Home / OPINION / Analysis / The Chinese idea of nations’ security for a shared future

The Chinese idea of nations’ security for a shared future

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Giancarlo Elia Valori

The general concepts of national security and human destiny complement each other and together form the path that countries should follow for a peaceful future. They have a close internal logic and jointly pursue the value and purpose of the “person” placed in the development that should be the priority of every government.

Therefore, the overall situation of both the national and foreign progress of each country should be coordinated to the benefit of the person’s wellbeing, placed beyond any State.

General national security must focus on the overall planning of external and internal security. International peace and order, as well as the common development of mankind are the strategic interests that should characterise the international community’s members.

As far as international security is concerned, instead, the idea of a community with a shared future for mankind can only be sustained through the creation of a universally secure world, in which the destiny of not just one country, but of all countries, is manifest.

In other words, a community with a shared future for mankind is the highest goal of the universal security concept. This means putting people at the centre.

In the context of globalisation, large-scale population flows bring new challenges to national security. They are bound to be faced at the highest level. In the shared future community, the word ‘destiny’ is not only the common, long-term destiny of all mankind, but also the destiny of each person. Personal security is the fundamental interest of every citizen. For this reason, the concept of national security clearly suggests to achieve the security of people as a goal, fully reflecting a different style from the one imposed so far by dint of bombs necessary to bring democracy and massacres by friendly and unfriendly fire.

A peace builder, a contributor to global development and a defender of the international order must focus, first and foremost, on safeguarding the common interests of all peoples in the world, and not put one ‘first’ at the expense of all the others.

Economic development belongs to the category of economy, of structure. For a country, instead, national security belongs to the category of superstructures. Therefore, the general level of national security and the level of construction of a community with a shared future for mankind fundamentally depend on the equal progress of structure and superstructures that should go hand-in-hand.

The individual national forms of governance must consider the reasonable concerns of the other countries and promote the common development of all people according to their abilities, and without external impositions.

In the global vision of national security, the certainty of a valid policy, and of its serious interpreters, is another fundamental factor. In particular – whatever talk show politicians and pseudo-intellectuals, with whom unfortunately Italy sadly abounds, may say – the present world still sees the coexistence of two social systems, capitalism and socialism (China, first of all), with a strong capitalism based on motherlands and “colonies” and a weak socialism.

It is obvious that Western countries (i.e. USA+UK+”colonies”) will inevitably use any means to contain the rise of the People’s Republic of China by denigrating and attacking the socialist political system with Chinese characteristics.

If we think about it, one of the disastrous and fatal reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union at the time was the stupid idea initially developed by Khrushchev after de-Stalinisation, i.e. trying to imitate – without an adequate structure – the U.S. model both in defence and in an alleged consumerism, as well as watering down Marxism. Such an unthinkable and unwarlike era of long-term ‘peaceful evolution’ of the Soviet ideology and socialist system as to be ‘accepted’ by Western countries, which absurdly were called upon as guarantors of Socialism (Helsinki Accords of 1975). Later this led Gorbachev to be the first to abandon Socialism and invent the so-called perestroika (restructuring), which led to the well-known implosion – to the delight of the mediocre U.S. President, Ronald Reagan – and to the end of European scientific socialism. Under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin and his boyars, Russia barely did not turn into an American dépendance. As luck would have it, however, Russian vodka ran its course, and Vladimir Vladimirovič restored dignity to the country. China did not make that mistake and Deng Xiaoping prevented it from turning back into the country of unequal treaties.

The traditional view indicates that ‘security’ means the absence of internal threats, and national security means the absence of threats from foreign enemies. Today, the meaning of ‘security’ has expanded considerably. The international policy scholar, Yan Xuetong says: “The definition of ‘security’ is no fear, no threat, and no uncertainty”.

The meaning of national security in modern China is broader now than at any time in history.

Compared to the traditional concept of security, the word ‘global’ fully reflects the idea that today’s concept is more comprehensive and systematic. Consequently, the reason why the idea of communities with a shared future is recognised by all countries in the world is that this idea is an effective recipe for overcoming the phenomenon of global ‘fragmentation’ in today’s world.

However, it is all about interpreting the word ‘global’. The most significant difference between the Chinese international perspective and the liberal one is that socialism in itself has an ideological, historical and traditional content of integration and is dedicated to the search for cooperation and liberation of all peoples according to the five principles of the Bandung Conference (1955), on which China has always based its foreign policy.

The liberal international perspective, instead, pursues globalisation only apparently, but in reality it is driven by Western capitalist countries to serve their own interests and their own multinational corporations. At the moment, Western developed countries in U.S. tow appear as an anti-globalisation force, because they are finding that globalisation is deviating ever more from their own rule and domination.

When it becomes clear that the old masters of Africa, on the leash of the White House, can no longer do whatever they want on that continent, the aforementioned talk show politicians and pseudo-intellectuals set in, saying that the Chinese are bad and do not respect human rights. Because the Chinese want to take oil, diamonds, biofuels, water, etc. away (from the former masters of Africa), while until yesterday Great Britain, France and the U.S. and Belgian multinationals, etc., stole as much as they could. Today China has come with its treaties of equal dignity, and the Western “colonies” are getting hysterical.

Against this background, China holds high the banner of a type of globalisation it has always respected through the strict dictates of the five Bandung principles:

(i) mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity;

(ii) non-aggression against each other;

(iii) mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs;

(iv) equality and mutual benefit;

(v) peaceful coexistence.

If you read them carefully, they are exactly the opposite of the infamous European colonialism (19th-20th centuries). This is the reason why China continuously receives great support, not only from a vast number of developing countries, but also from well-established European countries such as Germany, Sweden, etc. While in Italy the orders of the clumsy U.S: President make it possible for a Chinese dignitary to be received in Rome by one of our lower ranks.

In Italy we do not want to understand that an international community with a shared future for mankind is first and foremost a community of interests, especially when the countries in the world have not yet emerged from the quagmire of financial crisis and global economic growth is slow.

The countries in the world must first solve the problems of development and  poverty, as well as reduce frictions. Non-traditional global security issues such as food security, scarce resources, population explosions, environmental pollution, prevention and control of infectious diseases, pandemics and transnational crimes can only be tackled with everybody’s agreement.