Editor's note: Maria Francesca Staiano is director of the Latin American Research Academy on a Community with Shared Future and BRI. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

2022 is a "year zero." It could have marked a turning point of evolution towards a formal and substantial multilateralism, but has turned into an involutionary epicenter of international relations. Borrowing the definition of Gabriel Merino, the current era is characterized as a "Hybrid and Fragmented World War." This hybridization is manifested by a multidimensionality of the forms implemented, involving communication, energy, economy, in addition to traditional hard methods.

The structural feature of the global context became more apparent with the situation in Ukraine, where there has been extreme polarization between Russia and Ukraine. NATO's revitalization and the creation of a pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian "Western united front" has crystallized into the mainstream narrative dismissing alternative visions, with instrumentalization not only at the international level but at the domestic politics' level, especially in Europe.

The current situation appears to be a dramaturgical fiction, if we think about the Asian proposals that were brewing until 2022, especially the need for a "new type" "democratization" of foreign relations for a more just and equitable international order, including visions from the Global South. The deepest and most articulated is the idea of ​​generating a "community of shared future for humanity," formulated by China and involving all aspects of international relations in a multidimensional and global manner.

This purpose was marked in the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, as well as revealed in the report of President Xi Jinping, chapter 14, where the connection between the structuring of the community of destiny and the promotion of world peace and development were highlighted.

Starting from the concept of Tianxia, we understand the global vocation of the Chinese proposal: according to Chinese philosopher Zhao Tingyang "everything under heaven" envisaged a "sense of the world" and not a "sense of the State." In Chinese,"community" is translated as "共同体" where "共" means "to share," but also in Chinese we have the equivalent of "public" 公, and 贡, which means "tribute" or "offering," a concept very similar to munus.

It is as if ancient thought preserved in itself this double origin of the sense of community, as "participation of a due gift," as "common responsibility" towards the very idea of ​​humanity. The same "共" of "共同体" is used in another key term of Chinese international relations, representing the theory of symbiosis, precisely "共生," which promotes an awareness of the "necessary interdependence" between nations, through "coexistence" and "common effort" as a necessary "tribute" to solve global problems for all peoples.

The "community of shared future" is a key objective of China's international relations towards the creation of a new global order, which would include the main Chinese international relations' theories: The "community" refers to the set of states, small and large, that coexist peacefully with each other (relationality) through common values ​​inspired by leading countries as responsible for the international order (human authority), respecting and helping each other (symbiosis).

This paradigm conforms to a new type of international relations with a people-centered approach and represents "a new global governance solution proposed by China, "which envisions a "global five-in-one" comprising "politics, security, economy, culture and ecology." They are key points of the United Nations human rights protections, which are in line with the 2030 Agenda (SDGs). The "community of shared future" transcends relations between states and incorporates the link between the multiplicity of peoples, civilizations and religions that are spread throughout the world, in line with our "common munus."

The community of shared future is not just a theoretical model. Its materialization has been multiplied at the local, regional and global levels. At the regional and global levels, we can include the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, RCEP agreement, "Belt and Road Initiative," BRICS, "17+1" meetings in Eastern Europe, CELAC-China, and FOCAC-China forums. All these tools offer innovative interpretative visions in a world that seeks to open up, while traditional dominant powers would impose polarized and reductionist perspectives.

How to coexist with this aspiration materializing through the revitalization of the spirit of Bandung, alongside the current international involution? The answer is difficult, but not impossible. The new era is a challenge towards a transition, leading to new forms of relations and human development: What is at stake is not "simply" a new international order but a humane project including all visions and projections that benefit social justice.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)