About 20 years ago, not long after the Chinese navy acquired the ship that would later be commissioned as China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, I attended a conference in the United States where experts discussed China’s decision to build a blue water fleet.

The general consensus in the room was that such an endeavor was foolish. They called it both quixotic and unnecessarily provocative. The experts argued that Chinese naval capabilities would never surpass those of the U.S. They said the effort would invite American ire and perhaps anger from other major players in the region, including India. This was despite India having commissioned its first aircraft carrier in 1961, 51 years before China launched the Liaoning.

I was disinclined to believe Chinese strategic planners were fools. I was convinced they had historically demonstrated a propensity for restraint and long-term planning. So I argued to the contrary.

Perhaps China was not building a navy to project Chinese military power around the world to challenge the U.S. Maybe it was not trying to undercut the so-called Pax Americana. I pointed out that piracy had already returned to the high seas, impacting sensitive shipping lanes. The problem escalated in the wake of the Somali civil war in the 1990s. In fact, piracy would continue to pop up periodically in the Persian Gulf, the Caribbean, the Strait of Malacca and the Singapore Strait.

What if, for whatever reason, the U.S. neglected the security of the sea lanes? What if the U.S. did not sustain itself as the preeminent superpower militarily? What if the U.S. only selectively protected shipping lanes, especially because they might be used primarily to transport Chinese products on Chinese ships? What if decades down the road, the U.S. decided to act aggressively against China or Chinese interests, especially as China re-emerged as a major country? Or what if China needed to position itself to stage humanitarian missions to support its friends and partners, and would likewise deploy a carrier fleet to do so, emulating U.S. practices?

Pax Americana was always an imperial conceit, the same as Pax Britannica (1815-1914) and before that, Pax Romana (27 B.C.-A.D. 180). These are described as periods of relative tranquility. Experts generally date the American version as starting in 1945, when Japan surrendered. But they diverge on the end date. Some argue that Pax Americana ended with its apex, given the division of the world into U.S. “commands” following the end of the Cold War. During this period, the U.S. began to unilaterally assert itself as the “world’s policeman” prone to near-perpetual warfare. Others claim it ended with the U.S.-instigated global financial crisis in 2008, coming on the heels of 9/11 and in the midst of the U.S. “War on Terror,” which in their view demonstrated the limits of U.S. power and revealed a nation in decline. A more recent assertion holds that it ended once and for all early this year when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the U.S. for a second time, which once again saw him abandoning humanitarian commitments to multilateral missions, including the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement, and UNESCO, while sharply reducing aid to developing countries by eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development and instead launching a global trade war.

Among international circles, as early as 2014, discussions of what a possible Pax Sinica might look like began to circulate. At that time, among permanent U.N. Security Council members, China was contributing more personnel to U.N. peacekeeping operations than all others. Meanwhile, despite having declared a geostrategic realignment in 2011 and announcing a coming “pivot to Asia,” the U.S. was battling groups like ISIS and a resurgent Taliban. This was due to what Michael F. Scheuer called “imperial hubris” in a book published anonymously a decade prior. Scheuer, a longtime CIA analyst, explained why the U.S. was already losing the “War on Terror.” Yet, the world would have to wait until Aug. 30, 2021, when the U.S. concluded its retreat from Afghanistan. The withdrawal involved abandoning heavy weapons under fire from incoming waves of Taliban attackers. Thereafter, the U.S. proxy war against Russia in Ukraine would falter.?By 2023, while some declared a new Cold War was already here, the Biden administration’s vigorous efforts to contain China were in a state of collapse.

A possible Pax Sinica has its own historical precedent, dating to the Han dynasty. This?lasted more than 400 years from 202 B.C., giving rise to immense cultural and civilizational development. It led to the establishment of historical trade routes like the Silk Road. During this period, Chinese culture would also spread to the Korean Peninsula and to what is today Japan. Japanese scholars would later describe this as “cultural borrowing,” though the limits of such borrowing are hard to discern. This extended from traditional “Japanese” clothing like kimonos, which the Japanese court copied from the Hanfu associated with Tang imperial fashions, to the adoption of Chinese characters for writing. It included the development of Zen Buddhism and a highly sophisticated tea culture, among others.

It is said that the end of Pax Americana signals the end of 500 years of Western dominance in global affairs. This half-millennium was anything but peaceful. Such are the ruins of the old competitive nation-state model, which persists but offers no shared future for humanity.?And yet,?for many in the West, this has produced an anxious zeitgeist. We see this in the endless parade of Hollywood films exploiting such fears with various apocalyptic landscapes, including those salvaged by none other than Captain America.

Political scientists warn of the return of nationalism in various forms in the West. This includes right-wing movements frequently judged as having too much in common ideologically with historical examples of fascism. For zero-sum, binary thinkers held hostage by their own either-or worldviews, a recourse to fascism seems preferable to a world where a socialist China is a major power, let alone a superpower.

And yet, does China offer a new Pax Sinica, or a Pax Humana? Instead of understanding peace as a construct of a single nation,?China calls for a shared future for humanity, one in which different civilizations not only accommodate each other, but also learn from and cherish each other. Instead of pursuing military alliances or joining small blocs, China advances strategic partnerships and fosters multilateral solutions, working hand-in-hand with other countries to build a new model of international cooperation.?This is exemplified by the democratic internationalism associated with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, among others, and it demonstrates China’s firm commitment to the UN, the WHO, the WTO and other international organizations. Where these fall short due to global crises like COVID-19 or U.S. abandonment, China provides supplemental financial and political support.

Furthermore, China offers solutions for mitigating the risks associated with climate change through accelerated green innovation and development at home and abroad.?It provides unwavering support for the Paris Agreement. With the Belt and Road Initiative and its increasing emphasis on green growth, China has provided an environmentally responsible and economically sustainable engine for international development. This is especially true in the Global South, which is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change.?Thus,?as other countries in the Global South stand at a crossroads, seeking a new future after centuries of various forms of Western exploitation and hegemony, they find in China a partner with the wisdom to understand that only win-win solutions can lead to peace, security and development.

Meanwhile, China has worked successfully to reconcile longtime foes like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has worked to resolve discord between Palestinian factions. China has consistently sought a peaceful, diplomatic solution for the conflict in Ukraine.

Western critics ironically point to such efforts as inadequate for asserting control. Yet that is precisely the point. The Pax Humana that Beijing is promoting is inconsistent with China or any other nation controlling others. And haven’t we learned by now, after five centuries of war and environmental degradation, that “control” was always a retrograde ambition, incredibly destructive to obtain and impossible to sustain?

These are some key points worth considering as China marks the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism. It does so in the new era of a multipolar world, one in which China has already returned to the forefront of nations. To be sure, it is wise to be prepared for any eventuality. China’s capacity for self-defense is now as good as or better than that of any country. The Liaoning and Shandong carriers are currently operational, while a third, the Fujian, commenced sea trials in 2024. This reflects strategic foresight and demonstrates China’s commitment to maintaining strong capabilities even in challenging times.?More importantly, China’s dedication to supporting global development—whether through trade or aid—is now second to none. It beckons a new model for global peace and security, one that we might eventually recognize as representing a new era of real peace, a Pax Humana.

Josef Gregory Mahoney is a professor of politics and international relations and director of the Center for Ecological Civilization at East China Normal University in Shanghai. He is also a senior research fellow with the Institute for the Development of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics at Southeast University in Nanjing. This article was written in Shanghai in the shadow of the former residence of the Chinese patriot and martyr, Du Zhongyuan, who made significant contributions to the struggle against the Japanese militarism.