Chinese FM Wang Yi's remarks reaffirm China as a force for stability

Editor's note: Gunter Schoech, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is the founder and managing director of the market research and consulting company Debrouillage. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Munich Security Conference (MSC) is an annual conference on international security policy in Munich, Germany. The eternal motto is: "Peace through dialogue," and this year's edition asks if the world is "suffering from zero-sum thinking" and is seeking a "silver lining" for "moving beyond 'lose-lose' together."

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered a keynote speech entitled "Firmly acting as a force for stability in a turbulent world" during the "China in the World" session at the ongoing Munich Security Conference here on February 17.

Ensuring global security for everybody means mastering the "security paradox." It occurs when one actor's efforts to increase its security are perceived as a threat by other actors, leading them to respond with their own security measures. Global military spending rose to $2240 billion in 2022 and continues to skyrocket. 

In the best-case scenario, this unimaginable amount of money was spent unproductively; meanwhile, it is missing to mitigate other risks such as climate change. A lack of trust about the other side's true intentions makes the security paradox possible. Wang is therefore on a diplomatic trust-building mission.

So, from China's perspective, one way to build trust is through disclosure about what China is willing to contribute to global affairs, what it demands, and where it sets red lines. I hope the other participants take close note of the candid statements Wang delivered abundantly on all of these.

In 2007, when Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke at the MSC, saying that it was "unacceptable and impossible in today's world" that there could be a unipolar world led by "one master, one sovereign" and warned that NATO's eastward expansion was creating "new dividing lines and walls."

Wang made clear: China is a reliable, responsible and stable player in global politics, in an increasingly unstable world, open to all kinds of multilateral cooperation. In a world where Western countries try to decouple from China, or even roll back China's development and globalization at large, it is now China who is pushing for more multilateralism and global order.

It provides the largest peacekeeper contingent and the second-largest UN budget contribution. It promises to deliver on COP28 promises, drive global AI governance, and serve as a growth engine for the world. China calls for ceasefires, negotiations and peaceful settlements and keeping a comparatively neutral and de-escalating stance in Ukraine and Palestine. It brokered the Saudi-Iranian peace deal. Such taking on additional global stabilization responsibilities goes hand in hand with China's growing weight in the global community, based on its economic rise.  

In an example Wang did not mention, the U.S. de facto disabled the WTO Appellate Body for settling trade disputes by vetoing any judge appointments, knowing it would lose influence under the global rules it claims to defend. Wang did mention the "legitimate development rights and interests," a diplomatic reminder that "turning 'de-risking' into 'de-China,' building 'small yards and high walls' will eventually backfire on the United States."

Wang was adamant on China's red lines to respect: Countries should cooperate in global matters for mankind, not thrash ideological differences. It is part of mutual respect not to interfere in the internal politics of a sovereign nation. In the speech and Q&A session, Wang made unambiguously clear that Taiwan is part of China and therefore also an internal affair. 

He cited the Cairo (1943) and Potsdam (1945) declarations, in which the Allies in WW2 had agreed to return Taiwan to China after Japan's defeat. This then fully backs China's legitimate demand that a sovereign country may use its freedom to choose the ideological basis for its nationwide political system.

Placing local preferences above territorial integrity would raise all kinds of questions not the least in Eastern Ukraine, Scotland, Catalonia, or even Texas, just to name a few. The West can't have it both ways and the moral high ground.   

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