The eleventh world peace forum, China’s most important geopolitical conference, organized by the leading Chinese Tsinghua University at the beginning of July in Beijing, dealt with current issues concerning the future of the global community. Topics such as:
- What is the future of globalization?
- Has a post-Western world that competes on equal terms with the West dawned?
- How does the war in Ukraine affect the balance of power in the international system?
- How likely is a war between the US and China?
- Are there conditions for peaceful management of the Cold War rivalry between these two giants?
- Can disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence destabilize the strategic balance?
- What is the future of the nuclear non-proliferation regime?
- Is global cooperation possible for the environmental sustainability of the planet?
The conference was attended by high-ranking officials and ambassadors (current and former), think tank analysts and academics from many countries. Such meetings lend themselves to behind-the-scenes diplomacy between the participants, where burning issues of international policy are discussed informally away from the public eye to see if there is a confluence of interests.
China’s new vice president Han Zheng made his first international appearance at the conference, appearing as an advocate of globalization and multilateral diplomacy while blaming the US for its policies of economic disengagement and protectionism towards China. These policies, according to the Chinese vice president, endanger the economic development and stability of the planet.
In her introduction, the former president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff and current president of the New Development Bank referred to the structural changes in power in the global system with the emergence of new poles of economic power expressed by a group of countries in China, India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa, known as with the acronym BRICS. The change in the economic balance of power shows that the West has lost its primacy. More specifically:
In 1992 the world’s seven most powerful economies (G-7) controlled over 40% of the world’s wealth in terms of purchasing power, while the BRICS countries accounted for 18%. Today the BRICS group of countries control more than 30% while the seven most developed countries of the planet (G-7) control less than 30%.
The BRICS group of countries seems to be a magnet since twenty-four countries have shown interest in joining it, including Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. There is much anticipation for the next BRICS conference next month in South Africa, where it is expected to decide which of the candidate countries will be admitted.
The theme that dominated the forum was the strained Sino-American relations that are currently at Cold War levels of confrontation. The US believes that China wants to become a regional hegemon in the rapidly developing region of Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific Ocean, and then a global hegemon, displacing it from the primacy of the international system.
China, for its part, argues that the US wants to derail its upward trajectory, corral it economically and technologically, change its political system, encircle it, and ultimately dissolve it, as it did with the Soviet Union. At first glance there appears to be a complete conflict of interest.
In the international system, two main geopolitical poles have been created, just like in the Cold War.
On the one hand the oceanic alliance led by the US and joined by Europe and Pacific countries such as Japan, New Zealand and Australia. On the other, the continental alliance of China, with Russia, Iran, and smaller countries such as Pakistan, Cambodia and Malaysia.
The war in Ukraine has created a new geopolitical dynamic in China-Russia relations, where China now has the upper hand, not only because its economy is ten times larger than Russia’s, but because Russia is now isolated from the West and it depends on China. The informal Sino-Russian alliance is a magnet for many countries, such as Central Asian countries, while it embarrasses countries such as India, Laos and Vietnam that have previously used Russia as a counterweight to China.
Some believe that in such a conflictual geopolitical environment war is inevitable given that the dominant power in the international system (the US) is motivated to wage pre-emptive war against the rising power (China). Still others believe that China has an incentive to go to war against the US while it is on an upward trajectory before the inevitable decline that many analysts in Washington place at a five-year horizon.
Both arguments are weak, however, because they ignore the existence of nuclear arsenals that make war as a strategic option prohibitive. Of course, this does not rule out unintentional escalation or war by accident.
Ηow can Cold War rivalry be managed without war breaking out?
The two superpowers faced this problem after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when they came close to nuclear annihilation. Then a series of arrangements and understandings were made that can be a guide for today’s competition management.
In particular, in order to limit dangerous “misunderstandings” the US and China must obtain a “mutual understanding” of what they consider to be a cause of war in their relations. This requires open channels of communication either formally or informally (through backroom diplomacy). For example for the US a red line would be the forcible annexation of Taiwan. For China, a red line would be US support for Taiwan’s independence declaration.
To avoid an unintended escalation into nuclear war an understanding of what constitutes nuclear first strike preparation should also be created. For example, cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure or attacks on the other side’s satellite surveillance systems (blinding) can reasonably be seen as preparation for a first strike. This will create pressure for a pre-emptive strike, which is extremely destabilizing especially in a time of crisis. So it must be mutually understood that such attacks constitute a red line, which is in the interest of both sides not to be violated, because Pandora’s box may be opened.
We should not entertain false hopes about the ability of the two competitors to adopt rules of conduct and conclude agreements that comprehensively regulate the framework of their geopolitical, economic and technological competition. Such a “road map” could not be achieved, since there is no confidence that the agreements between them will be kept nor is it easy to verify what was agreed. But the two competitors would have every interest to seek some mutually beneficial military restrictions to avoid accidents.
For example, a maritime accident prevention agreement similar to the one the US signed in 1972 with the Soviet Union could prevent accidents in the South China Sea or limit any consequences if an accident does occur. The South China Sea is an area of daily aeronautical competition, so a serious accident is only a matter of time: The US frequently conducts maritime crossing operations to effectively assert its right to access and navigate international waters in the region, which puts it at odds with China which considers that the US has no such right in this particular area.
The two competitors would also have every incentive to frame the use of autonomous weapons systems and artificial intelligence. In any process of using military force it should be agreed that a human decision-maker will be involved. It would benefit no one if nuclear escalation resulted from the uncontrolled actions of autonomous algorithmically programmed robots.
Finally, it should not be overlooked that China and the US have common interests in some areas. For example, both China and the US have common interests in issues such as limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, environmental sustainability, safeguarding public health, and financial stability.
As an example, the nuclearization of North Korea can be mentioned, which while at first sight is directed against the US and its local allies, could lead to the nuclearization of Japan and South Korea, which is not in China’s interest. So the two giants have every interest in working together to preserve and strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime, which is currently collapsing due to the war in Ukraine.
Likewise, maintaining financial stability is in the interest of both economic giants as well as avoiding financial crises that could derail their economic prosperity and socio-political stability. Finally, the environmental problems of the planet and the issues related to public health (pandemics) cannot be solved without the cooperation of the two largest economies of the planet, which is considered a prerequisite for the rest to follow (EU, India, Japan, Brazil) .
