Da Wei: China Must Shoulder a Greater Historical Responsibility in Promoting the Reform of the International Order

From trade wars to nuclear risks, Tsinghua scholar urges China to safeguard the integrity of international trade and security mechanisms.

The second August issue of 世界知识 World Affairs, a magazine published by World Affairs Press under China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, features a special series titled “The Multipolar World Is Coming at Speed,” commemorating the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.

As noted on the magazine’s WeChat blog, the series is written by some of China’s “foremost scholars.” We gather our readers will be interested in their perspectives, and we will be rolling out the English translations of these articles in the coming days.

Today, we share a piece by Da Wei, the Director of the Centre for International Security and Strategy (CISS) and a Professor in the Department of International Relations at Tsinghua University. Da argued that China’s painful historical memory of being bullied by great powers and losing its sovereignty has led it to prioritise the safeguarding of sovereign security and the sanctity of the principle of sovereignty; and China approaches the centre of the world stage and increasingly benefits from the various facets of the international order, it is increasingly poised to take on greater historical responsibilities in the reform of the international order. According to Da, China needs to place greater emphasis on preserving the integrity of international trade mechanisms, facilitating peace talks, and promoting multilateralism that accommodates the growing influence of emerging powers.

Da Wei’s piece is also available on the magazine’s official WeChat blog.

达巍：中国势必要为推动国际秩序变革承担更大历史责任

Da Wei: China Must Shoulder a Greater Historical Responsibility in Promoting the Reform of the International Order

From a political-philosophical perspective, the post-war international order was essentially constructed by a blend of realism and liberalism. The fundamental logic of realism lies in establishing an international system centred on sovereign states, with the United Nations as its cornerstone, adhering to principles such as the equality of all sovereign states and the inviolability of territorial integrity.

The core logic of liberalism, on the other hand, emphasises that national security is ensured through collective security mechanisms, while common interests are safeguarded via multilateral coordination in areas such as trade and finance. Under such an order, countries cede a portion of their sovereign rights to ensure the smoother functioning of global economic, social, technological, and other activities.

The realist international order has gradually taken shape since the inception of the Westphalian system. Following World War II, the innovations within the international order leaned towards liberalism, a shift largely underpinned by Western ideologies. This explains the West’s strong enthusiasm for promoting globalisation after the Cold War, for they were overly confident that, with the major strategic threats removed, the world would inevitably “Westernise,” with all nations benefitting from a unified global market.

However, the West’s perspective has shifted in recent years. It has come to realise that, with the rise of China and the growing influence of the Global South, the world has not evolved as it anticipated. Instead, the West now faces intensifying competition and challenges from non-liberal forces, which place it in an increasingly unfavourable position. Consequently, leading Western powers have begun to utilise tools such as tariff restructuring to dismantle the post-war international order, shifting from being its architects to its disruptors.

The international order established after World War II is now facing challenges. At this critical historical juncture, the international community must prioritise preserving the achievements of the post-war era by safeguarding the bottom lines upon which the current order is built. These include the shared consensus on war and peace, the principles of sovereignty and equality enshrined in the UN Charter, the multilateral security framework centred around the UN Security Council, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is imperative that the world not regress into a “law of the jungle.”

Having emerged from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, China carries a painful historical memory of being bullied by great powers and losing its sovereignty. As a result, it places particular emphasis on and actively pursues the safeguarding of sovereign security and the sanctity of the principle of sovereignty within the international system. In essence, China is deeply rooted in a realist perspective on the international order.

Through years of reform and development, China has transformed into a global power, approaching the centre of the world stage and increasingly benefiting from the various facets of the international order. It is increasingly poised to take on greater historical responsibilities in the reform of the international order. In this evolving process, three critical issues warrant special attention.

First, where is the international trade mechanism heading? By arbitrarily wielding tariffs around the world, the United States is attempting to re-establish a global industrial and supply chain that excludes China. However, its policy of “reciprocal tariffs” is undermining the common interests of the international community; it is creating a “WTO minus 1” scenario, where the “1” represents the United States itself.

In response to efforts to isolate China, China is broadening its openness and remains committed to preserving the integrity of the international trade system. It is working alongside other nations to uphold economic globalisation as the foundational platform for global cooperation.

Secondly, the question remains whether raging regional conflicts can be kept under control. From the Ukraine crisis to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and from the India-Pakistan conflict to the Iran-Israel conflict, the fundamental issue behind all these crises is the choice between war and peace. Major countries must step up to maintain balance, uphold justice, and facilitate peace talks.

Moreover, amidst the drastic turbulence in the regional security landscape and the United States stepping back from its responsibility to protect its allies, a “nuclear jungle” is emerging, and Pandora’s box of nuclear proliferation is being opened. More de facto nuclear-armed states may emerge in the future. In the face of such challenges, major countries must act in accordance with their big-power status. They need to follow China’s example of issuing initiatives like the “no-first-use of nuclear weapons” among the five nuclear-weapon states, in order to uphold global strategic stability and nuclear security.

Third, what kind of multipolar world should be built? The idea that the world is becoming multipolar has increasingly gained global consensus, even within U.S. official discourse. For example, in a January interview, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.” However, different parties interpret multipolarity in different ways.

China, Russia, India, and the nations of the Global South support and advocate for a new international order where multiple power poles coexist peacefully, treat each other as equals, and cooperate on the basis of multilateralism. In the eyes of Europeans, multipolarity represents an acknowledgement of the decline of hegemony and a commitment to multilateralism, while still preserving Western dominance. When the United States speaks of “multipolarity,” it stresses the emergence of multiple powers as a threat to its hegemony, reflecting a deep-seated anxiety about the potential loss of its dominant position.

China has consistently advocated for multipolarity as a way to contribute to the democratisation of international relations. Of course, disorderly multipolarity could lead to increased turbulence and conflicts, much like the situation in medieval Europe. Therefore, China must skilfully apply multipolar thinking to navigate this complex landscape.

In practice, this means China should focus on mobilising coordination among major powers to maintain multipolar stability, while avoiding the mindset of drawing lines and forming blocs in response to the realities of multipolarity. If the world were to ultimately move toward bipolarity, it would mean the failure of the multipolar vision.

In June of this year, I attended the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, where I listened to speeches from leaders of developing countries, including Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto. On one hand, they expressed dissatisfaction with the erratic policy shifts of the United States. On the other hand, they exhibited a strong sense of strategic autonomy, while voicing concerns about a loss of direction in the transformation of the international order and calling on major powers to shoulder their responsibilities.

I believe that, among the world’s major powers today, China stands out as having the greatest potential to become a responsible actor capable of meeting the expectations of the vast number of small and medium-sized nations.

Da Wei on China-U.S. Relations following Xi-Biden meeting in San Francisco

Henry Huiyao Wang: India & China can look past 'rivalry' and border issues for regional strength