africa.chinadaily.com.cn
From WWII Alliance to Current Tensions: A Call for Global Harmony
The article contrasts the WWII alliance of the US, China, and Russia with current tensions, arguing that the West's hegemonic approach, influenced by realist philosophies, must be replaced by a multilateral approach prioritizing harmony and common security, as exemplified by China's initiatives.
- How does the "realist" school of international relations contribute to the current geopolitical landscape, and what alternative philosophies are proposed?
- The author argues that the "realist" school of international relations, exemplified by John Mearsheimer's views, promotes a dangerous "law of the jungle" philosophy. This contrasts with the Bandung Spirit, combining UN principles and China's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, advocating for multilateralism and harmony.
- What are the key historical shifts that explain the current tensions between the US, China, and Russia, and how do these tensions threaten global stability?
- The article highlights rising tensions between the US, China, and Russia, contrasting this with their WWII alliance against Nazism. It emphasizes the shift from wartime cooperation to Cold War rivalry, shaped by US policies like the 1947 National Security Act and McCarthyism, alongside China's pursuit of independence.
- What are the long-term implications of China's initiatives for global governance and peace, and how might these initiatives challenge existing power structures?
- China's economic rise and its initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative are presented as alternatives to Western hegemony. The author suggests that adopting Asian wisdom and prioritizing common security over national interests is crucial to prevent global conflict.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the current international landscape as a struggle between a Western, hegemonic approach and a Chinese-promoted vision of multilateralism and harmony. This is evident from the title and the recurring emphasis on the contrast between the "law of the jungle" and the "Bandung Spirit." The article utilizes historical examples to support its narrative, frequently highlighting the negative consequences of Western power dynamics and implicitly positioning China's approach as a more peaceful and beneficial alternative. This framing could influence readers to perceive China's initiatives as superior and Western foreign policy as inherently problematic.
Language Bias
The article employs strong, emotive language to describe certain historical events and political ideologies. Terms such as "selfish and destructive obsession," "paranoid 'red scare'," and "cynical condition" carry negative connotations and clearly portray particular political actors in an unflattering light. While such language might be used to emphasize certain points, it compromises neutrality and objectivity. More neutral alternatives could be used to present a less biased perspective. For example, instead of "paranoid 'red scare'," one could say "heightened tensions during the Cold War."
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on a historical analysis of US foreign policy and its impact on global relations, particularly mentioning the Cold War and the rise of the military-industrial complex. However, it omits detailed analysis of other major global powers' roles and perspectives in shaping these historical events, such as the actions and motivations of other European nations or the impact of decolonization movements beyond the mentioned Bandung Conference. The article's omission of these perspectives could limit the reader's understanding of the complex geopolitical forces at play and lead to an incomplete picture of historical context.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a stark dichotomy between the "law of the jungle" (representing realpolitik and hegemonic power struggles) and the pursuit of harmony and multilateralism. While acknowledging complexities within the historical narrative, it ultimately frames the choice as one between these two extremes, potentially overlooking more nuanced approaches or alternative paths to international cooperation. The simplistic framing of the debate might oversimplify the complexities of international relations and limit reader's ability to consider intermediate solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article emphasizes the need for international cooperation and harmony to prevent global conflict, aligning with SDG 16. It critiques the realist school of international relations, which justifies power politics and conflict, and promotes multilateralism and a shared future for mankind. China's peaceful development and initiatives like the Global Security Initiative are presented as examples of this approach.