path of peaceful development and developing foreign relations. China has always advocated win-win cooperation, placing its own development within the context of human development, and unswervingly expanding high-level opening up and promoting high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, creating the world’s largest platform for international economic cooperation. China has always adhered to multilateralism, resolutely safeguarding the authority of the United Nations, deeply participating in the reform of the global governance system, and continuously enhancing the representation and voice of the Global South. China will remain committed to the guidelines of developing friendship and partnership with our neighbors and fostering an amicable, secure and prosperous neighborhood and the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness, and work with other countries in the region to jointly build an Asian community with a shared future. In the face of injustice, China speaks out at critical moments, unswervingly advocates an inclusive and beneficial economic globalization, and works with all countries to seek common development. Recently, China and the US held high-level economic and trade talks in Geneva, which attracted high attention from the international community. China hopes that the US will build on this meeting, continue to work with China to completely correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff increases, continuously strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation, and maintain the healthy, stable and sustainable development of China-US economic and trade relations, jointly injecting more certainty and stability into the world economy.
Liu said, while the role of major countries is important, world history is written by all countries together. Eighty years ago, China fought side by side with all countries that love freedom, justice and peace to win the great victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. Today, in the face of the question of our times about how to build a world of lasting peace and universal security, China is willing to work with all countries to establish a sense of shared future, continuously enhance strategic mutual trust; adhere to the principle of extensive consultation and joint contribution, and continuously improve the security architecture; firmly believe in political solutions, and resolve disputes through dialogue and consultation; adhere to the thinking of win-win cooperation, and jointly strengthen security governance. As a responsible major country, China will continue to be a stabilizing force, a force for peace, a force for progress, and a force for construction in a turbulent world, and work with all countries to provide more positive energy to the international community.
Arlacchi said, in recent years, the Global South countries have been reviving, and a multi-polar international order has emerged. The Global South is not a “breeding ground for barbarism”, but a “testing ground” for peace and construction. Thanks to the significant achievements made by the Global South in poverty reduction and other fields, for the first time in human history, the majority of people live in countries without war and conflict. China adheres to the concepts that all nations together are one community and peaceful development, formulates its national security strategy based on peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, sets an example for Global South countries, and contributes to world peace.
Kortunov said, globalization is an inevitable stage in human development. It may slow down, it may take on a different form, but it cannot be completely stopped or reversed. Continuous technological progress will create new opportunities for cross-border exchanges and cooperation. Global development and security challenges will prompt countries to join hands in addressing them. The arrival of a new round of globalization is only a matter of time. Major countries should follow the historical trend, strengthen cooperation, manage risks, enhance mutual trust, practice true multilateralism, and inject stability into the world.
Octaviar said, the world today is mired in a turbulent situation where traditional and non-traditional threats are intertwined. Universal security cannot just be an idea; it must be translated into concrete actions. Major countries should abandon zero-sum thinking and double standards, build consensus, enhance mutual trust, and lead the construction of a cooperative international security architecture. Peace does not merely mean the absence of war; it also implies justice, fairness, dignity, and hope. In an era of division and turbulence, countries should strengthen unity and cooperation.
Bandow said, the world is full of turmoil today. Major countries should draw lessons from history and shoulder their responsibilities of the times to ensure that the world does not fall back into the abyss of war. China and the US play a crucial role in maintaining world peace and stability. Both sides should adhere to peaceful coexistence, engage in dialogue and communication, maintain people-to-people exchanges, narrow differences, and strengthen cooperation. The two sides should lead the way in building a world free from zero-sum games and shared by all.
Kodwa said, we are in an era of great transformation, and the international system is undergoing significant adjustments. Against this backdrop, the actions of major countries will have an unprecedented impact. Major countries should be guardians of security, not destroyers; they should demonstrate vision to lead, not be driven by fear. Universal security is not an unattainable dream; it can be achieved as long as all countries work together.
Lu Kang, Vice-minister of the IDCPC, presided over the opening ceremony.
