![]() |
|
The Community of Shared Future for Mankind: The Huge Gap Between Ideal and Reality - Printable Version +- Ipoh Community Forums (https://forums.ipoh.com.my) +-- Forum: News and Current Affairs (https://forums.ipoh.com.my/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Forum: International News (https://forums.ipoh.com.my/forumdisplay.php?fid=13) +---- Forum: Politics (https://forums.ipoh.com.my/forumdisplay.php?fid=55) +---- Thread: The Community of Shared Future for Mankind: The Huge Gap Between Ideal and Reality (/showthread.php?tid=22041) |
The Community of Shared Future for Mankind: The Huge Gap Between Ideal and Reality - superadmin - 11-21-2025 ![]() Since 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind.” It is the most iconic idea in China’s contemporary foreign-policy discourse. The concept was systematically articulated in the 19th National Congress of the CPC in 2017, subsequently written into UN resolutions and even the Chinese Constitution, and has since become the overarching guideline of Chinese diplomacy. In one sentence, it means: in the face of common challenges such as economic globalization, climate crises, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation, no country can stand alone. Nations must transcend differences in ideology and social systems, respect one another, and pursue win-win cooperation instead of zero-sum confrontation. On the surface, this is almost impossible to dispute. Who would openly oppose “win-win cooperation”? Who would admit they prefer confrontation? Yet more than eight years later, this concept has encountered not mere indifference in the West—especially the United States—but instinctive hostility and systematic rejection. The West, particularly Washington, does not hide its position: the rise of China itself constitutes a threat to the “liberal international order” and must be contained. This has created one of the sharpest paradoxes in contemporary international relations: the more China calls for “no confrontation,” the more the West believes it is “concealing confrontation.” - Continue reading - |