Yeva Antonenko, Political Analyst at UIP
In recent decades, China has been actively shaping its own discourse about the future of the world system. One of the key concepts that increasingly appears in official documents and international speeches has become the “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind.” Its essence lies in the idea that all countries and peoples are bound by a common planet, common challenges, and, consequently, common responsibility. This idea claims to be an alternative to traditional models of international relations based on competition and hegemony.
China offers a vision where the emphasis is placed on cooperation, mutual benefit, and respect for cultural diversity. In official documents, the concept is presented as a strategic guideline for the foreign policy of the PRC and as a philosophical framework for initiatives such as the “Belt and Road,” the “Global Development Initiative,” and the “Global Security Initiative.” At the same time, when analyzing this topic, it is important to understand that it is not about dry theory, but about an attempt to propose to the world a new paradigm – a kind of “global contract” intended to replace the logic of confrontation with the logic of joint survival and prosperity.
Within this article we will examine in detail:
-
the historical and cultural roots of the concept;
-
its key principles and directions;
-
China’s practical steps toward implementation;
-
comparison with other concepts of globalization;
-
its perception in different regions of the world;
-
incentives and obstacles to realization;
-
and in conclusion – we will compare the concept with specific proposals (the “peace plan”) of the PRC regarding Ukraine, in order to see how the global vision correlates with regional initiatives.
Thus, the “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind” appears not only as a diplomatic formula but also as a claim to a new architecture of international relations. In the framework of our further analysis, we will examine the concept and assess its potential as an alternative paradigm of global development.
1. Historical and Cultural Roots of the “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind”.
The historical and cultural roots of the Chinese concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” (CSFM) go back thousands of years. This makes it not merely a political slogan, but an attempt to embed modern foreign policy into a traditional philosophical framework. Chinese thinkers and diplomats emphasize: their approach to international relations is based not only on pragmatics, but also on cultural heritage.
At the foundation of the concept lies the Confucian idea of harmony. Confucius taught that order is possible only through recognition of mutual obligations and the pursuit of justice. In modern discourse, this is transformed into the thesis of the need to respect the sovereignty of all countries and to seek a balance of interests. Daoism adds an emphasis on natural equilibrium: the world should be built not through coercion, but through consent. Buddhism brings the idea of the interdependence of all living beings, which in the 21st century sounds like a reminder that no country can be completely isolated from global processes – whether climate, economy, or security [1].
China’s historical experience also plays a key role. The country has lived through periods of greatness (for example, the Tang dynasty) and humiliation (19th–20th centuries, colonial pressure). This experience shaped the aspiration for peace and development without hegemony. The ancient concept of “All Under Heaven” (天下, Tianxia) viewed the world as a single space governed by moral principles. The modern idea of a “community of shared future” is largely a reinterpretation of this tradition, but already on a global scale [2].
Chinese diplomacy actively uses cultural symbols to promote the concept. The “Silk Road” became a metaphor of interconnectedness, and the expression “harmonious world” a political slogan. It is important to note that Beijing strives to present the concept not as exclusively Chinese, but as universal, based on the values of peace, justice, and cooperation. This allows the PRC to position itself not only as a national actor, but also as a bearer of global philosophy.
In addition, the CSFM presupposes respect for different models of development and cultural traditions. This is contrasted with the Western universalist logic, where a single standard of social governance or economy is often promoted. China asserts that the world should be multipolar and multicultural, and that cooperation is possible only with recognition of the equality of civilizations [3]. However, critics note that such rhetoric may serve as an instrument of expanding Chinese influence, which leading states strive for, rather than solely as an expression of universal values [5].
The emergence of the concept is connected with Xi Jinping’s rise to power. The term was first voiced in his speeches in 2013, when he proposed to view the world as a single space of interdependent states. At the early stage, this was more a declaration of intent than a formulated doctrine. Already then, one could trace the attempt to propose a Chinese alternative for the future, different from the Western model of international relations based on rivalry and hegemony.
In subsequent years, the concept was consolidated in official documents and speeches. In 2015–2017 it became part of Chinese diplomatic rhetoric at UN platforms. An important step was the inclusion of the term in a UN General Assembly resolution in 2017, which gave it international legitimacy [4]. This step showed that China managed to translate an internal idea into international discourse.
The evolution of the CSFM went in parallel with the development of major initiatives – the “Belt and Road,” the “Global Development Initiative,” and the “Global Security Initiative.” These projects became practical instruments for implementing the philosophical framework. China sought to show that it was not only about theory, but also about concrete actions aimed at strengthening interconnections among countries.
The culmination of the process was the publication in September 2023 of the white paper “A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions” [1]. In it, the concept was systematized for the first time: historical roots, philosophical foundations, directions of development, and practical steps were highlighted. The document became not only a manifesto, but also an attempt to establish the concept as the basis of the entire foreign policy of the PRC. It clearly sets out the directions (peace, development, ecology, cultural diversity) and shows how they are linked to specific initiatives.
Thus, the political evolution of the concept went through several stages: from Xi Jinping’s first declarations in 2013, through its gradual consolidation in international institutions, to its formalization in the form of a unified document in 2023. Today it functions as the ideological foundation of Chinese diplomacy, combining philosophical traditions, historical experience, and modern global initiatives. At the same time, its perception remains ambiguous: for some it is a universal philosophy of cooperation, for others – a tool for strengthening China’s role in the world system [6].
2. Key Principles and Directions of the Concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind”.
The concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” [1] is formed around five interconnected directions, each of which reflects both the philosophical traditions of China and the practical guidelines of the foreign policy of the PRC. These directions create a coherent system, where each element complements the other, forming a model of the future world order based on cooperation and mutual responsibility.
The lexical side of the document is of particular interest. The text of the concept uses elevated formulas and metaphors (“in the same boat,” “law of the jungle,” “bright future,” etc.), as well as universal value categories (“peace,” “justice,” “inclusiveness”), which give it a declarative and ideologically saturated tone. Such semantics are characteristic of Chinese documents of this level: they strive not only to set out practical steps, but also to give them literary beauty, philosophical depth, and global significance, so the style often appears rhetorically elevated and literarily shaped.
In the first point of the concept, China sets the basic framework: humanity lives under conditions of deep interdependence, which is presented as an objective reality. It is stated that historical progress from the agrarian revolution to the digital era has shown that the Earth remains a common home, and peace and development have always been the main aspirations of people. Globalization and technological leap have bound countries into a single system, where isolation leads to marginalization. Contemporary challenges – wars, crises, pandemics, climate – reinforce each other and require collective response. More than 190 countries are “in the same boat,” and only cooperation can ensure sustainability. The traditional logic of hegemony is outdated, and instead a model of equality, inclusive development, and peaceful coexistence is proposed.
In the second point of the CSFM, China formulates a strategic choice: either a return to the logic of the Cold War and bloc confrontation, or movement toward cooperation and solidarity. The future of humanity depends on the ability of countries to abandon exclusive alliances and hegemonistic practices and to move toward equal partnerships. The concept of the “global community of shared future” is described as a new approach to international relations and global governance, based on openness, inclusiveness, justice, respect for cultural diversity, and common security. China specifies this vision through a “five-link” framework: partnership, security, development, inter-civilizational exchanges, and ecological sustainability. These directions are united in the goal of building an open and sustainable world, where prosperity and security are shared by all.
In the third point of the concept, it is emphasized that the future of humanity depends on the choice between confrontation and cooperation. International relations must be built on the principles of openness, equality, and justice, rather than on hegemony and zero-sum games. The concept of the “global community of shared future” is proposed as a new format of global governance, where countries with different systems and cultures unite for common interests. The key guidelines are equal partnerships, collective security, fair development, inter-civilizational exchanges, and ecological sustainability. They form the foundation of a new international order, where confrontation is replaced by dialogue, exclusivity by inclusiveness, and domination by equality.
In the fourth point of the CSFM, China describes the practical direction of implementing the idea of a “global community of shared future.” The central emphasis is placed on the need for a renewed model of globalization, which must be more just and open. China asserts that the current system reinforces the gap between developed and developing countries, while protectionism undermines the stability of the world economy. As an alternative, the formation of transparent rules of trade and investment is proposed, along with the development of scientific and technological cooperation and the use of innovations for the benefit of all countries. The second key element is the path of peaceful development, contrasted with colonialism and hegemony. This approach is linked to China’s cultural traditions and its diplomatic practice, including the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. On this basis, a new type of international relations is formed, based on mutual respect and cooperation. An important condition for the realization of the concept becomes multilateralism: global issues must be resolved jointly, and international institutions reformed to reflect the interests of all countries.
In the fifth point of the concept, China focuses on practical actions that should confirm its aspiration to build a “global community of shared future.” The main idea is to show that it is not only about philosophy, but also about concrete steps in the economy, security, culture, and global governance.
Key actions of China indicated in the CSFM:
1. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – a large-scale platform of international cooperation covering infrastructure, trade, finance, and humanitarian projects. China emphasizes its open character and demonstrates practical benefits – from railways in Southeast Asia to water supply projects in Africa.
2. Three global Chinese initiatives concern the following directions:
• development (supporting the implementation of UN Sustainable Development Goals, creating funds and hundreds of projects in the fields of food security, energy, and poverty reduction);
• security (collective solutions to global threats, promoting dialogue instead of confrontation);
• civilization (strengthening inter-civilizational dialogue and respect for cultural diversity).
3. China creates a vast market through modernization, expands institutional openness (investment reforms, free trade zones), and involves other countries in joint projects.
4. Support for the Global South, within which hundreds of initiatives in healthcare, climate, and poverty reduction have already been implemented. China also participates in easing the debt burden of African countries.
5. In the sphere of peacekeeping and security, China takes part in UN missions, engages in mediation in regional conflicts (for example, the reconciliation of Saudi Arabia and Iran), and promotes the Global Security Initiative as an alternative to bloc politics.
6. Cultural diplomacy, within which the Global Civilization Initiative is advanced, including the organization of festivals, exchange programs, cooperation with UNESCO, and the development of cultural projects within the framework of the Belt and Road.
7. In the spheres of healthcare and cyberspace: assistance was provided to more than 150 countries during the Covid-19 pandemic, with the promotion of vaccines as a global public good. China participated in shaping rules of digital governance and cybersecurity.
8. Concerning issues of ecology and climate, China has undertaken the commitment to reach peak emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, as well as to develop green energy and support developing countries in adapting to climate challenges.
9. In matters of nuclear and maritime security, the key for China is the protection of the non-proliferation regime, the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and the creation of a maritime community of shared future based on dialogue and joint resource development.
Taken together, these steps are positioned as China’s contribution to the formation of a more just and sustainable international order, where development, security, and cultural interaction are interconnected and reinforce each other.
The conclusion of the concept comes down to the assertion that building a global community of shared future is a long-term historical process, for the successful realization of which persistence, trust, and joint actions of all countries are required. China emphasizes that peace, development, and cooperation are the inevitable trend of the time, and only through solidarity, dialogue, and the alignment of national interests with the common interests of humanity can sustainable prosperity, security, and a just international order be ensured.
3. Comparison of the “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind” with Other Concepts of Globalization.
The question of the place of the Chinese “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind” in global discourse cannot be considered in isolation. Its meaning and potential are revealed only in comparison with other models of globalization, which were formed in different cultural and political traditions. The liberal and conservative versions of the Western approach, the Russian idea of multipolarity, the Islamic vision of just integration, and the Soviet project of “red globalization” represent competing paradigms, each of which responds in its own way to the challenges of the modern world. Comparative analysis of these concepts makes it possible to identify the unique features of the Chinese approach, as well as to understand to what extent it can claim the role of an alternative model of global development.
As we see within the analysis above, the Chinese idea of the CSFM is built around the principle of interdependence and collective responsibility. It asserts that global challenges – climate, security, development – require a joint response, not rivalry. In this sense, the concept is positioned as an alternative to Western models, where the logic of competition and leadership of one civilization or bloc dominates.
The Western liberal concept of globalization is based on the idea of a liberal international order, which presupposes the supremacy of international institutions, the spread of democracy and human rights, as well as free trade [7, pp. 2–3]. The liberal model sees globalization as a process leading to integration through universal values and institutions, where the United States and its allies play the role of guarantors of order [7, pp. 4–5]. In contrast, the Chinese concept does not emphasize the universalization of values, but rather respect for cultural diversity and equality.
The Western conservative version of globalization is more heterogeneous. In the American context, part of conservatives traditionally support free trade as a tool for strengthening national power and prosperity. However, in recent decades the tendency toward “anti-globalism” has intensified, where the emphasis is placed on protecting national sovereignty, restricting migration, and criticizing international institutions [9]. In Europe, conservative thought also demonstrates duality: on the one hand, there is support for economic integration within the EU as a tool for strengthening collective power, on the other – the influence of “European conservatism” is growing, which emphasizes cultural sovereignty, criticizes liberal universalism, and advocates preserving national identity under globalization [10]. In this context, the Chinese concept appears as an attempt to propose a “middle way”: recognition of interdependence while preserving cultural and political autonomy.
The Russian concept of globalization is built around the idea of multipolarity and the protection of national sovereignty. In official documents, Russia emphasizes the necessity of equal participation of states in international affairs and criticizes the Western liberal order as a tool of domination [8]. In this sense, the Russian approach is close to the Chinese one – both reject hegemony and advocate for an alternative architecture, but China places emphasis on positive interdependence, while Russia focuses on confrontation and balancing of forces.
The Islamic concept of globalization is built on ideas of justice, ethics, and religious values, while making an important distinction between globalization and Westernization. Globalization is perceived as a multidimensional process of exchange, which can strengthen the position of the Muslim world in a multipolar system, whereas Westernization is criticized as a threat to cultural identity. In the economy, the Islamic approach is manifested through the development of Islamic finance, based on the principles of prohibition of riba (usury) and social justice, which allows integration into the world system without abandoning religious norms. In the cultural sphere, globalization is viewed as an opportunity for expressing Islamic identity, but at the same time raises concerns about the loss of traditional values [11]. In this context, the Chinese concept resonates with the Islamic one in terms of respect for cultural diversity, but remains more secular and pragmatic.
The Soviet concept of globalization was closely connected with the idea of “red globalization” – the spread of the socialist model through support of anti-colonial movements, the formation of a transnational network of allied states, and the creation of alternative economic ties. In a Cambridge University study, it is emphasized that communism was considered a universal project, opposed to capitalism, and as an attempt to build a global system based on socialist values [12]. In contrast, the Chinese concept does not seek to impose a single ideology on the world, but rather offers a framework for the coexistence of different systems under the condition of cooperation.
|
Comparison of Globalization Concepts with the Chinese Model of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” |
||
|
Concept |
Common Features with the Chinese Model |
Differences and Confrontational Points |
|
Western Liberal |
Recognition of interdependence of states, aspiration to global integration through institutions. |
Emphasis on the universalization of values (democracy, human rights), which China rejects. The United States and its allies act as guarantors of order, whereas China promotes equality and cultural diversity. |
|
Western Conservative (American) |
Support for free trade as a tool of development (similar to China’s emphasis on mutual benefit). |
Strengthening of protectionism and anti-globalism, emphasis on the protection of sovereignty and criticism of international institutions, which contradicts China’s vision of cooperation. |
|
Western Conservative (European) |
Support for integration (similar to China’s idea of interdependence). |
Strong emphasis on cultural sovereignty and critique of liberal universalism. The Chinese model is more pragmatic and globally oriented. |
|
Russian |
Rejects hegemony, supports multipolarity – coincides with China’s critique of the Western order. |
The Russian approach is built on confrontation and balancing of forces, whereas China emphasizes positive interdependence and cooperation. |
|
Islamic |
Respect for cultural diversity, aspiration to just integration, critique of universalism – close to China’s position. |
Based on religious values and ethics (Islamic finance, prohibition of usury), whereas the Chinese concept is secular and pragmatic. |
|
Soviet |
Aspiration to create an alternative global system; support for anti-colonial movements – resonates with China’s initiatives (the Belt and Road). |
Ideological expansion and opposition to capitalism. The Chinese model does not impose a single ideology, but offers a framework for coexistence |
Thus, the Chinese “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind” occupies a unique place among globalization projects. It differs from the liberal model by rejecting the universalization of values and institutional dominance, from the conservative model by emphasizing cooperation instead of protectionism, from the Russian model by presenting a positive vision of interdependence instead of the logic of confrontation, from the Islamic model by its secular character and pragmatism instead of religious normativity, and from the Soviet model by the absence of ideological expansion and the aspiration to coexistence of systems. In this sense, the Chinese concept claims the role of a new form of globalization, which seeks to unite the world around the idea of joint survival and prosperity, rather than around the struggle for leadership. Moreover, its positioning as a new paradigm of globalization makes it possible to consider it not only as an alternative to existing models, but also as a potential project of rethinking the very architecture of international relations.
4. Perception of the Concept in Different Regions of the World.
The Chinese “Concept of a Community of Shared Future for Mankind” has become one of the key elements of China’s foreign policy discourse. It reflects Beijing’s aspiration to position itself as the architect of a new world order, based on interdependence, cooperation, and rejection of confrontation. However, the perception of this idea in different regions of the world is heterogeneous and depends on historical experience, political interests, and the level of economic involvement in Chinese initiatives.
In Europe, attitudes toward the Chinese concept are heterogeneous. In the Balkans, particularly in Serbia, it is perceived positively and even institutionalized: in May 2024 Belgrade and Beijing signed a Joint Statement on the establishment of a “Community of Shared Future in the New Era,” becoming the only European country to officially enshrine this idea in bilateral relations [13]. For Serbia, this is not only a symbol of strategic partnership, but also a way to strengthen its own position in the international system, emphasizing independence from Western centers of power.
Greece, although it has not signed formal documents on the “Community of Shared Future,” demonstrates cultural and ideological openness to the Chinese discourse. Official publications emphasize the “historical affinity” of the two ancient civilizations and their contribution to global harmony, which Beijing actively interprets as support for the concept of a shared future for mankind [14]. Thus, Greece rather accepts the philosophical component of the idea than its political-strategic aspect.
In Western Europe, the Chinese concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” is met with undisguised skepticism and caution, being perceived not so much as a plan for global development, but as an ideological challenge to the Western world order. In political and academic circles of the EU, this initiative is regarded as Beijing’s instrument for reformatting the international system: moving away from universal human rights and democratic norms toward a pragmatic, China-centered order, where absolute state sovereignty is placed at the forefront [21], [18]. European leaders are particularly alarmed by the fact that the concept is actively promoted in the countries of the Global South as an alternative to European models of interaction, which directly contradicts the value orientations of the European Union, based on the rule of law [21].
At the practical level, Western Europe’s response comes down to a strategy of “de-risking” and the formation of its own competitive proposals. Understanding the attractiveness of the Chinese narrative of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation (win-win), the EU began to transform its approach to international development, abandoning the rhetoric of “donor-recipient” in favor of the concept of “partnership,” and also launched the large-scale infrastructure project Global Gateway as a counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative [22]. Nevertheless, despite ideological rejection of the very term, Western European countries are forced to adhere to a pragmatic balance, recognizing the inevitability of cooperation with Beijing in addressing real problems of the “shared future” – primarily in the sphere of climate change and global security [23].
In the United Kingdom, attitudes toward the concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” are also dual: harsh political skepticism coexists here with selective academic interest. In official and analytical circles of the United Kingdom (especially in the context of the Global Britain strategy), Chinese global initiatives are perceived mainly as a narrative instrument of Beijing, aimed at restructuring global governance, weakening Western influence, and creating a world order in which absolute state sovereignty is placed above universal human rights [24]. At the same time, in the British academic environment there are also positive assessments: for example, the well-known sociologist Martin Albrow calls the concept “an outstanding theoretical achievement,” offering a new model of collective solution to global problems based on common goals rather than the imposition of uniform Western rules [25]. In practice, however, London adheres to a strategy of pragmatic balancing. Rejecting ideological expansion and firmly defending national security, the United Kingdom is nevertheless compelled to interact with China in those spheres on which the future of the planet truly depends, such as climate change and ecology [26].
In North America (primarily in the United States and Canada), the concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” is perceived with deep skepticism and regarded as a direct strategic challenge to the Western world order. American think tanks and government commissions see this initiative not as a peace project, but as a carefully designed ideological instrument of Beijing, aimed at dismantling the liberal international system and displacing U.S. global influence [35]. North American experts emphasize that the Chinese narrative attempts to replace the concept of universal human rights with the principle of absolute state sovereignty, which in practice allows authoritarian regimes to avoid international criticism under the pretext of “non-interference” and “respect for a unique path of development” [36]. In this regard, in Washington and Ottawa the initiative is interpreted mainly as an attempt to build an alternative, China-centered world order, relying on situational alliances with developing countries [37].
As a practical response, North America builds a strategy of systemic competition, focusing on strengthening traditional alliances (especially in the Indo-Pacific region) and creating its own alternatives to Chinese global projects [37]. Nevertheless, despite the harsh political rejection of the very formulation of the “Community of Shared Future,” strategic realities compel the United States and Canada to partial interaction. American researchers acknowledge that solving real existential problems, on which the future of the planet truly depends (such as global climate change, arms control, and environmental security), requires selective but necessary cooperation with China regardless of ideological differences [38].
In South America and the Caribbean, the concept has been adapted to the regional format of the “Community of Shared Future between China and LAC Countries” (actively promoted through the China-CELAC Forum) and is viewed by states primarily through the prism of economic instrumentalism. For the developing economies of the region, the Chinese narrative of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation serves as an attractive geopolitical alternative to the historical dominance of the United States and traditional Western financial institutions [41]. And while countries with an openly anti-Western agenda (for example, Cuba or Venezuela) actively support the ideological, multipolar essence of the Chinese concept, most South American states (such as Brazil or Chile) prefer to maintain strategic flexibility. They willingly include Chinese diplomatic terminology in bilateral declarations to attract large-scale investments in infrastructure, energy, and agriculture, but at the same time strive to depoliticize this dialogue as much as possible, so as not to be drawn into systemic confrontation between Beijing and Washington [3], [42].
In Russia, the concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” is officially supported and perceived primarily through the prism of geopolitics – as an important ideological instrument for dismantling Western hegemony and building a multipolar world order [27], [28]. Moscow actively integrates this rhetoric into the framework of its “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Beijing. The Russian leadership especially willingly adopts derivative theses from this concept (for example, the principle of “indivisible security”), using them to legitimize its own geopolitical interests and actions on the international stage [29]. At the same time, researchers note that Russia’s support for the Chinese initiative is purely pragmatic: Russia is less interested in China-centered economic integration, but highly attracted by the opportunity to use this anti-Western narrative to consolidate developing countries and secure diplomatic backing in systemic confrontation with the United States and Europe [30].
In Ukraine, the perception of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” and its derivative projects (primarily the Global Security Initiative) has undergone a radical transformation: from pragmatic economic interest within the framework of the Belt and Road until 2022 to deep political skepticism today [31], [32]. Although Kyiv officially maintains diplomatic dialogue with Beijing, Ukrainian analysts acutely sense the dissonance between China’s declared principles of respect for sovereignty and its actual diplomatic behavior [33]. The thesis promoted within the Chinese concept about taking into account “legitimate security concerns” is regarded in Ukraine as a problematic narrative, which Beijing uses to tacitly justify Russian aggression and criticize NATO [29], [33]. As a result, China’s vision of the global future is perceived by Kyiv not as a neutral peace platform, but as an attempt to reshape the international order in the interests of situational alliances, which in practice places partnership relations above the protection of the territorial integrity of states [34].
In the Ukrainian academic environment, the concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” is often considered part of a broader discussion on the competition of globalization models. In particular, in a study by the Ukrainian Institute of Policy it is noted that the “Washington Consensus” is associated with liberal globalization and the “rules-based international order,” whereas the “Beijing Consensus” is presented as an alternative, emphasizing state regulation, gradual reforms, and preservation of cultural identity. According to researchers, the Chinese concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” functions not only as a philosophical framework, but also as an official state doctrine, consolidated in the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Security Initiative [60]. This approach allows it to be considered simultaneously as an instrument of the PRC’s foreign policy strategy and as an alternative model of globalization, opposed to the Western one.
In Southeast Asia, attitudes toward the Chinese concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” are pragmatic but polarized. According to specialized surveys (in particular, State of Southeast Asia 2024), about one third of respondents in the region believe that this concept successfully complements ASEAN’s efforts, and another third evaluate it as positive and beneficial for regional development. The attractiveness of the initiative is largely based on expectations of significant economic benefits, improved infrastructure, and growth of trade. However, a considerable part of experts express concerns that active promotion of the concept may force countries to “choose sides” in geopolitical confrontation and become a threat to ASEAN’s central role in the macro-region [17].
The reaction of individual Asian countries varies depending on their level of economic dependence on Beijing and the presence of territorial disputes. In countries such as Laos, the concept is perceived as highly positive thanks to large-scale investments directly contributing to economic growth. At the same time, Vietnam, having agreed to integrate with the concept, did so on its own terms: Hanoi insisted on including in joint statements a commitment to the UN Charter and the rules-based international order, in order to protect its sovereign interests. In states involved in disputes in the South China Sea (for example, the Philippines), attitudes toward the initiative remain cautious due to fears of strengthening Chinese dominance and imposing a China-centered order under the banner of the Global South [17], [18].
In Central Asia, the concept is promoted in close connection with the Belt and Road Initiative and meets a high degree of official support. At specialized summits in the “China–Central Asia” format, countries of the region actively share the rhetoric of creating a regional “community,” since Beijing within this paradigm emphasizes mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and joint security. For developing states of Asia, official support of this ideologeme serves as an effective pragmatic instrument for attracting large-scale investments in transport infrastructure and energy, allowing them to address internal socio-economic problems [19], [20].
In Africa, the Chinese concept receives the broadest official support and is already firmly institutionalized within the framework of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) as the goal of building a “China–Africa Community of Shared Future.” For the governments of the continent, the attractiveness of the initiative is purely pragmatic: it is backed by real infrastructure investments through the Belt and Road project and offers a model of economic development without the strict political conditions traditionally imposed by Western donors. Beijing also successfully appeals to historical narratives of Global South solidarity and strict adherence to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. At the same time, independent African experts and representatives of civil society periodically express concern about the political dimension of this “shared future” (in particular, the Global Security Initiative). They fear that the export of the Chinese model of state governance and digital control may strengthen authoritarian tendencies in the region and place the survival of political regimes above the security of ordinary citizens and human rights [39], [40].
Overall, it can be summarized that the perception of the Chinese concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” has a distinctly regional character and reflects a balance between pragmatic interests and ideological concerns. Where economic benefits and investments are evident (in Africa, Latin America, or the Balkans), the initiative receives official support and institutional consolidation. At the same time, in Europe, North America, and Ukraine it is more often perceived as an instrument for expanding Chinese influence and a challenge to the liberal order, which generates skepticism and caution. Russia and part of Asia use the concept as an element of strategic partnership and diplomatic positioning, but interpret it primarily through the prism of their own geopolitical interests. Thus, the Chinese project simultaneously acts as an attractive alternative to Western universalism and as a controversial ideological instrument, which makes its perception contradictory and dependent on specific regional contexts.
5. Incentives and Obstacles to the Implementation of the Concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind”.
The main practical incentive for promoting the Chinese concept of the global future is Beijing’s colossal economic toolkit, primarily the Belt and Road Initiative and the complementary Global Development Initiative. For the overwhelming majority of developing countries, participation in building the Chinese concept is attractive precisely because of access to large-scale investments in critical infrastructure, transport corridors, and energy [43]. The most important factor here is China’s refusal to impose political conditions when providing loans: unlike the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, Beijing does not require recipient countries to carry out democratic reforms, protect human rights, or liberalize the market. This model of “cooperation without interference in internal affairs” makes the concept highly in demand among states of the Global South and countries with hybrid or authoritarian regimes [44].
The second powerful incentive is the growing demand of the world community for multipolarity and reform of global governance. Beijing’s narrative of “democratization of international relations” and the creation of a system where the voice of developing nations carries equal weight with Western powers falls on fertile ground [44]. The Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative proposed by China legitimize the diversity of development paths and challenge the universalism of Western liberal values. This allows BRICS, SCO, and ASEAN countries to use Chinese rhetoric as a diplomatic lever to defend their own absolute sovereignty and raise their status on the international stage.
In addition, an important factor is the systematic institutionalization of the concept. China actively and successfully lobbies for the inclusion of formulations about the “Community of Shared Future” in resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council, documents of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, and declarations of multilateral formats (such as FOCAC in Africa or the China–CELAC Forum) [45]. The creation of alternative financial institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS New Development Bank, provides the concept with a real independent financial base, protected from Western sanction mechanisms [43].
Despite broad support in the Global South, the implementation of the concept faces serious conceptual and practical obstacles. The key barrier is the rigid systemic opposition from the collective West (the United States, the EU, and their allies in the Indo-Pacific region). In Western academic and political discourse, the CSFM is perceived not as a model of harmonious coexistence, but as a revisionist project aimed at dismantling the liberal rules-based world order [46]. This understanding has led to the launch of counter-strategies: from political “de-risking” and technological sanctions against China to the creation of alternative infrastructure projects, such as the European Global Gateway program and the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) [47].
Economic obstacles are connected with the slowdown of China’s own economic growth and the debt sustainability crisis in the countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. The narrative of the Chinese “debt trap” (as in the case of the transfer of port infrastructure in Sri Lanka for debt repayment) seriously damaged the image of the concept of mutually beneficial cooperation. In response to loan defaults, Beijing was forced to sharply reduce the volume of overseas financing, shifting from mega-projects to a strategy of “small and beautiful” investments [47]. This reduction in direct financing weakens the material base on which the loyalty of developing countries to Chinese global initiatives has historically been built.
At the same time, a number of experts note that such changes reflect not only economic difficulties, but also a broader transformation of the cooperation model. If in the early years of the Belt and Road Initiative the emphasis was placed on large-scale infrastructure projects – ports, railways, energy – then in recent years there has been a shift toward more sustainable and targeted initiatives. In analytics this direction is often described as the strategy of “small but beautiful projects,” implying smaller scale but greater economic and social efficiency.
Thus, researchers note that Beijing is consciously adjusting the model of the Belt and Road Initiative, seeking to move away from the image of the “debt trap” and make projects more viable in the long term. For example, materials of the Atlas Institute emphasize that the new strategy is connected with adaptation to the changed global environment and the demand of participating countries for more manageable and locally significant projects [57]. Analysis by CKGSB Knowledge shows that over a decade the Belt and Road has shifted from mega-projects to “small and beautiful” initiatives, which fit better into modern conditions and reduce risks for partner countries [58]. Academic studies also note that such a transformation reflects structural changes in the global economy and can be regarded as China’s attempt to embed its initiative into a more sustainable development model [59].
Thus, the ongoing processes can be considered not only as a forced reduction of financing, but also as a conscious adaptation of China’s strategy to new conditions of global development. This allows the evolution of the Belt and Road Initiative to be interpreted as a transition from quantitative expansion to qualitative deepening of cooperation, where priority is given to sustainability, local significance, and long-term efficiency.
The third fundamental obstacle is the acute deficit of trust and “security dissonance,” especially evident in China’s immediate neighborhood. The principles of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect declared within the concept directly contradict China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, border conflicts with India, pressure on Taiwan, and “wolf warrior” diplomacy. In addition, the position of tacit support for Russia in the context of the war in Ukraine alienated countries of Eastern and Central Europe from Chinese initiatives, effectively ending the once promising “14+1” cooperation format [48]. This gap between the peace-oriented theory of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” and China’s assertive practice forces many countries in Asia and Europe to balance – accepting Chinese investments, but turning to the United States for security guarantees.
Together with the critical perception of the concept in the West, there is another point of view in the international academic discussion. A number of researchers and official Chinese documents emphasize that the idea of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” is not aimed at dismantling the existing system, but rather at its reform and the strengthening of multilateralism. In particular, in analytical materials of the China Institute of International Studies it is noted that the concept is intended to “promote a true multilateral approach” and to strengthen the central role of the UN in global governance, as well as to create a more just system of international relations, where the interests of all countries are taken into account, and not only those of the leading powers [55].
This position is also revealed in official documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, where the concept is directly linked to supporting the reform of global governance and strengthening the role of international institutions. In China’s position paper for the Summit of the Future and the 79th session of the UN General Assembly it is emphasized that the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” should be regarded as a normative framework aimed at developing a more inclusive and sustainable system of global governance, and not as an alternative to the existing order [56].
Thus, the alternative point of view in the academic and diplomatic environment interprets the concept not as a revisionist project, but as an attempt to offer the world a renewed model of multilateralism, where the UN occupies a central place and where the reform of international institutions should ensure a more just distribution of responsibilities and benefits among countries.
Overall, it can be concluded that the incentives and obstacles to the implementation of the Chinese concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” form a complex and contradictory dynamic of its promotion.
On the one hand, the powerful economic base, institutionalization in international formats, and the demand for ideas of multipolarity make it attractive for countries of the Global South and provide real support at the level of official documents and projects.
On the other hand, systemic opposition from the West, reduced financing capabilities, and the acute deficit of trust significantly limit the potential of the concept.
Thus, the CSFM remains an influential but complex project, the further fate of which will depend on China’s ability to overcome these contradictions, as well as on the willingness to use the concept as an instrument for strengthening multilateralism and fair global governance in the strategic perspective.
6. Correlation of Global Vision and Regional Initiatives: the “Community of Shared Future” and China’s Position on Ukraine.
The concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” represents a comprehensive philosophical framework describing the desired world order contour for Beijing. However, to address specific international crises this philosophy requires applied mechanisms. In the context of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict, such a mechanism became Xi Jinping’s “Global Security Initiative” (GSI), which in February 2023 was converted into a 12-point document – “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukrainian Crisis” [49], which for some reason was removed from the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, where it had been published. Analysis of this document shows that it is not so much a classical step-by-step “peace plan” with implementation mechanisms, but rather a projection of the global vision of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind” onto a specific regional conflict [50].
The fundamental principle of the concept is absolute state sovereignty and rejection of interference in internal affairs. That is why the first point of China’s plan on Ukraine postulates the necessity of “respecting the sovereignty of all countries” and strict observance of the UN Charter. However, this principle is immediately balanced by the second point – a call to “abandon the Cold War mentality” and respect the “legitimate security concerns of all countries” [49]. This thesis is a direct reflection of the concept of “indivisible security” promoted within the CSFM (the security of one country cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others). In practice this means that China, while not approving the violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, simultaneously transfers a significant part of the responsibility for escalation to the expansion of Western military alliances (NATO), which fully corresponds to the essentially anti-Western narrative of the CSFM about the need to dismantle bloc diplomacy [51].
The economic dimension of the concept, implemented through development initiatives and the Belt and Road project, is based on the principles of uninterrupted globalization and mutually beneficial cooperation. In China’s document on Ukraine this vision is directly reflected in points 10 and 11: “Cessation of unilateral sanctions” and “Ensuring the stability of production and supply chains” [49]. For Beijing, the practice of applying Western sanctions bypassing the mandate of the UN Security Council is a gross violation of the principles of the “shared future” and an instrument of economic coercion. By including these points in the plan for crisis settlement, China not only protects its trade and economic ties with Russia from secondary restrictions, but also transmits to the states of the Global South an important ideological message: Chinese development initiatives offer a world in which the economy cannot be used as a geopolitical weapon in the era of great power competition [52].
The translation of global theory into regional practice revealed significant limitations of the Chinese approach. Because the document is based on high philosophical principles of the Global Security Initiative (GSI), it lacks specific practical details: mechanisms for troop withdrawal, the status of occupied territories, security guarantees, or formats of peacekeeping missions [52].
At the same time, a number of researchers emphasize that the Chinese side initially positioned this document as a set of principles and approaches to political settlement, rather than as a detailed negotiation plan. In this regard, it is considered more as a normative-political framework intended to outline possible directions of future dialogue than as a direct roadmap for peaceful settlement [53], [54].
As we can see, China’s position on Ukraine demonstrates the main feature of Chinese foreign policy: regional crises are viewed by Beijing through the prism of global systemic confrontation with the West [52]. The Chinese “peace plan” is not a practical roadmap for immediate ceasefire, but a normative manifesto [49]. Using the crisis in Europe, Beijing promotes its development and security initiatives as a legitimate and more just alternative to the Western world order. In doing so, China seeks to demonstrate to developing countries its readiness to export its own model of international security, acting as a global peacemaker and architect of a new system capable of protecting partner regimes from external pressure.
На примере войны в Украине китайский «мирный план» в контексте концепции СЕСЧ и в совокупности с ней и её производной – Инициативой в области глобальной безопасности – показали как свои сильные стороны, так и ограничения.
Among the strengths:
-
Emphasis is placed on China’s commitment to the principles of sovereignty, indivisible security, and equal dialogue;
-
They serve as instruments of strategic communication: demonstrating China’s peacekeeping position and transmitting an alternative narrative to the countries of the Global South;
-
They are embedded in global initiatives (“Community of Shared Future,” GSI), strengthening China’s global image.
Weaknesses:
-
They do not contain specific mechanisms of settlement (troop withdrawal, status of territories, security guarantees);
-
They include potentially contradictory provisions (simultaneous respect for sovereignty and consideration of “legitimate concerns”);
-
They are limited in practical applicability: remaining a declaration of principles rather than a working plan for crisis settlement.
Such a format allowed Beijing to emphasize its peacekeeping position and link it with global initiatives in the sphere of security and development. At the same time, the document transmitted to the states of the Global South the idea of the necessity of an alternative approach to international settlement, different from Western practices.
The experience of applying the CSFM and the Global Security Initiative in the Ukrainian crisis showed that such documents perform the function of declaring goals. They do not contain specific procedural steps necessary for the cessation of hostilities, but they allow China to outline its own vision of international security and demonstrate commitment to equal dialogue.
Such an approach reflects Beijing’s strategy: to use existing regional conflicts and crises as platforms for promoting global initiatives and demonstrating an alternative narrative. In this sense, the Chinese plan became an element of diplomatic communication and a symbolic statement of readiness to participate in shaping a new world order, even if its practical effectiveness in conditions of armed confrontation remains limited.
Conclusions
The concept of the “Community of Shared Future for Mankind,” proposed by China, represents an attempt to form a new paradigm of international relations, based on interdependence, cooperation, and respect for cultural diversity. Unlike traditional models of globalization, where the logic of rivalry and hegemony prevails, the Chinese vision seeks to offer the world an alternative “global contract,” oriented toward joint development and prosperity.
The historical and cultural roots of the concept – the Confucian idea of harmony, the Daoist understanding of balance, and the Buddhist thought of interdependence – give it philosophical depth and universality. Chinese diplomacy actively links these traditions with modern initiatives (the Belt and Road, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative), which allows the concept to be positioned not only as a theoretical framework but also as a practical strategy.
The key principles of the CSFM (equal partnership, collective security, fair development, intercivilizational dialogue, and ecological sustainability) form an integral system intended to offer an alternative to bloc confrontation. China emphasizes that global challenges – climate, pandemics, crises, wars – reinforce each other and require a collective response. In this sense, the concept is opposed to universalist approaches, where a single standard of democracy or economy is often promoted.
The practical implementation of the concept is expressed in large-scale projects: infrastructure investments, cultural diplomacy, peacekeeping missions, support for the Global South, and ecological commitments. These steps demonstrate China’s aspiration to consolidate its vision in real policy and to show the world that it is not only about philosophy, but also about concrete actions. An important element is multilateralism. Thus, Beijing insists on reforming international institutions to reflect the interests of all countries, and not only developed powers.
At the same time, the perception of the concept remains ambiguous. For some countries it appears as a universal philosophy of cooperation, for others – as an instrument of expanding Chinese influence. Critics note that the rhetoric of equality of civilizations may conceal China’s aspiration to strengthen its own role in the world system. In this sense, the CSFM faces the same challenges as other globalization projects: the balance between ideology and practice, between universal values and national interests, suspicion, and crises of trust. At the same time, a number of researchers emphasize that in official documents the concept is interpreted as a call to strengthen multilateralism, support the central role of the UN, and reform global governance, rather than as an attempt to replace the existing system.
Comparison of the Chinese concept with Western, Russian, Islamic, and Soviet models of globalization shows its uniqueness: it seeks to unite philosophical traditions and modern politics, offering the world a model where cooperation and solidarity become the foundation of international order. At the same time, its success depends on China’s ability to convince other countries of the sincerity of its intentions and readiness to share benefits, and not only to use the concept to strengthen its own position.
The experience of applying the concept in the context of the Ukrainian crisis demonstrates its limitations as an instrument of operational settlement: the document remained a declaration of principles, without specific mechanisms of implementation. At the same time, it played an important role as a diplomatic signal, allowing China to outline its vision of international security and emphasize commitment to the idea of equal dialogue.
In the long-term perspective, the CSFM may function as a political and economic platform capable of influencing the formation of a new world order. Consolidating the countries of the Global South around the narrative of the injustice of Western hegemony, offering investments without political conditions, and embedding its terminology in international documents, China gradually strengthens its own role in global governance.
Thus, the concept acts not so much as a means of solving current crises, but as an instrument of gradual reformatting of the international system in accordance with the Chinese vision.
References:
1. Full Text: A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions. 26 September, 2023.
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202405/t20240530_11332291.html
2. A Sustainable Community of Shared Future for Mankind: Origin, Evolution and Philosophical Foundation. 20 August 2021.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9352
3. Global community of shared future: roots and orientation. Chinese Social Sciences Today. 16 October 2023.
http://english.cssn.cn/skw_research/skw_marxism/202310/t20231016_5690569.shtml
4. ‘A Community of Shared Future’: One Short Phrase for UN, One Big Victory for China? 5 November, 2017.
5. Denghua Zhang. The Concept of ‘Community of Common Destiny’ in China’s Diplomacy: Meaning, Motives and Implications. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies. 16 April, 2018.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/app5.231
6. China’s ‘Community of Shared Future’ with Southeast Asia: Behind the Numbers. 5 January, 2024.
https://fulcrum.sg/chinas-community-of-shared-future-with-southeast-asia-behind-the-numbers/
7. Globalization and the Liberal International Order: Exploring Mutual Influence and Interaction. 15 January, 2025.
https://ejmss.tiu.edu.iq/index.php/ejmss/article/view/95
8. The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation. 31 March, 2023.
https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/fundamental_documents/1860586/
9. Jeb Hensarling, The Conservative Case for Globalization, Cato Institute, 2024.
https://www.cato.org/publications/the-conservative-case-for-globalization
10. Valentin Behr, Eve Gianoncelli, The Radicalization of ‘Intellectual Conservatism’ in the Illiberal Moment: The Case of The European Conservative. 23 December, 2025.
11. Islam’s Dynamic Relationship with Modernity and Globalization. 28 July, 2025.
https://thinking-muslims.co.uk/islams-dynamic-relationship-with-modernity-and-globalization/
12. Cambridge University. Press Red Globalization: The Political Economy of the Soviet Cold War from Stalin to Khrushchev, 2014.
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/40250/frontmatter/9781107040250_frontmatter.pdf
13. Xinhua. China, Serbia decide to build community with shared future. 9 May, 2024.
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202405/09/content_WS663ba8abc6d0868f4e8e6de8.html
14. China Daily. Sense of history unites China and Greece in quest for future global harmony. 1 July, 2025.
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202507/01/WS68634d5aa31000e9a5739823.html
15. European Council on Foreign Relations. The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemic. 13 May, 2020.
https://ecfr.eu/publication/the_meaning_of_systemic_rivalry_europe_and_china_beyond_the_pandemic/
16. Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS). Beijing showcases its global order pitch. 13 October, 2025.
https://merics.org/en/comment/beijing-showcases-its-global-order-pitch
17. FULCRUM (ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute). Regional Responses to China’s Community of Shared Future for Mankind. 2 August, 2024.
https://fulcrum.sg/aseanfocus/regional-responses-to-chinas-community-of-shared-future-for-mankind/
18. SPF China Observer. The Shape of Community of Shared Future for Mankind as Seen from Foreign Minister Wang Yi's Press Conference. 18 June, 2024.
https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/document-detail051.html
19. Министерство иностранных дел КНР. Совместно создать сообщество единой судьбы Китая - Центральной Азии. 19 мая 2023 г.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/rus/wjdt/zyjh/202305/t20230519_11080004.html
20. National Center for Biotechnology Information (PMC). A Community of Shared Future for Mankind: A study on the news discourse of environmental cooperation in countries along the Belt and Road Initiative. 23 October, 2023.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10593205/
21. European Hub for Contemporary China (EuroHub4Sino). China's increasing influence in the Global South: what does it mean for the EU? 16 January 2026.
22. European Guanxi. Europe and China's International Development Cooperation Narratives: Conflicting yet Converging. URL:
23. Brookings Institution. Between Washington and Beijing: How Europe fits into US-China strategic competition.
24. Council on Geostrategy. What the Chinese Communist Party wants from the United Kingdom. 30 March, 2021.
25. China Daily. Xi's vision on shared future of humanity an 'outstanding' theoretical achievement, British sociologist. 29 October, 2022.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202210/29/WS635d0397a310fd2b29e7f3e6.html
26. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. Xi Jinping Delivers Important Speech in City of London. 22 October, 2015.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng./zy/jj/2015zt/xjpdygjxgsfw/202406/t20240606_11381599.html
27. The State Council Information Office of the PRC. Full text of President Xi's written interview with Russian media. 4 July, 2017.
http://www.scio.gov.cn/news_0/202209/t20220921_426831.html
28. US Army War College (USAWC) Press. Sino-Russian Relations and the War in Ukraine. 28 July, 2022.
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3165&context=parameters
29. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s Paper on Ukraine and Next Steps for Xi’s Global Security Initiative. 7 March, 2023.
30. The Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM). China Adapts Policy in Response to Russia's Aggression Against Ukraine. 31 March, 2023.
https://pism.pl/publications/china-adapts-policy-in-response-to-russias-aggression-against-ukraine
31. ResearchGate. Under the “Belt and Road” initiative, the China and Ukraine governments should assume greater responsibility to promote trade. September 2019.
32. Taylor & Francis. The Chinese Way of World Order-Making and Shaping: The Russo-Ukrainian War as a Test and an Opportunity. 28 January, 2026.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2026.2622656
33. Global Panorama. Beijing's Reaction to Ukraine Crisis: Divergence From Principled Foreign Policy? 14 April, 2022.
34. Atlantic Council. How Beijing's newest global initiatives seek to remake the world order. 21 June, 2023.
35. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The China Model: Return of the Middle Kingdom.
36. Texas National Security Review. Xi’s Vision for Transforming Global Governance: A Strategic Challenge for Washington and Its Allies. November 2018.
37. Brookings Institution. China, the United States, and the future of a rules-based international order. 22 July, 2024.
38. Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. How the US and China Could Renew Cooperation on Climate Change. 18 December, 2020.
39. Africa Center for Strategic Studies. Africa as a Testing Ground for China’s Global Security Initiative. 4 August, 2025.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/africa-china-global-security-initiative/
40. Africa China Centre. How China's Initiatives are Shaping a Global Community with a Shared Future for Mankind. 11 September, 2024.
41. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). China's Third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean: Expanding Influence and Ambitions. 18 December, 2025.
42. Inter-American Dialogue. Navigating U.S.-China Competition: Latin American and Southeast Asian Experiences. 18 June, 2025.
43. World Bank Group. Belt and Road Economics: Opportunities and Risks of Transport Corridors.
44. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. China’s New Global Initiatives: Catching Up with the Rhetoric.
45. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). China’s Alternative Order: How Beijing is using the Global South to reshape the international system.
https://www.cfr.org/article/chinas-alternative-order
46. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). De-risking and the Future of the Global Order: Transatlantic Perspectives on China. URL:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/de-risking-and-future-global-order
47. AidData at William & Mary. Belt and Road Reboot: Beijing’s Bid to De-Risk Its Global Infrastructure Initiative.
https://www.aiddata.org/publications/belt-and-road-reboot
48. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. The State of Southeast Asia: 2024 Survey Report (Trust Deficit and Geopolitical Anxieties).
49. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis. 24 February, 2023.
50. China’s ‘Peace Plan’ for Ukraine Isn’t About Peace. 4 April, 2023.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/04/china-xi-ukraine-russia-peace-plan-diplomacy-global-south/
51. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A New World Police: How Chinese Security Became a Global Export. 2 February, 2026.
https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2026/01/china-global-security-provider
52. enter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Global Development in an Era of Great Power Competition. 24 March, 2022.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/global-development-era-great-power-competition
53. Alexander Gabuev, Inside China’s Peace Plan for Ukraine, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1 March, 2023.
https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/02/inside-chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine
54. Amrita Jash, China’s Position on Ukraine War Tells a Tale, Institute for Security and Development Policy. 27 February, 2023.
https://www.isdp.eu/chinas-position-on-ukraine-war-tells-a-tale/
55. China Institute of International Studies. Embracing True Multilateralism, and Jointly Forging a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind. 2 December, 2024.
https://www.ciis.org.cn/english/MediaCenter/NEWS_183/202412/t20241202_9430.html
56. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Position Paper of the People’s Republic of China for the Summit of the Future and the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly. 19 September, 2024.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/wjzc/202409/t20240920_11493896.html
57. Angana Guha Roy. China’s Strategic Shift to ‘Small and Beautiful’ Projects. Atlas Institute for International Affairs. 7 October, 2025.
https://atlasinstitute.org/chinas-strategic-shift-to-small-and-beautiful-xiao-er-mei-projects/
58. Patrick Body. BRI’s 10-Year Shift: Embracing ‘Small Yet Beautiful’. CKGSB Knowledge. 24 October, 2024.
59. Linda Calabrese, Rhys Jenkins & Lorena Lombardozzi. The Belt and Road Initiative and Dynamics of Structural Transformation. European Journal of Development Research, Springer, 2024.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41287-024-00644-x
60. Бортник, Р. Политическая эволюция вашингтонского и пекинского консенсуса: модели глобализации. Украинский Институт политики (UIP), 2024.
