Saturday, September 6, 2025
Friday, September 5, 2025
The Tianjin Summit and the Hope for a More Just International Order
September 5, 2025
The Tianjin Summit and the Hope for a More Just International Order
Geneva.
On 1 September 2025, in Tianjin, China, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) concluded its 25th summit, with the participation of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, numerous chiefs of international organizations, ASEAN Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn, Commonwealth of Independent States General Secretary Sergey Lebedev, and the Presidents or Prime Ministers of 24 States including Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey.
The highlight of the summit was the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) outlined by Chinese President Xi Jinping, in reaffirmation of the aspirations of the “Global Majority” for an inclusive and balanced world order based on the continued validity of the UN Charter. President Xi Jinping’s five principles for a just and equitable global governance are aimed at guaranteeing a security architecture for all, a multilateral framework to promote world peace and prosperity for future generations. In brief, “ First, we should adhere to sovereign equality. Second, we should abide by international rule of law. Third, we should practice multilateralism. Fourth, we should advocate the people-cantered approach. Fifth, we should focus on taking real actions.”
If nothing else, this summit proved that the unipolar world championed by the United States, the neo-colonial habits of the Europeans, the mindset associated with Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden”, have no future. A reality check confirms that we have moved into a multipolar scenario where global issues will have to be addressed multilaterally.
80 Years United Nations
The international community in the year 2025, eighty years after the adoption of the UN Charter, is facing dauting challenges in global governance. The erosion of the authority of the United Nations, its failure to prevent wars, to stop the genocide in Gaza, to effectively manage the challenges of climate change, manifest the need to enhance the UN’s enforcement powers. Not only the UN itself, but other UN agencies and associated organizations including the World Trade Organization suffer from a lack of enforcements mechanisms. Because the world of 2025 is not the world of 1945, it is evident that the United Nations and its agencies must become more representative of today’s world and that the developing countries, what we may call the “Global Majority” must have a decisive voice in global governance. The UN and in particular the UN Security Council must be reformed to ensure the equitable representation of all States members.
Global governance requires uniform rules, not “international law à la carte”, requires a rules based order — already laid down in the UN Charter, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Geneva Red Cross Conventions, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and hundreds of other conventions, protocols and declarations. The United Nations has made a superlative job of standard-setting, has established monitoring mechanisms, expert committees, Special Procedures, and international judicial instances. Alas, there is a glaring implementation gap, because the drafters of the United Nations Charter did not establish a system for the effective enforcement of international norms.
Authority and credibility of the UN
The authority and credibility of the United Nations Organization has been significantly weakened by the gross violations of the UN Charter committed by UN member states, including permanent members of the Security Council. Judgements, Orders and Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice are ignored by numerous countries, notably the United States and the European countries. Unilateral coercive measures are imposed on judges of the International Criminal Court in complete rebellion against international judicial ethos. Other gross violations of international law include the bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 by NATO countries, in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Although the matter was brought to the International Court of Justice by Serbia and Montenegro, the ICJ failed to exercise jurisdiction and make a clear finding that NATO bombardments without UN approval constituted “international wrongful acts” within the meaning of the 2001 Draft Code on State Responsibility; further, that the victims were entitled to recourse and remedy, according to the principle ubi ius, ibi remedium. The sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia were deliberately dismantled. The ICJ failed not only the people of Yugoslavia but also humanity at large, because a fateful “precedent of permissibility” was established, a culture of impunity that facilitated subsequent NATO aggressions and crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. The 2003 invasion and devastation of Iraq by the US and the “coalition of the willing” was duly qualified by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as an “illegal war”, but no one was ever held accountable, and the Western mainstream media largely went along with and applauded the outlawry of the “coalition of the willing”.
It was, in a very real sense, a revolt against international law and international morals, committed not by “the usual suspects”, but by those states who proclaim to be the defenders of the rule of law and human rights. Among the outlaws were the leaders of the United States, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. Instead of defending peace and reaffirming the sovereign equality of states, NATO countries embraced the imperialistic “regime change” modus and brazenly proclaimed the triumphalist view of Francis Fukuyama of The End of History and the “victory” of the West over the rest of the world.
This Pax Americana was and is wholly incompatible with the UN Charter, which promotes multilateralism and rejects the neo-colonial animus dominandi, the pretence to full-spectrum dominance over the world. Of course, the American world order is in the tradition of British Imperialism, the two Opium Wars of the 19th century (which the Chinese never forgot nor forgave), of the criminal exploitation and spoliation of Africa and Asia by the European colonial powers. In the American and European world order, there is no room for apologies and reparation for the crimes committed in the name of “civilization”. Hitherto the world order imposed by the United States on the rest of the world has relied on brutal force, bullying, and blackmailing. The prevailing mantra remains “might is right” – and what the Romans called vae victis. It is this imperial mindset that leads to the tragedies of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Palestine. That is yet another reason why the alternative Chinese Global Governance Initiative appears so attractive.
Equitable Global Governance
A just and equitable global governance would bring the aspiration of all human beings to live together in peace closer to reality. It would advance the slogan of the International Peace Bureau “Disarmament for Development” and enable the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. An equitable global governance would mean the recognition and acceptance of the equal dignity of all members of the human family, the celebration of the rich diversity of world civilizations in the sense of the UNESCO Constitution.
Personally, I have always believed in law as an expression of civilization, as a condition to exercising civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The UN Charter is the only internationally recognized rules based order, and it is still an indispensable guide for all 193 UN member states, as well as for observer states and peoples who aspire to membership.
Currently there are many commissions and committees looking at various models of UN reform. In my capacity as UN independent expert on international order (2012-18) I produced 14 reports for the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council and formulated 25 Principles of International Order. I made concrete, pragmatic, implementable recommendations to reform the UN system, but hitherto there has been no follow-up. I developed my concerns in my “human rights trilogy” – three books devoted to advancing the cause of international law, human rights and the right to international solidarity.
The most noble function of the United Nations remains the prevention on conflict and the maintenance of peace. Alas, over the past thirty years we are witnessing a relentless attack on the fundamentals of international law, the deliberate breach of international treaties (pacta sunt servanda, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 26) the violation of binding orders by the International Court of Justice, the imposition of unilateral coercive measures on members of the International Criminal Court. The most important tenets of international law are being violated by countries belonging to the “collective West” who pretend to impose their will on the rest of the world, including by imposing illegal – and lethal — unilateral coercive measures and imposing tariffs that violate the very essence of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the WTO treaty.
This rebellion against international law and morals augurs badly for world peace, stability and prosperity. The world is not at peace – we are witnessing an ongoing genocide against the People of Palestine, we are witnessing the brutal bombardment of civilian targets, hospitals, schools, mosques, the deliberate starvation of the Gaza population. Hitherto the United Nations and the International Court of Justice have not been able to stop the genocide, have not been able to provide meaningful assistance to the starving people of Palestine. The much tooted doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” (General Assembly resolution 60/1 paragraphs 138-139) has been abandoned by the very states who launched it. Indeed, if there was a case for R2P, it is the protection of the Palestinians!
China’s geopolitical evolution
In recent years, China has put forward a series of new ideas and initiatives in the field of global governance, including the vision of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, multilateralism, and strict adherence to the sanctity of treaties and the rule of international law
Whether our think tanks acknowledge it or not, China has emerged as a major player in international affairs, and it enjoys a level of trust and credibility that the United States has squandered over the past decades. China’s contributions in the field of global governance are being taken seriously by numerous academics and discussed in many universities. Alas, the government “elites” in the West have an irrational fear of China and have assigned the role of “enemy” to China. The relentless demonization of China and its leaders hurts us more than it hurts China, and actually amounts to a form of “hate speech”, in violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
China’s initiatives for Peace in Ukraine were neutral, just and realistic. Yet, in a world in which the US hegemon does not want to share power, the Chinese and African Proposals have fallen on deaf ears. I myself also endeavoured to craft a blueprint for peace in Ukraine, which was largely ignored.
The Tianjin Summit has again demonstrated that China and the “Global Majority” want peace and a democratization of the United Nations so as to be able to achieve an equitable global governance. The Tianjin Summit follows up on the BRICS declarations, including the 2024 Kazan Declaration and the 2025 Rio de Janeiro Declaration. BRICS represents the best hope for humanity, to craft a multilateral system for win-win cooperation instead of lose-lose confrontation. As of September 2025, the BRICS grouping accounts for over 45% of global GDP (nominal) and over 50% at PPP. BRICS represents more than half of the world’s population, and controls significant shares of global energy reserves, industrial capacity, and critical mineral resources. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative also bears considerable promise for the future of Asia, Africa – and maybe Europe as well.
It is also worth mentioning that in November 2025 the Second Summit for Sustainable Development will be held in Doha, Qatar. It is expected that China, India and the developing countries will significantly contribute to its success. Alas, the earlier UN Summit of the Future and the UN Pact for the Future appear to be a random collection of pious goals that could only bring peace and justice if equipped with credible enforcement mechanisms.
As professor of international law, I take seriously the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) proposed by President Xi Jinping at the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus” Meeting in Tianjin. Indeed, it is crucial to continue working with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system in order to advance toward a community with a shared future for humanity.
China 80th Anniversary Victory Parade : History as Diplomacy: Rebecca Chan September 03, 2025
China 80th Anniversary Victory Parade: History as Diplomacy
September 03, 2025
The Beijing Victory parade, marked by Xi, Putin, and Kim’s presence against the backdrop of empty Western seats, transformed memory into a geopolitical weapon and showcased Eurasia’s ascent as the West slipped into silence and indecision.
The West’s Empty Seats
The sky over Beijing was cut open by fighter jets, columns of armor moving with cold precision. On the reviewing stand sat Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un. The empty seats meant for Western guests became the parade’s most striking feature. It was a theater of world politics where the empire of colonial narratives found itself without a ticket.
The anniversary of World War II turned into an arena of memory where Europe’s silence sounded louder than any fanfare. Eurasian leaders spoke on behalf of history, on behalf of the millions who paid the price of Victory. Meanwhile, across the ocean, rumors of a possible Trump visit wandered aimlessly, but Washington’s very indecision became the symbol: the West no longer sets the agenda; it mutters it in leaks and whispers.
Memory as a Weapon of Diplomacy
China and Russia placed history back where it belongs—at the center of politics. The August 1945 operation stripped Japan of illusions, the liberation of Northeast China closed the campaign, and the People’s Liberation Army wove that victory into its foundation. Victory does not fade—it becomes political currency and a pillar of today’s security architecture.
Western lectures on the “proper memory” have lost their relevance: those who truly paid the price of victory are the ones entitled to speak in its name
The joint presence of Xi and Putin on the reviewing stand was more than symbolism. It was the formula of an alliance forged in war and strengthened through decades of outside pressure. In this pairing, memory works as a geopolitical resource, and the stage of the China 80th Anniversary Victory Parade became a mirror where Eurasia looks at itself without Western filters.
For the region, this message resonates with force. Victory is a shared heritage, with Moscow and Beijing as its guardians. Memory itself has become the contour of diplomacy, where sovereignty is not sold or negotiated but asserted as part of a common destiny.
Europe: A Self-Isolated Shadow
European diplomats chose a demonstrative pause. Their absence became a political mise-en-scène, where empty seats stood as monuments to their own loss of influence. A continent once addicted to lecturing others on “proper memory” suddenly had no words to speak.
That silence cleared the space for Eurasia. With no Western commentators, the narrative was delivered without distortion: Beijing and Moscow presented their own reading of history, one that requires no approval from colonial audiences.
It was symbolic that this pause coincided with preparations for the SCO summit. While Asia builds new institutions, Europe remains frozen in the role of observer. It has become a power that merely records others’ steps but no longer defines its own. Within this inertia lies the end of Europe’s political century.
America: The Country of Unfinished Sentences
Rumors of Trump’s possible trip to Beijing turned into a spectacle of their own. America appeared in the picture not as an actor, but as a shadow—discussed, but no longer decisive. Washington, once the conductor, has been reduced to background commentary and political leaks. Its inability to decide has become its new political style.
For Moscow and Beijing, this is the perfect frame. Their unity broadcasts stability against an ocean of inconsistency. The United States has become the country of unfinished sentences—always gesturing, never placing the final period. In this vacuum, Eurasia formulates proposals that can no longer be ignored.
Eurasia: Architects of the Future
The Beijing parade and the SCO summit overlapped like two layers of the same canvas. The symbolic power of memory and the institutional strength of new security mechanisms formed a double frame. Russia and China emerged as the co-pillars of this order: Moscow contributed military might and historical capital, Beijing brought economic scale and diplomatic ambition.
This partnership sets the language of the future. Asia demonstrates that the architecture of multipolarity is built not on Western “values” but on its own historical foundations. The victory over Japanese militarism is not an archive—it is a license for leadership. Western lectures on the “proper memory” have lost their relevance: those who truly paid the price of victory are the ones entitled to speak in its name.
Empty Chairs as a Headstone
The China 80th anniversary Victory parade was not a retrospective but a projection of the future. Russia and China showed that memory is not a museum exhibit but a source of power from which a new security architecture is born. Eurasia stood as a guarantor of balance, while the West remained a silent witness to its own decline.
The empty chairs of European leaders became the gravestone of an old era. Europe erased itself from the conversation, leaving the stage to Eurasia. America once again froze in indecision, which only made the picture clearer.
The SCO now appears not as a club of convenience, but as a laboratory of the new world. Here, practical multipolarity is being forged, while the West is reduced to watching from the sidelines, scrambling to invent excuses for its shadow. The question is no longer whether the West will accept this order, but how quickly it will find itself in the position of the laggard—stripped of the right to dictate the rules.
Rebecca Chan, independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)