Trust or Prejudice

A peaceful global community has been a dream of mankind since ancient times. A shared future should be defined by health, prosperity, and dignity. The classical Confucian vision of natural order (天命), prescribes that all policies target “universal harmony” (天下平). In Europe, Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” urges all nations to serve humanity with reason. This shared aspiration is now a consensus around the world, as represented by the United Nations (UN).

Since the end of the Cold War and after China’s impressive decades of development, this traditional dream has become more realistic and necessary than ever. It is not a humanistic sentiment, but a matter of survival for humanity and mankind. Increasingly frequent crises affecting the population, climate, environment, and health are shining more intense light on bad behavior that is dangerous at individual, corporate, and transnational levels. We need to strengthen the social-moral foundations of humanity for the sake of the future of mankind. But can we transform our capacity into joint efforts for global governance?

In principle, China’s pledge and invitation to contribute to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a part of the China-initiated global community with a shared future offers a chance to help because it is embedded within the political and administrative infrastructures of the UN.

China embraces responsibility and invites cooperation. As a late-comer in many areas of technological development, China is keen on seizing opportunities for innovation and trying out fresh ideas. This strategy reveals the risks and flaws in outdated designs and inspires engagement in mutual learning for innovation across all areas of social life. 

Working towards an inclusive global community requires an entirely different playbook than doomsday scenarios driven by patterns of confrontation. The essential task of the global community is to establish credible rules and symbols that connect cultural and economic values for the sustainable wellbeing of all. Accordingly, now is the time to make global solidarity real. However, it would still only be a small step in the evolution of global society towards sustaining the diversity of globalized communities.

Ultimately, a global society of communities will engender a culture of solidarity that defines a scope beyond particular interests while including all human needs. The core lesson from the past two centuries is that global governance cannot depend on antagonizing ideology or unilateral dominion, but on orchestrated collaboration of all sources of human values. This is the only way to deliver on a shared future.

The international response has still been mixed. Many countries have welcomed China’s initiative, but others expressed reservations or even hostility. Why is it so difficult for some to welcome the BRI as an opportunity for global advancement? It has the potential to be more inclusive, more just, more timely, and more future-oriented than any major international project organized by global leadership in the past centuries in terms of particularist culture and ideology.

Sadly, the international discourse is still pending despite China’s efforts. The old West and the new emerging powers haven’t yet found common language to articulate the shared goals of global citizens beyond pragmatics. Nowadays, joint agreements are somehow hindered by expressed or implicit reservations, which affect the common cultural foundation by remaining legalistic or political and reinforcing distrust under the surface of decorum. This Cold-War mentality leaves much to be desired considering the future at stake.

Foreign skepticism regarding China’s political principles is nothing new. For example, the principle of international non-intervention tends to inspire pre-emptive disbelief or condescending relativism. Considering that the West seems to have forgotten that realism is a virtue, how can China make it easier for Western countries to recognize China’s promotion of a global community with a shared future and other BRI motives?

Huge potential for fruitful cooperation emerges when we engage as cultural friends, even with political discord. A recent survey supported this theory: It found that two in three Chinese favorably view Germany and France. Culturally, this is promising. Additionally, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has secured binding agreements among very different nations in the region to promote “unimpeded trade,” a strategic pivot for the BRI. The recently concluded China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment consolidated options for multi-polarity in global governance. It encourages Europe to benefit from opportunities in global development.

Considering that some basic questions have yet to be answered, there is still a long way to realize “a community with a shared future for humanity.” For example, how do we define inclusion of humans? Does it apply to all, without reservation, and do we consider future generations? Do we refer to the real interests of human beings, as they articulate themselves, or do we agree on some general standards for humanity, as a moral quality: how we ought to become? Considering that different future scenarios are possible, even desirable, how and by who can measures to save humanity’s future be determined? In what sense will “shared” be defined and organized? Whatever the outcome, aspirations for “universal harmony” and “perpetual peace” clearly demand our attention and devotion.

The author is a German sinologist, philosopher, and professor at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He is also a founding member of the Berlin Institute for Global Health and the European Center for Chinese Thought.