by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics



Region: Greater Middle East

The zhongguo people republic

Beijing, China
Great Hall of the People
President Xi Jinping's Address: A Comment on Great Power Politics & The Global Liberal Dilemma

The Great Hall of the People would be filled with members of the Chinese Communist Party. The national anthem of the People's Republic of China would commence as the CPC politicians sung in unison. With the introducing of President Xi Jinping, the CPC would continue with their applause and cheering as President Xi Jinping stood from his central seat next to Jiang Zemin and walked toward the central podium. After a few more moments the CPC would grow silent as they awaited the address of Xi Jinping.

l President Xi Jinping l: "My fellow countrymen and women, comrades, and members of the Communist Party of China, there are pressing matters that continually seek to hinder, paralyze, and regress the developments that we have garnered for ourselves and for the world since the 1970s. There are powers within the international community that do not wish to allow for the peaceful rise of the Chinese people. international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business, and it is likely to remain that way. The overriding goal of each state is to maximize its share of world power, which means gaining power at the expense of other states. But great powers do not merely strive to be the strongest of all the great powers, although that is a welcome outcome. Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon—that is, the only great power in the system. Since no state is likely to achieve global hegemony, however, the world is condemned to perpetual great-power competition. Let me make it known now that China does not wish to become a global hegemonic power. That is not who we are and we do not care for claiming the responsibilities of the world. We simply wish to be part of the world. that the structure of the international system forces states which seek only to be secure nonetheless to act aggressively toward each other. Three features of the international system combine to cause states to fear one another: 1) the absence of a central authority that sits above states and can protect them from each other, 2) the fact that states always have some offensive military capability, and 3) the fact that states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. Quite frankly, Great powers that have no reason to fight each other—that are merely concerned with their own survival—nevertheless have little choice but to pursue power and to seek to dominate the other states in the system. However, the back of the Chinese people are being put in a corner by Western aggression in the South China and the Pacific. We do not want hostilities or war but rather peace, prosperity, and development. We wish to be part of the international world and the international community. We must China not be given the same chance as any other country in the world? This is a question that we must ask ourselves. The CPC firmly believes in the similar ideology within the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration of the United States. The Clinton administration’s foreign policy rhetoric, for example, was heavily informed by the three main liberal theories of international relations: 1) the claim that prosperous and economically interdependent states are unlikely to fight each other, 2) the claim that democracies do not fight each other, and 3) the claim that international institutions enable states to avoid war and concentrate instead on building cooperative relationships. Despite the second liberal principle as that is a matter of Western philosophy that is not compatible with the lifestyle and civilization development of Asia and the Pacific, the People's Republic of China seeks prosperous and economic integration with countries and we seek entry in international organizations to further provide consensus and assist in providing solutions to ongoing global problems and ailments.

The continual liberal hegemony is destined to fail and during its course of failure, it will destabilize with it as many countries as possible. This cannot become the future of China. There must be an alternative to protect the assets, the sovereignty, and the statehood of the world. The liberal hegemonic order has, since the Bretton Woods Conference of 1945, demonstrated an illogical pursuit to supplant the end of history with the conflagration of ideological idealism to expand the number of liberal democracies around the world. This has been done mostly through military means. This is unacceptable. The capitals of liberal internationalism understand this and continue policies of hawkish militancy and aggression under the guise of liberalism, human rights, individualism, and freedom. This is not productive for global development. The People's Republic of China will take the lead to craft, supplant, and develop a global alternative. The United States was so powerful in the aftermath of the Cold War that it could adopt a profoundly liberal foreign policy, commonly referred to as “liberal hegemony.” The aim of this ambitious strategy is to turn as many countries as possible into liberal democracies while also fostering an open international economy and building formidable international institutions. In essence, the United States has sought to remake the world in its own image. Proponents of this policy, which is widely embraced in the American foreign policy establishment, believe it will make the world more peaceful and ameliorate the dual problems of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. It will reduce human rights violations and make liberal democracies more secure against internal threats. From the beginning, however, liberal hegemony was destined to fail, and it did. This strategy invariably leads to policies that put a country at odds with nationalism and realism, which ultimately have far more influence on international politics than liberalism does. American policymakers would be wise to abandon liberal hegemony and pursue a more restrained foreign policy based on realism and a proper understanding of how nationalism constrains great powers. Because liberalism prizes the concept of inalienable or natural rights, committed liberals are deeply concerned about the rights of virtually every individual on the planet. This universalist logic creates a powerful incentive for liberal states to get involved in the affairs of countries that seriously violate their citizens’ rights. To take this a step further, the best way to ensure that the rights of foreigners are not trampled is for them to live in a liberal democracy. This logic leads straight to an active policy of regime change, where the goal is to topple perceived autocrats and put liberal democracies in their place. This is immoral and it must come to an end. liberal hegemony will not achieve its goals, and its failure will inevitably come with huge costs. The liberal state is likely to end up fighting endless wars, which will increase rather than reduce the level of conflict in international politics and thus aggravate the problems of proliferation and terrorism. Moreover, the state’s militaristic behavior is almost certain to end up threatening its own liberal values. Liberalism abroad leads to illiberalism at home. Finally, even if the liberal state were to achieve its aims—spreading democracy near and far, fostering economic intercourse, and creating international institutions—they will not produce peace."