Hello! Welcome to the final lesson in our module on the US-China strategic competition.
In our last lesson, we analyzed the direct and often destabilizing impact of the US-China rivalry on smaller states in South and Southeast Asia. We saw how external competition can inflame domestic politics in countries like Nepal, forcing them into a difficult balancing act. Today, we elevate our perspective from the consequences of this rivalry to its root cause: a fundamental disagreement about how the world should be organized. We will explore the competing philosophies of global governance that drive this competition.
Our learning outcome for this lesson is to: Analyze the competing visions for global governance: the rules-based order versus multipolar alternatives.
We'll investigate three key questions:
- What exactly is the "liberal international order" or "rules-based order" that the US and its allies champion?
- Why is this order currently under so much strain?
- What is the alternative vision that China, along with other powers, is proposing, and how are they trying to build it?
Understanding this clash of worldviews is essential for making sense of almost every major geopolitical event today, from trade wars to diplomatic disputes at the United Nations.
1. The "Liberal International Order": A Definition
You've likely heard the term "rules-based international order" frequently in news and policy discussions. It's the framework the US and its allies accuse China and Russia of undermining. But what does it actually mean? At its core, this order, also called the Liberal International Order, is built on three pillars:
- A commitment to democracy and the rule of law as the preferred systems of governance.
- A commitment to an open international economy, promoting free trade and capitalism.
- A commitment to institutionalized multilateralism, using international institutions like the UN, WTO, and IMF to manage global affairs.
This order is a relatively recent phenomenon, truly taking its global form only after the Cold War. To understand its origins and characteristics from a critical, realist perspective, let's turn to a lecture by Professor John Mearsheimer.
The liberal international order | John Mearsheimer
In this video, 'The liberal international order,' from the Centre for Independent Studies, John Mearsheimer clearly defines what a liberal international order is and explains the specific geopolitical condition that allowed it to emerge: unipolarity.
Please watch the segment from 02:28 to 14:09. Focus on how Mearsheimer: Defines an 'order', an 'international order', and a 'liberal international order'. Argues that a liberal international order can only exist in a unipolar world, where the single great power is a liberal democracy (like the US after 1990). Distinguishes the post-Cold War liberal order from the 'bounded realist orders' of the Cold War (the US-led West and the Soviet-led East).
Mearsheimer’s analysis provides a crucial insight: the liberal international order is not a neutral, timeless system. It is a specific historical construct that arose when the US, as the sole superpower, had the freedom to shape the world in its own image without worrying about a rival great power. This context is key to understanding why the order is now fracturing as the world shifts away from unipolarity.
2. The Fracturing of the Liberal Order
The liberal order is facing challenges from all sides. These come not only from external rivals like China and Russia but also from within the very Western nations that created it. A recent Chatham House paper provides a comprehensive overview of this fracturing.
The fracturing of the US-led liberal international order
Let's read the opening chapter of a Chatham House research paper, 'Competing visions of international order,' to understand the forces pulling the liberal order apart.
Please read the section titled '01 The fracturing of the US-led liberal international order.' Focus on the internal and external challenges identified: Internal: The rise of illiberal and nationalist leaders, backlash against globalization, and the US itself turning away from the order it created. External: Competition from China, Russia's actions, and the ambitions of emerging powers in the Global South.
As the paper highlights, and Mearsheimer's lecture also explains in his critique (00:16:06 - 00:20:55), the system has several inherent tensions. The push for hyper-globalization led to economic inequality in Western countries, fueling populist discontent. The goal of spreading democracy led to "endless wars" and poisoned relations with powers like Russia and China. And, most ironically, the integration of China into the open economy accelerated its rise, which in turn undermined the very unipolarity that enabled the liberal order to exist in the first place.
This brings us to the central alternative. As the US-led order weakens, what is China proposing to replace it?
3. China's Vision: A "Multipolar" World
China's vision for global governance is not a call for revolution to tear down the entire system. Rather, it is a call for significant reform to create what it calls a more "democratic" and "multipolar" international system. This vision is built on different principles than the liberal order.
To understand what China wants, we'll consult two excellent resources. First, a panel discussion that delves into the strategic thinking behind China's initiatives, and second, an analysis that unpacks China's official proposals.
What is China's vision for a new world order?
This Chatham House discussion, 'What is China's vision for a new world order?', features experts who analyze the motivations and mechanisms behind China's foreign policy.
Please watch these key segments: Introduction and Security Mindset (00:33 - 14:30): Pay attention to how China's primary goal is to ensure its own security and sovereignty, influenced by historical narratives and Xi Jinping's worldview. Notice the emphasis on a 'security mindset' that permeates its approach to global affairs. Global Initiatives and Rival Institutions (20:13 - 29:06): This section is crucial. Focus on how China uses its Global Development, Security, and Civilization Initiatives to build a narrative that appeals to the Global South. Also, note the discussion of how rival institutions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS are seen as the 'building blocks' for a new world order.
The video makes it clear that China's alternative prioritizes:
- State Sovereignty and Non-Interference: This is the cornerstone. China argues that each country should choose its own development path and political system without outside lecturing, especially on human rights.
- Economic Development as the Priority: Beijing's message, particularly to the Global South, is that development and poverty alleviation are the most fundamental human rights.
- A "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind": This is China's overarching slogan. While it sounds harmonious, it envisions a world where economic ties, managed through institutions China has more influence over, are the primary glue of international relations, rather than shared liberal values.
To see how these ideas are formally presented, let's examine a paper that analyzes China's official proposals.
China, the United States, and the future of a rules-based ...
The Brookings Institution paper 'China, the United States, and the future of a rules-based ...' provides a detailed look at what China specifically wants to change.
Please read two sections: 'China wants substantial change to the international order, not elimination': This section confirms that China seeks to reform, not destroy, the system. It highlights China's official endorsement of the UN-centered system. 'The changes China wants to the international order': This is the core of the reading. It details Xi Jinping's Global Security, Development, and Civilization Initiatives and explains their implications, especially how the 'diversity of civilizations' argument is used to challenge universal human rights norms.
4. Visions in Conflict: From Theory to Practice
This clash of visions is not just theoretical; it plays out in the real world in international forums.
A prime example is the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). As the Brookings paper (LINK) points out, Western nations often use the HRC to pass resolutions condemning specific countries for human rights abuses (a "name-and-shame" approach). In contrast, China uses its growing influence to block these resolutions, arguing for "constructive dialogue" instead of confrontation and emphasizing national sovereignty. This is a direct, practical manifestation of the conflict between the liberal vision (universal, enforceable rights) and the multipolar vision (state-centric, non-interference).
Similarly, the expansion of BRICS to include countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE is a clear move to build a coalition of influential states from the Global South that are skeptical of the US-led order and desire a more multipolar distribution of power.
For a country like Nepal, these competing visions present both risks and opportunities.
- The liberal order offers a framework based on international law that can, in theory, protect small states from larger ones, but its principles can also be used to justify interference in domestic affairs.
- The multipolar alternative championed by China promises strict non-interference and development financing, but it may also weaken global norms against aggression and entrench illiberal governance.
Navigating this is the central challenge of 21st-century statecraft for many nations.
Conclusion
Today we have dissected the two competing blueprints for the future of world order. We've seen that the "rules-based order" is not a neutral concept but a specific, US-led liberal project that emerged during a unique "unipolar moment." As the global balance of power shifts, this order is fracturing under both internal and external pressure.
In its place, China is championing a "multipolar" alternative. This vision doesn't seek to burn the house down, but to extensively renovate it. It prioritizes absolute state sovereignty, champions economic development over liberal values, and seeks to increase the influence of the Global South in institutions like the UN, all while building parallel structures like an expanded BRICS.
Key Takeaways:
- The Liberal International Order is a post-Cold War system based on liberal democracy, open economies, and multilateral institutions, enabled by US unipolarity.
- This order is fracturing due to internal populist backlash against globalization in the West and external challenges from a rising China and other ambitious powers.
- China’s multipolar alternative advocates for a world where power is more diffuse. It emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, particularly on human rights, and seeks to reform global governance to give greater voice to developing nations.
- This competition of visions is actively playing out in international institutions, with China working to reshape norms and build coalitions like BRICS to advance its agenda.
Preview of the Next Module:
We have now concluded our deep dive into the US-China strategic competition. This rivalry is arguably the most powerful force shaping the 21st century. But it is not the only one. Another great power, Russia, also has a distinct vision for the world order, driven by its own unique history and geopolitical imperatives.
In our next module, "Russia, Europe, and Eurasian Security," we will begin by examining these imperatives. The first lesson will be: Explain Russia's geopolitical imperatives: warm-water ports, strategic depth, and the 'near abroad' doctrine. We will see how Russia's geography and history have produced a worldview that puts it on a collision course with the US-led liberal order.