Tag Archives: World War I

Xi Jinping visited Vladimir Putin today, and they both called each other «dear friends.» Xi says China is ready with Russia to stand guard over world order based on international law, on Moscow visit earlier today. Xi added that with Russia, China was ready to defend the UN-centric international system.

Xi pushes China to play a more dominant role in managing global affairs. China`s New World Order is on the way.

This is what the war in Ukraine is about: the new world order. The war in Ukraine is set to fundamentally transform the International order, and some people call it the world`s «de-Westernization».

A World Order is an impressive work that focuses on the geopolitical distribution of power, Henry Kissinger wrote in his book World Order.

During the 20^th century, political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill used the term «new world order» to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change in world political thought and in the global balance of power after World War I and World War II.

The interwar and post-World War II periods were seen as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance by collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to resolve while nevertheless respecting the right of nations to self-determination.

Such collective initiatives manifested in the formation of intergovernmental organizations such as the League of Nations in 1920, the United Nations (UN) in 1945, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, along with international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), implemented to maintain a cooperative balance of power and facilitate reconciliation between nations to prevent the prospect of another global conflict.

After World War II, they all said; «Never again», and the winners, led by America, drafted conventions that defined unpardonable crimes against humanity, and sought to impose costs on those committing them.

Recalling the economic disasters and human miseries that paved the way to world war, the framers of this order built the UN and other international institutions to promote cooperation and development.

Progressives welcomed international organizations and regimes such as the United Nations in the aftermath of the two World Wars but argued that these initiatives suffered from a democratic deficit and were therefore inadequate not only to prevent another world war but to foster global justice, as the UN was chartered to be a free association of sovereign nation-states rather than a transition to democratic world government.

British writer and futurist H.G. Wells went further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term «new world order» as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state, and of a planned economy, garnering popularity in state socialist circles.

Right-wing populist John Birch Society claimed in the 1960s that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, «greedy» bankers, and corrupt politicians who were intent on using the UN as the vehicle to create a «One World Government».

This anti-globalist conspiracism fueled the campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the UN.

In his speech, Toward a New World Order, delivered on 11 September 1990 during a joint session of the US Congress, President George H.W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states. He stated:

«Until now, the world we`ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and the cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the genuine prospect of new world order.

In the words of Winston Churchill, a «world order» in which «the principles of justice and fair play …. protect the weak against the strong…..»A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.»

The New York Times observed that progressives were denouncing this new world order as a rationalization of American imperial ambitions in the Middle East at the time.

And now, everything has changed. Again. China`s New World Order is coming.

We are moving from a Unipolar world to a Multipolar world where Europe and the U.S. are less influential. The war in Ukraine is dividing opinions between people in Western nations, and those in countries like China, India, and Turkey, a new poll suggests.

The war in Ukraine has laid bare the «sharp geographical divides in global attitudes» on «conceptions of democracy, and the composition of the future international order,» according to a new survey from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

While Western allies have «regained their sense of purpose on the global stage,» the gulf between their perspective and the «rest» has grown wider, the ECFR added.

There are different views about the general role the West will play in the future world order. Some people expect a new bipolar world of two blocks led by the U.S. and China, whereas there were signs that most people in major non-Western countries see the future in more multipolar terms.

China has always been in front. The silk road is known for all the roads from China to Europe, and nobody knows how old it is, but it can be as old as ten thousand years. The silk road was popular because the Chinese sold silk to Europe.

Today, China is still in front as they are considered to be the factory of the world. But this is probably not a surprise for people in China. Why?

For more than two millennia, nomarchs who ruled China proper saw their country as one of the dominant actors in the world. The concept of Zhongguo (the Middle Kingdom, as China, calls itself), is not simply geographic.

It implies that China is the cultural, political, and economic center of the world.

This Sino-centrist worldview has in many ways shaped China`s outlook on global governance. The rules, norms, and institutions that regulate international cooperation. The decline and collapse of imperial China in the 1800s and early 1900s, however, diminished Chinese influence on the global stage for more than a century.

But China is back. China has reemerged as a major power in the past two decades, with the world`s second-largest economy and a world-class military. It increasingly asserts itself, seeking to regain its centrality in the international system, and over global governance institutions.

These institutions, created mostly by Western powers after World War II, include the World Bank, which provides loans and grants to developing states, the International Monetary Fund, which works to secure the stability of the global monetary system; and the United Nations, among others.

President Xi Jinping, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, has called for China to «lead the reform of the global governance system,» transforming institutions and norms in ways that will reflect Beijing`s values and priorities.

For over two thousand years, beginning with the Qin dynasty (221-226 BCE) and ending with the collapse of the Qing (1636-1911 BCE), monarchs who ruled China proper invoked a mandate of heaven to legitimate their own rule and rhetorically assert their own centrality to global order, even though they never built a truly global empire.

Even when China`s influence collapsed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Chinese elites dreamed of regaining global influence.

At the end of World War II, China became an initial member of the United Nations and seemed poised to play a larger role in the new international order. But after the Communist Party won the civil war and took power in 1949, China rejected the international system and tried to help create an alternative global governance order.

Frustrated with the existing international system, the Republic of China (Taiwan) remained seated on the UN Security Council, instead of the People`s Republic of China, Beijing promoted alternative values and institutions.

In 1953, Premier Zhou Enlai enunciated «The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence», mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, noninterference in each other`s international affairs, equality, mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.

Endorsed by leaders of many newly independent former colonies, these principles formed a basis for the nonaligned movement (NAM) of the 1960s. NAM became a counterweight to Western-dominated global governance.

China returned to the international system in the early 1970s and rebuilt its ties with the United States. It accepted a weaker international role and sought to participate in the institutions and rules set up after World War II.

After the end of the Mao era, China opened up in the 1980s and 1990s, reformed its economy, and increased its role in global governance, including by cooperating with international institutions. During this time, China adapted many domestic laws to conform to those of other countries.

Deng Xiaoping, who ultimately succeeded Mao, oversaw major economic reforms in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which launched China`s growth and ultimately increased its global reach. Deng introduced market reforms, and encouraged inflows of foreign capital and technology, among other steps.

During this period, China also joined more global financial and trade institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the Asian Development Bank.

In 1989, the Chinese government violently cracked down on democracy protestors in Beijing`s Tiananmen Square, and elsewhere in the country, which resulted in widespread international condemnation.

To help rebuild its reputation and ties with other countries, beginning in the early 1990s, Beijing increasingly embraced multilateralism and integration with global governance institutions. Beijing signed multilateral agreements it had previously been reluctant to join.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, China often proved willing to play by international rules and norms. As its economy grew, however, Beijing assumed a more active role in global governance, signaling its potential to lead and challenge existing institutions and norms.

The country boosted its power in four ways; it took on a bigger role in international institutions, advertised its increasing influence, laid the groundwork to create some of its own organizations, and sometimes subverted global governance rules.

In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become the world`s second-biggest economy and earned the third-greatest percentage of votes in the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also created its own Multilateral Organizations.

China started to create its own Beijing-dominated institutions. A process that would expand in the 2010s. In the previous decade, Beijing had established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which built on the earlier Shanghai 5 group, and brought together China, Russia, and Central Asian states.

In the 2010s, the SCO would become a vehicle for China to challenge existing global norms, such as pushing its idea of closed internet controlled by governments, rather than one global, open internet.

Under President Bush and Obama, Washington generally accepted that Beijing would increasingly support global governance norms and institutions. In 2005, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick publicly urged China to become a «responsible stakeholder» in the international system.

The Donald J. Trump administration, by contrast, has expressed greater concern over Chinese efforts to subvert existing norms and has pushed back against Beijing`s efforts to use international institutions to promote Chinese foreign policies and programs like the Belt and Road Initiatives.

But China challenges International norms and rules. Under Jiang Zemin`s successor Hu Jintao, China more openly challenged international norms. Beijing asserted that its sovereignty over disputed areas of the South China Sea was a «core interest,» and «non-negotiable, « despite participating in negotiations with other claimants.

Beijing also expanded its footprint in the South China Sea; it built military facilities on disputed islands and artificial features. And it expanded its aid around the world.

Since the early 2010s, as China`s economic and military power has grown, so too has its ambition and capability to reform the global governance system to reflect Beijing`s priorities and values.

Some of the priorities Beijing promotes in global governance are defensive in nature and reflect long-standing. Chinese aims: preventing criticism of China`s human rights practices, keeping Taiwan from assuming an independent role in international institutions, and protecting Beijing from compromises to its sovereignty.

Yet China also now seeks to shape the global governance system more offensively, to advance its model of political and economic development. This development model reflects extensive state control over politics and society and a mix of both market-based practices and statism in core sectors of the economy.

Xi Jinping has called for more shared control of global governance. He has declared that China needs to «lead the reform of the global governance system with the concepts of fairness and justice».

The terms fairness and justice signal a call for a more multipolar world, one potentially with a smaller U.S. role in setting international rules. The Donald J. Trump administration`s retreat from global leadership has added to China`s opportunity to fill the void and promote multipolar global governance.

China is now pushing for a bigger role in International agencies. Chinese officials lead four of the fifteen UN specialized agencies. They are also creating alternative institutions. Beijing is building its own, China-centered institutions.

In 2013, Beijing launched the Belt and Road Initiatives. A vast plan to use Chinese assistance to fund infrastructure, and boost ties with, other countries, like their neighbor Russia. Beijing`s more proactive global strategy serves the Xi administration`s dream of returning China to its past glory.

China`s evolving global governance strategy is most apparent in four major issues; global health, internet governance, climate change, and development finance.

China seeks to become a leader in global internet governance and to promote the idea of «cyber sovereignty». That a state should exert control over the internet within its borders. In October 2017, Xi Jinping unveiled his plans to make China a «cyber superpower.»

Globally, Beijing promotes its domestic cyber sovereignty approach to internet governance, which hinges on Communist Party control and censorship. Xi`s administration uses increasingly advanced technology to dominate the domestic internet and social media, blocking global search engines, and social media sites, and promoting domestic versions.

China`s domestic internet offers an alternative to existing, freer models of internet governance, and Beijing also uses its influence at the United Nations, and other forums to push countries to adopt a more closed internet.

Meanwhile, Chinese corporations such as Huawei, and CloudWalk have supplied repressive governments in Venezuela and Zimbabwe with surveillance tools like facial recognition technology.

And the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) contains a «Digital Silk Road Initiative» that includes inviting foreign officials to participate in workshops on information technology policy, including controlling the internet.

If China and Russia can set the standards for internet governance, they could pave the way for other countries to embrace cyber sovereignty, sparking a divided world with two internets. One is generally open, and the other is closed and favored by autocracies.

The world has become less democratic in recent years. Democracy is in decline. The number of people that have democratic rights has recently plummeted: between 2016 and 2022, this number fell from 3,9 billion to 2,3 billion people.

The world underwent phases of autocratization in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, people fought to turn the tide and pushed democratic rights to unprecedented heights. But what now? Can we do the same again?

A new Chinese world order is coming, and they are not democratic.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.