The Trap of Pan-Securitization and Global Security Predicament
Four former foreign ministers and China's former US ambassador deliver critiques of weaponized security logic at Tsinghua's World Peace Forum
Hello, my readers, last week, Tsinghua University and the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs (CPIFA) co-organized their World Peace Forum. It's an annual international security forum that has been convening since 2012. During the inaugural forum, then-Vice President Xi Jinping attended and delivered a speech. For this year's gathering, Vice President Han Zheng was in attendance. I decided to translate one of its most compelling panels focusing on pan-securitization and global security dilemmas, featuring panelists including Cui Tiankai, former Chinese ambassador to the US for eight years, Bob Carr, former Foreign Minister of Australia, Kim Sung-hwan, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of South Korea, and George Yeo, former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Singapore, with renowned international relations scholar Yan Xuetong serving as moderator.
During the panel, veteran diplomats offered sharp critiques of how security concerns have been weaponized in contemporary international relations. Cui's pointed analysis of how pan-securitization has been promoted by the very actors who have historically created global instability, Bob Carr also gave a frank assessment of Trump's unpredictable approach to both allies and adversaries and George Yeo's philosophical reflection on the need for moral transformation in international relations. The panelists converged on several critical themes: the dangerous expansion of security logic into all spheres of international cooperation, the urgent need for middle powers to play mediating roles amid great power competition, and the call for a new moral foundation in diplomacy that transcends narrow national interests.
Yan Xuetong:
In this session, we will discuss the issue of pan-securitization. I believe everyone present has noticed that turning every issue into a security issue has become a cause of conflict. It has not improved our security but has brought more conflict rather than peace. So this session will specifically discuss how to address security concepts and what kind of security concepts we need.
I will briefly introduce our discussion guests. To my left is Bob Carr, former Foreign Minister of Australia (2012-2013), and the longest-serving Premier of New South Wales in Australian history. In 2024, he was appointed Chairman of the Australia Conservation Foundation and Chairman of the Museum of Australian History in New South Wales.
Next to him is Cui Tiankai, who served as China's Ambassador to the United States (2013-2021) for a very long time. I visited him twice when he was in Washington. He is currently an advisor to the Council of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.
Next is Mr. Kim Sung-hwan, who served as South Korea's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2010-2013). He is currently Dean of the Institute for Global Social Responsibility at Seoul National University.
Finally, George Yeo, who served as Singapore's Foreign Minister (2004-2011) for a long time. He is currently a visiting scholar at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.
Mr. Carr, could you talk about this security concept? We are now discussing the weaponization of economic cooperation and technology. In fact, anything can be weaponized now. Economic cooperation has become a tool for creating and manufacturing trouble rather than development. How do you view this issue? What are your views on regional security?
Bob Carr: This is the challenge we currently face. Prince Faisal (Turki Al Faisal）, one of our earlier speakers, also touched on this point - the genocide in Gaza. I don't think our conference can solve this problem; this is the dilemma facing the international system. I heard a report that Palestinian children appear at food distribution centers very early before they open, or if they go late, the distribution centers are closed. But whether they go early or late, they may be shot by the Israeli Defense Forces. This is a crime against humanity and part of extended war crimes. We should accept the challenge posed by Prince Faisal - the whole world should pay attention to this and seek solutions. When we talk about China's role, we must let China play a greater role in world society. China should act as a defender of the post-1945 order. Looking at China now, the Western world can no longer play a leadership role to end the ongoing crimes in the Gaza war. This forces us to answer a bigger question about institutional and structural issues - the challenges facing the entire world system, including a political power organized by one person from the United States, a party - the Republican Party - with a broad base, led by a very strong leader who determines various domestic affairs in the United States and also wants to command the whole world.
Trump's leadership is particularly thought-provoking. He hopes that when dealing with China, it will be like how the United States deals with Russia, because China is a great power. He likes and respects China's president and greatly admires China's achievements. When Trump talked about China, he once said, "I respect China, I respect President Xi very much. President Xi is very wise. When I want to say he is very smart, he is indeed a particularly smart person. I think China is great, I really hope China is great, I love China." Imagine what Trump says about his allies in Asia - Japan, South Korea, and even when he talks about Australia - what he says is quite unimaginable. This actually proves that President Trump's ideas about America's role in the world are different from all other American leaders.
I think people in this city may have already noticed the technical capabilities demonstrated by the US military when attacking Iranian targets. This is not the technology from Jimmy Carter's time. Now we compare it with the first Gulf War. I also noticed that Chinese strategic thinkers carefully explore what the United States was able to do in the first Gulf War. The challenge we now face is what should we do as America's allies, including us in Southeast Asia and China? America's allies - Japan, South Korea, Australia - these are all in the Asian region. The United States requires us to spend more on defense. To achieve this, what platform does he want us to adopt to reach consensus? This is very difficult to do. Everyone can say defense spending should increase a bit more - that's easy - but what platform should be used to achieve this? How should public investment be utilized? Which areas of the public budget should be sacrificed to increase defense spending?
Pete Hegseth called for us to increase Australia's defense spending. Our PM said we would decide for ourselves whether Australia would increase defense spending. This might displease the American president. America's allies have been hit and are terrified, including Japan and South Korea. It's a trade war. We in Australia are still waiting for further details, but what will the scale of these tariffs be? Actually, as our Foreign Trade Minister mentioned, Australia has a trade deficit with the US - the US has a surplus - but in today's situation, they still threaten to increase tariffs on Australia. Actually, to strengthen defense cooperation between the US and Australia, his threat is that the US will withdraw from the AUKUS US-UK-Australia nuclear submarine cooperation agreement, which was jointly decided by Australia and the United States. This is a huge shock for us and a massive shock for American friends in Australia.
I think, as I mentioned, we need to seriously diversify our trade. This was mentioned this morning. We in Australia also hope to reach a trade agreement with the EU and strengthen trade agreements with India. What's also very important and promising is with the UAE - this is a large market in the Gulf. We hope to diversify trade.
America's allies in the Asian region need a lot of consultation among themselves, so Japan and South Korea can encourage us Australians, and we Australians can, in turn, encourage them so we can stand up to resist bullying from our great American partner. When do we do this? What measures do we take? When do we give in? When do we resist? We, America's allies in this region, need to discuss this matter properly.
Southeast Asian ASEAN countries are also a very important group. They have many years of experience dealing with China. Foreign Minister George Yeo of Singapore is also present. Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam also know how to maintain mutual respect with China without creating a situation where they become part of China. They know that the United States sometimes bullies people, but at the same time, they hope to maintain America's presence in the region - not to come here to overwhelm you, but to maintain its presence on the horizon.
On the other hand, America's allies, in my view, cannot tolerate America's increasingly strong demands for them to decouple from China. Forty percent of Australia's exports go to China. If we decouple, Australia would immediately fall into poverty. This is not the choice of Australian business leaders, even though they are very pro-American, because they would say we must tell Americans no, we cannot decouple from China. I think South Korea and Japan are probably the same.
To maintain the post-war world order should be an exciting position for China. If we carefully study the post-war order, including the world trade system, we will see that China can immediately form partnerships with Europeans, Southeast Asians, and America's allies - Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and South Korea - to promote and advance world trade rules. China can say it is promoting a rules-based international order in this regard because the United States is performing poorly in this area. China promotes public goods, including the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, etc. But what challenges does China face? To promote public goods in the entire world system that are unrelated to China's current interests, what challenges does China face? One of them might be the current plight of the Palestinian people that we face.
I'm almost finished. One possibility for China is to consider the range of diplomatic alternatives it faces. Can China make such a choice to handle its maritime rights disputes with neighboring countries in a more sensitive way? Is its performance in disputes with the Philippines worthwhile, or does it harm China's reputation? If someone talks about the "China threat theory" or "Chinese aggression," sometimes in Australian, American, and European media, they often talk about the panic caused by China. The only example cited is China's very tough stance toward the Philippines in asserting its maritime rights.
So as a friend, I want to suggest that China adjust its relevant foreign policy positions. We form partnerships together, including these allies of the United States and partnerships with China - this is our common interest. Here we don't seek dominance or advantage in this part of the world. We see American strength, including on the Taiwan issue. Actually, the Trump administration's position on the Taiwan issue has become more low-key. It's been five years since Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, and we see this development trend. Actually, we are also promoting an idea of détente, like during the US-Soviet period. Such an idea can be incorporated into our diplomatic dialogue - diplomatic dialogue about détente - so that all parties take cautious actions in the coming years and better understand our mutual interests to avoid a war between the world's established great power and emerging great power.
Yan Xuetong: Thank you. Mr. Carr just mentioned two factors that seriously affect global security. First, the Trump administration weaponizes everything, including trade and tariffs, not only against China but also against America's allies. Second, the intensified competition between the US and China - this kind of strengthened competition between two great powers may bring conflict.
Next, please Ambassador Cui Tiankai, share your views. How do you view Trump saying he loves China, but on the other hand, even America's allies doubt what America's policy toward allies really is? So how much of what he says is true?
Cui Tiankai: Thank you. Since there is simultaneous interpretation, I'll still speak in Chinese.
First, I'm honored to participate in this discussion with several senior diplomats from the Asia-Pacific region. As an opening remark, I want to make two points around this theme of pan-securitization and security dilemmas. I'll save some other points for later discussion.
The first point I want to make is that pan-securitization is completely different from reasonable security concerns - they are diametrically opposed. To be frank, the world today is not very peaceful. We often say it's a mix of change and chaos. There are many security issues in the world that haven't been resolved, some conflicts have continued for a long time with no prospect of stopping. The sovereignty, security, and development interests of many countries often face challenges and interference from other countries. Unilateralism and bullying behavior in international relations emerge one after another. In this situation, of course, many countries, especially developing countries, have increasingly strong security concerns. They feel the world is unsafe and the future is uncertain. This is an issue we should take seriously. But pan-securitization goes completely in another direction. So my understanding of pan-securitization is that it reverses the cause and effect of security challenges, distorts the connotation of security concepts, and infinitely expands the extension of security issues.
As Foreign Minister Carr just mentioned, normal economic and trade relations have now become security issues, normal scientific and technological exchanges and cooperation have become security issues, and even Tsinghua University as a school - cultural and educational exchanges now all carry security colors. This is infinitely expanding security. This approach actually dilutes the focus of security issues that the international community should really pay attention to and marginalizes the reasonable security concerns of developing countries. The result of doing this can only cause more and more security problems that become increasingly difficult to solve, making the whole world more insecure. This is the first point I want to make.
The second point, and very ironically, those who are now promoting pan-securitization in the world are precisely the same sources that have created many insecurity factors and provoked many security challenges in the world for many years. They can disregard the purposes and principles of the UN Charter to violate other countries' sovereignty, security, and development interests. They can engage in "color revolutions" and regime change, unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction, and even send troops to fight other sovereign countries. However, it is precisely those who implement these policies and uphold such concepts who now feel insecure. They constantly create international public opinion as if others have caused them insecurity. I think the fundamental reason is that more and more countries in the world no longer believe in their approach, see through their real intentions, and now dare to come out and oppose their approach.
Plus, with overall economic development and the rise of the Global South, which accounts for an increasingly large share in the world, those who are good at or accustomed to unilateralism and hegemony feel insecure. They now constantly say the world is unsafe, and even other countries' normal development is viewed by them as a threat to their security. This is actually also a kind of pan-securitization.
So it can be said that their own mentality, concepts, and policies have trapped them in a security dilemma. This dilemma is not imposed on them by others; it's something they created and jumped into themselves. If they continue to adhere to this zero-sum thinking, insist on this mentality and policy of harming others' interests to maximize their own interests and harming others' security to seek their own security, they will sink deeper and deeper into this dilemma, and their path will become narrower and narrower.
What should be done? I think everyone should still follow a new security concept. Just now at lunch, Minister Liu Jianchao（head of the CPC International Department）also talked about a common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security concept. That is to say, the international community should pursue common security and universal security for all countries, excluding no country and targeting no country. For both traditional and non-traditional security, comprehensive measures should be taken with coordinated and overall consideration. All countries should address common security challenges through dialogue and cooperation. Not only should some surface-level security issues be resolved, but attention should also be paid to deep-level factors and root causes of security problems. So if everyone can uphold such a new security concept - a common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security concept - the dilemma can be easily overcome. We can, as this conference's World Peace Forum theme says this year, enjoy a new world of shared responsibility, shared benefits, and win-win security. So the key lies in what kind of security concept you follow.
As an opening remark, I'll say this much first. Thank you.
Yan Xuetong: Thank you, Ambassador Cui. You very clearly answered our theme - the serious harm of pan-securitization.
Mr. Kim, please share your views.
Kim Sung-hwan: Thank you for inviting me to participate in the World Peace Forum. I'm particularly pleased to participate in this session's discussion. Thank you to Tsinghua University for inviting me to this conference.
I agree with Ambassador Cui Tiankai's views on pan-securitization just now. I think now almost everything has been put on the track of pan-securitization. The concept of security has far exceeded traditional categories, and almost everything has become a potential risk. Therefore, I believe this trend of pan-securitization has become one of the main sources of today's global security dilemma.
This trend has intensified, especially since President Trump took office again in January this year. This morning at the forum, everyone was saying we now live in an era of uncertainty. I have a Korean friend who described the international situation under Trump's era. He said the era of elegant hypocrisy is over, and the era of naked brutality has arrived. I completely agree with his description. But I also want to add that what we see now is not just the spread of security concerns, but the evolution of the entire security agenda, including how we will set and redefine security issues in the future.
Why does pan-securitization occur? There are several reasons. First, the collapse of mutual trust between great powers, especially between the US and China. I firmly believe that if the cooperative relationship between China and the United States cannot be restored, the pan-securitization phenomenon will be difficult to eliminate in the short term. In this regard, I was pleased to hear Minister Liu Jianchao express optimism about the future of China-US relations during today's lunch speech.
The second reason is the weaponization of interdependence, manifested as technological decoupling, energy control, and data regulation. In the past, interdependence was seen as a source of peace and resilience, a stabilizer for great power relations. But now this logic of interdependence has been reversed. As Ambassador Cui said, factors that used to bring security are now seen as vulnerabilities. De-risking and decoupling have replaced cooperation.
The third reason is that global governance institutions have not been able to adapt to new situations. Some speakers have already mentioned that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the UN's founding. We should consider the UN's effectiveness. After 80 years, should we think about whether it functions normally? We see that the Gaza war and Ukraine war show no signs of ending, so we should consider whether we should revitalize the UN or seek alternatives? Particularly regarding UN Security Council reform, we can see the abuse of veto power - the permanent five abuse their veto power. We also need to reorganize the WTO. This is an urgent task.
I used to be a diplomat, and I've seen how security logic overrides diplomacy, and this often happens. At many crucial moments, dialogue mechanisms are suspended, and Track II diplomacy is also suspended due to security risks, even when global cooperation on climate, pandemics, and disaster relief is urgently needed. We narrow the scope of diplomacy when we need to expand diplomatic space.
Another point is that middle powers can play a role. Middle powers are just that - middle. We're not great powers, we don't have hegemonic ambitions, but we have certain strength and genuine willingness to let everyone cooperate to solve problems. So middle powers should make more efforts to mediate great power competition, especially in this Asian region or Northeast Asia. I think cooperation between Japan, South Korea, and China is very important. If we can strengthen our trilateral cooperation, we can reduce the risk of China-US confrontation.
Since trilateral cooperation was established in South Korea in 2012, the trilateral summit has continued, but in recent years, it has mainly explored Japan-South Korea issues. Due to historical issues, Japan and South Korea cannot hold regular leader meetings. Now I hope that with South Korea's new government taking office, we can strengthen trilateral cooperation in this region, so we can reduce the risks of great power competition.
Finally, I want to say that the current trend of pan-securitization is not in our interest. We should restore the balance between security and cooperation. Also, when talking about security, Korean newspapers often see terms like energy security and food security. We actually need to define what economic security is, how the concept of security should be used correctly. We need to clearly define debt security. If you want to use the word "security," every related term needs to be accurately defined, including energy security, economic security, etc. We need to work together or form some mechanism to explore what the definition of securitization really is.
Yan Xuetong: Thank you. Mr. Kim proposed that one reason for weaponization is competition between China and the US. Since global great powers haven't played a positive role, middle powers can actually fill this gap to reverse the situation. This is my view.
Finally, Mr. George Yeo, could you please share your views?
George Yeo: We are in a transition toward a multipolar world. This is not a cliché. The Trump administration is the first US administration to acknowledge that America is now in a multipolar world. When America felt it was a superpower, it could be generous. Many years ago, Lee Kuan Yew was right when he said America is a benevolent great power - it was generous in many areas. I still remember the dialogue between former President George H.W. Bush and Lee Kuan Yew. They talked about China. President Bush was then very worried about China's return to the world and successful economic reform. His intention was good - he hoped China would succeed. But since then, America has increasingly faced more internal division and self-doubt.
I went to Harvard University a few weeks ago for a class reunion. Our classmates are all old now, and they asked me, "Has America declined? Do you think America has declined?" I actually could never have imagined these American classmates would ask this question in the past. They now know their country is divided. America is not strong enough to be a global hegemon, but it's still strong enough to be a global bully. For example, it tells Ukraine, "I want your minerals." It tells Japan, "You'd better buy our American rice." It threatens all kinds of people. It's particularly polite to Xi Jinping because it knows it can't bully Xi Jinping. In this new world, various dynamics are changing. We've all read books like Liu Cixin's "The Three-Body Problem." The key in "Three-Body" lies in the mathematical problem - mathematical equations cannot be solved, so the movement patterns of three celestial bodies cannot be predicted.
If the mathematics of a multipolar world is unstable and its dynamics are unstable, then in such a new world, regional powers will play important roles. Each of our countries must strive to maintain peace, stability, and development - take care of our own neighborhoods. Because America also says this - they say we want to look east. Russia says no, don't do this. Russia reacted, and America also supports Britain. European countries are also doing this. Suddenly we find Trump has bypassed European countries to negotiate directly with Russia, and European countries are certainly unhappy. Sometimes he becomes a mediator, mediating between European countries and Russia.
European countries must think clearly about what their own interests are, how we coexist with Russia - and Russia will always exist - how we take positions on Middle East issues, Gaza and Israel issues, Africa issues, and China issues. European countries must reflect.
Trump successfully forced NATO countries to increase their defense spending. The result is that if European countries have military power, they will have their own foreign policy. In a sense, Trump is promoting the development of a multipolar world. European peace ultimately depends on Europeans themselves - how they get along with each other and how they get along with Russia. Of course, great powers will still play a role, but these countries themselves must also play important roles.
The same is true in the Middle East. We see opportunities here. Netanyahu attacked Iran, and Trump thought he was winning, so he told Iran to surrender quickly. He noticed this wasn't actually that easy, but he tried to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. But he doesn't want a big war because a big war might draw in Russia, other forces, and even China. So he made it very clear that the bombing only targeted these three nuclear facility sites. Whether Iran's nuclear facilities were really destroyed, we don't actually know - only they know. Of course, for domestic reasons, Trump must declare he won, and Israel must also declare it won. But this is also the first time in Israel's history that it has suffered huge losses.
If we think about what will happen in another ten years, I think in terms of relative power, America certainly won't be as strong as it is now, and Israel's influence in America might not be as great as it is now. Recently in New York's Democratic primary, they chose Mamdani as a candidate - 33 years old, Muslim, and Shia Muslim. Not just Shia Muslim, but Jafri Shia Muslim, meaning the same as Iran's main sect. Why did young people choose him? Because they asked these candidates who they wanted to visit first. They all said Israel and Jamaica. Only this person said I want to go to New York. He didn't mention going to Israel, so he resonated with young people. So Israelis must reflect on whether you will still have today's influence in America in the long term. What will be the dynamics between great powers?
At the same time, Israel's and Iran's neighbors are not powerless. China facilitated reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Turkey played a role, even including Caucasus countries - Armenia and Azerbaijan are doing their own work. Iran's nuclear program won't be their only target. They have Russia's help and previous air defense cooperation. But Putin is also thinking in his heart - China will provide economic help, but China doesn't want to get too deeply involved. Ultimately, the regional powers in that region must say no - we are the main force for maintaining stability. The same is true in the South China Sea. South China Sea issues involve all Southeast Asian countries and China. America might play a role, but if America's role is too big, China will ensure that Filipinos don't get a very good deal. Sooner or later, Filipinos will realize that letting Americans in is not good for them. They say I'm very pro-China, but I've said that Filipinos know in their hearts that Americans coming in is not good for them. Marcos leads the Philippines from another direction. This trend won't continue because there are organic factors in peace, stability, and development - all countries in the region, including China and Southeast Asian countries, work together.
So a multipolar world means it's not that great powers have more say. Regional countries must participate in maintaining peace and stability. Actually, if we insist on promoting peace and stability, then great powers' ability to create trouble will be limited.
Thank you.
Yan Xuetong: Thank you, Mr. George Yeo.
All the speakers just now talked about their views on pan-securitization and global security dilemmas. Some said we need relevant concepts, some said middle powers can play a positive role. Mr. George Yeo also spoke passionately about this point - everyone should actively participate.
We're entering the second round of this session. I'll give each of you 5 minutes to answer my questions, starting with Mr. George Yeo. You just said everyone should play an active role. When we say every country should play an active role, should they do things or should they refrain from doing certain things?
George Yeo: In our hearts, if we don't believe we are all brothers and sisters, if we don't have peace in our hearts, no matter how clever our diplomats are, the world won't achieve peace. If we look at what's happening in Gaza today and what's happening in Ukraine, each side hates the other and thinks the other is a demon. Even children think the other side should be destroyed because they are demons. This is what happens when humans hate each other. We can continue to hate each other, but with today's technology, we can kill all humans many times over. So we need a new moral sense - we need all humanity to have this moral sense and knowledge. China talks about a community with a shared future for mankind. This is morally necessary. Back in the 1990s, the Pope at the time signed a relevant statement with the Islamic religious leader in Abu Dhabi. The essential meaning was that we are all brothers and sisters. At lunch today, Minister Liu Jianchao emphasized that we need this feeling - that, ultimately, we are all human. This cannot be fixed through legal forms; it can only be a belief in our hearts. This is a struggle - I don't like this person, why should I treat him like a brother?
For example, on the Taiwan issue, Ko Wen-je, Taipei's mayor, said, "People on both sides of the strait are one family."（两岸一家亲） Xi Jinping has also quoted this phrase. If we feel we are indeed one family, we can talk - many things can be discussed. But if we feel we're not one family, anything can cause disputes. From parents to children, from teachers to students, including legislators and regulators, all need to do this. A Chinese bishop came to Singapore and met a Singapore bishop, talking about how to promote religious harmony. The Singapore bishop said the government regulates too much, taking up a lot of my time, because Singapore is always worried - since we have ten religions - always worried about disputes between religions. In fact, religious leaders often meet and participate in religious festivals, and when there are problems, they immediately meet and tell their believers that this is a small issue. We can also talk about big issues, talk about power politics, but morally speaking, we are all human. Are we treating each other as brothers and sisters, just like the theme of the World Peace Forum - "peace"? We are all human.
Yan Xuetong: I really like what you said. Mr. George Yeo just mentioned morality - we need new moral motivation. After the Cold War, neoliberalism prevailed. Now we see some hypocrisy in the human rights they talk about. Many governments call for human rights but support Netanyahu's government's policies toward Gaza. So obviously, no one says now we should re-embrace liberalism.
Mr. Kim, you just talked about middle powers being able to play an active role. What kind of new moral concept would middle powers recommend to the world?
Kim Sung-hwan: We should respect humanity. When we consider issues, we often first consider our own national interests. This pan-securitization also comes from this kind of national fear. We need to base it on respect for humanity. Humans should be at the center of all things. Only in this way can we achieve peace. Minister Liu Jianchao said President Xi proposed three principles for US relations: mutual respect and respect for humanity. This should be the foundation of anything, so we can solve problems.
Yan Xuetong: What you're talking about is very important - how to define the content and methods of mutual respect. I'd like to ask Ambassador Cui to talk about this.
Cui Tiankai: Actually, mutual respect has always been a principle we've put forward in dealing with the US. We talk about mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, still putting mutual respect first. Without mutual respect, there's no foundation for the rest. But what should we mutually respect? Your culture, history, development stage, and most importantly, each other's core interests and major concerns. Taiwan was mentioned earlier. For example, on the Taiwan issue, we've always said the Taiwan issue is the most important and sensitive issue in China-US relations - it still is. But this doesn't mean America has a say or even decision-making power on this issue. We say this because America intervened in China's civil war and interfered in China's internal affairs. If we can adhere to the One China policy, this issue can be resolved well. It depends on whether it can respect China's core interests. This is the best measure to test whether there is mutual respect.
Of course, the South China Sea issue was also mentioned. I want to say that the South China Sea issue and Taiwan issue are different in nature. The Taiwan issue is about China's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unification - there's no room for negotiation or compromise. China will be unified - there's nothing to discuss about this. The South China Sea issue does involve territorial disputes between China and some neighboring countries. Of course, we have our claims, which we think are completely reasonable, but we also recognize that in some other countries - some ASEAN countries - this is not an issue between China and ASEAN as a whole, but territorial disputes between China and some ASEAN countries. This can be resolved through negotiation and consultation.
China and ASEAN have a DOC (Declaration of Conduct), and are now negotiating a COC (Code of Conduct). There's a basic principle that these disputes should be resolved through peace, consultation, and negotiation between directly sovereign countries. On this issue, America is not a directly concerned country. America has no territorial claims in the South China Sea. Why does it intervene with such high intensity? Why is there an increasing military presence? I think this is America's problem. But this issue is not exactly the same in nature as the Taiwan issue.
Regarding great power competition and China-US competition mentioned earlier, I think there's a concept we need to be clear about. There may objectively be some competition between China and the US, even inevitable, but China has never made competing with America our development goal. China's development goal is very clear - we want to achieve Chinese-style modernization. Everyone can look at President Xi Jinping's report at China's 20th Party Congress, which talked about five characteristics of Chinese-style modernization. One of them is "taking the path of peaceful development." So our development goal is not to overwhelm others but to surpass ourselves - to do better ourselves, not to defeat or replace anyone. China has never made this a goal. So if people think China-US competition means China and America are competing for hegemony, I think this is a wrong understanding. We don't want to compete for hegemony with anyone, and we oppose anyone seeking hegemony. We oppose American hegemony. Everyone might remember that in the 1960s and 1990s, we still put opposing Soviet hegemony first. This is not tailor-made for America but for any hegemony. So when people talk about China-US competition and great power competition, I think this concept must be clear and strictly defined. Don't be vague.
Yan Xuetong: Thank you, Ambassador Cui. Now when we discuss a new international moral order, Ambassador Cui also talked about how national unification and territorial disputes are different. Opposition to hegemony should be part of a new moral concept.
Bob, how do you view this liberal hypocrisy? European countries supporting Netanyahu's policies - this early European policy is one example. Do we have any suggestions for establishing a new world order?
Bob Carr: Speaking for America, mainly for fairness. I'm pleased that Minister George Yeo mentioned that the new New York mayor is a Muslim and Shia. Today is also an anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, when America, as a force for good, abolished slavery. Perhaps we can borrow Lincoln's words: "We all have angels of our better nature."
In our foreign policy today, China is defending the post-war world order. Perhaps we can think about the positive contributions America has made in recent decades. I want to say the Obama administration was committed to what was later called the Iran Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement. What America did was advance the big goal of nuclear non-proliferation. They made great efforts to advance this diplomatic work for several years. The result was that America's security departments reported to Congress that Iran complied with this agreement, both in text and spirit. That was America at its best. Although it also had self-interest, it was more about doing good, doing the right thing. This was America at its best.
When I was Foreign Minister, I had contact with Hillary Clinton. Cooperating with the Obama administration was particularly comfortable because they mentioned many international goals. Secretary Clinton made many visits globally, and during visits, she would always meet with women's organizations, especially young women, to improve the treatment of girls and women in developing countries. This nature often encounters failure. I think the US Ambassador to Ukraine joined street demonstrations against the then pro-Russian Ukrainian government. This reflected American idealism, but this idealism became interference in internal affairs.
The examples I gave earlier were all when America was at its best - their contributions to the world while pursuing their own interests shouldn't be denied either. The challenge China now faces - I borrow a phrase from Gareth Evans - if China is in a similar environment, can it become a good neighbor in this community?
Yan Xuetong: I'm not quite sure whether China would. We Chinese want to establish a new order for the world - I'm not very certain about this. But I think what you just said about Hillary Clinton seems to be in big trouble at Columbia University because she supported Netanyahu's policies, and students are holding protests against her.
All today's speakers have talked about their views - what China should do, what America should do, what middle-developed countries should do. We still have a few minutes. I'd like to invite questions. We'll collect three questions at a time and answer them together. Please introduce yourselves and say clearly who you're asking.
Question 1: Thank you. I hope you'll allow me to express some of my own views.
Yan Xuetong: Keep it brief.
Question 1: I'll be very brief. It's about pan-securitization.
Because I've also made some contribution to pan-securitization research. First, pan-securitization is not rational thinking - it's emotional, persuasive. Just look at Trump to understand. Second, securitization is not declaring a state of emergency to take exceptional measures, even killing when necessary. You should remember this. With such a theme, I think we can ask what the driving factors of pan-securitization are. I have two possible explanations. One is if you're an authoritarian government or want to become an authoritarian government, pan-securitization is a perfect strategy. For Trump, this is an obvious example - he securitizes everything, through which he can control the economy and society. This is a perfect strategy. This happened in America, and it's also happening in Israel, Russia, Iran, and to some extent in China.
Another driving factor is that the failure of neoliberal globalization has caused economic and social instability, making securitization appear in broader areas because people have been disrupted and possibly displaced during globalization. They're at a loss, which leads to certain politics.
Yan Xuetong: Thank you. Next one.
Question 2: Thank you, moderator. My question is for Ambassador Cui Tiankai, and I'd also like to ask Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan the same question. Ambassador Cui just talked about China-US relations. We've noticed that since Trump's second term, many US allies' relations with China have been improving during this period. Recent international polls show that China's global favorability has exceeded America's. So my question is: Do you think Trump's second term is an opportunity for China? How should China respond to and utilize this opportunity?
Also, some people think Trump pays more attention to economic issues rather than geopolitical topics.
Yan Xuetong: I think your question is already very clear - asking Ambassador Cui. I'd like a lady to ask a question.
Question 3: I'm Zhong Yining from China Media Group. Besides being a journalist, today I'm also asking as a young person - a generation observing what's happening worldwide. I look forward to hearing answers from all five of you. My question is: today I noticed several "new" things mentioned - new world, new structure, new mechanism, new challenges, new morality. Everyone mentioned many "new" things. Today we're attending the World Peace Forum. I wonder if there are any new concepts or new understanding of peace? Because we're in this process of new globalization and global integration.
Yan Xuetong: What's your question?
Question 3: New concepts and new understanding of peace.
Yan Xuetong: You mean how to define "new" - how new it is.
One more question - young or old ladies are both welcome.
Question 4: You judge whether I'm young or old.
Thank you. I'm Tian Wei from CCTV. I want to borrow a simulation from Foreign Minister Carr earlier - better angels. Hundreds of years ago when talking about American internal unity, if we look at what's happening worldwide now, especially regarding tariff negotiations, we see that tools like leverage might have greater effect than those good angels. Therefore, we must ask: when we talk about so-called pan-securitization, what exactly are we talking about? To what extent can we see these leverages becoming tools for all countries? On the other hand, we're trying to establish new rules, new order, or so-called new concepts. This question is not just for Mr. Carr - anyone willing to respond can answer.
Thank you, Professor Yan.
Cui Tiankai: First, regarding the China-US relations question, we hope to develop normal cooperative and even friendly relations with all countries, including America, including Europe, including America's allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Because what kind of leaders other countries, especially America, produce doesn't depend on us. We can't pin our hopes on this, and they have elections again every few years. People often say opportunities and challenges coexist - if you don't seize opportunities, they become challenges; if you handle challenges well, they become opportunities. We still base ourselves on this thinking.
From this perspective, all opportunities and hopes lie in ourselves - how well we do ourselves. No matter what kind of leader another country elects, we can deal with them. As they say, "counter soldiers with generals, earth with water." If you want dialogue and cooperation, our door is always open. If you want containment and suppression, we will resolutely counter.
But our goal is what President Xi has always said internationally - to build a community with a shared future for mankind. This is our goal. We don't want to exclude or defeat anyone. We hope everyone can be included. As Foreign Minister George Yeo just said about the family concept - a global community for all mankind is one family. China has said since ancient times that "all within the four seas are brothers." Of course, some people aren't easy to be brothers with. China's starting point and goal is not to exclude anyone or defeat anyone. We hope to develop good relations with all countries, including America. But we base ourselves on our own efforts and prepare to handle all situations. Of course, this work needs to be done day by day.
Returning to what the lady said about what's new - new mechanisms, new technology, new opportunities, new... I think the most important thing is still the new generation of humanity. We can't say we'll leave problems we haven't solved to artificial intelligence to solve. We still need to leave them to the new generation of humanity to solve. I still have confidence in this. Thank you.
Bob Carr: I really like this expression - leaving this problem to the next generation, the new generation. We freeze this time. I think there's considerable wisdom in this. I always want to recall what Deng Xiaoping's reforms meant for China and what good things they meant internationally. Does Trump bring opportunities for China? I can bet that the whole world is watching China's diplomatic flexibility and agility in responding to the American president's mostly reckless actions. The whole world sees this, including China's management of its maritime disputes with the Philippines. We see that in Africa, there might be a pro-China president in the future. He might sometimes be a democratic president. Public opinion in the Philippines sometimes becomes more anti-China around Huangyan Island or other places, and they elect more anti-China presidents. I don't want to point fingers at China, but I hope developments within the Philippines can make China reflect and slightly adjust its tough stance toward the Philippines. This actually affects Philippine domestic public opinion.
We'll see that this might lead to the Philippines - the tougher it is now, the easier it is for the Philippines to elect a more pro-American president. We know China won't become a defender of the post-war order - China will challenge the whole world. But I think the whole world hopes China can fill the vacuum left by America's complete withdrawal.
Regarding the tariff war question, there aren't many reasons. As long as Trump thinks it's appropriate, he thinks he can punish China or Canada. Other times, he sometimes mentions creating more job opportunities for America. For Canada, they would actually cause job losses in America. They hope to buy aluminum and electricity from Canada at relatively cheap prices. When Trump does something, actually the Republican Party can't limit what President Trump does, but stock market changes, including New York Stock Exchange fluctuations, will constrain him.
Honestly, I've communicated with my colleague Minister Evans. We need to consider nuclear stability - how to stabilize the nuclear arms race, how to reduce the nuclear arms race, and explore nuclear disarmament. One of them is to start discussing arms control, just like the US and Soviet Union did during their détente period. Moscow and Washington seriously talked about arms control - this was a characteristic of US-Soviet détente. We hope China and America can do the same.
Kim Sung-hwan: President Trump emphasizes economics rather than geopolitics. I think this judgment is correct. He doesn't care about alliance relations at all. For example, these alliance relationships - NATO, South Korea, Japan are all taking advantage of America, so he makes allies contribute more. Now NATO countries have agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. Our new government has just taken office. We haven't started formal negotiations with America yet. We had relevant agreements with the Biden administration before, but I don't know how much cost-sharing President Trump will ask us to increase now. He particularly focuses on economics, on money, and doesn't pay much attention to geopolitics. Thank you.
George Yeo: My old friend, the great French intellectual Attali, told me about former French President Mitterrand. He said when Mitterrand visited a country, he wanted a map where that country was at the center of the world map, not France. This way you can understand what that country's fears and hopes are. In military strategy, knowing yourself and knowing your enemy is great wisdom. Because if you put yourself in their shoes, first you won't be so angry because you can see problems from their perspective. At the same time, you can see what win-win methods exist. Even if you must fight, you can use fewer troops because you also think for the other side. So the most important thing here is empathy. If we want peace, we must look at peace issues from the other side's perspective.
How does Ukraine see it? How does Russia see it? How do Palestinians see it? How do Israelis see it? How do Filipinos see it? How do Chinese see it? If I were Filipino or Israeli, I could understand. But if you're very angry and refuse to see problems from the other side's perspective, the result is extremely costly wars where many people die and violence is used. So the ultimate wisdom is understanding the other side and finding solutions, which can greatly enhance peace prospects.
As a researcher myself, I feel I've greatly benefited from this session's discussion. We discussed pan-securitization, which is closely related to morality. We need what kind of morality to build a new world order. Actually, in Chinese we have a saying: "A gentleman loves wealth but obtains it through proper means." Today we discussed that every country has its own national interests. We also talked about what moral standards should be used when handling mutual relations, especially when national interests conflict. Third, every country hopes and needs to protect its own interests, but we should still use civilized methods rather than bullying to resolve disputes among us, even America's traditional allies can't stand the Trump administration's bullying strategy.
Here, our four speakers indeed provided high-level discussion, introducing philosophical perspectives that greatly benefited us. Let's give them warm applause to express our gratitude!