China’s Global Security Initiative is an Alarm for Sanity in an Insane World

By Moshi Israel

To some, referring to our world as ‘insane’ might come off as a bit too harsh but I beg to differ. If one employs a sharp lens to examine the current global order, it is more than likely that one will reach a similar conclusion. This does not ignore the advantages and progress of the current global system.

The insanity in the current global order lies in the continuous weakening of our global institutions due to the unilateral gangsterism of powerful countries. This problem is almost ironically complimented by the other side of the coin of state unilateralism, which is the increased uncontrollable power of non-state actors such as Multi-National Corporations or Big business interests. Additionally, the climate crisis and the recent Covid-19 pandemic have also proven to be a challenge to and a strain on the established global order.

The consequences of a system that tolerates unilateralism and unchecked pursuit of profits by Big Business is a world of war, imperialism, injustice, and inequality. Under such a world, the global south must abandon all hope of catching up with the rest of the developed world. Such a system encourages politics of intimidation, blackmail, and gun-point relations. It is a jungle rules system where only the strong survive. This kind of catastrophic arrangement has unfortunately worked for many countries in the West especially the United States which has enjoyed unchecked power for several decades. It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely and every hegemon tends to be corrupted by its own power.

It is, therefore, with this background that one must appreciate the Global Security Initiative (GSI) put forward by President Xi Jinping. China given its history rooted in Confucianism which advocates for a harmonious existence with oneself and everyone else perhaps better understands the significance of a better global system based on the principles of peace and corporation for common prosperity for all.

The GSI puts forward six common sense commitments that should govern international relations and perhaps as I said bring sanity to an insane world. The first commitment pertains to the issue of security which should be common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable. It is a call to focus on long-term solutions that seek to eliminate the breeding grounds for problems. These solutions should be based on morality, justice, and the right ideas.

Secondly, a commitment should be made to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. This is a fundamental ideal of the United Nations Charter and it links with the empowerment and respect of the UN as an institution.  If countries respect and recognize each other’s inherent right to self-govern and exist as equal partners on the global stage, then it is my view that half of the world’s problems could be addressed.

The next commitment that China advocates is that of abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN charter. This complements the previous commitment and also goes deeper into other rules concerning international relations in areas of commerce. The purpose of the UN charter was to create an ideal world based on the liberal ideologies of equality and justice leading to the ultimate goal of collective security and peace.

The fourth commitment entails taking into account the legitimate security concerns of other countries. It seeks to redress the problems caused by unilateralism or long-arm jurisdiction to interfere with the security of other countries. There cannot be world peace if some states are aggrieved and feel targeted. This is to many scholars the root cause of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Therefore, taking into account other countries’ concerns can literally avert war and promote negotiation through dialogue and diplomacy which is the major concern of commitment five. It involves the peaceful resolution of differences through dialogue and consultation. This is what China championed in the Iran-Saudi peace plan and it is what the United States failed to do when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The sixth commitment demands that countries remain committed to maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains. Threats to security come in various forms ranging from Terrorism to climate change, cybersecurity, and biosecurity. The security frameworks of today must take into account the transnational nature of threats and solutions and also appreciate their diversity. Therefore, cooperation, consultation, and mutual benefit should drive international relations if there is any hope to achieve long-lasting security.

In short, the GSI calls for global reform and transformation based on multilateralism for the good of all. We might never achieve true equality and we might never eliminate all the world’s challenges. However, China’s GSI calls on global leaders to try and create an ideal and safe world that is inclusive of all. It is an alarm for some semblance of sanity. GSI provides a common-sense framework that sets the world up for success measured by economic, social, cultural, and sustainable development, peaceful coexistence, and a better world for all.

Moshi Israel is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Rwanda Deploys Joint Force To Mozambique.

The Government of Rwanda, at the request of the Government of Mozambique is in the process of deploying a 1,000-person contingent of the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and the Rwanda National Police (RNP) to Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique, which is currently affected by terrorism and insecurity.

The Joint Force commanded by Maj Gen Innocent Kabandana, will work closely with Mozambique Armed Defence Forces (FADM) and forces from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in designated sectors of responsibility.

The Rwandan contingent will support efforts to restore Mozambican state authority by conducting combat and security operations, as well as stabilisation and security-sector reform (SSR).

The RDF Army Chief of Staff, Lt Gen Mubarakh Muganga briefed the departing contingent on behalf of the RDF Chief of Defence Staff, reminding them to uphold RDF values that include honour, patriotism, valour, and integrity. “Be always guided by the RDF values and discipline, have team spirit, and safeguard the good image of Rwanda by performing well,” said Lt Gen Muganga.

.                            Photo credit: Ministry of Defence, Rwanda.

This deployment is based on the good bilateral relations between the Republic of Rwanda and the Republic of Mozambique, following the signing of several agreements between the two countries in 2018, and is grounded in Rwanda’s commitment to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and the 2015 Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians.

Source: Ministry of Defence, Rwanda.

Revisionism: In this analysis essay, Frank Gavin emphasizes the importance of taking a second look at history and challenging our assumptions about the past.

By Frank Gavin

Scholarship is not only about discovery of the new. It is also about challenging the old, or rather, what we think we already know. This can be difficult, even controversial, and never more so than when the subject being reexamined and revised is our own history. It is easy to forget that history is not simply a recounting of what has happened, but also the way we decide to remember, recount, and make sense of the past.

We often hold stylized narratives of the past in our heads that we believe to be unassailable. Ask an intelligent observer to outline the story of America’s engagement with the world after 1945, and he or she might offer a clear, bifurcated story: There was the Cold War and the post-Cold War era. The Cold War would likely be identified as an uninterrupted geopolitical and ideological conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States that began soon after World War II was over and ended with the revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989. The analyst might suggest that the United States prevailed by relentlessly pursuing the decades-long strategy of containment, articulated by George Kennan in his 1946 “Long Telegram.” With the collapse of the Berlin Wall and eventually the Soviet Union itself, the United States rapidly switched, like the film The Wizard of Oz, from black and white to color and to something completely different: America’s hegemonic, unipolar moment and the rise of liberal internationalism.

Upon closer examination, this seamless portrayal obscures as much as it reveals. Kennan’s version of political and economic containment was abandoned as a failure in the early 1950s, replaced by a more muscular military posture that he spent the rest of his career disparaging. Two especially intense periods of confrontation when global war was a distinct possibility — 1949 to 1953 and 1958 to 1962 — were interposed between longer periods of simmering competition and occasional détente and even cooperation. Even as ensuing administrations worked to craft comprehensive and effective national security strategies, as Paul Lettow’s article in this issue ably chronicles, America’s policies shifted while defense budgets rose and fell and rose again, in a rhythm driven as much by the vicissitudes of domestic politics as by any coherent long-term plan. As late as 1979, few would have assessed that the United States was ahead in the competition with the Soviet Union, to say nothing of being poised to ultimately prevail, and as late as 1986, fewer still would have predicted the great rivalry would soon be over forever. The United States did not appear to be especially hegemonic in the early years of the post-Cold War era: U.S. economic prospects seemed uncertain and American grand strategy stumbled, appearing ineffectual against such noted great-power political foes as the Somali rebels, Rwandan Hutus, Haiti, and Serbia.

Historical revisionism — the kind that dares us to challenge and interrogate strongly held assumptions about the past — helps push against our natural, if somewhat unhelpful, tendency toward retrospective or outcome bias: Since we know how a story like the Cold War ended, we can’t help but construct a neat narrative of inevitability. Revisionism also allows us to complicate our understanding of chronology and periodization. The conventional narrative of postwar international relations and U.S. grand strategy focuses on Europe and the U.S.-Soviet competition. The reality of world politics after 1945 was far messier, and a variety of forces —such as decolonization and the emergence of new nations; regional rivalries and conflict; European integration and eventual union; the rise of political Islam; and globalization and the financial, telecommunications, and rights revolutions — shaped global affairs as much, if not at times more, than the Cold War superpower rivalry.

The problem with a simplistic Cold War/post-Cold War narrative is exposed in Samuel Helfont’s fascinating reexamination of the 1991 Gulf War. The conventional wisdom sees the war as a military triumph for the United States that exorcised the demons of the Vietnam War and helped establish the practice of collective security while reinvigorating global institutions for an American-led liberal international order. This picture, however, was clouded by a post-conflict sanctions regime that impoverished the Iraqi people without unseating Saddam Hussein’s brutal Baathist regime, harming America’s global image while splintering the wartime coalition. The Gulf War was only the start of greater difficulties in a region that has been the cause of much grief for the United States ever since.

Re-thinking the Gulf War also complicates the issue of periodization, or how we mark and define historical eras. For many, the Gulf War was the first major event of the post-Cold War world. Another way to look at the conflict, however, was as an outgrowth and culmination of political dynamics that had been brewing in the region for years. The two key dates here are 1967 and 1979. Up through the mid-1960s, the Middle East was not a grand strategic priority for the United States, trailing well behind Europe, East Asia, and even Latin America in importance. Great Britain was the major Western presence in the region. The 1967 Six-Day War changed all of that. The Soviet Union appeared to seek greater influence in the Middle East, providing weapons and egging on client states Egypt and Syria, while financial and monetary burdens forced Great Britain to drastically reduce its footprint. Stuck in an unwinnable war in Southeast Asia, the United States could do little on its own to counter the Soviet gambit. While Israel easily prevailed in the conflict, America’s concern for Soviet regional influence drove it to establish deeper strategic ties with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Within a decade, America’s efforts to reverse Soviet influence in the region had been largely successful but at a steep cost: The Middle East had been elevated as a grand strategic priority while the United States had tied itself closer to arguably problematic regimes and even more problematic, complex regional dynamics. This left America exposed during the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran that not only transformed Iran but also the larger politics in the region. In this viewing, the Gulf War was not the clean, resounding start of a new era, but the messy interlude of a complex American commitment whose relation to the Cold War was uncertain.

Lindsey Ford and Zack Cooper similarly force us to re-think periodization and stylized histories in their excellent analysis of what 1969 can teach us today. The Nixon administration, which was reeling from the Vietnam War, facing powerful domestic calls for retrenchment, and hoping to reset American grand strategy in a more sustainable fashion, declared that its allies in East Asia had to do more to provide for their own security. Ford and Cooper reveal the varying paths different countries in the region took in response to this mandate, ranging from moving closer to the United States to accommodating threatening powers in the region.

Nixon’s Guam doctrine reflected Cold War and regional dynamics in East Asia that were much different than those in Europe. Korea was divided, Vietnam a disaster, integrative alliances like NATO and the European Union elusive, and China, after 1972, an ally of convenience. As Adam Tooze reminds us, “The simple fact is that the US did not prevail in the Cold War in Asia.” As the Communist Party’s ruthless massacre of protestors in Tiananmen Square revealed, Beijing did not share America’s view of history and world order. The Communist Party leadership was obsessed, then and now, with avoiding what it saw as the Soviet Union’s grave mistakes in the Cold War competition with the United States. Looking at today’s rivalry with China, Tooze suggests,

The mistake in thinking that we are in a ‘new Cold War’ is in thinking of it as new. In putting a full stop after 1989 we prematurely declare a Western victory. From Beijing’s point of view, there was no end of history, but a continuity — not unbroken, needless to say, and requiring constant reinterpretation, as any live political tradition does, but a continuity nevertheless.

In other words, not only did the Cold War play out differently in East Asia than it Europe, the history, meaning, and lessons from the conflict are understood much differently in Beijing than they are in Washington D.C. China, no doubt, has the lessons from the history of the Soviet-U.S. Cold War rivalry in mind as it reflects upon the utility of proxy wars as a tool of great-power political competition. Dominic Tierney’s analysis of the future of Sino-U.S. proxy war provides an excellent way to assess such conflicts, should they emerge as he expects.

Historical revisionism can be applied not only to events, but to institutions and practices. Since 9/11, as Susan Bryant, Brett Swaney, and Heidi Urben remind us, the military has been held in especially high esteem within American society. But as their fascinating survey reveals, such exceptionalism can come at a cost: The long-held and cherished notion of the non-ideological citizen-soldier gives way to a more politicized and perhaps isolated servicemember. Jim Golby and Hugh Liebert suggest that lessons from ancient history — particularly the classic works of Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius — may provide a better understanding and guide to the important norms of civilian control of the military.

My guess is that, like me, you will come away from this issue with a mix of reactions, from nodding acknowledgement to seeing an old problem in a different way to a fierce desire to contact the authors and argue with them. That is the desired outcome for any good journal. Challenging and revising history — and the assumptions and myths behind that history — is rarely comfortable, especially as the past provokes strong feelings for many people. I have long thought that an underappreciated but important measure of a nation’s underlying social and civic health is its ability to tolerate, and even encourage, historical revisionism. It is easy to forget how hard — and how rare — it is to create an intellectual, political, and socio-cultural environment that encourages a willingness to challenge any conviction, no matter how widely shared or deeply held. The results are often messy and contentious and unpopular. It is well worth the price, however. Historical revisionism —to ruthlessly examine and wrestle with our most treasured beliefs and assumptions — is a critical path to humility, understanding, and wisdom.



Development Watch Centre

Kampala - Uganda


Plot 212, RTG Plaza,3rd Floor, Office Number C7 - Hoima Road, Rubaga


+256 703 380252

© DWC - All rights reserved - Cookies Policy - Privacy Policy