Theoretical Connotation and Historical Significance of Building a New Model of International Relations

The international community is undergoing a profound transformation unseen in nearly one hundred years. As Chinese President Xi Jinping has pointed out， we are witnessing once-in-acentury changes around the world. Since the beginning of the 21st century， a large number of emerging markets and developing countries have maintained rapid economic growth， and an accelerating and irreversible shift towards a multipolar world and an increasingly balanced international landscape is taking place.1 Great changes will inevitably bring about great adjustments， and changes in the balance of power require corresponding modifications in international relations and the global order to maintain and promote world stability and development. As the world advances towards multi-polarization， in-depth development of economic globalization， greater cultural pluralism and informational participation， today’s humanity is more qualified and better equipped than ever before to move towards the goal of peace and development. In his report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China （CPC）， Xi Jinping reaffirmed China’s commitment to forging a new form of international relations featuring mutual respect， fairness， justice， and win-win cooperation.2 This represents the strategic choice made by Chinese leaders based on the development trends of the times and China’s fundamental interests， reflecting the common aspirations of the Chinese people and the peoples of the world.3 Given the complexity of the current international situation， the building of a new model of international relations provides a necessary guidance and has important practical significance.

Theoretical Connotation of Building a New Model of International Relations

Building a new model of international relations is a crucial part of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy. It is equipped with distinctive features that correspond to the requirements of the times. It contains profound Chinese cultural wisdom and reflects universal human expectations in line with historical trends. In contrast， the core of most Western international relations theories is the pursuit of power and self-interests to the greatest extent. The reason why the model advocated by President Xi Jinping is called a “new model” is because it emphasizes that international relations should be shaped by the common values of humanity and follow the principles of mutual respect， fairness and justice， and win-win cooperation.

Mutual respect as important premise

With the development of a multi-polar world， economic globalization， cultural diversity and the information-based society， the global governance system and world order have undergone rapid evolution. With the deepening of mutual relations and interdependence among countries， the world is facing more uncertainties and instability， with increasing traditional and non-traditional security threats. The term “mutual respect” has wide-ranging implications. First of all， it requires the equality of all countries， big or small，strong or weak， rich or poor，4 and that different social systems， religions and cultures should be treated equally. Second， the people of each country have the right to independently choose their own development path.5 Each country is not only a member of the international community， but is also a sovereign state with its own characteristics. The people of each nation have the right to determine what their own development path and political system should be. There is no one-system-fits-all approach， and there is not a single political framework that fits every country. No country has the power to impose its own political system on others. Third， the relations between countries with different social systems and development levels should be built in a way that abides by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the generally-recognized norms concerning international relations. Fourth， in the face of the numerous challenges and differences among members of the international community， we should strive for dialogue rather than forming blocs， advocate fair international exchanges rather than rivalries， and insist on resolving disputes and differences through dialogue and consultation. Fifth， the diversity of civilizations in the world should be respected. In handling relations among civilizations， we should replace estrangement with exchange， clashes with mutual learning， and superiority with coexistence.6 Any kind of cooperation is unlikely without mutual respect and trust between nations.

Fairness and justice as core principles

Fairness and justice are the core principles for building a new model of international relations. These principles reject the law of the jungle which leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong， and instead protect the legitimate rights and interests of all nations， especially those of the developing countries. International relations in modern history have largely been dominated by powerful countries which often use politics of strength and hegemony to do as they please. From the 15th century， the aggressive and expansionist actions of Western powers turned countries in Asia， Africa and Latin America into colonies and semi-colonies. In particular， the two world wars in the 20th century brought unprecedented calamities to mankind. The outbreak of World War I was rooted in the imbalance of political and economic development， which led the imperialist powers to fight for world hegemony. In the Second World War， despite the fact that the anti-fascist allied forces were fighting against the Axis powers， the essential purpose of the imperialist countries participating in the war was still to fight for world dominance. That is why the anti-fascist alliance disintegrated soon after the end of WWII and the United States and the Soviet Union， the two main anti-fascist forces， fell into a Cold War that lasted more than 40 years and cast a fearsome shadow of a potential nuclear world war onto human society. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War， the US became the only remaining superpower and began to recklessly launch military operations everywhere in the world.

Without fairness and justice， the politics of power can tyrannize all parts of the world. This has been a major reason for continuous international disputes and conflicts since the end of the Cold War. In order to fulfill the goal of fairness and justice， we should first and foremost promote democracy in international relations and oppose all forms of hegemonism and power politics. We hold that no country should interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and impose its own will upon others. Second， we should abandon the unfair practices of the international political and economic order. All countries should follow the global governance principles of extensive discussion， joint contribution and shared benefits， and solve problems in a fair and equitable manner. Third， we should determine our positions and policies and judge each case on its own merits. All countries should maintain friendly relations with each other， conduct consultations on an equal footing， and forsake the law of the jungle which leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong. Fourth， we should support the UN in playing an active role， and advocate an increased representation and voice of developing countries in international affairs. China always adheres to its independent foreign policy of peace， and opposes any form of hegemonic ambitions and power politics. China follows a strict policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries， and will never practice expansionism or seek hegemony.7

Win-win cooperation as the basic orientation

Achieve lasting peace and prosperity is both the common aspiration of the international community and the fundamental goal of building a new model of international relations. Win-win cooperation means giving up the old logic of zero-sum game or winner-takes-all mentality in exchange for the new idea of pursing mutually beneficial common development. In order to fulfill this goal， we should first of all acknowledge that with deepening globalization， the interests of all countries are closely interconnected， and that no individual country can tackle the challenges of our time alone， nor can any single nation afford to retreat into self-isolation. Second， all members of the international community should work together and seek the convergence of interests. The multilateral trading system should be upheld to develop an open world economy， while trade and investment liberalization and facilitation should be promoted to make economic globalization more open， inclusive， balanced and beneficial for all.8 Third， we should strive for building a platform for international cooperation that facilitates policy coordination， infrastructure connectivity， unimpeded trade， financial integration， and closer people-to-people ties. Stronger commitments to this vision will contribute greatly to the advancement of globalization and accelerate coordinated development of the world. Fourth， the international community should increase assistance to developing countries， especially the least developed states， and do its part to narrow the development gap between the North and the South. Win-win cooperation is a universal principle that applies to not only the economic field， but political， security， cultural and other areas as well.9 It should become a basic orientation for all countries in their management of international affairs. China insists on developing global partnerships and friendships instead of forging exclusive alliances， and advocates collective efforts of all countries to tackle global challenges and achieve common prosperity and development through international and regional cooperation.

Changing balance of power as the fundamental basis

In the modern age， the world’s power and economic center of gravity have been concentrated largely on both sides of the Atlantic， with the United States and Europe accounting for more than two thirds of the world economy. At the end of the Second World War， the US-led Western world accounted for more than 70 percent of the global economy. Today， the combined share of the US， Germany， France， the United Kingdom， Italy and Japan in the world economy has dropped to 30 percent， while the share of developing countries and emerging economies such as the BRICS nations has risen to about 60 percent. When the People’s Republic of China was founded， the US and Western Europe accounted for 70 percent of global manufacturing， but now the figure has decreased to only 45 percent. In 2019， Asia’s economic size accounted for 34 percent of the world’s total， surpassing 31 percent for the US and the European Union combined.10 Emerging markets and developing countries are growing rapidly and have contributed 80 percent of today’s global economic growth.11 In particular， the economic momentum of emerging countries represented by China， India， Brazil and South Africa has not only greatly contributed to the world economy， but has also led to their growing influence in global politics and the international system. They have been playing an even more important role in promoting the development of a multi-polar world.

These changes in the global balance of power call for the establishment of a new model of international relations that corresponds to it. As President Xi Jinping pointed out， the rapid development and growing influence of emerging markets and a large number of developing countries represent the most revolutionary change in the international balance of power of modern history.12 The vast number of developing countries form the backbone of opposition to hegemonism and power politics， and their growth means that it is no longer possible for major powers to enforce their interests and domination through wars， colonization and the division of the world into spheres of influence as they have done for centuries. As the international power configuration becomes more balanced， the trend towards peace and development is irreversible. It is increasingly the norm that countries coordinate their relations and interests through systems and rules， and there is a consensus among most countries to establish international mechanisms， abide by international rules and pursue international justice.13

Keeping in mind both internal and international imperatives

In the context of deepening economic globalization and world multipolarization， China is now standing at a new historical turning point after more than four decades of reform and opening-up. With great changes taking place in China’s relations with the world， the future and destiny of China and the rest of the world is more closely connected than ever before. As President Xi pointed out， the purpose of China’s foreign policy is to safeguard world peace， promote common development and create a sound external environment for deepening domestic reform and realizing its two centenary goals.14 No country can develop solely on its own or outshine all others； instead， we should stick together through thick and thin and pull together for common cause.15 President Xi Jinping has also insisted that， as people of all countries share common destiny and become increasingly interdependent， no country could have its own security ensured without the security of other countries or of the wider world.16

The pursuit of peaceful development， the building of a new model of international relations and the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind are three inseparable elements of an organic whole. In the 1970s， China’s policy propositions for improving the international system， represented by Mao Zedong’s theory of “Three Worlds，” received much attention from the international community. Today， Xi Jinping’s proposal of building a new model of international relations， as a major strategic idea put forward by the new generation of CPC leadership， demonstrates a deep insight into the trends of domestic and international development and a strategic perspective of balancing both domestic and international interests. It is also a major innovation by the Chinese government for improving the international system. In essence， pursuing peaceful development is to develop China by upholding world peace， and at the same time promote world peace through China’s own development.17 The three elements of pursuing peaceful development， building a new model of international relations and constructing a community with a shared future for mankind embody the unity of China’s domestic and foreign policies， the unity of China’s philosophy of holding oneself to a high standard and contributing to the wellbeing of all， and the unity of the fundamental interests of the Chinese people and the aspirations of the people in the world.

COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Need for Building a New Model of International Relations

The global spread of COVID-19 since early 2020 has further highlighted the shortcomings of the current international system， especially the serious inadaptability of the global governance system to new situations and challenges. While the severity of the damage caused by this pandemic has not yet been fully revealed， the question of how to address transnational issues such as a global public health crisis has illustrated the urgent requirement of building a new model of international relations. It is an arduous task for the international community to truly work together and win the battle against the pandemic， whose effects have so far been demonstrated in the following five aspects.

First， the virus has posed a serious threat to human health and caused a continuously expanding global public health crisis， infecting and killing a record number of people. The year 2020 had witnessed more than 81.47 million cases globally， with nearly 1.8 million deaths.18 The United States， the hardest-hit country， had registered more than 20 million cases and more than 347，000 deaths.19 What is particularly worrying， more than a year after the outbreak， COVID-19 is still mutating and could pose a long-term threat to human health.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a sudden， comprehensive and global crisis. It is the world’s gravest infectious disease since the 1918 influenza， and the world’s most serious public health emergency after World War II. The oncein-a-century pandemic， compounded by the most far-reaching power shift of the modern era， are sending shockwaves to all aspects of human society. In this non-explosive massive war against the coronavirus， all countries’ social systems， government decision-making， governance capabilities， cultural concepts and civil quality are put under test. Unfortunately， many national governments have failed to deliver satisfactory results to their people， and have suffered serious defeats. The pandemic is quite an appropriate reminder to F. Engels’ warning： “Let us not， however， flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us.”20 Whenever scientific and technological revolutions and the development of productive forces bring great material wealth to human beings， human society must also reflect deeply on how to create a better harmony between man and nature.

Second， the severe global economic recession has accelerated the changes in the international balance of power. According to a World Bank report， the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken to control it have caused severe shocks to the world economy and a steep decline in international economic and trade exchanges. The world economy would shrink by about 5.2 percent in 2020， the worst recession since the end of World War II.21 A report by the International Monetary Fund projected that the US economy would shrink by 3.5 percent， the euro zone by 6.6 percent and emerging market countries by 2.2 percent in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. Moreover， the pandemic has further accelerated the shift in the balance of power between countries. Compared with major economies such as the United States， Germany， France， the United Kingdom and Italy， which experienced sharp recessions， China’s economy still maintained positive growth despite the impact of the epidemic， reaching a growth rate of 2.3 percent. In 2020， China’s economic aggregate exceeded 100 trillion yuan， or $14.7 trillion， accounting for 17 percent of the global economy and 70 percent of the United States’ GDP. The gap between China and the US in terms of economic strength will continue to narrow. In the first quarter of 2021， China saw its GDP surge by 18.3 percent year-on-year. According to CNN， China is expected to contribute more than one third of global economic growth in 2021.22

Third， the Western political system is heavily impacted， with its weaknesses further exposed. The US and European governments did not take effective measures to curb the pandemic. They initially hoped for the so-called “herd immunity，” an approach that amounted to inaction in the face of difficulties and exposed the underlying dysfunction of the system. The ruling party and the opposition， the government and the legislature， were constantly at each other’s throats despite the pandemic， while the federal government and the states in the US were trying to shift responsibility onto one another. After the outbreak of COVID-19 in the US， then President Donald Trump turned a deaf ear to the advice of medical experts， and was fond of issuing false information via twitter. He even made remarks that ran counter to scientific common sense， suggesting research into whether coronavirus might be treated by injecting disinfectant into the body， which seriously misguided the American public.

After the coronavirus outbreak， Trump and Mike Pompeo， his Secretary of State， were busy pursuing their own political interests without any regard for the people’s livelihood， which drew criticism from the American public. A major reason for Trump’s reluctance to implement strict control measures was that he feared these would hit his personal business hard， which is mostly concentrated in the hotel and entertainment industries. Bill de Blasio， Mayor of New York City， blasted Trump in March 2020 for his handling of the epidemic： “President Trump， I will only say to the president， I don’t understand and I think there are millions and tens of millions of Americans who don’t understand what you are doing right now. You are not using the tools of your office. This is one of the greatest emergencies our nation has faced in generations. Every tool must be brought to bear. For some reason， you continue to hesitate.”23 In March 2020， despite the raging virus domestically， Pompeo was obsessed with bashing Iran， villifying China， and wooing voters by flying to Afghanistan to seek a withdrawal of US troops ahead of the presidential election in November of that year. In the opinion of Jackson Diehl， Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post， no secretary of state since World War II had been as consistently wrong in responding to a crisis as Pompeo， who would go down in American history as one of the worst secretaries of state.24 Moreover， over the four years， the Trump administration had constantly put blames on China for its own trade deficit， which masked the structural problems in the US economy that are not caused by China.25

Fourth， the Western society is severely divided， and class polarization and social contradictions have seriously deteriorated. Under the impact of the pandemic， various contradictions that had previously been concealed in Western countries quickly became apparent and intensified rapidly. The gap between the rich and the poor widened， while street violence became more frequent. The death of George Floyd， an African American who was the victim of police brutality， triggered large-scale riots across the United States and became a symbol for the polarization and division in the American society. George Packer， a staff writer at The Atlantic， criticized the Trump administration for its botched response to the pandemic， and even labeled the US as a failed state. “When the virus came here，" Packer wrote， "it found a country with serious underlying conditions， and it exploited them ruthlessly. Chronic ills—a corrupt political class， a sclerotic bureaucracy， a heartless economy， a divided and distracted public—had gone untreated for years.”26 A study conducted by American scholars found that only 50 percent of Americans born in the 1980s earned more than their parents. For those born in the 1940s， the rate was as high as 90 percent. The reason for this gap is not slow economic growth， but unequal income distribution. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention， the prevalence and mortality of COVID-19 among ethnic minorities is four to five times higher than that of whites. Most of the care workers in hard-hit areas such as nursing homes in the US are also members of minority groups. These people live in poverty and have to move between multiple jobs to make ends meet， leading to a huge increase in infection rates.27 Packer wrote that from President Trump “came willful blindness， scapegoating， boasts， and lies，”and from his mouthpieces “conspiracy theories and miracle cures.” “A few senators and corporate executives acted quickly—not to prevent the coming disaster， but to profit from it. When a government doctor tried to warn the public of the danger， the White House took the mic and politicized the message.”28

Fifth， the international order is disturbed in such a way that effective global governance is seriously hampered. In the face of a global public health emergency， some people in the US chose to shirk their due responsibilities and acted egocentrically without any regard for objective facts. Trump and Pompeo rejected international cooperation and even stopped funding for the World Health Organization， a move that provoked strong criticism from most countries， including many in Europe. The United States’ passive policy response to the sudden global public health crisis has disrupted international cooperation efforts and weakened the international community in the face of the virus. This has not only further exposed the shortcomings of current global governance， but also plunged developing countries into the current COVID-19 disaster.

Without the principles of mutual respect， fairness and justice， or if there are countries seeking domination or attempting to monopolize the benefits， it will be impossible for the international community to achieve true global governance. Diehl of The Washington Post noted that Pompeo sabotaged the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in March 2020 by demanding that his counterparts agree to a joint communiqué containing the politically weaponized term “Wuhan virus.” The opposition to this move from other countries ultimately prevented the meeting from issuing any joint statement. In Diehl’s opinion， it is more important for the Trump administration to voice public opinion against Beijing than to reach consensus with its allies.29 Jeremy Konyndyk， Director of the Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance in the Barack Obama administration， said the United States’ actions on the front lines of global response to the pandemic were disappointing and resulted in a great deal of disarray at the international level.30 Many regional cooperation organizations， such as the European Union， the Organization of American States， the Pan American Health Organization， the Andean Community， the Southern Common Market （MERCOSUR） and the Union of South American Nations （UNASUR）， were unable to play any effective role in coordinating the fight against the pandemic in relevant countries for a considerable period of time after the outbreak. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the outbreak was the most serious crisis in the history of the EU， but there were deep divisions within the EU in the early days over providing support to Italy， Spain and Portugal， which had been hit hardest by the outbreak.

The COVID-19 outbreak has highlighted three deficits in today’s world： the governance deficit， the trust deficit， and the development deficit. While global challenges become increasingly acute， the foundation of international trust and cooperation has been undermined， and unbalanced global development has become an outstanding issue facing the international community.31 The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and magnified serious inadequacies in the ability of the current international system to effectively address global challenges， and has made the international community acutely aware of the gravity of the situation. In the face of the sudden coronavirus attack， the international community should establish and improve its emergency response mechanisms in a timely manner， strengthen cooperation in detection， prevention and control of virus， production and logistics of supplies， and research， development and distribution of vaccines， while also ensuring that no country is left behind. Keeping in mind the extraordinary challenges posed to human society by the global public health crisis， any attempt to politicize the issue by blaming this or that country or deceiving the people will not only defeat its purpose， but also seriously undermine the unity and coordination of the international community. Only by establishing a new type of international relations can the international community strengthen solidarity and cooperation and win the fight against global challenges.

In-Depth Development of Globalization Requires a New Model of International Relations

Since the end of the Cold War， globalization has emerged as an important factor that significantly influences the evolution of the international system. In the 21st century， economic globalization has seen in-depth development， increasingly evolving into a system of global interaction and integration in more and more areas. Exchanges between countries， enterprises and people have been increasing， global economic and trade links growing， and the interaction of ideas deepening. On the other hand， conflicts of interests have also become more pronounced， because different countries and different groups within a country benefit unevenly from the process of globalization， and the differences in people’s understanding of globalization are becoming more and more apparent. Thus， anti-globalization sentiments are on the rise in certain developed countries. In particular， US politicians are trying their best to promote unilateralism， protectionism and policies of intimidation， in order to cater to their voters and promote their own interests. All this has brought about new problems and challenges in the process of globalization and has introduced complicated new factors into the development of international relations.

Deepening of economic globalization calls for building a new type of international relations

The word “globalization” was coined in the 1980s. From the perspective of an international system， globalization includes many aspects， including the globalization of geography， of commodities， of ideas and of institutions. With the rapid development of modern technologies in the 21st century， especially in the communication and transportation sectors， the world has become truly interconnected and geographically globalized. Globalization of commodities means that goods can be transported more and more easily around the world. The total world trade volume was only$6.2 trillion in 2000， but jumped to $39.3 trillion in 2018. Economic globalization has greatly promoted the exchange of people and ideas. Marx and Engels once pointed out that with the development of productive forces and the increase of everyday contacts， people begin to break the barriers of their regional and narrow orientation to gradually become more universal individuals.32

The primary manifestation of globalization is economic globalization， which is the general trend of productivity development. When the Cold War ended in the late 1980s， the world was suddenly no longer divided by the political and military fault lines of two major blocs. This provided objective conditions for the realization of global integration， and people of different countries， ethnic groups and cultures had the opportunity for more exchanges. These new large-scale exchanges have facilitated mutual understanding among people， enhanced communication between different civilizations， spurred cooperation among countries and contributed to the formation of a unified global market. On a practical level， the scientific and technological progress and innovations in transportation and communication made it possible to optimize the allocation of production factors on a global scale. Globalization has greatly liberated productivity， and has made possible the rise of trade and investment around the world. At the same time， the process of regional economic integration is moving forward in all respects. Regional integration is an important means for countries located in the same region to actively respond to economic globalization. It aims to give full play to the comparative advantages of a region and seize the initiative in international competition. In recent years， cooperation in East Asia has received a lot of attention， with ASEAN and China （10+1）， and ASEAN plus China， Japan and South Korea （10+3） as its core formats. On November 15， 2020， the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement（RCEP） was signed， marking the launch of the world’s largest regional free trade and investment facilitation cooperation among the ten ASEAN countries and China， Japan， South Korea， Australia and New Zealand. Economic globalization is forming a community of stakeholders whose interests are closely integrated. The American critic Thomas L. Friedman argues that with an increasingly digital work environment， “the world is flat，”33 and that a “flat world” needs more effective international mechanisms for coordination and governance.

Building a new model of international relations amid changing international balance of power

During the process of globalization， some developing countries， especially emerging markets， have actively leveraged their advantages and maintained rising economic strength. Developed countries have experienced years of slow economic growth and relative decline in power. This is the most important and fundamental change that has taken place in the world in recent decades. Some countries， such as the United States， have difficulties adapting to China’s rapid ascent and have drastically adjusted their policies toward China， which has further destabilized international relations. The impact of this complex dynamic is reflected on three levels. First， the biggest variable is the rise of China， but some countries do not want to see their own power surpassed by China. Second， the biggest change happens in the interplay between China and the United States. Because of the United States’growing intention to contain China’s development， frictions between the world’s two largest economies have increased significantly. Third， the biggest transformation is the reform of the global governance system. Changes in the international balance of power requires further improvement of the existing international order， even when this process may be very difficult.

As the international balance of power changes， the composition of leadership in international organizations also needs to be adjusted accordingly. The G20， with the participation of many developing countries， has become more influential， while the G7， which is composed entirely of developed countries， has seen its status greatly reduced. Developing countries have had a greater say in the international community， and many important leading positions in international organizations are now held by people from developing countries. Unwilling to lose its leadership and control over major international organizations， the United States has on the one hand adopted an approach of more pragmatic involvement in the existing international mechanisms， and is on the other hand trying to build new US-centered， exclusive multilateral institutions.

The United States is deeply worried about China enjoying the advantages of globalization. It is trying to suppress China and maintain its own hegemony by any means possible， including through trade wars， technological wars and financial wars. Misguided by an outdated Cold War mentality， the US has promoted various forms of “decoupling，” which has not only severely frustrated China-US relations， but also brought great challenges to existing international rules. On the security front， the US has stepped up its so-called “freedom of navigation operations” in the South China Sea， which has provoked conflicts by drawing in countries with which China has maritime disputes. The US is swiftly implementing its IndoPacific strategy to carry out intimidating activities against China with the help of Japan， Australia and its other allies and partners. The US has also escalated the tensions in the Taiwan Strait and taken advantage of the Taiwan question to disrupt China’s development process. On the economic front， the US， in violation of World Trade Organization （WTO） rules， has imposed high tariffs on Chinese products and put pressure on Chinese companies by starting a trade war. In the field of science and technology， the US has strictly limited bilateral scientific and technological exchanges and cooperation， trying to eliminate competitors of American enterprises by cracking down on Chinese technology companies like Huawei.

China is a beneficiary and promoter of globalization. Thanks to its own efforts， China has become the world’s second largest economy， the largest goods trading country and the second largest destination for foreign investment in the process of globalization. For many consecutive years， China has contributed over 30 percent of global economic growth and over 70 percent of global poverty reduction，34 and is fostering a new pattern of economic globalization through its Belt and Road Initiative.35 Kerry Brown， a research fellow at the Chatham House， has got it right when he said in 2008 that China would be fundamental to the solution of three main global problems， namely the environment， energy， and the economy， in the coming decade， and China would “help decide how the world proceeds， and how， as a race， we are able to make sustainable and prosperous futures.”36

Contradictions in globalization place higher demands on building a new model of international relations

Globalization has enabled countries to accelerate their development， but whether opportunities can translate into reality depends on whether countries can formulate the right development strategies according to their own characteristics and give full play to their comparative advantages. Although globalization has promoted the overall growth of the world economy， different countries have benefited unevenly from it.

Developed countries， such as the European nations and the United States， occupy a dominant position in the global division of labor and obtain huge economic profits from the globalization process. Multinational enterprises in developed countries are staunch supporters of globalization， because they have benefited from a stable political and economic environment and the proper implementation of government policies. Some developing countries have actively integrated into the process of globalization by obtaining the capital， technology， management experience， market and resources needed for their own economic development and accelerating industrial innovation. Since the launch of its reform and opening-up， China has continuously enhanced its ability to participate in globalization and international trade and economic cooperation. It has successfully overcome various difficulties and challenges after its accession to the WTO， and made great achievements in international trade， overseas investment and financial cooperation. In India’s growing economy， its services sector accounts for a sizeable share of its total exports. With the development of the internet and information technology， it has became possible to outsource services such as data analysis， software development and similar industries that can be redistributed worldwide. Outsourcing provides more space for multinational corporations of developed countries to allocate resources on a global scale for greater profits， but it also creates development opportunities for countries with comparative advantages like India.

However， a series of problems have emerged in the process of globalization. First， global imbalances have increased. Some governments， including those in the developed world， have failed to formulate effective policies to position themselves in the global production and supply chains， thus missing opportunities for development. Some countries lack both high-quality labor and natural resources to integrate into the process of globalization. Others are experiencing political instability， social unrest and economic difficulties. Such countries have been left behind in the process of globalization and become “forgotten corners.” Second， the gap between rich and poor has widened within certain countries. The improvement of productivity and the optimal allocation of various resources across the globe have led to an outflow of a large number of industries from developed countries， leading to the rise of domestic unemployment， especially among less skilled workers. Many in the US feel they have not benefited from globalization， which has fed protectionist sentiment and is a major reason why Trump’s “America First” message has won great support in the country’s so-called Rust Belt. Finally， cultural and institutional differences are at greater risk of being exploited for purposes of political advantage.Although economic globalization promotes people-to-people exchanges， different mentalities and ideas are not automatically appreciated， nor does it necessarily lead to the convergence of systems. Each country has its own national conditions and differences in cultural tradition， values， historical background， development stage and natural endowments. This requires countries to respect each other and seek common ground while shelving differences， rather than seeking hegemony or selfishness. Some US politicians foment the theory of a “clash of civilizations” and are keen on ideological confrontation to create a theoretical basis for their protectionist and unilateralist policies and serve their fundamentally supremacist thinking.

These problems are not caused by globalization itself， but are rooted in the improper policies of those countries to deal with the consequences of globalization. In view of the current anti-globalization sentiment spreading in Western developed countries， all nations are adjusting or reformulating their policies to seize the opportunities associated with a new round of comprehensive national power competition. The policy adjustments and reforms of each country will focus on respective domestic and external strategies and on national security， the results of which will directly determine the future development path of each country， its position in the future international strategic landscape and the evolution of regional and international system. The world’s major powers have stepped up investments in information and communication technology， military， energy， maritime economy， space and even the polar regions. The US is increasing its input in the Asia-Pacific region and has stepped up competition in hotspot areas like the Caucasus， Central Asia， Iran， Iraq， Syria and Myanmar. In the face of non-traditional security issues such as terrorism， climate change， international finance， energy and food， there is new momentum for both cooperation and competition in the international community， particularly among major powers. The Biden administration has reversed Trump’s stance on climate change and appointed former Secretary of State John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change， reviving the issue in international relations. The international community should firmly oppose ideological currents that run counter to the trend of history and make economic globalization more open， inclusive， balanced and beneficial for all.37 The world is colorful because of a diversity of cultures. Despite differences， each culture has its own distinct features and strengths. The international community should enhance dialogues and mutual learning between different civilizations instead of sowing mistrust and promoting civilizational clashes.

Building a New Model of International Relations Conforms to and Promotes Evolution of the International System

The international system is composed of interrelated， interdependent， but also mutually restrictive and even competitive factors. According to James E. Dougherty， the international system is not merely a system composed of states， but also a community of nations. The general term“system” represents the behavior patterns of states， including the factors that influence the stability of the international system， the appropriate mechanisms to maintain its equilibrium， and how the system is influenced by domestic politics. The term “community” involves the cooperative arrangements made by its state members for common interests， including legal principles， standards of conduct and rules and regulations.38 For Immanuel Wallerstein， the current world system， as a social system that has boundaries， structures， member groups， rules of legitimation， and coherence， is a capitalist economic structure in nature. In Wallerstein’s view， the world system is not necessarily equitable or fair， because it is fundamentally driven by capital accumulation and unequal exchanges.Therefore， the current world system has contradictions that are difficult to overcome by itself.39

The international system is characterized by four main factors， first the actors that are participating in the international system， second the rules and norms that are governing the behavior of actors in the international system， third the structure of power distribution and organizational relations in the international system， and fourth the interaction， or the interconnection and functions of actors in the international system. The international system is characterized by integrity， continuity and stability. However， as the above four elements are always developing and changing， the accumulation of quantitative changes over a long period of time will eventually also lead to a fundamental shift in the international system. The modern international system is based on the European system which came into being in the 17th century and gradually expanded outwards. The European nations ended the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia， which established the basic principles of modern international relations. Subsequently， the international system went through several historical stages， such as the Vienna System， the Versailles-Washington System and the Yalta System. When the United States became the only remaining superpower after the end of the Cold War， some American scholars trumpeted the argument of the “end of history，” believing that American capitalism had from now on become the final form of human society. However， history has not taken the trajectory predicted by these people， as the decline of the United States and the shortcomings of American-style capitalism have increasingly shown. Instead， since the transition to the 21st century， the international system has been undergoing unprecedented and profound changes.

The power factor plays a decisive role in international relations. The power structure of international relations has always fundamentally influenced and shaped the establishment， development and reform of international systems， while the self-interests of countries drive them to properly deal with the issue of institutional cooperation with other parties.40 Changes in a country’s strength often lead to revisions of its concepts for cooperation or competition with the outside world， which is driven not only by considerations about its interests but also by the need to reform the international system to maintain its own competitive advantage.

Tremendous shifts of the international situation have occurred in the past 30 years since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It was only a decade after America had basked in the victory over its former Cold War rival that the September 11 terrorist attacks on the New York Twin Towers in 2001 pushed Americans back to reality. Immediately afterwards， President George W. Bush declared a state of war and positioned himself as a “wartime president.” He first took aim at al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan， claiming that the September 11 attacks were a new kind of war against liberal democracy in the United States.41 After overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan， the US launched a “pre-emptive”war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein， then Iraq’s president， was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. However， the US has to this day not produced any hard evidence to back up its allegations against Iraq， and the international community now generally believes that the US has deviated from the original objective of fighting terrorism by using its anti-terrorism campaign to simply maintain and consolidate its global hegemony. Misguided by erroneous policies， the US-led war on terrorism has lost all legitimacy and moral support. The anti-US and anti-Western sentiment spreading globally has to some extent bred new extremist and terrorist forces， while the US military is increasingly isolated in its war against terror.

For its war in Iraq， the US has invested huge military， political and economic resources. At its peak， the number of US troops in Iraq reached nearly 200，000. The war costs once hit an average of $290 million per day and nearly $9 billion a month， which has over the years accumulated a total cost of several trillion dollars.42 In the face of such huge military spending on counter-terrorism overseas， Obama had to adjust US foreign and security policies after taking office. He was forced to downsize the anti-terror front， no longer blindly use military threats in hot situations， and increase his reliance on other major countries and multilateral mechanisms. However， the turn to the “America First” philosophy and the vigorous pursuit of unilateralist policies under the succeeding Trump administration was widely opposed by the international community. When the Democrat Joe Biden came to power in early 2021， he vowed to return to multilateral cooperation， but he did not abandon the core of Trump’s policies and still insisted on maintaining US hegemony in the world.

On the other hand， China， whose participation in the construction of the international system can be roughly divided into four periods， has been playing a more active and significant role on the world stage. From the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 to 1971， China made great efforts to regain its rightful membership in the United Nations （UN） and its status in other international organizations. However， due to isolation and blockade by Western countries， China’s exchanges with foreign nations were greatly restricted and its influence on the international system was very limited. After resuming its position in the UN in 1971， China began to participate in building the international system， although its participation still largely remained passive due to limited external contacts and lack of familiarity with the international system and rules. With the introduction of reform and opening-up in 1978， China began to more deeply involved in building the international system and its capabilities in this regard have witnessed significant progress. During the period， China joined more than 130 international organizations， participated in nearly 300 multilateral international conventions， and actively fulfilled relevant obligations， thus expanding its international influence in an unprecedented way.43 Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China， President Xi Jinping has profoundly grasped the development trend of China and the world in the 21st century， and has made a series of great innovations in China’s foreign policy. He launched a set of crucial initiatives in areas such as economic development， peace and security， environmental protection， global governance and people-to-people exchanges. These Chinese plans have become the public wisdom leading the world’s progress， boosting China’s influence on the international system to a new level.

Institution-building is an important part of the construction of the international system. Institutionalized multilateral participation enhances the binding force of the international system and helps maintain its continuity and stability. Since the end of World War II， the international community has never abandoned the effort to achieve world peace， development and prosperity despite continuous outbreaks of local conflicts and wars. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter reflect the aspirations of the people across the world for a just and equitable international order. However， institutions are still largely the product of power， and the international order established after World War II still has its unjust and unreasonable elements. At the second summit conference of heads of state or government of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1964， the developing countries for the first time put forward an initiative to establish a new international economic order.44 In 1974， the sixth special session of the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and the Program of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order.45 In 1984， when China first proposed the establishment of a new international political and economic order， Deng Xiaoping pointed out in his meeting with the president of Myanmar that the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence was the best way to handle state-to-state relations.46 Other approaches， such as the “extended family” approach and the “sphere of influence” approach， would lead to conflicts or exacerbate the situation. In September 1988， when meeting with the prime minister of Sri Lanka， Deng Xiaoping stressed that the international community needed to establish not only a new economic order， but also a new political order， which meant ending hegemonism and implementing the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. In a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in December 1988， Deng again pointed out that as the overall world situation was changing and all countries were considering new policies to support the establishment of a new international order， the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence should be used as the norm to guide international relations.47 At the UN General Assembly in September 1990， then Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen called for the establishment of a peaceful， stable， just and rational new international political and economic order. He stressed that the new political order should be based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence， while equality and mutual benefit should be the guiding principles of the new economic order. He further pointed out that every country has the right to choose its social system， economic model and development path in line with its national conditions.48

As China’s overall national strength continues to grow， its influence on the international system is also increasing. China has become an active participant in， a strong builder of， and an important contributor to the existing international system. However， the historical context in which the current international system was established has witnessed major changes， and over the years the imperfect， unjust and unreasonable elements of the current system have been further exposed.

First， the international political system is clearly flawed. A resilient multilateral international system with the United Nations at its core has yet to be truly established. Hegemonic thinking and power politics often threaten the UN’s authority in safeguarding world peace and security. The representation of developing countries in the UN Security Council needs to be increased. And international relations that follow democratic principles and international law are far from being realized.

Second， the international economic system has significant deficiencies. The development of the vast majority of poor countries has not received enough attention. The multilateral trading system has been severely disrupted by unilateralism and trade protectionism. Some developed countries adopt unfair anti-dumping legislation that suppresses developing countries. The risk of turbulence in the international financial system has intensified against the backdrop of continued quantitative easing measures in the United States. And industrialized nations have become increasingly inward-looking and have failed to shoulder their due responsibilities in terms of balanced and coordinated global development.

Third， the international security system is obviously unstable. Many political figures in several countries， especially the United States， are still clinging to an obsolete Cold War mentality， which has seriously affected normal exchanges and cooperation between countries. The position of the UN， which should have been the linchpin of the collective security mechanism， is constantly undermined by frequent hegemonic practices. The international arms control and non-proliferation system is in a quagmire and unable to perform its due functions. In the face of the deteriorating security situation in many parts of the world， there is often no mechanism to coordinate effective actions and propose feasible solutions.

Finally， the system of international dialogue among civilizations is not yet perfect. The cultural and ideological struggles in the world are still very complex with deep-rooted origins， and conflicts between some civilizations and religions are still developing and even intensifying.49 Therefore， building a new model of international relations is not only an inevitable requirement resulting from our historical experiences， but also a practical need for the international community to respond to these common challenges.

Conclusion

The building of a new model of international relations requires the joint efforts of the international community. China as the largest developing country and the Unites States as the largest developed country in the world must jointly shoulder special responsibilities for maintaining world peace and stability and for promoting worldwide development and prosperity. With the deepening of economic globalization and multi-polarization of the international power structure， the hegemonic practices of the United States are bound to face more restraints. Since the beginning of the 21st century， the US strategy towards China has been vascillating between engagement， cooperation， and a combination of the two. Former US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick urged China to become a responsible “stakeholder” in the international system，50 while Condoleezza Rice， former Secretary of State， saw rising powers such as India， China， Brazil， Indonesia and South Africa exerting an increasing influence on the course of history in the 21st century.51 In a Foreign Affairs article， American scholar Daniel Drezner argued that China and India were emerging as political and economic heavyweights in the new world order.52 Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair pointed out that the balance of influence in the world is undergoing the most significant shift in centuries， tilting towards China and other Eastern countries.“The Chinese leadership has got the strength and determination and the capability of overcoming the challenges it has encountered in the course of development，” he said.53 The American historian Warren Cohen also said，“Nixon and Kissinger could not anticipate the rapidity of China’s ascension to the top rank of world powers. Nor could Mao or Zhou. The US-Chinese relationship requires adjustments to the status of China.”54

At present， Sino-US relations have reached a new crossroads. America’s anxiety about China’s rise has never been greater， and it is once again faced with the choice of being friend or foe with China. US government officials have repeatedly asserted that China has become the United States’ primary strategic competitor. While former US politician Henry Kissinger， in a recent interview， rejected a “crusade” against China， saying that China has been a major country for thousands of years and the recovery of China should be not surprising， he also believes that “America， for the first time in its history， is facing a country of potentially comparable capacities in economics and with great historic skill in conducting international affairs，” and therefore it must “prevent Chinese hegemony” while learning to “coexist with a country of that magnitude.”55 Although the unilateralist Trump administration has been out of office， the Biden administration is still trying to preserve US hegemony through the formation of selective and exclusive multilateral institutions. In the end， the US should face China’s development with an open and inclusive mind， work with China to build a new model of majorcountry relationships， and safeguard world peace， stability and progress. The international community also needs to jointly and firmly promote the building of a new model of international relations featuring mutual respect， fairness and justice， and win-win cooperation， and actively commits to the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.

1 “Xi Jinping Meets with Diplomatic Envoys to Foreign Countries and Delivers an Important Speech，”Xinhua， December 28， 2017， http：//www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2017-12/28/c_1122181743.htm.

2 Xi Jinping， “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era--Delivered at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China，” October 18， 2017， http：//www.gov.cn/ zhuanti/2017-10/27/content_5234876.htm.

3 “Study Series of Important Speeches of General Secretary Xi Jinping，” http：//cpc.people.com. cn/n/2014/0829/c164113-25568624.html.

4 “Speech by Xi Jinping at the Ceremony Marking the 95th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China，” Xinhua， July 1， 2016， http：//www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-07/01/c_1119150660. htm？2017/04/03/689442.html.

5 “Xi Jinping： The Future of the World Should Be Decieded by the Peoples of All Countries，” Xinhua， August 9， 2015， http：//www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-08/09/c_1116192264.htm.

6 Xi Jinping， “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era--Delivered at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. ”

7 “Xi Jinping： We Do Not Provoke and We Will Not Flinch from Provocations，” March 30， 2014， http：//world. people.com.cn/n/2014/0330/c157278-24773400.html？from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0.

8 “Keynote Speech by President Xi Jinping at the Opening Ceremony of the First China International Import Expo，” November 5， 2018， http：//cpc.people.com.cn/n1/2018/1106/c64094-30383522.html.

9 “Address by President Xi Jinping at the Meeting Marking the 60th Anniversary of the Initiation of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence，” Xinhua， June 28， 2014， http：//www.xinhuanet.com//politics/2014-06/28/c_1111364206_2.htm.

10 “The Pandemic Has Brought China-ASEAN Community of Shared Future Closer， ” August 26， 2020， http：//www.cssn.cn/gjgxx/gj_rdzx/202008/t20200826_5174267.shtml.

11 “Jointly Shoulder Responsibility of Our Times， Promote Global Growth--Keynote Speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Opening Session of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2017 Davos，”Xinhua， January 18， 2017， http：//www.xinhuanet.com/mrdx/2017-01/18/c_135992405.htm.

12 “Xi Jinping： Make Global Governance System More Fair and Equitable， ” October 13， 2015， http：// politics.people.com.cn/n/2015/1013/c1024-27693452.html.

13 Ibid.

14 “Written Interview Given by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Major Media Agencies of Four Latin American and Caribbean Countries，” July 14， 2014， https：//www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/ zyjh_665391/t1185623.shtml.

15 “Xi Jinping： China Is Advocate and Practitioner of Win-Win Cooperation，” December 6， 2012， http：// cpc.people.com.cn/n/2012/1206/c64094-19806788.html.

16 Xi Jinping on the Belt And Road Initiative， Central Party Literature Press， 2018， p.64.

17 Xu Bu， “The Theory of Harmonious World and the Construction of International System，” Peace and Development， No.2， 2008， pp.3-4.

18 “WHO： Cumulative Number of Global COVID-19 Confirmed Cases Reaches 81，475，053，” Xinhua， January 1， 2021， http：//www.xinhuanet.com/2021-01/01/c_1126935178.htm.

19 “US COVID Cases Surpasses 20 Million，” Xinhua， January 2， 2021， http：//www.xinhuanet.com/ world/2021-01/02/c_1126939147.htm.

20 Selected Works of Marx and Engels， Vol. III， People’s Publishing House， 2012， pp.997-998.

21 “The Global Economic Outlook During the Covid-19 Pandemic： A Changed World，” World Bank， June 8， 2020， https：//www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-thecovid-19.

22 “China’s Economy Grows 2.3% in 2020 as Recovery Quickens，” CNN， January 18， 2021， https：//www. cnn.com/2021/01/17/economy/china-gdp-2020-intl-hnk/index.html.

23 “Mayor Bill De Blasio Criticizes President Trump’s Response to Coronavirus Pandemic： ‘This Is Patently Unacceptable’，” CBSN， March 19， 2020， https：//newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/03/19/coronavirusmayor-de-blasio-trump-federal-government-help.

24 Jackson Diehl， “Mike Pompeo Is the Worst Secretary of State in History，” The Washington Post， August 31， 2020.

25 Stephen Roach， “Chine： un bouc emissaire bien commode pour les Americains，” Les Echos， Avr.1， 2021.

26 George Packer， “We Are Living in a Failed State，” The Atlantic， June 2020， https：//www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2020/06/underlying-conditions/610261.

27 “The ‘American Dream’ Is a True Lie，” December 11， 2020， http：//world.people.com.cn/gb/ n1/2020/1211/c1002-31963295.html.

28 George Packer， “We Are Living in a Failed State.”

29 “America First Policy Makes Covid-19 the Last of the U.S. Priorities，” CGTN， April 3， 2020， https：// news.cgtn.com/news/2020-04-03/Pompeo-s-America-First-makes-COVID-19-last-of-the-U-S-prioritiesPorBBp6lPi/index.html.

30 Shane Harris， “To Prepare for the Next Pandemic， the U.S. Needs to Change its National Security Priorities， Experts Say，” The Washington Post， June 17， 2020.

31 “Wang Yi： The World Today Is Faced with Three Types of Deficit Problems，” June 4， 2018， http：// www.fmcoprc.gov.mo/eng/news/t1566207.htm.

32 Selected Works of Marx and Engels， Vol.I， translated by the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau， People’s Publishing House， 1995， p.88.

33 Jeffery A. Hart， “Review of The World is Flat： A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Friedman，” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management， March 2006， Vol.25， No.2， p.494.

34 Le Yucheng， “China： A Source of Certainty and Stability in a Changing World，” October 22， 2019， https：//www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/zyjh_665391/t1709807.shtml.

35 Shi Bin， “China’s View of International Order in the New Era： Concepts， Policy Orientation and Practical Approaches，” China International Studies， No.2， 2021， p.56.

36 Kerry Brown， “Why China Matters to Us All，” The Times， July 14， 2008， https：//www.thetimes.co.uk/ article/why-china-matters-to-us-all-sdn0srxr5l2.

37 Wang Yi， “Serving the Country and Contributing to the World： China’s Diplomacy in a Time of Unprecedented Global Changes and a Once-in-a-Century Pandemic，” China International Studies， No.1， 2021， p.15.

38 For a detailed discussion of the international system， see James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr.， Contending Theories of International Relations： A Comprehensive Survey， 5th edition， translated by Yan Xuetong and Chen Hanxi， World Affairs Press， 2013， pp.104-154.

39 For a detailed discussion of Wallerstein’s theory of the world system， see Xu Jia et al.， A Study of International Relations Theories in America， Current Affairs Press， 2008， pp.272-283.

40 Shu Jianzhong， The Multilateral Trade System and American Hegemony， Nanjing University Press， 2009， p.266.

41 “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America，” September 2002， https：//2009-2017. state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf.

42 “Report： Iraq War Costs US$2.2 Trillion，” Huanqiu， March 15， 2013， https：//world.huanqiu.com/ article/9CaKrnJzGfc.

43 Xu Bu， “Reflections on the Adjustment and Construction of International Order，” Foreign Affairs Review， No.4， 2009， pp.7-9.

44 Wang Shengzu， The History of International Relations， Vol. 9， World Affairs Press， 1995， pp.38 & 75.

45 Xu Bu， “Harmonious World Theory and the Construction of International System，” p.3.

46 “Strong Vitality of the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence： Key Points of Deng Xiaoping’s Talk with President of Myanmar U San Yu， ” http：//www.locpg.hk/jsdt/1984-10/31/c_125955724.htm.

47 Xu Bu， “Harmonious World Theory and the Construction of International System，” p.4.

48 “China’s Concept of New International Order，” September 28， 2015， http：//ihl.cankaoxiaoxi. com/2015/0928/953193.shtm.

49 Xu Bu， “The Theory of American Decline and the Construction of the Current International Order，”Contemporary International Relations， No.7， 2014， p.26.

50 Robert B. Zoellick， “Whither China： From Membership to Responsibility？” US Department of State Archive， September 21， 2005， https：//2001-2009.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm.

51 Condoleeza Rice， “Transforming Diplomacy，” US Department of State Archive， January 18， 2006， https：//2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm.

52 Daniel W. Drezner， “The New World Order，” Foreign Affairs， March/April， 2007， https：//www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/2007-03-01/new-new-world-order.

53 “Tony Blair Says Britain Intends to Be "Best Western Partner" of China，” Huanqiu， October 18， 2015， https：//www.globaltimes.cn/content/947689.shtml.

54 Warren I. Cohen， “Chinese Lessons： Nixon， Mao， and the Course of U.S.-Chinese Relations，” Foreign Affairs， Vol.86， No.2， 2007， pp.148-154.

55 Mathias Dopfner， “Interview： Henry Kissinger on the Political Consequences of the Pandemic and China’s Rise， and the Future of the European Union，” https：//www.henryakissinger.com/interviews/henrykissinger-on-the-political-consequences-of-the-pandemic-chinas-rise-and-the-future-of-the-european-union.