Transcript of ambassadors' roundtable at the 10th China and Globalization Forum
Ambassadors of the EU, Germany, South Africa, Türkiye, New Zealand, Argentina, and Estonia on challenges and reforms of multilateral world order.
Below is the full transcript of the ambassadors' roundtable "Reimagining multilateralism for a multipolar world" at the 10th China and Globalization Forum on May 25-26, 2024. The forum was hosted by the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), co-organized by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), and supported by the Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies (ACCWS), was held in Beijing.
CCG has published the video recording of the session on Chinese social media, where it remains accessible. The recording has also been posted on CCG's YouTube channel.
The roundtable was chaired by Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder and President of CCG. The speakers are, by order of appearance:
Jorge Toledo Albiñana, Ambassador of the European Union to China
Patricia Flor, Ambassador of Germany to China
Siyabonga C. Cwele, Ambassador of South Africa to China
MA Jianchun, CCG Nonresident Senior Fellow; Former Chinese Ambassador to Gambia and Director-General of MOFCOM Department of Foreign Affairs
İsmail Hakkı Musa, Ambassador of Türkiye to China
Grahame Morton, Ambassador of New Zealand to China
Marcelo Suárez Salvia, Ambassador of Argentina to China
Hannes Hanso, Ambassador of Estonia to China
SHI Yinhong, Professor, Institute of International Relations, Renmin University of China; Former Counselor to the State Council; CCG Academic Council Member
Victor GAO, Vice President, CCG
Marc Horn, President, Merck China
Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder and President, CCG
Good morning, your excellencies, distinguished guests, and also all the dear participants of the 10th annual China and Globalization Forum. This is Day 2, as Zoon mentioned, as we are starting our very exciting second day of the 10th anniversary of China and Globalization Forum which is quite a big event, probably the largest event of the last 10 years for this forum. We have covered many issues. Yesterday, we had a big opening ceremony and we had a big opening roundtable. Of course, we had the China-EU roundtable discussions and we also had many different sections. This is really a great time to contemplate and to see where are we going. A lot of constructive proposals, ideas, and perspectives have been generated.
Today, we are having another very important roundtable section, which is “Reimagining Multilateralism for a Multipolar World.” I remember when I was in Germany at last year's Global Solution Summit--actually this year also -- the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the unipolar world is gone but the multipolar world is shaping. But, we haven't really seen a multilateral world system to sustain that. Since WWII, the global order has undergone a transformative shift from the bipolar world which used to be the Soviet Union and the U.S. to a unipolar world for many years. Now, we're probably experiencing a multipolar configuration. However, the multipolar world today is characterized by a stunning similarity of systematic crises. Also, the communication, transactions, interests, values, and all are very unstable. Interdependence, the key thread of globalization has been fading away quite significantly and concurrently with the intensified major power competition.
Those challenges also underscore the urgency of reimagining multilateralism for a multipolar world, where cooperation emerges as indispensable for addressing global challenges and advancing shared interests. Countries should align their commerce, production, and technology relationships. Also, cooperation is still pivotal for a more robust bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral diplomacy on the world stage.
I'm very glad today that we had so many distinguished guests-- ambassadors, Chinese scholars, and also representatives of different sectors. The first topic we're going to explore and discuss would be "the new global order based fundamentally on multilateralism".
Now, we have a lot of regionalism and multilateralism happening. So what professional global relations can create pathways for mutual progress and multiple progress? If the current unipolar world needs a lot of enhancement and reform, how can we collectively work on that? For example, we have many new challenges, we have AI, we have climate, we have the digital, we have Global South debt, and also poverty. Now, there are even wars going on in Europe and the Middle East. It's unimaginable that the world is not working together. Finally, what can be done to make global governance more effective in a multilateral world? What are the alternatives? What are the other solutions that align and through which we can really work together to create global, more efficient decision-making? This is what I am actually hoping that we can touch upon if we can have time.
I remember last year at our conference in September, we had the roundtable of China, the US, the EU, and Global Climate Dialogue for a Sustainable 21st Century, trilateral cooperation on climate. So how about China, the U.S., and the EU can work together with the Global South to meet the challenges and, particularly, to help the Global South together? All of those are interesting questions.
I just want to frame a little bit about our discussion. We have so many think tank heads here from different countries, and we have very good representatives of international organizations, presidents and deans of universities, and other people that we have around the table. I'm very honored to chair this section and I think we may start the roundtable. For the first round, each ambassador will have about six also maybe more time to discuss. And after that, if we have the time, we will have some further interventions and discussions again. I'll just start this randomly. I see Ambassador Jorge Toledo represents the 27 countries of the EU. So maybe you speak first and then we'll follow the seats and speak again. So Ambassador Toledo, your turn, please.
Jorge Toledo Albiñana, Ambassador of the European Union to China
Thank you very much, Henry. Thank you very much, CCG. Thank you very much, Mabel. I'm here every day --I was here yesterday. I'm very glad to be here to discuss a very timely subject-- multilateralism in the current world. Thank you for giving me the floor as the first speaker. Well, in fact, we are also a multilateral organization--the European Union is a multilateral organization. Probably, no, definitely, the most advanced regional multilateral organization. So advanced that we are one, we are one and 27. There is no other international organization that speaks with one voice as the European Union. We speak with one voice and through our common institutions in things as important as trade. We speak with 27 voices and we try to get one single voice, increasingly so in foreign affairs. We are definitely the most advanced integrated organization in the multilateral world.
Reform of the multilateral system is constant in the agenda of our meetings around the world, and especially with China. We are now preparing for the Summit of the Future in September. This is a good occasion to reflect on the current conversation on the multilateral world.
The future of multilateralism is a subject that High Representative/Vice President Josep Borrell has been addressing during his mandate, including during his visit here in Beijing when he came last year for the EU-China Strategic Dialogue, and including in the EU-China Summit last December 7. As Borrell put it, we live in a more and more multipolar world, but unfortunately, multilateralism is in retreat. And the problem with a multipolar world or an increasingly multipolar world where true and effective multilateralism is in retreat, is that it leads to fragmentation. We're going from globalization to fragmentation. That's why we need to reinforce our multipolar system.
How do we do this? Well, there is a very simple way in the first place. It's to reinforce, to align, and to insist on the basic tenets, the basic principles of the UN Charter -- all principles of the UN Charter that should apply universally. China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has a special responsibility to protect the basic rules, the basic principles of the Charter. We must defend the UN Charter in its entirety and we must defend it in all occasions.
Second, we agree that multilateralism, the multilateral order can and should improve. It must respond better to calls or demands for transparency, quality, inclusivity, and delivery. But again, that doesn't mean that we have to be selective on core principles. We have to apply all principles and apply them universally.
The UN, which is at the basis of the multilateral system, works on three essential pillars -- peace and security, sustainable development, and human rights. They are inextricably linked. They have to be complied with universally. There can't be different narratives on core principles. The basic principles have to be applied equally everywhere by everyone. There are no shortcuts. There should be no justification.
For instance, when we talk about territorial integrity or sovereignty, there is no justification, and you know what I mean. There is no legitimate security concern; there is no justification in defective security architecture that can justify what has happened in Ukraine. That's what I mean. So we cannot compromise on this basic principle. Otherwise, this will lead to fragmentation and to conflict.
Then when we talk about sustainable development, there are new things coming up, new things that have to be addressed multilaterally, because if they are not addressed multilaterally and effectively, it will also lead to fragmentation; it will also lead to conflict. And I'm talking about such new basic things as artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has enormous potential to shape our economies and the world for the better. but it also has the potential to put multilateral peace, stability, and development at risk. So we have to regulate this multilaterally.
Finally, because I'm running out of time, let me turn to a concrete upcoming initiative to help reshape the world's multilateral system. I'm talking about the Summit of the Future, which will be hosted by the UN General Assembly on September 24. This high-level event will mark the culmination of a four-year-long process started in 2020 on the occasion of the UN's 75th anniversary. This is a crucial opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and strengthen global governance for the sake of present and future generations.
We, the EU, are playing a leading role in the preparation of the summit, pushing for a high level of ambition and advocating a text anchored in key values and priorities, including the respect of universal and basic human rights, women and girls empowerment, as well as climate change, and biodiversity. The summit should adopt an ambitious action plan, including new commitments, and has to have a forward-looking vision with concrete measures and timelines rather than focusing only on what has already been agreed. The overriding focus of the pack should be both on establishing a common vision of the future and on identifying concrete ways in which multilateralism, with the UN as its core, can promote that vision.
I will leave it there because I'm running out of time. There are still many speakers that will take the floor. Thank you very much, Henry. I'm looking forward to studying the discussion.
Patricia Flor, Ambassador of Germany to China
Thank you, Mr. Wang. It's a pleasure to be here once again at the CCG, together with colleagues both from all over the world and from China. First of all, thank you for choosing this topic because I think it will be key for all of us in this world--how we structure the multilateral world together.
Let me say upfront, multilateralism has never been static and it has actually always been multipolar if you look at it. At this particular point in time, what we need is a more efficient multilateral system because we must address the multiple crises that affect the global community as a whole. That means, of course, the climate crisis, environmental pollution, Russia's illegal war of aggression, challenges in the world economic system, social justice, and the weakening of human rights and women's rights.
Based on this, let me outline a few key conditions I see for the reform and the development of the multilateral system. First, I would urge not to start by dismantling the achievements in consensus, in dispute settlement, and in legal norms and international law that we've worked hard to build. These rules were never the rules of a small group, G7. I negotiated at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and Cairo Agreement on Climate. It was always encompassing everyone. We need to preserve it and take it as a starting point.
Second, if we want to address these multiple crises, we cannot do this through inward-looking isolationism. On the contrary, we need to look for more cooperation, more integration, and more peaceful adaptation of our institutions, including the international financial system, the markets, the WTO, and of course, the UN itself.
Third, we have to communicate in a responsible, constructive, and solution-oriented manner. I'm saying this because I hear too many narratives which divide or aim to divide, which vilify other groups and countries, and therefore create discord rather than trying to find common ground. Having said that, I think the starting point should always be to accept that others, big or small, and from whatever region, have interests and worldviews of their own that deserve to be respected and to be factored into our decision-making.
I think that's why the UN Secretary-General Mr. Guterres convened the UN Summit for the Future. And it's a process where Germany, together with Namibia as co-chairs, lead the negotiations in New York. Yes, we want a concrete action program on sustainable development, peace and security, science and technology, and transformation of global governance.
Henry let me address some of the questions that you asked. First of all, your first question. The global order, as I said, should evolve based on true pluralism, but that also means that true pluralism means the arduous work of consensus building, negotiation, and agreement. No way around that. And I also would say it's not really about a new global order. We shouldn't discard what we have. The way should be to look at a reform that makes our global order fit for purpose, for the tasks and the challenges that we confront. Your second question, do we need alternative multilateral platforms? I have doubts about that because what I said was that we need to gather everybody around the table, and we have the institutions already that do that. By the way, we've always had different multilateral fora, I mean, not only the EU as an organization but the ASEAN, the African Union, the League of Arab States, BRICS, you name it. Of course, all of that feeds into this greater process. But I think the key is we have the United Nations and the (UN) system at the core, and we need to strengthen them. We need to look at the complementarity between the different platforms.
Let me also make a comment. Rules were never made by a small group. If we look at the United Nations Law of the Seas, it was a very complicated ten-year negotiation until we arrived finally at a result.
Your third question -- governance and how to make the international, multilateral system more efficient-- I couldn't agree more. We need to address some of the inefficiencies. And let me point out one. We've seen that the Security Council in a time of geopolitical tension in crisis is even less able to act than it was for the last 20 years. So we need to urgently reform the Security Council. Together with many other countries, Germany has been an advocate for reform.
Also, we need to address new challenges. Let me mention the governance of artificial intelligence, autonomous weapon systems, and outer space. So we can't remain in the old framework. We also need to look at what new institutions do we actually need.
Let me then also highlight that we, of course, need coalitions across countries and across regions. I think what we should leave behind -- and I remember in previous rounds of negotiations we had between the EU and the G77, that still works. But I think increasingly, we share interests across borders and continents. Therefore, we should also look at intensifying all our dialogue with our African and Asian friends.
Your last question, what's the role of China? Now, there's no question that China is a global power, and as a P5 permanent member of the UN Security Council, also has a really big responsibility in this regard. Whatever China does matters for the multilateral order as a whole and for our ability to steer reforms in the multilateral system. Because the more we have conflicts with China and among us, the weaker is our ability to collectively address some of these issues. We see that geopolitical conflicts do hamper global decision-making ability. China has a key role to see how we can address that, including going back to the agreement with Iran on Iran not going nuclear and stemming the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Same, of course, for North Korea.
As we have all a shared responsibility to handle our relations constructively and bilaterally, we should always have in mind that this is about also protecting the common good globally and to improve the global order that we've already built over so many decades. So let us work together to make the Summit of the Future of the United Nations in September a success. Let us all recommit to a multilateral system with the United Nations at its core. Thank you very much.
Siyabonga C.Cwele, Ambassador of South Africa to China
Thank you very much, Dr. Wang, for giving South Africa (the oppotunity) to add its voice to this important topic. First, multilateral cooperation, primarily through the United Nations system, has characterized the Post-World-War-II global order with various levels of success. While it has been imperfect, this multilateral cooperation has averted direct military confrontation between major powers and inspired the nations to recognize and take joint actions in addressing international sustainable development and human rights issues, as colleagues have said.
However, what's the problem? The system is facing challenges such as growing unilateralism, geopolitical rivalries, inconsistent compliance, with and at sometimes blatant violation of international law and application of double standards. This has led to the steady erosion of trust and competition between states, which is weakening the ability of international community to work together to address the shared challenges, such as peace and security, ensuring global sustainable development, addressing climate change and environmental challenges, and protecting human rights.
Thirdly, there has also been a proliferation of alternative forums and site processes outside the established multilateral forums where decisions are taken amongst a few, thereby disenfranchising many and diverting attention away from non-delivery of multilateral commitment.
What can be done to reimagine this multilaterism and multipolar world? First, South Africa believes that multilateralism, which is a notion of collective solutions, must be at the heart of the engagement between member states, starting at the member states, guided by the UN Charter, as colleagues have already mentioned. The new momentum and political will is then required to strengthen and transform these multilateral relations. The United Nations must remain at the centerpiece of this multilateralism and be modernized and reformed to make it fit for purpose and more effective, agile, action-oriented, forward-looking, as well as inclusive and representative of the current geopolitical relations in the international community.
There should be a collective recognition, however, that the United Nations and its regional bodies such as the AU, EU, and other bodies remain the most relevant global and international platforms for tackling challenges, such as threat to peace and security, addressing poverty and underdevelopment, and ensuring the protection of human rights, all of which these three pillars of the United Nations in implementing its mandate. So the need for reforms of the organization, including in the Security Council, must also be acknowledged at the same time that the organization has made an immense contribution to the advancement of these pillars because if we lose that and just criticize everything, I don't think (this will work.)
This third point we suggest in going forward is that it must be pointed out that equal importance and priority must be given to development and security -- not just security but development and security -- because the nexus of peace, security, and development has been established already. You can't address one and leave out others.
Fourthly, as colleagues have said, now we face these new things that bring potential good but also potential risk, like artificial intelligence. South Africa supports the development of standards at the United Nations level so that all of us can benefit and minimize the threats or the possibility of these technologies falling into bad hands.
Lastly, when other cooperation mechanisms are established outside the United Nations system, they must not erode or undermine the UN but complement it. As an example, my country also belongs to the BRICS partnership. We belong to G20. We are of the view that these always put multilateralism at the center, so they are not eroding the UN Charter and the UN system. Thank you very much.
MA Jianchun, CCG Nonresident Senior Fellow; Former Chinese Ambassador to Gambia and Director-General of MOFCOM Department of Foreign Affairs
Good morning, everyone. It's my great pleasure to participate in this ambassadors' roundtable to to discuss globalization, multilateralism, and multipolarization of the world with ambassadors and experts. I used to work in Africa as a diplomat for more than 10 years. When I got this invitation, I was traveling. So I think maybe I can use this chance to say some words on how China's diplomatic relations with the Global South will affect the next step in shaping the contours of multilateralism. This is one of the questions raised by CCG. I think I can share some views with my dear colleagues and experts.
The Global South is an important aspect of the multilateral world in the face of great challenges unseen in a century. China attaches great importance to cooperation with countries in the Global South, including with African countries. I would like to say that Africa is an important part of the Global South. In the new global order, in the process of building new multilateralism and realizing globalization, China believes that the existence and influence of Africa cannot be ignored. Africa's importance to the world is not only reflected in its geographical location; Africa also has abundant resources, a vast market, and a population of more than 1.4 billion in the continent, accounting for 17% of the world population, which will reach 2.4 billion by 2025. So how can globalization be done without the participation of countries of this continent? Also, Africa has 54 countries, 20% of the 193 Member States of the United Nations. The role and influence of the African Union are constantly expanding. Multilateralism cannot be without such a force.
African countries very much want to participate in the process of economic globalization and are also willing to take an active part in the process of multipolarization of the world. One of the obvious policy orientations is that the African Union has put forward seven broad visions on behalf of African countries in the Agenda 2063, one of which is to build Africa into a strong, united, dynamic, and influential international actor and partner that contributes to human process and well-being.
In practice, in recent years, we've witnessed that African countries have been actively playing an influential role in international affairs and peace processes. African countries also have actively engaged in cooperation in Africa. In the year 2021, African countries began to implement the African Free Trade Area Agreement. We can see that African countries hope to increase trade, attract foreign investments, increase production capacity, promote economic development among African countries and develop towards economic globalization through tariff liberalization and elimination of tariff barriers.
The Chinese government has always attached importance to cooperation with the Global South, including African countries. Such cooperation has played a positive role in promoting economic globalization under the development of the multilateral world. One thing worth noting is the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, which was established by China and African countries in the year 2000. This is a good platform for plurilateral cooperation and the achievements of the FOCAC are conducive to the development of globalization. On this platform, China and African countries jointly discussed the direction of development, tried to align their development strategies, and implemented some projects according to the needs of African countries.
It should be pointed out that the economic cooperation between China and Africa is also open cooperation. In recent years, the Chinese government has encouraged Chinese enterprises in Africa to actively carry out three-party cooperation, including between China, African countries, and other countries.
China and African countries have nearly 3 billion people, accounting for about 37% of the world's 8 billion people. Therefore, strengthening cooperation with African countries and participating in the process of economic globalization with African countries will make positive contributions to the development of globalization and will also have a positive impact on the formation of the framework of multilateralism. Thank you very much.
Ismail Hakki Musa Ambassador of Türkiye to China
Thank you, Mr. President. Your excellencies, dear guests, I join my predecessors when they say that this is a really timely event. Once again, CCG is taking the lead. Thank you to you, Mr. President, and to your team. And thank you for inviting me.
The issue at stake is important today, multilateralism. In fact, we are speaking about the reform system of the United Nations. Mr. President, since Alexander the Great, too much effort has been deployed to have a peaceful and sustainable world order. Throughout history, we have had too many different experiences.
The current system is established after the end of the Second World War. I think it is worth to mention, in order to try to find out an efficient solution, what are the deficiencies. In fact, the post-1945 liberal international order has prevented the outbreak of a new World War. This is true. Nevertheless, it has fallen short of offering sustainable peace and security for all.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the discussions of the word order from unipolarity to bipolarity and finally to multipolarity are the symptoms of a problem in the current global governance mechanism. These discussions prove that current global governance mechanisms are unable to address global challenges timely, fairly, and effectively. We continue to call for reform in the UN and other multilateral organizations in order to create a just and fair new order. This call is particularly opportune at a time when escalating competition among great powers intensifies global tensions and fosters polarizations on a global scale.
The international system faces a multitude of political, military, economic, environmental, technological, and social challenges. None of these challenges are confined by national borders, and no state can tackle them alone. These challenges indicate the pressing necessity and inevitability for the international system to undergo a substantial transformation. This system, as envisioned by us, evolves beyond the traditional concept of an international order defined by polarity, whether unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. We seek a more inclusive, effective, fair, and secure international system capable of addressing current global and regional challenges. The world needs a robust system based on solidarity rather than polarity. The world needs to focus on investing in new and clean technologies as well as research and development, innovation, and digitalization rather than tackling crises and worse.
Mr. Present, last but not least, we know that throughout history, new systems and word orders, as we call them, were established after major conflicts. This was the case at the end of the First World War and also the case after the Second World War. Now, if we need a substantial reform of the United Nations system, shall we need a third or fourth major conflict? I think that humanity, the international community should avoid that.
I think all of us agree on some inefficiencies of the current system. Let's not wait for a major conflict in order to reform it. I join Ambassador Toledo and the other speakers, Patricia Flor as well, when it comes to the importance of the Future Summit in September to tackle in a serious and comprehensive way the future reform of the United Nations.
But the global governance needs more. There are other international organizations. The current system is not representative at all. I think we agree on that. And Ambassador Ma was right when he points out the importance of the Global South and the African countries. We have G20, we have some other regional organizations. Of course, we have the European Union, we have OIC representing more than 50 countries. The future reform initiatives should be inclusive. Without that, I think (there is) no way out. And of course, this means, at the same time, a huge responsibility, first for the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, China included. Thank you very much.
Grahame Morton, Ambassador of New Zealand to China
早上好. Thank you, Henry. We're delighted to get you and Mabel to New Zealand. And thank you for the participation in the conference last week. I'd like to acknowledge my fellow speakers as well. I've very much enjoyed listening to the perspectives that they had shared so far on this important topic.
Multilateralism matters to us because it addresses issues that go beyond individual countries and cultures, issues on which we need to develop common global approaches and common global rules if we're going to get general benefit. It doesn't mean those issues are easy. Almost by definition, that means they're hard.
We see the multilateral system as being under real pressure. Since the Second World War as -- we would say a medium-sized, but others would possibly say a small country -- New Zealand has engaged in the multilateral system with the conviction that the development of agreed international rules and norms is the best way for us to achieve our security and economic interests. And we have, for much of that time, benefited from a relatively stable strategic environment and an international system that was steadily delivering more for us and for our interests.
During that time, the world generally became more open and the international system engaged more and more countries. Obviously, that trend accelerated with decolonization, with the end of the Cold War, with technology development, and with strengthened impetus for liberalization in different areas, and for us, particularly trade, as represented by the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the formation of the World Trade Organization.
In the 1990s from different bases, the other big factor that has happened is the emergence of the two giants of the world that were steadily becoming more engaged with the international system in China and India. Both have taken radical steps towards greater economic liberalization and engagement with the world economy and with world politics. At the same time, capital and manufacturing that's been linked to the U.S., Japan, and Europe found this very complementary to its interests for a period and has certainly invested and made a big difference in the way that these countries have emerged. New Zealand has also benefited from new market opportunities and certainly from the incorporation into international trade rules for the very first time of agriculture, an important sector of ours.
But those foundations which underpinned our foreign trade and economic policies have certainly shifted in a seismic way in the first quarter of the century. We've witnessed more conflicts, a failed international trade round, and increased economic barriers and protectionism. A global economic crisis, a pandemic, and a decline in the effectiveness of international institutions to be able to cope with the pressures placed upon them by the broader demands of evolving national states and their competition. So those deteriorating trend lines take us further away from the rosier assumptions about openness and the international environment that New Zealand favors. Regrettably, the negative trends have really accelerated, particularly in the security space over the last three years with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the continuing tragedy in Gaza.
We remain strongly committed to multilateralism, though, as the only way in which we can solve big, complex issues. So amidst the depressing indicators, what do we see as the answers?
We do acknowledge that the world has managed to avoid full global conflict since 1945, as several of my panelists have said. That is an enormous achievement in an era of unprecedented change and in which the UN has played a major role. When we look at multilateralism and whether it has succeeded or failed, we need to acknowledge that multilateralism is not really separate from us. It is actually the collective representation of our ability to manage the big challenges that we have together.
So within that international order, we do look for what we can agree on. Within that international order, we do see some key principles that are common to almost everyone, whether one is an advocate of the status quo or an advocate of more radical change. New Zealand will continue to support and defend the key ideas of the international rules-based system, including all of those embedded in the UN, its institutions, and its founding documents. State sovereignty, territorial integrity within internationally agreed borders, resolution of conflict through dialogue, international law-based freedom of navigation and overflight, and universal human rights.
We do see multilateral forums as the places where we can collectively address the greater challenges that the world faces, but that includes taking some big steps. There needs to be action on security. The United Nations Security Council has a clear role that it needs to play. For those powers that have the privilege of global leadership comes with that very acute responsibility. And the Council needs to look hard at reform of the use of the veto, a system that we've opposed since the formation of the UN. There needs to be continued action on climate change, climate mitigation, and delivery on climate financing. Weather events of what we hear are unprecedented severity appear to be reported most weeks. As are droughts and record temperatures. They won't abate. This we undertake collectively what we have to do, and we basically know what we have to do, and do it better.
Critical to the support of global systems for the smaller countries and small island states is also action on this issue. And it will be the most critical issue that's discussed at the Pacific Islands Forum and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting when it meets an Apia later this year.
Plurilateral action and the development of trade treaties are also going to be a factor. The proliferation of preferential agreements has occurred because of our collective inability to reach new universalist WTO outcomes. So looking forward, we need to look at both how we can improve outcomes there, but also how we can ensure that the preferential deals that do occur in the gap between rounds are flexible and open to economies who can embrace the terms on which they're structured. Liberalization and trade is not a current trend, but it is essential if global goals on food security, climate, development, and migration are ultimately to be delivered.
The environment has actually been an area in which multilateralism has continued to deliver slightly better than in some other areas. Addressing biodiversity losses is obviously a shared issue for many countries, and it is very important. We're deeply concerned about both terrestrial and marine biodiversity loss, but we do acknowledge the conclusion of the Global Biodiversity Framework. The Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Protocol in 2022 was very welcome and it needs to be fulfilled.
Let's make one very brief remark too, because multilateralism is very important for how small island developing states are engaged in the international system. In my region, small states in the Pacific very much rely on collective action to undertake global challenges that they have virtually very little influence on changing, including sea level rise and sustainable economic development. Multilateralism speaks a great deal to abstract ideas of security and welfare, and it's very welcome that it does so, and it's important that it does so, but immediate needs are apparent too. The impact of climate change on these states and the states around us is very real. It's real now and it needs genuine action. New Zealand is very honored in this circumstance to be playing a leadership role in the United Nations and preparing for a high-level meeting on sea level rise in September, and it would encourage general engagement on that topic.
Others have talked about regional organizations and I'm probably out of time, so I won't speak to those, but they do play a very important role in our region also and in others. We expect that the engagement and contribution of regional organizations and other UN forums is fully reflected in the broad agenda that will be engaged on in the Summit of the Future, convened under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General this September. We wish Namibia and Germany all the very best in pulling together with the Secretary-General a very effective and good agenda for the meeting. Thank you.
Marcelo Suarez Salavi, Ambassador of Argentina to China
Thank you very much, Dr. Henry Wang, Founder and President of CCG. Also thank you, Mabel Lu Miao, Secretary-General, for the opportunity to congratulate you on this 10th-anniversary session of the form. I do believe this is a very important matter that we are discussing. So I have some written points that I would like to read because that would make clear that Argentina's position is what I'm reading. And then I would like to share with you some personal views.
We do really believe that multilateralism is the way to go in terms of international issues. The commitment of Argentina to multilateralism is steadfast and unwavering. We are a nation deeply rooted in the principles of cooperation and diplomacy, and we recognize the importance of multilateral institutions in addressing global challenges and advocating for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. We firmly believe that multilateralism serves as a cornerstone for fostering dialogue, building consensus, and forging partnerships among nations to tackle pressing issues such as climate change, poverty alleviation, international conflicts, and security. In this particular matter, the reform of the Security Council is key. As you know, Argentina is very actively working with some other like-minded countries in what we do believe is the better solution to address that issue in the near future.
We do believe that pluralism acknowledges and respects the diversity of perspectives, interests, and values across nations, fostering an environment where multiple voices are heard and considered in shaping international policies and agreements. Diplomacy, cooperation, and multilateralism play a key role in that regard. But you know, every country--and I am happy to see in this roundtable the presence of my colleague from South Africa, because so far Argentina and South Africa if I'm not wrong, are the only two countries from the South in this roundtable voicing our views and concerns. So this is something I would also like to reflect upon.
Although multilateral institutions have been built with an architecture that may be reviewed for improvement currently, we also acknowledge that every country has its own perspectives. For instance, in the case of Argentina, we usually play our active roles in multilateral institutions firstly with our national position. This may sound obvious, but it's what it is. Then we do identify ourselves with the immediate region. So we have to relate with our neighbors and try to coordinate among us positions to be put forward in multilateral forums. So Argentina first is Argentina, secondly is a Latin American and Caribbean nation and country. We are also a developing country, to put us in a broader group of countries that are facing real challenges that may differ from the interests and challenges faced by other groups of countries.
So the affected societies will also determine our roles and positions in different international organizations. So you will find groupings of agricultural countries versus industrialized countries. Some other forums will have groupings of what I said before, developing and developed countries. Some other groups will have countries profiled under nuclear or non-nuclear countries and so on and so forth. So that is something that will define the effectiveness of the discussions and also the delivery of proper and actual actions in the field.
Something also that needs to be considered while thinking of prospective reform of the international architecture has to do with the way that international organizations are shaped and to what extent the, by laws of the organization, for instance, regarding different scales of contributions or what are the mandates given to its secretariat, will influence the outcomes of that international agenda we want to shape. For instance, there is quite a difference between the performance of international mechanisms that will perform guided by its own secretariat versus those groupings of countries that will rotate their pro tempore secretariat or chair every year or every period of time.
There are a lot of ideas that need to be considered, not only in terms of how we can better deliver a better multilateral system in the future. Also, we have a lot of lessons learned from current institutions in terms of how they are performing, and to what extent at some point, some multilateral institutions in which we all have the same voice and vote, but in terms of delivery as a result of different scales of own contributions or earmarked contributions that are influencing the agenda that may be in the interest of all. I'm running out of time. Thank you very much again. And I'm looking forward to the next discussion. Thank you.
Hannes Hanse, Ambassador of Estonia to China
Thank you so much, Henry, Mabel, and CCG for offering us this wonderful platform to express our views. I quite liked when New Zealand Ambassador Grahame Morton was speaking, he said New Zealand is a small country. Compared to us, of course, it's huge. We're a country of 1.3 million people. I once had a meeting with the president of Vietnam and he also called his country a small one. So, you know. The point of reference is different comparing to where you look from.
When in preparation for this meeting this morning, I checked some concepts on the internet. I Googled them. So let me introduce my points. I'll read.
First, an orderly multipolar world means that all should observe the purpose and principles of the UN Charter, uphold universally recognized basic norms that govern international relations. In Estonia, we're not looking to reimagine anything there. The UN, its organization, is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members, regardless of the size, big or small, regardless of the geographical location, north or south.
So for us, the UN Charter is the ultimate security guarantee. We are, of course, members of the European Union, members of NATO, but we are a country of only 1.4 million, as I already said. So the ultimate security guarantee is respect for the Charter. Hence, it is our absolute priority nationally, internationally, that countries respect those fundamental principles.
Of course, we do have the highest expectations for the UN Security Council members to uphold those principles. And of course, we know that it is not so. Europe is now in its deepest security crisis since the Second World War since Russia started its war of aggression against Ukraine in 2014 and then again in 2022.
Back to the UN Charter. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. As Russia's immediate geographical neighbors, we are particularly concerned as Russia is, of course, in fundamental violation of those principles. We do not want to reimagine a world where aggression is rewarded, where the use of force to change internationally recognized borders, recognized by China, recognized by Russia, recognized by any country in the world, where this forced change of borders is accepted. In such a world, we will be walking straight into the abyss. This is equally applicable, I think, again, regardless of the geographical position of the countries, north or south. The issue is rather existential for us in our geographical neighborhood. So those principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty must remain. Aggression as a tool of international relations must be discredited.
I think in many ways we are at a crossroads now. We all have to think very carefully about it. What sort of future do we want in the world? Sustainable peace cannot be achieved by accepting the results of territorial gain by aggression. I think it's pretty fundamental. Also, I think it's important to emphasize that sovereignty means all countries are entitled to choose their own future, their own destiny. Ukraine is not an exception here. Nobody from the outside, no third party has a veto right over the sovereign choices of, for this country.
So let's not confuse who is the aggressor and who is the victim here. Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is the victim. UN Charter is not just declarations and words. We must fight to apply or to uphold those. In Estonia, we do our absolute utmost to help Ukraine in this just cause to regain its territory, to regain its right for its sovereign choices.
We have had a 4% of population increase in Estonia. We're hosting so many Ukrainian refugees, mainly women and children. We have committed 0.25% of our GDP annually to give military help to Ukraine because we want this help to be predictable and systematic.
Of course, it would be important to see China taking part in these processes. As we talk about multipolar world, China clearly is one center of the gravity there. Hence, we would like to encourage China to take part in the Swiss-led peace summit taking place the very next month in Switzerland. Achieving just peace not only in Ukraine, also in the Middle East would mean that we can, at least for the time being, put the genie back into the bottle and we can concentrate on important challenges and topics for the planet, development, prosperity, environment, etc.
I am, as a concluding remark, somewhat disturbed that some see achieving peace, by Ukrainian terms, in this major war taking place at the moment, as a North versus South issue. It is absolutely not so. I think all countries, big or small, North or South, have the same interest there. And I think it should be seen as a common goal in the true spirit of multilateralism. Thank you so much.
Shi Yinghong, Professor, Institute of International Relations, Renmin University of China; Former Counselor to the State Council; CCG Academic Council Member
Thank you very much, Chair. Thanks for this significant chance of important discussion. I would like to talk about the so-called chance camp and global interaction model, that is various combinations of urgency, degree of significance of issues, and permanence of machinery.
According to a rough empirical-based observation, first, let me talk about the so-called strategic military field.
Situation 1, the issue is urgent and significant, but we find there is no permanent machinery.
Situation 2, not urgent, although quite significant. And we regret finding that there is no machinery.
Situation 3 not urgent as well as not significant. There's no machinery. Or, there is one, but almost empty.
Finally, urgent but not significant. We find there's permanent machinery. Or, there is no permanent machinery.
The second is the non-strategic field.
Situation 1, not urgent but significant. We find there is machinery but often near to empty.
Second, not urgent and not significant, and there is no machinery or machinery is almost empty.
Situation 3, urgent and significant. We find that there is a parallel permanent machinery, especially the G20.
Finally, urgent but not significant. We find there is also something just like the same permanent machinery or machinery but almost empty.
Finally, especially in recent years, we find a field of domestic politics.
Situation 1, urgent and significant. There is no permanent machinery.
Situation 2, not urgent, but significant. There is not any machinery.
Finally, not urgent and insignificant. There's no machinery.
The conclusion about multilateral machinery, at least seems to me, is in a world divided between great powers and their respective major patterns. The prospect of effective and permanent multilateral machinery seems poor. There's a major starting step in practice if we want to boost the multilateral machinery in major fields of war, which is theoretically or even according to common sense is so required. The major starting step is great powers engaging in concrete rather than rhetorical talks about major disputes between or among them to see if there is room for lasting mutual concessions.
Anyway, politics or sound politics is the art of possibility. But we find the leaders of great powers in today's world spend so much time to express in rhetorical terms for international prestige or domestic political interests, and unfortunately, pay so little concrete attention to dealing with their mutual and concrete major disputes. Thank you for your patience.
Victor Gao, Vice President, CCG
Thank you, Henry. Working for Deng Xiaoping was my highlight. The next highlight is sitting here with all the ambassadors and all the delegates to talk about this very important question. Allow me to make several points. I think the world order established in 1945, immediately after the Second World War, was not designed to be a unipolar world. It was a world based on the balance of power. Unfortunately, in no time, it deteriorated into a Cold War, which didn't end until 1991. But even after 1991, it was not meant to be a unipolar world. Well, one big country held itself out to be the unipole, that's for sure, but it was not in line with the international structure at that time. Therefore, what situation are we in now? We are in what I would say post, post-Cold War era. One thing is clear, multipolar world is now and multipolar world is irreversible. That's the first point.
The second point is whether there are forces in the world that want to reverse it back into a unipolar world or for example, to create MAGA. It's not make Argentina great again, it's make America great again. MAGA basically means the rest of the world is secondary and one country is on top of the world. Now, whether it's a slogan by Donald Trump or whether it represented the feelings in Washington, that's another issue. But I would say MAGA is really trying to pull the world back from a multipolar world into something else. And that something else is not possible. But then the tension between the realities on the ground and those forces that want to change the realities and pull the world back into something else is the tension of the world we are faced with.
The other thing is, I completely agree with the Ambassador from Germany. When we talk about the world order, it's a very sensitive issue. If we look at the major players in the world, Russia says they want to recreate the world order. They want to smash the current one and recreate the new world order.
China's position is very different. China does not want to destroy the international order. We are living through. China wants to make improvements to whatever problems and defects there are in the international order and still continue to live with the international order. China has no desire at all to smash the international order as we are living through. In that sense, again, I very agree with Ambassador Flor's sentiments that we need to be very careful even in terms of making improvements.
If we do not make improvements to the international order, what will happen? One is that some forces will really try to reassert dominance above all the other countries. And I would say this will be very dangerous and this will be just against the UN Charter, as several ambassadors just now mentioned. Therefore, my suggestion is that we really need to uphold the United Nations Charter and make sure that all the countries -- the ambassadors just now mentioned the size of Singapore or Estonia, etc.-- from the Chinese perspective, all countries are equal, whether Estonia, New Zealand, or Fiji, Palau, which doesn't recognize the PRC now. Every country is the same.
I'm very impressed by the fact that when the president of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas, visited China, he got the same protocol as all the other presidents from any other country. And I think many Palestinian friends actually wept to see the High Protocol. But from the Chinese perspective, because that was a president of a sovereign country, even though some other countries debate about that, therefore, I think, upholding the United Nations Charter and treating all the countries as equal. In that sense, I personally dislike the term Global South, but it seems as if the Global North is superior to the Global South. All countries should be equal.
Now, the other point, allow me to mention very briefly, is what Ambassador Hannes Hanse mentioned about the sovereign choice, about Ukraine joining NATO. I'm not going to talk about it. But allow me to mention one thing, and I hope it will be behind the closed door at least on the Chatham House rule. About 12 years ago, there was a country to China's north and to Russia's south. I'm not going to name that country, but you'll figure that out immediately. That country wanted to join NATO. It started the preliminary process to join NATO. Eventually, that attempt was muzzled. I didn't mean someone said over my dead body, but that country was not going to join NATO at all. By stretching your imagination in whatever way, that country is not going to join NATO. That country is a sovereign country. It's an independent country. It's a neighboring country of China. It's a neighboring country of Russia. Every year, that country conducts joint military exercises with NATO, and many NATO member states military attaches to Beijing double up as military attaches to that country. And China respects that country, etc. But one thing is very simple, that country will never be allowed to join NATO. Bear with me at that point.
That has something to do with what Ambassador Hanse said. And I would say the world is very complicated. When we want to maximize the protection of our own security, we really need to be sensitive about the sensitivities of the other countries because otherwise, I think you are not going to be constructive in many ways. Therefore, for the war in Ukraine, allow me -- and this is really a testing stone for the current world order as well as the international order, which may emerge from whatever will happen to that war -- I think China's position is right, and China's position is on the right side of history. That is, from Day One, China urged Russia and Ukraine to stop the war immediately. And ever since then, for more than two years and a half almost, China has been calling on Russia to stop the war, calling on Ukraine to stop the war.
And the accusation about China supplying weapons to Russia is false. Allow me to mention one thing without blowing it out of proportion. If China supplies weapons to Russia, the war will be over tonight, basically, because Russia needed the weapons that China has and China refused to supply Russia with the weapons. Maybe that's the reason why they, according to reports, need to go to DPRK, which is another very proud neighboring country of China, for weapons. When you talk about supplying weapons, China exports bullets, the ammunition to the United States. U.S. military imports Chinese-made dual-use drones for military purposes as well as ammunition for military purposes, but China does not supply Russia with weapons. Why? Because China does not want to be involved in that war in that way. China wants to bring that war to an end.
Yesterday, I said we can imagine the war in Ukraine as a fire. When you have a fire, put out that fire immediately rather than allow that to spread or intensify. That's another point. Another thing about this NATO situation. We know this BRICS. We know this Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And we have the distinguished Ambassador from Turkey. I personally believe Turkey should eventually apply for BRICS. And hopefully, it will be a good response to the fact that Turkey has been repulsed from joining the EU for all these decades.
Now, imagine if someone eventually approached a country like Canada and tried to recruit Canada into SCO. Do you think it will be constructive or not constructive? I think the Canadians will rise up in rebellion against that attempt. Is that right? The United States will lose its sanity. Why should the BRICS or SCO approach my northern neighbor and try to recruit Canada into SCO or BRICS? It doesn't make any sense. So I would say we should not look at world issues in complete naivety. We need to be more sophisticated. We need to understand different layers of sensitivities, etc.
For the war in Ukraine. Allow me to make a final point. Let's bring that war to an end as quickly as possible. Let's do whatever we can. Now, whether China will send a delegation to Switzerland, I do not know. But China's position is clear. Any peace negotiation about the war in Ukraine needs to have Russia and Ukraine present. Otherwise, it's not going to be constructive.
Now, a very brief point about the United Nations. I worked with the United Nations and my family have very close connections with the United Nations. I would say, without being the devil's advocate, I think the fact that no World War or the Third World War has broken out since 1945 does have something to do with this very complicated system of the United Nations Security Council involving the five permanent member states holding veto power. Without that system, I'm afraid the Third World War would have broken out much sooner and the world would have suffered great calamities. Therefore, while I agree with everyone, and China also wants to make improvements to the United Nations, I think we need to really understand why this very complicated five permanent member system, each holding a veto power, was created in 1945. It was created with a purpose to prevent another World War.
You may say the war in Ukraine is even worse, probably, and there have been so many regional wars, etc, creating calamities of all kinds. But the fact that ever since 1945, no global war, World War has broken out is, I think, very much thanks to the fact that the United Nations has this very complicated veto power.
I end by making several appeals, that is, I hope all countries in the world, about 200 of us, will need to focus on peace, embrace peace, because war is devastating. The war in Ukraine may escalate into a nuclear war. That's the problem. We want to save Ukraine, that's for sure. And I traveled to Ukraine. I visited Bucha, I visited Irpin. They called me one of the very few Chinese from China by visiting Bucha and visiting Irpin. But I do hope saving Ukraine should not be at the expense of losing mankind. So we need to be very philosophical. We want to save Ukraine. We want to end the war in Ukraine. But we do not want to see the escalation of the war from conventional war to nuclear war.
Allow me to mention, I think China is the only country in the world today which was threatened to be wiped out by nuclear holocaust by the former Soviet Union in 1969. China was the only country. Can you believe it? Therefore, from Day One, I think the authorities in China looked at the war in Ukraine to say, holy cow, this war does have the ingredients of potentially escalating from a conventional war into a nuclear war. So China is being very cautious, like surgical precision. Calm down, calm down, no more fighting. Don't pour more fuel onto the fire. Why? Because someone is bombing the largest nuclear power station in Ukraine already, in Europe. That's very dangerous.
And I think the fact that the Russians have been holding out nuclear weapons again and again since Day One is to be treated in a very careful way. We should not dismiss them. We need to be very carefully addressing that issue. Therefore, I think, embrace peace, bring the war in Ukraine to an end, bring the war in Gaza to an end, and then let justice take its own course. Justice has a very long arm. It doesn't have an arm as short as mine. Be assured of that.
Therefore, I think we need to be very cautious in moving from the world of today into the world of tomorrow. And the world of tomorrow will be even worse. Why? Because we've talked about AI. AI if not regulated, will dominate mankind. And all of us Homo Sapiens may live in domination by AI.
That may happen very soon, in a matter of 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, etc. Our children will grow up in a completely different world if mankind does not get our acts together, embracing peace, embracing stability, bringing the wars to an end, avoiding any war. Let's improve international cooperation about AI so that mankind, Homo Sapiens, will always be independent without being subjugated to AI. Thank you very much.
Marc Horn, President, Merck China
Thanks a lot for having me here, President Wang, and listening to this very important conversation. And I really applaud you all for this dialogue because I think the most important thing is to have this kind of dialogue. As a representative of the oldest chemical-pharmaceutical company in the world, we've been in every country for more than 100 years now already. We are a 350-year-old company with healthcare, life science, and electronics. For us, sustainable development of individual people is work at the core. What you're doing here is very important to create this governance, create the rectory framework to help us to have stability, predictability, and transparency because only when we as companies together with the population can work on the topic, pressing topics you all mentioned, like sustainability, climate change, and then I end.
Listening to this was very humble for me and seeing the complexity you're dealing with every day and really applaud and encourage you to continue this really difficult conversation towards the benefit of all of us individually.