The game is afoot: China’s pitch to developing world ‘backed’ by UN secretary-general

For the briefest of moments in the devastation and aftermath of the Second World War, global peace, stability, and prosperity looked like real possibilities, marking a truly defining turning point in humanity’s history.

Built in the rubble of the old world order of colonial empires, the potential for this new world was quickly dashed as two new, armed, ideologically-focused camps emerged with vastly different visions of the global future.

In one corner of the ring stood revolutionary Marxist Communism as championed by Stalin’s Soviet Union and then, in short order, Mao’s People’s Republic of China stood diametrically opposed to the “exploitative” nature of the capitalist Western world, citing centuries of exploitation of the working class and native populations by the ruling elite and colonial expansion to support the rapid post-war decolonisation of the “global South”.

Standing defiantly opposite this order of revolutionary powers was the capitalist, Western, liberal democratic world, led in large part by the United States, which throughout the war, emerged as the world’s pre-eminent economic, industrial, and for a short time, nuclear power.

As both blocs solidified into a dichotomy of East versus West, the competition would largely – as a result of ever-present threat of direct nuclear exchange and confrontation between the two competing global hegemons – be kept cold.

While kinetic proxy conflicts in southeast and central Asia broke out, the “grey” zone operations conducted by intelligence agencies on both sides expanded this geopolitical competition across the world, until ultimately, the final collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 heralded the “End of History” and if many policymakers, analysts, and historians were to be believed, the ultimate victory of liberal democratic, capitalism on the global stage.

Fast forward to today and the jubilation and hubris which characterised the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union has now transformed into a far less optimistic vision of the future, as once again, the historical “norms” of great power competition and multipolarity are alive and well.

VIEW ALL

However, unlike the previous Cold War, which was heavily influenced by the ideological differences, this contemporary “Cold War”, despite the rhetoric to the contrary by political leaders on both sides, is largely defined by a combination of economic, strategic, and demographic competitions, marking the emergence of a rapidly different form of competition.

The modern multipolar world

In the modern context, this new “Cold War” is developing against the backdrop of an increasingly “multipolar world”, characterised by a more complex understanding of international power and the relative “tiers” as a means for understanding their position in this new global paradigm.

At the apex of this new hierarchy, we have competing great powers, including the United States, the People’s Republic of China, India, and to a lesser extent, Russia, followed by great power “adjacent” and emerging great power “adjacent” nations including Germany, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, Vietnam, and others.

Rounding out this new multipolar world are the middle powers, including Australia, Italy, Canada and minor, or developing powers largely across the “global south” of formerly colonial holdings, each with their own interests, ambitions, and designs for the global order and balance of power.

Further underpinning this international order are the multilateral organisations like the United Nations, World Bank, World Health Organisation, and the International Monetary Fund – all with their genesis in the waning years of the Second World War at the Bretton Woods Conference.

Yet for one side of this new “Cold War”, the “Western” genesis of this international order is increasingly drawing the ire from some of the world’s established and emerging great powers eager to shift this “Western-centric” world order in favour of the new world order.

In recent years, the post-Second World War global order has come under assault both directly and indirectly as emerging powers like China and India, backed by established powers, namely a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Russia, are all combining to begin building a parallel network of economic, political, and strategic organisations and arrangements to challenge the post-war global order.

Adding to this seemingly coordinated pushback against the US-led world order, Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China have equally sought to directly subvert and undermine the legitimacy and reputation of the United States and its multilateral international organisations that serve as the foundation of the post-war order.

Overcoming an ‘unjust’ international order

Leading the charge for this new, increasingly contested multipolar world is Mao, and now Xi’s China, seeking to leverage its now immense economic, political, and strategic might to right the wrongs of the past, namely the “century of humiliation” at the hands of colonial empires, with its eyes firmly set on usurping the global status quo.

While the efforts of organisations like the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are now well understood and have drawn attention from across the Western World, two “new” players have sought to further hasten the global shift of power.

Beginning with the G77, a multilateral organisation established in the mid-1960s “to articulate and promote their collective economic interests and enhance their joint negotiating capacity” for the “Global South” in a world dominated by major powers.

Today’s G77 organisation includes 134 member states, representing 80 per cent of the global population, including a sizeable number of the world’s emerging “great powers” and “great power adjacent” playing central roles in the direction of this multilateral organisation.

Front and centre is of course Xi Jinping’s China which, while not a “formal member”, emphasises increasing cooperation between the nations of the global south to challenge the “unjust” international order established in the final days of the Second World War.

Perhaps the most unexpected supporter of this “grievance narrative“ is Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres who, in his official remarks, highlighted the need to overcome the “unjust” international order in line with Beijing’s key sales pitch for the new world order.

Secretary-General Guterres told 30 heads of state and governments from Africa, Asia, and Latin America at a meeting of the G77 and China in Cuba, “The task begins with the multilateral system itself. We are moving to a multipolar world. Multipolarity creates new opportunities for leadership on the global stage. But alone, it doesn’t guarantee peace and justice. Those require strong, effective multilateral institutions.”

Unpacking this further, Guterres adds, “But many of today’s institutions – particularly the United Nations Security Council and the Bretton Woods institutions – reflect a bygone era; One when many developing countries were shackled by colonial rule and had no say on their own affairs, or on global affairs. I have proposed measures to make the global financial architecture more representative and responsive to the needs of developing countries.”

Finally, Guterres told the gathered leaders, “To reshape the international system and international institutions to make them reflect today’s realities instead of the realities that existed after WWII. And create a fairer future for developing countries. And we all have a duty to seize them. The voice of the G77 plus China will always be essential at the United Nations.

“And I count on your group, who have long been champions of multilateralism, to step up, to use your power, and fight: Champion a system rooted in equality; Champion a system ready to reverse the injustice and neglect of centuries; And champion a system that delivers for all humanity and not only for the privileged,” Guterres said.

Final thoughts

In this era of renewed competition between autarchy and democracy, this is a conversation that needs to be had in the open with the Australian people, as ultimately, they will be called upon to help implement it, to consent to the direction, and to defend it should diplomacy fail.

Dr Ross Babbage of the Centre for Strategic Budgetary Assessments told Defence Connect, “I think what we’ve got to show what’s the vision for Australia, you know, what can we achieve and what you know if we go on the trajectory we are on at the moment. I’ll tell you what, you know, a lot of people, a lot more people in a decade’s time are likely to be either in really dumb jobs or maybe not have jobs at all, and in the society be a lot weaker and will be a lot less prosperous.

“So what we want to say is, look, there’s plenty of scope for doing more and smarter things, encouraging investment to do that, and then there will be some very, very interesting additional jobs and opportunities, a lot of high tech, and so on, I can tell you that, you know, talking to foreign investors, they’re quite keen on principle to work here, and do a lot more here and provide a lot more good jobs for Australians,” he explained.

This requires a greater degree of transparency and a culture of collaboration between the nation’s strategic policymakers and elected officials and the constituents they represent and serve – equally, this approach will need to entice the Australian public to once again invest in and believe in the future direction of the nation.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..