Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping to reshape the international order is a reality that cannot be overlooked. His vision seeks to dismantle the existing alliance network led by Washington and replace it with a framework underpinned by Chinese values and priorities. This involves eliminating the dominance of the U.S. dollar, weakening Washington’s technological monopoly and instilling Chinese notions of common security and economic development into global institutions. According to Xi, this “community with a shared future for mankind” is within reach. During the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs in December, Xi characterized Beijing as a “confident, self-reliant, open and inclusive major country” and proclaimed the transformation of his vision from a “Chinese initiative” to an “international consensus.” Four major programs support this vision: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI).Despite skepticism from American policymakers and global observers, who often point to the faltering Chinese economy and the unpopularity of China’s diplomatic approaches, Xi’s vision is gaining traction in specific contexts. Beijing’s initiatives resonate particularly among nations dissatisfied with the current international order, as they promise a more inclusive and multipolar framework. To counter China’s rise, the United States must embrace systemic changes, investing in technological, military and diplomatic capacities. Furthermore, stabilizing U.S.-China relations will enable Washington to address longer-term challenges effectively.China’s vision is rooted in a multipolar system emphasizing absolute sovereignty, development-driven solutions and security rooted in international consensus. Beijing portrays its model as fundamentally distinct from the U.S.-led order, which it accuses of perpetuating Cold War mentalities, fostering division and leveraging cultural and economic hegemony for unilateral gain. This narrative resonates with countries frustrated by the dominance of Western norms and institutions.At the 2024 Munich Security Conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized the compatibility of Chinese and U.S. responsibilities for global stability while advocating for China’s partnerships with Russia, the European Union and the Global South. Beijing’s initiatives seek to validate the choices of nondemocratic regimes, amplify the voices of smaller democratic nations and challenge the status quo of major democracies. Dissatisfaction with the existing order has created a fertile environment for China’s proposals.China’s strategy, developed over decades, has recently evolved into three core global programs: the BRI, the GDI and the GSI. Each program supports China’s overarching goal of reshaping the international system and ensuring its centrality within it. The GCI, introduced in 2023, advances the notion that diverse civilizations and development paths should coexist without a universal imposition of values. This initiative aligns with China’s broader goal of challenging the primacy of liberal democratic principles in global governance.
Initially conceived as a mechanism to address infrastructure deficits in emerging economies, the BRI has since evolved into a geostrategic tool. It embeds Chinese technology, promotes its development model, extends its military and police reach and encourages the use of its currency. Approximately 150 countries have joined the BRI, illustrating its widespread appeal despite criticisms of debt dependency and environmental concerns.The GDI positions China as a leader in addressing global development challenges. Through collaborations with the United Nations and other institutions, it prioritizes projects on poverty alleviation, digital connectivity, climate change and health security. The GDI advances Beijing’s narrative that economic development is a prerequisite for human rights, challenging the Western focus on democracy and individual freedoms.The GSI promotes a vision of security based on dialogue, consultation and noninterference. It aims to dismantle U.S.-led alliances and advocates for absolute sovereignty and indivisible security. Although controversial particularly for its alignment with Russia’s justifications for the invasion of Ukrainethe GSI has garnered support from countries disenchanted with Western military interventions.The GCI underscores the legitimacy of diverse political and economic systems, advocating that no single model should dominate global discourse. This approach appeals to nations seeking to preserve their sovereignty against perceived Western cultural imperialism.China’s multilevel strategy integrates bilateral, regional and multilateral engagements. The BRI serves as a model for embedding Chinese values into global frameworks, linking with regional initiatives like ASEAN’s Master Plan on Connectivity. Beijing’s efforts to align its initiatives with UN agendas, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, further solidify its influence.China’s extensive diplomatic network—the largest globally—and its state-controlled media apparatus amplify its narrative. Outlets like CGTN and Xinhua promote China’s vision, often swaying public opinion in developing countries. Surveys reveal that Chinese messaging can shift perceptions, especially when contrasted with U.S. narratives.
Despite its progress, Beijing faces significant obstacles in realizing its vision. The BRI has encountered financial sustainability issues, with declining investments and withdrawals by key participants like Italy. Public opinion remains mixed, with surveys in regions such as Africa and Latin America indicating skepticism about China’s long-term intentions. Moreover, concerns about debt dependency and the undermining of universal human rights persist.Multilateral support for initiatives like the GSI and GCI is nascent and often rhetorical. For instance, the abstention of many countries during the UN vote condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine illustrates the limits of China’s influence. Additionally, regional powers such as India resist alignment with China’s security frameworks, fearing encroachment on their strategic autonomy.To counter China’s ascent, the United States must present an alternative vision for global governance that addresses the shortcomings of the current system. This vision should prioritize inclusivity, technological innovation and sustainable development. Initiatives such as the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework lay the groundwork for such efforts but must be expanded to include countries vulnerable to Chinese influence.Public-private partnerships can bolster U.S. competitiveness by aligning strategic goals with economic incentives. Additionally, Washington should leverage its leadership in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to establish new international norms that reflect democratic values. Engaging with a broader range of countries, particularly those in the Global South, will enhance the legitimacy of U.S.-led initiatives.Stabilizing U.S.-China relations is equally critical. Clear communication, reduced hostility and cooperative engagements on shared challenges, such as climate change and global health, will create a more constructive bilateral relationship. This approach will enable the United States to focus on long-term objectives without unnecessary distractions.
China’s bid to reshape the international order is both ambitious and multifaceted, appealing to nations disillusioned with the status quo. While Beijing’s initiatives have gained traction, significant challenges remain. For the United States, the path forward lies in presenting a compelling alternative that addresses global disparities, fosters innovation and reinforces democratic principles. By investing in diplomacy, technological leadership and inclusive governance, Washington can ensure its continued relevance in a rapidly changing world. The competition between these two visions will define the contours of the 21st-century international system.
