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
Thursday, September 4, 2025
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
Friday, August 29, 2025
Thursday, August 28, 2025
Wednesday, August 27, 2025
Monday, August 25, 2025
Chinese FM slams US Navy Admiral for false remarks on China, urging US to stop sowing discord between China, Latin America. 26-08-2025
Chinese FM slams US Navy Admiral for false remarks on China, urging US to stop sowing discord between China, LatAm
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun on Monday slams the deep-rooted Cold War and confrontational mindset of some personnel in the US, urging the US side to stop sowing discord between China and Latin America and creating trouble out of nothing.
The comments came in response to a question regarding the recent remarks made by US Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, commander of US Southern Command, who falsely claimed that China "continues its methodical incursion, seeking to export its authoritarian model, extract precious resources" in the Western Hemisphere, during the South America Defense Conference 2025 (SOUTHDEC 25) held from August 20 to 21 in Argentina.
The remarks from the US side are contrary to facts, repetitive, and once again expose the deep-rooted Cold War and confrontational mindset, Guo said.
China has adhered to the principles of mutual respect, equality, mutual benefit, openness, inclusiveness, and win-win cooperation in conducting practical cooperation with Latin American and Caribbean countries in various fields, Guo said.
The spokesperson said China-Latin America cooperation meets mutual needs, aligns with shared interests, effectively promotes local economic and social development, and is sincerely welcomed by the countries and people of the region.
According to Guo, the US has relentlessly interfered in and controlled Latin America and the Caribbean region for many years, using its hegemonic and bullying actions clear for all to see.
Latin America and the Caribbean regions are not anyone's backyard, and China-Latin America cooperation is not targeted at any third party, nor should it be subject to interference from any third party, Guo stated.
The countries of the region have the right to independently choose their development paths and partners, said Guo, adding that the US should stop sowing discord between China and Latin America and creating trouble out of nothing, and instead do something tangible for the development of Latin American and Caribbean countries. Chinese FM
Chinese report challenges legality of US "Freedom of Navigation"operations, 26 - 08 - 2005
Chinese report challenges legality of US ‘freedom of navigation’ operations
Unprecedented comprehensive legal assessment of US ‘freedom of navigation’ operations exposes its lack of legal basis, military pressure tactic
China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources releases a legal assessment report on US' "freedom of navigation" on August 25, 2025. Photo: Hu Yuwei/GT
On Monday, the China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources released a legal assessment report on US' "freedom of navigation," which concludes that US' so-called "freedom of navigation" lacks a basis in international law, reflects the US' habitual practice of using military force to pressure other nations, and distorts the interpretation of international law.The report finds that US' "freedom of navigation" incorporates numerous self-created concepts and self-imposed standards of so-called customary international law, which contradict true international law and the practices of many countries. Through these assertions and actions, the US seeks to maximally compress the legitimate rights of other nations while expanding its own rights and freedoms, aiming to secure "freedom" unbound by legal constraints.
Zhang Haiwen, former director general of the China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources, stated at Monday's press conference that the report aims to expose the US hegemonic practices disguised as lawful, revealing the fragility and untenability of its claimed legality from a professional perspective.
The report examines the US' legal positions and practices regarding freedom of navigation, particularly statements and actions related to the "Freedom of Navigation Program," focusing on 11 issues: innocent passage of warships, entry for assistance, transit passage, archipelagic sea lanes passage, "international waters," legal status of islands, straight baselines, baselines for outlining archipelagos, military activities in exclusive economic zones, air defense identification zones, and historic waters.
Based on these findings, the report concludes that US' so-called "freedom of navigation" lacks a foundation in international law, severely distorts the interpretation and development of international law, perpetuates the logic of "gunboat diplomacy," and reflects the US' habitual use of military force to pressure other nations.
The report highlights that the US has invented several "legal concepts," such as "international waters," which lacks a basis in contemporary maritime law, and the so-called "high seas corridor," which is used to undermine coastal states' jurisdiction over areas like the Taiwan Straits.
The report also underlines the US' long-standing double standards. The US military aircraft insisted on enjoying "freedom of overflight" in other countries' air defense identification zones (ADIZ) while labeling similar actions by non-allied countries' military aircraft as "threats."
For example, while the US emphasizes the "freedom of overflight" for its military aircraft and repeatedly challenges China's East China Sea ADIZ, including multiple instances of military aircraft transiting the Taiwan Straits, it simultaneously portrays routine Chinese military aircraft activities in international airspace within the ADIZs of the US, Japan, and South Korea as "intrusions" or "provocations." The US' double standards on ADIZ issues are clearly inconsistent with its proclaimed commitment to defending "freedom of navigation."
Disrupting order
Based on these facts, the report believes that US' so-called "freedom of navigation" serves the country's national interests and geopolitical strategies, posing a threat to regional peace and stability, disrupting the international maritime order, and embodying clear illegality, unreasonableness, and double standards.
Chen Xidi, an expert at China Institute for Marine Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources, also one of the report's authors, told the Global Times that this is the first comprehensive legal assessment of the US' so-called "freedom of navigation" claims, and the report serves as a significant international public good, defending true navigational freedom under international law.
The report noted that, despite US claims that its South China Sea "freedom of navigation operations" do not target any specific country, statistics show China has been the primary target over the past decade.
Over the recent years, the US has continued to frequently and illegally intrude into sea and airspaces related to China's sovereignty without authorization. The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) on August 13 expelled a US warship - USS Higgins destroyer - when it intruded into Chinese territorial waters near Huangyan Dao in the South China Sea without permission from the Chinese government.
On August 11, the US Department of Defense released its 2024 Fiscal Year annual "Freedom of Navigation" (FON) report, identifying China as the top target among 11 countries or regions, with the most "challenged" claims and the only nation facing challenges in multiple maritime areas. These include four challenges to what it claimed as China's mainland's "excessive maritime claims," such as requires prior permission for innocent passage of foreign military ships through the territorial sea, straight baselines, and historic rights in the South China Sea, as well as restrictions in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone.
China's report is seen as a direct rebuttal to the US military's claims. Zheng Zhihua, an associate professor at the Japan Research Center of Shanghai Jiaotong University, who is also one of researchers on the report, told the Global Times on Monday that the report systematically reviews US' "freedom of navigation" practices and legal position since 1979, covering a broad scope, including the dispute over transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz. "Although this issue has no direct connection with China, we remain deeply concerned. In particular, we oppose the improper application of US' 'freedom of navigation' to other maritime areas," said the researcher.
"We also reject the instrumentalization and weaponization of international law, the excessive expansion of navigation interests, and the improper restriction of the maritime rights of coastal states under the US' freedom of navigation doctrine," Zheng stressed.
This report points out that the US' freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) not only disrupts the good order of coastal states but also often causes unnecessary friction, and in severe cases, leads to maritime and air incidents, threatening the peace and stability of the nations and regions targeted by these actions.
Driven by its own interests, the US has not yet acceded to UNCLOS. However, it consistently positions itself as a stakeholder in UNCLOS, selectively applying provisions that benefit its interests. This "flexible" approach has provided space for the formation and development of US' "freedom of navigation," the report pointed out.
The report states that "absolute freedom of navigation" has long been viewed by the US as a critical and global national interest. Launched in 1979, the US' "Freedom of Navigation Program" continues to use military force to challenge coastal states' claims. The US conducts these operations globally, targeting what it calls "excessive maritime claims," relying on its navy and air force's global projection capabilities, characterized by clear displays of military power. Since the 1992 Fiscal Year, the US Department of Defense has annually listed its navy's "freedom of navigation operations." Since 1993, these operations have challenged over 15 countries or regions annually, remaining at a high frequency over the past decade.
As early as 1982, the United States explicitly classified "contain[ing] requirements for advance notification or authorization for warships/naval auxiliaries or apply[ing] discriminatory requirements to such vessels" as one of the "excessive maritime claims." To this end, the US Navy has repeatedly and continuously entered into the territorial seas of other States worldwide for many years, aiming to challenge the requirement that foreign warships must give prior notification or receive authorization before entering territorial seas, per the report.
In the US Department of Defense's "Annual Freedom of Navigation Report" for FY 2023, 13 claims from 11 states or regions directly involved restrictions on passage through territorial seas by foreign military vessels. Among them, China's regulation requiring prior authorization for foreign military vessels to enter its territorial seas has been the US Navy's primary target for many years. Since FY 2007, challenges against this Chinese regulation have been uninterrupted.
"One core purpose of releasing this report is to effectively uphold the international rule of law," Xu Heyun, the deputy director of China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources, said at Monday's press conference. "The US employs blatant double standards, using international law when it suits the US and discarding it when it doesn't, severely undermining it. This report aims to restore an objective and fair interpretation of maritime law."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)