The fifth BRICS Summit, held in Durban, South Africa from March 26-27th, opened a series of multi-lateral summits for 2013. In recent years, against the backdrop of an unstable and unpredictable world economy, the rise of emerging economies like China has been a focal point for global observers. China has taken this opportunity to develop its multi-lateral relations with fellow emerging economies. Through its participation in the G20, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China-ASEAN Free Trade Area, BRICS Summit, Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, Forum on China-Arabic Cooperation, and China-Central Europe-Poland Economic Forum, China is demonstrating a new diplomatic image to the world.

 

Looking at the current geopolitical order, emerging economies’ power as a collective entity is most obvious in the current malleability of international relationships—relationship patterns that had been largely stable in the international system established after World War II. Even for a short time after the Cold War, emerging economies remained silent. In the new century however, particularly since the financial crisis in 2008, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and India—countries with immense geographic territory--and more medium-sized countries like Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico and Turkey, have begun playing critical roles in regional politics. The solidarity and cooperation between these countries will exert significant impact on the formation of a new IPE order; it will very likely become the critical force in reshaping international relations. In keeping pace with the winds of international change, China’s strategy should be to foster understanding, build mutual dependence and work together with this group.

 

In order to play a part in reconstructing the IPE order, emerging economies need to form a consensus on the following points.

 

First, how should emerging economies address and relate to the traditional international order? The crux of this issue lies in managing emerging power-dominant power relations. Emerging economies need not seek a new order outside the current IR system; rather, they are constituent parts and participants in the current system, and they should make it clear to dominant economies that goal for reform is not a complete overhaul of the existing order, but to work within the existing framework to revise and amend unreasonable or no longer applicable rules, and to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of all parties. This process also requires a reform-minded self-examination from dominant economies, who in turn should extend this reflection to the international system. The key issue here is equitability of regulations: dominant economies should not be urging other to follow the rules of international governance mechanisms while shirking these rules themselves, or amending them to their benefit.

 

Currently, hereditary privilege and autarkic decision-making are a serious problem in many international organizations. Reform lags far behind reality—the balance of powers is not reflected in the distribution of voice. Together, emerging economies and dominant powers should transcend the historical cycle of clashes and tension in economic and power succession and pursue a new type of geopolitical power transition.

 

Secondly, emerging economies cannot ignore the structure of values undergirding the international system. There has been a great deal of chaos accompanying the ongoing transition simply because clear, universally understood perceptions of right and wrong behavior have deteriorated. The neo-interventionist policy pursued by some countries corrodes the principle of non-interference and reinforces a blind faith in militarism. On a different level, the unequally weighted balance of media influence worldwide aggravates the value conflict; countries genuinely seeking peaceful development are labeled and pigeonholed. Simply put, when it comes to their international image, emerging economies often face an inhospitable environment.

At present, the IR framework articulated by Western consensus is losing steam; its base of followers is in decline. The time is ripe for emerging economies to speak up in international organizations and multi-lateral forums, and to use major international issues as a forum to express their stances on peace, development and other issues. For example, emerging economies should work out a proposal for the follow-up agenda regarding the assessment of the 2015 United Nationals Millennium Development Goals.

Thirdly, emerging economies might consider the feasibility of building a multi-polar stability maintenance system. Intervention—the unbridled overthrow of legitimate governments—is a threat that looms large over peaceful international development. Many emerging economies simultaneously face issues of sustainable economic development and political stability. To safeguard their sovereignty, emerging economies should advocate for greater influence of the UN and other international organizations in global governance and conflict adjudication. At a minimum, these bodies should be able to verbally condemn actions overtly aimed at undermining other nations’ sovereignty.

 

The litmus test for a good international system is not whether or not big powers’ feel secure; it is whether or not small countries feel secure, which is to say it is whether or not they feel they can exist in it without being manipulated by bigger powers. Clearly this was not the case in the old IR system, where small countries would surely suffer if they did not cling to big powers as a buffer. It falls on emerging economies to promote an international system that breaks this mold. At a minimum, emerging economies should have the courage to speak for small countries.

 

The multi-polar world under European imperial domination was always unstable; returning to bipolar conflict was just destiny. Transcending the historical cycle exemplified by European international relations—endeavoring to form a brand-new multi-polar world order—this requires every country and especially emerging economies to think ahead and design a stable mechanism to safeguard the peace of that multi-polar world.

  

Su Changhe is professor and deputy dean of the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fun Dan University.

 

The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 438, April 12, 2013.

 

Translated by Feng Daimei

 

Chinese link: