Global Security Initiative is commendable

As the world teeters on the brink of nuclear Armageddon, in the third decade of the 21st century, it is worth remembering the prophetic warning by the pacifist physicist, Albert Einstein. He is on record cautioning future generations that "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

Based on the evidence of things seen and unfolding in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, quite clearly those countries and regional blocs stoking this war by shipping gargantuan armaments have ignored Einstein's warning.

The destruction and devastation unleashed by this war are evident.

It is also obvious that the countries and regional blocs inflaming this war have not learned the tragic lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

In this global maelstrom of chaos and insecurity, what has informed the unequivocal policy stance of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in pursuit of peace and security?

At the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2022, President Xi Jinping elaborated on the PRC's policy and practice, in international affairs of a Global Security Initiative (GSI).

As the primary initiator and the implementor of GSI, the PRC's objectives are to advocate for a "common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security" architecture to "jointly safeguard world peace and security".

What does this mean and entail in actual practice? China has become the largest contributor to the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions among five permanent members of the Security Council.

The China-UN Peace and Development Fund, initiated by China, has provided a total of $100 million by the end of 2020, benefiting more than 100 countries and regions.

One wonders what happened between the description, in his electoral campaign, of President Joe Biden as a progressive and "transformative leader" and the current actual incumbent of the White House, who has continued the warmongering practices of his predecessors in for example Iran, Cuba, and Yemen.

Therefore, the PRC's role in seeking to secure world peace and security is commendable, as seen in China's peacekeepers, mainly deployed in Africa.

Most African countries are amenable to the GSI since it builds on the strategic largesse that China demonstrated in the battle against the Covid-19 pandemic and economic crisis where China provided at least 2.1 billion vaccines to 120 countries and organisations to close the global immunity gap.

This is a prime example of China "honouring its commitments with concrete action" because, quite simply, "uneven recovery is aggravating inequality across the world, further widening the North-South divide".

In essence, then, the GSI is premised on the following normative principles that should be of interest to those dedicated to the cause for, and of, pursuing at whatever cost global peace and security.

First, that peace is a prerequisite for human and societal development, more so in the context of trying to build back better after the Covid-19 new normal. Peace and development are interconnected in defending people's lives and livelihoods and promoting common goods.

Second, cooperation and solidarity are necessary to keep afloat and stable trade, industrial and supply chains acutely disrupted by both the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Covid-19. Such worldwide solidarity runs counter and is intrinsically opposed to unilateralism and a Cold War 2.0 mentality, where countries are divided between those who support the continuation of war in Russia-Ukraine (largely western liberal democracies) and those favouring dialogue and diplomacy (largely non-western countries).

Third, the GSI proposed by China is a sensible option since experience has taught us that each country must recognise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries in deference to upholding the UN Charter. What will bring about peace and security are principles and practices of mutual respect, mutual benefit and mutual learning.

We do well to recall the human toll paid after World War I and World War II, which resulted in 20 million deaths in the former and 70 million in the latter. Of course, the earthly toll of a nuclear war would result in total devastation of the human species.

Why, then do the US and the European Union dedicate in toto to stoking up the Russia-Ukraine war in the foolhardy pursuit of "weakening" Russia and indirectly isolating China?

This is a reason why the Republic of South Africa has selected a policy of "non-alignment" in this war and, instead, is campaigning, like Brazil and India (BRICS members), in promoting and emphasizing multilateralism instead of unilateralism, cooperation instead of confrontation, and win-win outcomes rather than a zero-sum game.

This stance by the RSA and the PRC in their active endorsement of GSI echoes to some extent the Non-Aligned Movement representing 120 member countries from the Global South who were opposed to Cold War 1.0, imperialism and colonialism that is being echoed presently, by the Biden-led US and the EU, whose record of destabilization, warmongering, sanctions, subjective condemnation threatens the very survival of the human species.

The truism is relevant: "it is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies".

One hopes that the leaders in Washington, London and Brussels will heed this truism to avoid being bullies and hegemons battling, in Sisyphean fashion, the inescapable reality of a multipolar world where each country and region is recognized and recognized for what it contributes to the storehouse of collective human civilization.

About the author: Paul Tembe is a sinologist and founder of SELE Encounters.