BEIJING, Nov. 6, The China International Publishing Center (CIPC) issued a press release here on Friday to promote an article written by Franco Amadei, an Italian member of the International Professors Working Committee of the Department of Linguistics at Beijing, on the Geopolitics of Harmony.
The full text of the article, named as The Geopolitics of Harmony—Some Reflections on the Ideological Context and the Historical-Cultural Premises of the Four “Global Initiatives” Promoted by the Chinese Government, is as follows:
In order to better understand the meaning and the social and political implications of the four major international initiatives promoted by the current Chinese government, I believe it is important to attempt to outline—albeit only in broad strokes—both the ideological and philosophical context and the historical and cultural background within which they were launched.
The four initiatives, listed below in chronological order, constitute a system of far-reaching global diplomatic proposals, all of which were announced personally by President Xi Jinping between 2021 and 2025:
- The Global Development Initiative (GDI), presented at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 2021;
- The Global Security Initiative (GSI), announced at the Boao Forum for Asia in Boao, Hainan Province, in April 2022;
- The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), presented on the occasion of the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-Level Meeting, held in Beijing in March 2023;
- The Global Governance Initiative (GGI), announced on the occasion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Plus (SCO+) summit, held in Tianjin in September 2025.
Taken together, as we shall see, they constitute a system of value-based and methodological proposals articulated across different socio-political planes, yet interconnected by a shared ethical-anthropological foundation.
It is precisely in the search for and identification of this shared foundation that, in my view, the four initiatives put forward to the international community a set of principles and relational mechanisms among nations and peoples possessing a high degree of universalist and inclusive value—aimed at preventing conflict and resolving antagonisms among states, political systems and cultural systems, without, however, requiring the emergence of political hegemonies or forced cultural homogenisation.
In these brief reflections, we shall first have occasion to observe how the four initiatives are situated within the current international historical and political context, with explicit reference to the conjunctures and crises of global significance that have been marking the course of human history in recent years—and which, in my view, have contributed to catalyzing the international projection of the Communist Party of China’s experience and its recent theoretical elaborations.
We shall then seek to identifyify, within the philosophical and cultural heritage constituted by ancient Chinese thought, those forms of syncretic humanism generated by the ethical-social philosophy of Confucianism, which represent a value-laden substratum spanning many centuries — a precursor, in many respects, to the humanistic value systems of both Marxism and the social ideals emerging from the elaboration of the concept and the practice of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
Naturally, given the intrinsic limitations of these brief reflections, the present article can at most aspire to propose a hypothetical interpretive path, rather than an in-depth analysis of the subjects addressed. Excessive simplifications, and the inevitable imprecisions that follow from them, are therefore to be forgiven. Yet my hope is that, despite these limitations, I may succeed in prompting observers and scholars more attentive and more capable than myself to engage more deeply and systematically with the many themes only touched upon here.
Having said this, I believe we must begin by introducing what I consider to be the founding basis of the entire system of relations proposed by the four initiatives launched by the Chinese Government — namely, the concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind“
As far as I have been able to determine, the concept of a “community of shared destiny” first appeared in an official document in the White Paper entitled China’s Peaceful Development, published by the Information Office of the State Council in September 2011.
The two passages in which the concept is invoked are highly significant, as they allow us to frame the context of motivations and aims underlying this concept — a context that is set out consistently from this initial, foundational stage onward.
The first passage proceeds from the premise that, in the modernity of our interconnected world, “economic globalization” generates a profound interdependence among nations, regardless of differences in their respective political systems and levels of development.
“Economic globalization has become an important trend in the evolution of international relations. Countries of different systems and different types and at various development stages are in a state of mutual dependence, with their interests intertwined. This has turned the world into a community of common destiny in which the members are closely interconnected“.
The concept of a “community of common destiny” is thus introduced as an element that is objectively implicit in the reality of the contemporary world. Economic globalization is cited as its most evident and pervasive manifestation, even as the coexistence, within it, of “different systems, different types, and various development stages” is underscored.
In this first, neutral and phenomenological sense, the concept of a community of shared destiny thus derives from the objective observation of a factual condition from which we cannot escape. And the objectivity of this condition of modernity will also remain the foundation of subsequent elaborations of the concept, even as the emphasis comes to be placed ever more systematically on the international community’s growing awareness of this condition, and on the proactive and positive role that nations could and should play within the community of shared destiny.
In another passage of the same document, the necessity of “adopting a new perspective of a community of shared destiny” begins to take shape.
“The international community should reject the zero-sum game which was a product of the old international relations, the dangerous cold and hot war mentality, and all those beaten tracks which repeatedly led mankind to confrontation and war. It should find new perspectives from the angle of the community of common destiny — sharing weal and woe and pursuing mutually beneficial cooperation, exploring new ways to enhance exchanges and mutual learning among different civilizations, identifying new dimensions in the common interests and values of mankind, and looking for new ways to handle multiple challenges through cooperation among countries and realize inclusive development.”
In this important passage, alongside a contextualization of the “present-day” reasons underlying this necessity (“reject the zero-sum game,” “the dangerous cold and hot war mentality,” and so on), the relational modalities also begin to take shape (“pursuing mutually beneficial cooperation,” “exploring new ways to enhance exchanges and mutual learning among different civilizations,” and so on), as does the value framework underpinning the “new perspective” proposed by China (“identifying new dimensions in the common interests and values of mankind,” “realize inclusive development,” and so on).
Just a year later, in the “Report to the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,” delivered in November 2012, the methodological and value-based principles—grounded in cooperation, mutual benefit, and the “common interests of all humanity”—that would guide the whole of Chinese diplomatic doctrine in the years to come were set forth. It is worth noting that this document underscores the universalist vocation of the proposal by also inserting the term “mankind” within the locution, in the formulation that has remained unchanged to this day (“a community of common destiny for mankind”).
“In promoting mutually beneficial cooperation, we should raise awareness about human beings sharing a community of common destiny. A country should accommodate the legitimate concerns of others when pursuing its own interests, and it should promote the common development of all countries when advancing its own development. Countries should establish a new type of global development partnership that is more equitable and balanced, stick together in times of difficulty, both share rights and shoulder obligations, and boost the common interests of mankind.”
In the speech entitled “Follow the Trend of the Times and Promote Global Peace and Development,” delivered by President Xi Jinping at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in March 2013, Chinese diplomatic doctrine — grounded in the principles and practices promoted by the concept of a community of common destiny for mankind — was presented organically for the first time in an official international setting.
Within it, the three theoretical premises of the proposed global vision are first reaffirmed: to begin with, the historical-factual context constituted by a humanity that today “lives within a single global village, with tightly interconnected destinies”; then, the need for a profound awakening of consciousness, to “cultivate an awareness of sharing a common destiny”; and finally, the promotion of proactive participation in “the building of a community of common destiny for mankind.”
“In this world, countries are becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent, and humans live in the same global village with closely linked destinies. Faced with a complex and shifting international situation and endless global challenges, people of all countries must establish a sense of community with a shared destiny. Humanity lives in the same global village, with the interests of all countries blending and a shared destiny. We must advocate the establishment of a community with a shared future for mankind.”
As the crowning moment in the international exposition of the concept of a community of shared future for mankind, mention must be made of the important speech delivered by President Xi Jinping at the Palace of Nations in Geneva, on 18 January 2017. Already from its title, this same concept is placed at the center, in its broadest formulation: “Work Together to Build a Community of Shared Future for Mankind.” It is worth underscoring here the crucial role that the phrase “work together” assumes in this speech, one that will from this point onward always imply the proactive and universalist nature of the statement and of its entire ethical and political corollary.
From this speech onward, it becomes clear that China is moving to propose to the world not merely a diplomatic doctrine, nor just an inclusive and balanced perspective on international relations, but an organic framework of values and methods, put forward with the aim of constituting the basis for a strengthened global governance oriented, in its principles and mechanisms, toward the common good and the progress of all nations and peoples.
In his wide-ranging speech, President Xi set out five pillars of value to which the actions and policies of the international community should look for inspiration, and toward which they should tend, in the course of that process of “building” a community of shared future for mankind.
“Great visions can be realized only through actions. Actions hold the key to building a community of shared future for mankind. To achieve this goal, the international community should promote partnership, security, growth, inter-civilization exchanges and the building of a sound ecosystem.”
— We should stay committed to building a world of lasting peace through dialogue and consultation. …
— We should build a world of common security for all through joint efforts. …
— We should build a world of common prosperity through win-win cooperation. …
— We should build an open and inclusive world through exchanges and mutual learning. …
— We should make our world clean and beautiful by pursuing green and low-carbon development. …
The 2017 Geneva speech, with its official presentation to the international community represented by the UN, can thus be considered at once the culmination of a process of elaboration of the founding value-principles, and also the starting point of the subsequent processes for formulating proposals to implement those principles — namely, precisely the four “global initiatives” launched between 2021 and 2025.
In this sense, we might also reread the five pillars of the Geneva speech as the value-based framework and the ultimate objective of the community of shared future for mankind, while the four global initiatives serve as the operational mechanisms, the institutional proposals conceived to systematically implement those principles on an international scale.
The correspondence between “pillars” and “initiatives” should not, however, be interpreted in a rigid or exclusive way, but rather as a correspondence between two entire systems: the foundational system of values and the propositional system for implementation. Each initiative, in fact, may cover a thematic space that includes one or more pillars, integrating them through secondary, cross-cutting connections.
The Global Development Initiative (GDI, September 2021) has as its principal pillar of reference the economic and social development — that is, “building a world of common prosperity through win-win cooperation.” Its mission is to eliminate poverty, reduce North-South imbalances, and promote sustainable development, a sustainable green transition, and global public health. Cross-cuttingly, it therefore also integrates the fifth pillar, that of “making our world clean and beautiful through green and low-carbon development,” by promoting the elaboration of projects for climate and environmental protection, linked in particular to development plans and circular economy initiatives in Global South countries.
The continued pursuit of a harmonious integration between development and ecology, between prosperity and biodiversity, thus represents a cornerstone concept of Chinese ecological doctrine throughout these years (“a sound ecosystem is essential for the prosperity of civilization”; from President Xi Jinping’s video address on the occasion of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Montreal, Canada, in December 2022; also reported in Vol. V of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China).
The Global Security Initiative (GSI, April 2022) may be regarded as referring to the two pillars of peace and security—namely, “building a world of lasting peace through dialogue and consultation,” and “building a world of common security for all through joint efforts.”
In the Chinese vision, indeed, peace and security are conceived as two inseparable faces of the same problem. This is because, within systems of relations among states, not only does the absence of peace certainly nullify security, but the absence of security likewise ends up destroying peace. Lasting peace rests on authoritative systems for the negotiated resolution of disputes, on the rejection of the aggressive logic of geopolitical hegemonies and military blocs, and of the so-called “Thucydides Trap.”
Solid international security therefore requires respect for the principle of “indivisible security”—that is, security that cannot be separated from the security of others, nor abstracted from a context of common security. Consistent with this conception of indivisible security, both the fight against terrorism and the great health, food, and energy crises (non-traditional threats) must be addressed at the global level.
The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI, March 2023) refers to the pillar of dialogue among civilizations—namely, “building an open and inclusive world through exchanges and mutual learning.” Its primary objectives are the rejection of rhetoric tending toward a clash of civilizations, respect for cultural diversity, interreligious dialogue, exchanges in the fields of art, culture, and education, as well as the right of every nation to choose its own social and development models free from external cultural interference.
The Global Governance Initiative (GGI, September 2025) is, more than any of the others, the one with cross-cutting connections to the various value pillars, constituting a proposal for designing the institutional mechanisms necessary for the global implementation of the pillar principles. Within this scope belong: proposals for the reform of international institutions (the UN, the IMF, the World Bank), aimed at strengthening their fairness, representativeness, and effectiveness; the universal recognition of the principle of “extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits,” applied across all areas of international relations (security, development, environment, culture), so as to make the system more equitable and more representative of the Global South; and the building of genuinely multilateral institutional spaces where the policies derived from the value-pillars can find more effective practical implementation.
Having outlined in broad terms the value system and the relational principles proposed to the international community through the package of the four initiatives, let us now seek to identify their philosophical background within the tradition of ancient Chinese thought.
A first fundamental element is the concept of ‘Tian Xia’, literally “All-under-Heaven,” or, in its broadest sense, that earthly universality constituted both by the natural physical world and by the social and political world of human civilization. And it is precisely in this properly socio-political sense that Confucian philosophy explores and defines the meaning of Tian Xia from its founding thinkers onward (Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi). From classical Confucian thought there emerges a holistic vision of human civilization as a single community, whose natural tendency, as civilization itself prospers, is toward the harmonious sharing of “All-under-Heaven.” Conflictual and destructive competition among the various parts, factions, states, and peoples is negative by its very nature, and is interpreted as a manifestation of the corruption of that ‘worldly’ harmony necessary for the ‘common’ flourishing of human civilization.
In the Book of Rites, compiled in the era of the Western Han but grounded in earlier Confucian tradition, it is stated that “when the Great Way prevails, All-under-Heaven belongs to all.” Here, by ‘Great Way,’ the Confucians referred, in a broad sense, to the ideal governance of human society, the implementation of which would bring about the realization of a Tian Xia shared in harmony by all the peoples of the world.
Ideals that were certainly utopian for their time, and although far removed from the social and political reality of those days, nonetheless outline an ideal aspiration toward a harmonious sharing of the world by the human collectivity in its entirety.
The association between the modern concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind” and the classical Confucian conception of the harmonious sharing of “All-under-Heaven” is thus immediate.
It is essential, then, to search within the Confucian philosophical system for the foundations on which this tendency toward the harmonious sharing of the world may rest, bearing in mind, first of all, the thoroughgoing secularism of its entire philosophical and political framework.
Here the ethical system of Confucianism assumes a fundamental role: being entirely free of any need to appeal to divinities or supernatural beings, it takes as its point of departure a profound and radical individual ethical formation. This formation, wholly oriented toward the ultimate realization of the common good, is forged through the study and practice of the principles contained in the Confucian classics, as well as through the instrumental use of rites which, in turn — much as in the secular conception of the European Enlightenment — are never understood as the origin or the end of the ethical framework itself.
The founding principle of this ethical framework, which rises from the individual to the various levels of collective dimension (the family, the state, the All-under-Heaven), is the concept of ‘Ren’, often simplistically translated by the term ‘benevolence’ — a rendering that can capture only in part the complex web of connotations the Chinese term possesses within its philosophical system.
Since we cannot here immerse ourselves in a full examination of Ren and its many corollaries, we shall limit ourselves to citing its founding core, which is in any case identified fairly explicitly within the classical texts.
This core may be said to revolve around the concept still today indicated by the four-character idiomatic motto ‘tui ji ji ren’, which, in an attempt at literal translation, we might render as ‘extending oneself to others.’ The phrase appears at least as early as the 3rd century CE and runs through the entire Confucian hermeneutic tradition down to the present day, where it retains its meaning even in non-specialist language.
The motto arose, and is used, to sum up and indicate the set of ethical and behavioral connotations that the classics attribute to the inward expression of Ren in the human soul. In the Analects, indeed, Confucius explains that “… Ren consists in the following: what you wish to achieve for yourself, help others to achieve; what you wish to attain for yourself, help others to attain. And, again in response to questions concerning Ren, Confucius, in two further passages of the Analects, restates that it may be expressed in the simple ethical maxim “do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.
It is interesting to note how this principle, formulated here in its individual ethical expression, forges the foundations of an approach to collective life that treats individual interest as inseparable from that of others, thereby promoting a social ideal grounded in mutual interest, cooperation, and harmony. The extension from individual ethical principle to right social and political practice is extensively developed in Confucius and Mencius through the concept of ‘Ren Government’, which Confucian thought would inherit and carry forward through all the centuries that followed. While we cannot, within the scope of this essay, explore the articulated subject of “Ren Government” in greater depth, I believe it worth citing a brief passage from a political-philosophical essay by the 3rd-century CE scholar Fu Xuan, in which the above-mentioned extension of the domain of ‘tui ji ji ren’ is stated with striking concision: “extend one’s own desires until they reach the whole of All-under-Heaven.”
Another element central both to ancient Chinese thought and to the ethical and ideological framework of the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind is that of “harmony.” In classical thought, this element can be traced back to two principal philosophical matrices: the Taoist and the Confucian.
In Taoism, harmony is part of the intrinsic nature of the universe; it is expressed through the cosmic laws of equilibrium between the primordial forces of ‘Yin’ and ‘Yang’, opposed yet complementary and in balance with one another. The opposition between Yin and Yang is thus ‘harmonious’ precisely because it tends toward the attainment of equilibrium, which, in each of its expressions, always includes its opposite in some form and to some degree. If, however, the opposition becomes destructive, equilibrium cannot be attained—that is, one temporarily moves away from the natural harmony toward which all manifestations of the Tao tend. In the Dao De Jing, the oldest canonical text of Taoism, attributed to its legendary founder Laozi, we read that “all things carry Yin on their backs and embrace Yang, and the vital breath that unites them generates harmony”.
More broadly, we may say that Taoism elaborates a vision of dialectical and harmonious equilibrium between opposites, represented by the cosmological pair of Yin and Yang, which permeate all manifestations of the universe, yet are never separable from one another, and are thus subject to an eternal, natural tendency toward equilibrium and harmony. From this follows a “generative dialectic,” non-antagonistic in nature, in which conflictual oppositions are but transient disturbances against the universe’s natural harmonious tendency.
This also means that the union of Yin and Yang does not lead to the cancellation of the differences between the two principles: the tendency is not toward an undifferentiated uniformity, but toward a dynamic synthesis, in which the opposites not only coexist, completing one another, but in which all the possible harmonious equilibria of their union generate the myriad manifestations of the universe. It is this that, in the centuries that followed — especially with the progressive integration of Taoist cosmological and naturalistic conceptions with Confucian ethics — would be summed up in the formula ‘the harmonious composition of Yin and Yang’.
Classical Confucian thought implicitly accepts, without discussing or examining it further, the cosmic origin of the natural order, of harmony, and of the generative pairing of Yin and Yang. Even when, in the Song era, with the current of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, a more articulated integration is developed between the Taoist cosmological conception and Confucian ethical-social philosophy, the emphasis nonetheless remains on the human manifestations of harmony — that is, on its intrinsic role in society and in politics as well.
In the Book of Documents, a historiographical work consecrated by Confucian tradition and containing some of the oldest passages of Chinese prose to have come down to us, it is recounted how, in the ‘golden age’ of Chinese history, the legendary emperor Yao…was serious and frugal, an attentive observer of all that surrounded him, and excellent in governing All-under-Heaven. He was magnanimous and kind, honest and reverent, capable of making virtuous people shine between Heaven and earth. He knew how to give prominence to the finest virtues, thereby uniting the tribes in friendship. Once these were in harmony, their officials were coordinated and greatly effective, and the nations too were at peace and in harmony. Thus, at last, all peoples became friendly toward one another.
The passage cited refers to an archaic and legendary age, but the period in which it was written corresponds roughly to the age of Confucius, and testifies that some of the ethical-social ideas of Confucianism sink their roots into currents of thought already present before Confucius and his successors elaborated them into a more articulated philosophical system.
We find ourselves before a vision of inter-state politics that is not grounded in conquest and the hegemony of force, but that places above all else the pursuit of harmony among the parties involved, implicitly recognizing their differences and indicating “virtue” and “good governance” as the sole paths toward an ideal of universal peace and serenity.
The maturation of these principles within the articulated Confucian elaboration would lead to the ethical, social, and political consolidation of the concept of harmony.
In the Analects of Confucius, the relationship is made explicit between rites — that is, the set of formal and outward expressions of the natural and human order — and harmony, whose primary value is recalled as the ultimate end both of the ritual system and of all the mechanisms of human society.
Also in the Analects, another fundamental aspect of the harmonious conception of human relations is then addressed — namely, the relationship between the harmony of the collectivity of individuals and the intrinsic differences among those same individuals. Confucius tells us plainly that “the person of noble character enters into harmony with others while remaining different; whereas the person of small character conforms to others without entering into harmony”.
This passage should also be read in light of the subsequent corollaries that attest to the formation of a conception of harmony tending toward the complementary union of differences, rather than toward their uniformizing cancellation. In the Guo Yu, the precious collection of speeches by historical figures and philosophers of antiquity, probably compiled around the 4th century BCE, it is written: “harmony is generative, uniformity is cessation”.
The recognition of the value of diversity as the intrinsic generative engine of every system in harmony is well represented in the metaphor of the ‘soup’ found in the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a historiographical work from the late 3rd century CE: “The excellence of a harmonious soup derives from the combination of different ingredients”. It is no coincidence that this phrase is also cited within the above-mentioned speech delivered by President Xi Jinping in January 2017 at the United Nations Office at Geneva, in a section devoted to the value of the diversity of human civilizations, which is described as “the wellspring of the progress of mankind.”
“We should build an open and inclusive world through exchanges and mutual learning. Delicious soup is made by combining different ingredients. Diversity of human civilizations not only defines our world, but also drives the progress of mankind.”
[Official translation — “Work Together to Build a Community of Shared Future for Mankind,” Speech by H.E. Xi Jinping at the United Nations Office at Geneva, 18 January 2017; also reported in Vol. II of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, “Work Together to Build a Community of Shared Future for Mankind”]
Even in this brief and limited excursion through the Chinese classics, we have been able clearly to identify the philosophical roots of the value-based and methodological system around which the four global initiatives proposed to the international community by the Chinese Government in recent years are articulated.
That common ethical and anthropological-cultural substratum, which connects the proposals to one another, clearly finds its foundation in the tradition of Chinese thought that has, over the centuries, taken shape around the concepts touched upon above: “All-under-Heaven belonging to all,” Ren, or “benevolence,” “the extension of oneself to others,” “harmony,” “the composition of Yin and Yang,” “non-uniformizing harmonization,” and “generative diversity.”
In concluding these reflections, I believe it worth briefly touching on a few precursory elements of the international doctrine currently proposed by China, elements we may trace through the development of the philosophical and political thought of the Communist Party of China — in particular, from the introduction, at the end of the 1970s, of the policy of “Reform and Opening-up” onward.
Given the Marxist nature of the Communist Party of China, it must first be observed how universalist humanism and the theory of the “true community” inherent in the ethical and political thought of Marxism, are in complete harmony both with the principles underlying the conception of “a community with a shared future for mankind,” and with those ethical-anthropological roots we have identified within classical Chinese thought, in particular of Confucian derivation. That central subject of history which Marxism identifies in the human being and in humanity’s global collectivity accords well with the conception of foundational centrality assigned to the human person by the concept of ‘putting people at the centre’, a principle that pervades the entire Confucian philosophical tradition from its origins down to the currents of Neo-Confucianism that took shape in the 20th century. And ‘putting people at the centre’ constitutes one of the primary principles guiding, today, the theoretical elaboration of the doctrines of the Communist Party of China.
Finally, I would like to mention, in broad outline, a few milestones in the recent historical development of the current conception of international politics and Chinese diplomatic doctrine.
In its revolutionary period, and later in the founding period of New China, Maoist thought elaborated ideals of solidarity among oppressed peoples, directly linked to the struggles against colonial imperialism and to the subsequent developments of Third World decolonization. In this way there took shape an idea of interdependence among national liberation struggles — a form of Maoist internationalism that contains within it, even if unconsciously, certain elements in common with the Confucian conceptions described above.
Of great importance, too, is New China’s first contribution to the post-war system of international relations, represented by the formulation of the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.”
Elaborated by Premier Zhou Enlai in the course of negotiations with India, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence were made public in June 1954 through joint communiqués between China, India, and Burma. In a world divided by bipolar conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, with the Western bloc also closing ranks around U.S. policies of hostility and containment toward the nascent People’s Republic of China — at the time still excluded from the United Nations — the People’s Republic of China sought to build stable relations with neighbouring Asian countries, to resolve territorial disputes, and to define an autonomous diplomatic line, an alternative to the logic of the Cold War’s military blocs. Within this historical context, we may say that the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” represent the first proactive diplomatic model elaborated by New China — the foundation of all its future foreign policy — proposing a doctrine of coexistence conceived above all for postcolonial states and aimed, first and foremost, at strengthening national sovereignty and rejecting external interference. The “Five Principles” thus represent the original matrix of the multilateralism and the respect for differences that would be found again in all subsequent Chinese doctrinal elaborations, down to the community with a shared future for mankind.
But the theoretical foundations that would lead to the Chinese government’s current, significant international engagement and projection were elaborated chiefly over the course of the past 50 years of New China’s history. With the launch, in 1978, of the policy of “Reform and Opening-up,” under the leadership first of Deng Xiaoping and then, in the years that followed, of Jiang Zemin, there emerged an awareness of the impossibility, for any state in the modern world, of developing in isolation from the rest of the global community, together with an understanding of the positive potential that economic globalization and international cooperation could represent for China’s economic and social development.
The internal economic and political reforms — including the progressive construction of a legal and administrative system, at the time still largely incomplete—together with international cooperation across all fields of industry and technology, and a far-sighted policy of infrastructure investment throughout the country, would give rise to what many international economists and political scientists today consider to be perhaps the greatest example, in terms of human scale, magnitude, and speed of change, among all the historical episodes of economic and social development in the history of humankind. The unfolding of the “Chinese miracle” would thus become the fertile context within which China would not only achieve levels of economic growth and social development unthinkable only a few years before, but would also begin to project its own experience and its own contribution toward the global community.
In the 2000s, the CPC’s political theories explicitly outlined the concept of a ‘harmonious society’, definitively and profoundly integrating the philosophical-ethical conception of “harmony” drawn from traditional Chinese thought with the political goal of creating the ideal conditions for the most effective and healthy economic and social development of the entire Chinese people. With the progressive consolidation of the “Chinese miracle,” the idea of extending the principles of the “harmonious society” to the sphere of international relations among states was not long in making its way within the Party’s intelligentsia, which, around 2005, forged the parallel concept of a ‘harmonious world’.
We may thus observe a line of development in the doctrine of Chinese international politics that begins with Maoist internationalism, post-colonial multilateralism, and the rejection of hegemonic interference; that then becomes aware of global interdependence and of the progressive value of international cooperation and respect for mutual interests; that subsequently extends the model of the ‘harmonious society’, with its universalist value system, to international relations; and that, finally, arrives at proposing international co-participation in the proactive building of a “community with a shared future for mankind,” through the realization of the articulated value-based and methodological system represented by the four global initiatives.
In light of these brief reflections of mine, I believe I may conclude that the very philosophical particularities of the relational framework proposed by China could constitute a shared basis for a path toward a virtuous integration between the modern tradition of Western humanistic conception — matured from the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment, to Marxism — and the ethical roots of Confucian social thought, together with their theoretical and political re-elaboration carried out in recent decades by the CPC.
This could thus represent a historic opportunity to set in motion, in partnership with the entire international community, a “harmonious” resolution of the various grave global crises humanity is facing in these years — implementing precisely the universal principles of ‘harmonious composition’, ‘generative dialectic’, and ‘non-uniformizing harmonization’, as well as the fundamental ethical value constituted by the right to pursue one’s own prosperity, but in a manner that respects and shares in the prosperity goals of all other peoples.
Contact Information:
Name: Daisy Zhang;
Email: [email protected];
Project coordinator, CICG International Exchange dept
About Us
With the aim of promoting the innovation and development of outbound publications and international communication, the China International Publishing Center(CIPC) is committed to collaborating and gathering resources of all parties. The Center is committed to pooling resources to build a new platform for international communication and exchanges, tell the Chinese story of the new era to the world, for better exchanges and mutual understanding between Chinese and other civilizations.
