The worst pandemic in a century coupled with drastic changes in the international landscape poses unprecedented challenges.

At the United Nations Security Council high-level meeting on May 7, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated the need to follow the basic norms governing international relations built around the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. He also said that international rules must be based on international law, and must be written by all. They are not the patent or privilege of a few. They must be applicable to all countries, and there should be no exceptionalism or double standard.

However, during a meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) foreign and development ministers on May 4, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed that while they were trying “to uphold the international rules-based order that our countries have invested so much in over so many decades,” China was undermining the international order.

Blinken pointed the finger at China in March, alleging “human rights abuses” in Xinjiang and Hong Kong and urging the Chinese authorities to follow the “rules-based international order.” He also said, “Each of these actions [by China] threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability. That’s why they’re not merely internal matters and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues.”

The two countries seem to have different interpretations of international order, which may affect the future of global institutions like the UN.

UN at the core

The existing international political, economic and security order was established after World War II, with the UN as its foundation. It was threatened by the confrontation between the East and the West and the rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War period, and U.S. supremacy after the Cold War. However, the core of this order remains unchanged.

Despite the emergence of new global issues and changes in the international balance of power, the universality, representativeness and authority of the UN are still recognized and supported by its member states.

Since the beginning of the new century, the international community has faced major threats such as terrorism, a financial crisis, the fallouts of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic.

To address these crises, the UN needs to reform itself, moving from “a center for harmonizing the actions of nations” to a center for truly “serving the peoples of the UN.” International organizations are the basic tools and main mechanisms for sovereign states to achieve global governance, and the role of the UN is irreplaceable.

The UN has been the prime custodian of the rules-based order after it transited from a power-based order. It is the consensus of member states to abide by the rules. Within the UN, there are certain means, such as the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, to deal with events that violate the rules.

International rules should never be formulated and interpreted by only a few countries; they should be decided on and implemented by all member states through the UN and other international organizations. They should reflect the interests of the majority. They should be inclusive for countries with different political systems, rather than be measured via the values of a few.

However, in recent years, Western countries have been trying to project their definition of a “rules-based order,” which is highly deceptive.

Joint governance

After U.S. President Joe Biden took office, his administration purportedly returned the U.S. to multilateralism, leaving four years of Donald Trump’s erratic unilateralism behind. However, the question is: Is the U.S. projecting the same kind of multilateralism the international community does?

China has always championed multilateralism. The four-point proposal put forward by Wang at the meeting summarized the multilateralism that China advocates—win-win cooperation, equity and justice, concrete action and respect for diversity.

In other words, all countries should benefit from cooperation while honoring international agreements. And multilateral institutions should accommodate cultural and political differences.

The Biden administration, however, has called for promoting American values. In a speech on February 4, Biden said “we must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values” and stressed the need to counter “advancing authoritarianism” as one of the global challenges of the moment.

While the U.S. is to be applauded for hosting the Leaders Summit on Climate in April, it takes aim at China through its Indo-Pacific alliance, the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, comprising itself, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and the G7, and attempts to split the world along ideological lines. The U.S. even wants to put the so-called “human rights issue” in Xinjiang on the UN agenda.

This is a counterweight to China in the name of multilateral diplomacy. For the U.S., multilateralism is only a tool and a means to serve its own interests and strategies. It is to be applied when it is favorable to the U.S. and discarded when it is not.

True multilateralism should be embodied in extensive consultation, joint governance and win-win outcomes. All parties should seek common ground while shelving differences on global and regional issues through consultation, and take into consideration the interests, concerns and aspirations of others. Governance involves equal participation, joint decision-making and due diligence by all; it does not target any third party or countries outside the bloc. Also collaboration doesn’t have to be at the expense of others or international public interests.

Over seven decades of history have proved that the UN remains a major platform for achieving such purposes. The sustaining peace and sustainable development it advocates are a vivid example of multilateralism.

Confrontation or cooperation?

The interactions between China and the U.S. in the UN changed from confrontation to cooperation.

The U.S. refused to recognize the People’s Republic of China after it was founded in 1949. In the early 1970s, China resumed its lawful seat in the UN and the two countries normalized relations. Over the past half a century, they have cooperated under the UN framework on non-proliferation, peacekeeping operations and climate change.

In recent years, however, there have been signs of confrontation. From disagreements on regional hotspot issues at the UN Security Council to accusations from the U.S. that China is responsible for the spread of COVID-19, strategic competition between the two is intensifying.

As China’s contribution to the UN has increased along with its influence, the U.S. has begun to perceive it as a threat to Western countries, and has been urging its allies to contain China’s “infiltration.”

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. It also marks the 50th anniversary of the restoration of the lawful seat of China in the UN, and the 20th anniversary of China’s accession to the World Trade Organization. In this context, it is apt to reaffirm that China will continue to support the UN-centered multilateral mechanism with concrete actions.

China’s rise, as a time-honored civilization in Asia, a major developing country with a large population and a modern socialist state, is unprecedented. The world should understand the nuances and complexities behind the Chinese model. China will remain open and learn more about the world as it works with other countries. It values cooperation but at the same time should be prepared to compete with the U.S.

While the scope for cooperation may be shrinking, collaboration on addressing climate change under the auspices of the UN should be promoted to reinvigorate China-U.S. ties. There is also a need for the two to work together on sustainable peace.

Zhang Guihong?is director of the Research Center for the United Nations and International Organizations at Fudan University in Shanghai.