The main hallmark of China’s chairmanship in the BRICS grouping in 2022 has been the unveiling of plans to institutionalize the BRICS+ format and to explore the possibilities of expanding the core of the BRICS bloc. The current debate regarding the future trajectories of the BRICS+ format centers on whether the expansion of the bloc is to proceed one by one by adding new countries to the BRICS core, or via the format of “integration of integrations”, namely the creation of a platform for the cooperation of regional arrangements in which BRICS countries are members. At this stage, it appears that both tracks are possible and have their pros and cons. But there is one factor in the regional “integration of integrations” model that has particular merit – it is the “BRICS+” multiplier that allows for a significant extension in the outreach undertaken by core BRICS economies with respect to the rest of the Global South.
In terms of scale, the effects of the two formats of BRICS expansion may be mathematically illustrated by the difference between the arithmetic and geometric progression. If the one-by-one expansion in the core of the BRICS grouping represents the minimalism of the arithmetic progression, the BRICS+ format of integration of integrations can be seen as a far more extensive and ambitious undertaking characterized by a geometric progression. With respect to the arithmetic progression, the waves of the expansion in the BRICS core may involve a sequential addition of one or several countries representing the most significant heavyweights (possibly members of G20 from the Global South). The alternative is the aggregation of the regional integration blocs of all of the five BRICS members – represented by the BEAMS platforms consisting of BIMSTEC, Eurasian Economic Union, the ASEAN-China FTA, Mercosur and the South African Customs Union – leading to the addition of up to 25 members (the 5 times 5 geometric progression – or the 5 BRICS taken to the power of 2) of the BRICS+ circle that are the regional neighbors/partners of BRICS economies.
This BRICS+ geometric progression can be taken further to the next level whereby a wider circle of countries is included into the enlarged platform that comprises the African Union in Africa, CELAC in Latin America and the Eurasian economies from the Global South. The Eurasian constellation of developing economies can be formed on the basis of the aggregation of the main regional integration blocs such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), ASEAN, SAARC, EAEU. Such an extended platform across all three continents of the Global South may be termed as TRIA (Trilateral Intercontinental Alliance) and it comprises nearly 125-130 developing economies (depending on the exact methodological approach of including the Eurasian economies). This second sequence of extending the BRICS+ platform results in a “5 times 5 times 5” geometric progression – or the 5 BRICS economies taken to the power of 3.
These stages of progression in the extension of the BRICS+ circle can be taken to an even higher level if one is to account for all of the bilateral/plurilateral trade deals, digital alliances and other accords that may be multilateralized on the basis of the BRICS+ platform. For example, the Israel-Mercosur FTA or the SACU-EFTA FTA could be extended to include more developing countries from the BRICS+ circle. At this stage the combinatorics of matching and aggregating the multitudes of alliances along the BRICS+ platform kicks in – each of the main regions and regional integration grouping from the Global South has its own cob-web of alliances that can be shared throughout this extended network of Global South.
Such additional multiplier effects will be all the more powerful, the greater the openness and inclusiveness of the aggregated BRICS+ platform and the more connectivity there is across the alliances concluded by developing economies with their partners from across the globe. In other words, in order for the multiplier effects to be increased the BRICS+ platform of integration of integrations needs to be predicated on alliances that are scalable and capable of connecting with other regional blocs (regional alliances that can be “globalized”). This in turn may be facilitated by particular emphasis placed on building platforms for regional development institutions (with standardized protocols for investment projects, including with respect to PPPs); greater scope for digital economic alliances that may be particularly amenable to scale and replication.
Potentially this sequential approach to building alliances across the Global South on the basis of the BRICS+ “integration of integrations” could become a basis for re-starting the globalization process in the world economy bottom-up (from the level of countries and regional blocs) rather than top-down (solely from the level of global organizations). In fact, this “integration of integrations” sequence may prove superior to the previous attempts at top-down wholesale liberalization via “Washington consensus” for the following reasons:
This greater sustainability and flexibility of the bottom-up globalization process as a network of alliances rather than a rigid framework that is to be implemented across the globe without due account of the regional and country-level peculiarities argues in favor of looking for ways to render such a model of globalization more feasible and effective.
Under this scenario of a network-type globalization what would be the role of global institutions such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank? In many ways it would remain crucial for the sustainability of the construct of the reshaped global economic architecture. The global institutions would receive the additional mandate of coordinating the regional networks and development institutions:
There will also be a need for global institutions to focus more on resolving global issues, including global imbalances. This in turn would allow the global economic system to overcome the current problem of regional and global institutions/organizations operating frequently as substitutes rather than mutually reinforcing complements.
In sum, the BRICS+ track of country-by-country additions to the BRICS core if pursued solely on its own without building a broader network of alliances may result in minor alterations to the status-quo and a missed opportunity for the Global South and the broader global economy. At the same time, the possibilities offered by the “integration of integrations” track for BRICS+ are substantial, provided that such a platform is open, inclusive and ensures connectivity across regional integration arrangements – this will deliver the much needed “multiplier effect” in the process of economic cooperation and can set off a new process of globalization that connects regional arrangements in the developed and the developing world. Such a paradigm may be the real mission of BRICS after all – the value of BRICS is not in each of them taken separately, but rather in them being connected together to form a construct that supports the edifice of the global economic architecture.
President Xi Jinping and the BRICS-Developing Countries Dialogue
Ukraine’s losses are China’s gains
Head of the analytical Department of Sberbank's corporate and investment business (Sberbank CIB) — Sberbank Investment Research, RIAC Member
Did China place a losing bet on Russia?
China in India’s Post-Cold War Engagement with Southeast Asia -Book Review
Resurrecting the Degrowth Debate in China
High-Level interaction between China and Pakistan
President Xi Jinping and the BRICS-Developing Countries Dialogue
Early in the Russia-Ukraine war, having placed the bet on Vladimir Putin, China was declared by most international analysts as among the war’s biggest losers. Four months later and with no sign of war ending any time soon, some observers are reminding us China has a record of winning despite betting on losers.
Given one’s political outlook, both Russia and the United States can be blamed for the outbreak of and dragging on of the brutal war in Ukraine. While Moscow is being faulted for “its flagrant violation” of the prohibition of aggressive war, Washington on the other hand is accused of “irresponsible statecraft” and “imprudent geopolitics.” At the same time, though China is not directly involved in the geopolitics of the Ukrainian conflict and nor is Beijing geographically anywhere near the Russia-Ukraine conflict zone, yet worsening US-China political rivalry and growing China-Russia “no limit” mutual commitment in recent years has ensured Beijing too must share blame for abdicating the responsibility of a “trusted intermediary.”
But before we begin the blame game for who is the chief perpetrator of the war in Ukraine, it would help to first know the biggest winner in the Ukraine conflict.
Those who put the blame entirely on the Russian leader Vladimir Putin for initiating the chilling act of aggression against Ukraine in the early hours of February 24, actually see Russia’s “bombardment mark a dramatic escalation in a war it waged against Kyiv since 2014.” But the preparations for the latest military assault stretch back to at least the spring of 2021, they say. Accordingly, it was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky frustrating Putin by not agreeing to implement the Minsk agreements on Moscow’s terms which finally triggered the Kremlin. Besides, the political rhetoric is too well known to all that Putin’s inhuman aggression was the result of his long-cherished desire to be taken seriously as an international leader.
On the other hand, those upholding the view that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a reactionary response to the persistent US arming of Ukraine and goading and provoking Russia, also believe the US has transformed Ukraine into America’s “cannon fodder” in order to weaken and destabilize Russia. In the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, frequent references are cited from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard in which the former US security adviser had laid out the American military’s intention of drawing Russia into a prolonged and costly invasion of Ukraine. Brzezinski always advocated Ukraine was critical to the US asserting its hegemony against Russia in Eurasia. In the title of the book cited above, the chessboard was Eurasia. Furthermore, writing in the article “The West Should Arm Ukraine” for the Atlantic Council following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Brzezinski declared: “Russian invasion of Ukraine is a near certainty.”
Quite remarkably, amid claims and counterclaims of either the US or Russia being the biggest winner in the war in Ukraine, there is a flood of analyses both in favor and against China being viewed as the biggest winner. Let us see why and what is the truth.
China, interestingly, seems to have been wrong-footed in the war raging in Europe from the very beginning. First, a rupture was caused just days before Russia’s bombardment when President Xi Jinping declared “friendship with Moscow has no limits” after signing a joint statement with President Putin during the latter’s visit to Beijing on the eve of the Beijing Winter Olympics in early February. When Russia invaded Ukraine a couple of weeks later, the world refused to believe, true or not, that Xi had not been taken into confidence by the Kremlin. Though months after the two “bosom buddies” declared their “no limits” partnership aka “alliance,” it became ever more clearly known that Beijing and Moscow after all do observe “limits” to their relationship, but the public perception did not change.
Second, there is this widespread western misconstrued perception that since the invasion Beijing had been projecting itself as a “confused” neutral bystander out of a growing feeling that Moscow was becoming an inconvenient partner. For example, as the war in Ukraine was dragging on, the British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is reported to have commented that Beijing increasingly saw Moscow as an “inconvenient friend.” In reality, however, as has been confirmed in Xi’s June 15 birthday call message to Putin, Xi not only ignored the Western warnings to refrain from offering economic and technical assistance to Moscow but he also reassured the Russian leader of further development of economic, military, and defense ties with Beijing.
Third, while the world instantaneously took notice of the China and Russia joint statement of February 4 declaring their “no limit” commitment to deepen bilateral cooperation in all fields, it is unfortunate that no one has been paying attention to the factors compelling the world’s two most powerful military powers after the US, to “slowly and surely cement their relationship, especially on the economic, diplomatic, and military fronts.” According to a recent joint commentary by three international affairs experts, the “Chinese-Russian alliance aims largely at defending the two countries’ regional and international interests, which are in constant expansion.”
It is important to remember, that at the core of the raging war in Europe is the rapidly changing geopolitics in the region and beyond and not the other way round, as it were. The changing geopolitical dynamics are the result of, among other factors, the politics of NATO expansionism. Once again, it would be a mistake to believe that Taiwan could be the next (or Asia’s) Ukraine that is enabling the idea of NATO coming into the Indo-Pacific to acquire traction. On the contrary, as Martine Bulard, a member of Le Monde Diplomatique editorial team had in a telling commentary entitled “Is an Asian NATO imminent” a year ago written, it is the West’s pivot to Asia that has heightened tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
Recall here last year’s twin visits to Asia by the US secretaries of state and defense, Anthony Blinken and Lloyd Austin, with the agenda to pull South Korea into a Quad+ format that could also include European powers as well. As experts in South Korea were calling the effort “to multilateralise the US-led hub-and-spoke bilateral alliance system,” Bulard noted that other experts were already talking of “a possible extension of NATO or establishment of a kind of Asian NATO against the ‘Chinese dictatorship’.” It was no mere coincidence that a NATO ministerial conference in Brussels in March 2021 set out to “respond to potential challenges posed by China” as one of its key security priorities. Nor is NATO’s new “strategic concept” adopted by its 30 leaders in Madrid on June 29, 2022, that China and Russia are threats to the global order.
In conclusion, it may be argued that the international opinion prematurely declared China to be among the biggest losers in Russia’s brutal conflict in Ukraine. Of course, on its part, China did continue to send out confusing and at times inconsistent, incoherent statements. Sometimes Beijing’s actions sparked all-around speculations that the “no limit” Moscow-Beijing alliance has reached its limits. Recently when Chinese vice foreign minister Le Yucheng was suddenly removed from the ministry, a Bloomberg report carried by the Japan Times wondered if the topmost Russia-hand in Beijing had been made to pay the price for pushing China too close to Russia?
But notwithstanding the opaque nature of the decision-making in one-party-ruled China, factors such as internal political complexities in the run-up to the crucial 20th CPC National Congress in the month of October, and tension arising out of uncertainty to decide upon a new foreign minister (Le Yucheng was expected to replace foreign minister Wang Yi at the ministerial reshuffle at the Party’s National Congress) are also being cited behind the move to shunt out Le from the foreign ministry. However, President Xi’s June 15 birthday call to the Russian leader has put to bed any speculation of China regretting betting on Moscow. As long as the geopolitics determines for the United States that the Indo-Pacific would remain the US playground, Russia will remain a vital and useful ally for Beijing.
As someone recently commented, Beijing will not ditch Moscow. A Chinese academic who recently wrote in an article that the sanctions have not at all impacted Russia’s economic fundamentals received a record over five hundred thousand visitors within 72 hours. Another Chinese commentary “advised” the Party leadership that “only by strengthening and deepening partnership with Russia can China thwart the West’s designs to isolate, blockade and contain China.” A former US ambassador recently observed: “China’s tilt towards Moscow, may now appear the height of folly. But China has a record of winning despite betting on losers.”
The 2022 IPCC report said that unless we limit our emission so that it does not exceed a 1.5°C rise in temperature, it is very likely that human and nature will face “additional severe risk (..) and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced” (IPCC, 2022). Some say that degrowth – a call to radically implement a structural change to stop the harmful environmental effect of constant economic growth – might be the only reasonable solution to the current environmental crisis.
China becomes both an interesting and important case study when talking about degrowth. It is interesting because it is one of the world’s largest economies – the second richest country ranked by its GDP — that is still currently growing (Silver, 2021). Degrowth proponents might think that this economic boom will lead to environmental breakdown. However, China is now turning greener faster than other countries and showing a fall in CO2 emissions by 1.4% in the first three months of 2022 (Brown, 2021; Myllyvirta, 2022). Talking about China in the context of degrowth is also important. Aside from being one of the biggest economies, its population of 1.4 billion makes it the world’s most populous country. The size of the population can act as a multiplier of the climate effect. It is not strange, then, to say that China is an important actor in climate progress.
China’s promises, sins, and virtues in climate progress
To truly understand the relevance of the degrowth debate in China, it is essential to ask whether China is doing enough to offset its emission to disregard the degrowth concept completely. It is imperative, then, to see China’s promises, sins, and progress in climate justice to form an informed conclusion.
When it comes to climate progress, China has lofty promises. For example, it promises to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, reach peak emission before 2030, boost forest coverage by around 6 million by 2030, and phase down coal use from 2060 (Maizland, 2021). These ambitious promises, coupled with the fact that China is increasing its climate cooperation internationally, led China to be seen as a “leader in climate change” (ibid). These promises are also not only lip service. It is bearing fruit. China is currently a leader in the global energy transition. It has invested an astounding $89 billion in projects based on renewable energy. Its green energy capacity also surpasses other countries (Koschyck, 2015). Currently, China generates more solar power than any other country, and it has installed triple the amount of wind power than any other country (Brown, 2021). China’s domestic policies and commitment to green energy have led to a promising outcome; its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have fallen by 1,4%, and it is greening at a much faster rate than other countries (Brown, 2021; Myllyvirta, 2022). This progress raises the question of whether we should still implement degrowth in China. If it can achieve rapid economic progress and restore the quality of its environment, is degrowth even necessary?
To answer the question of degrowth’s relevance in China, it is vital to weigh China’s “sins” in the climate movement against its progress. One of the biggest backtrackers of China’s climate progress is its reliance on coal. Ever since 1980, China has become the world’s biggest coal user. Currently, half the coal burned in the world belongs to China (Koschyk, 2015). It is building more coal plants domestically despite its commitment to clean energy; China is currently building 60 new coal sites with a lifespan of 40 to 50 years (Brant, 2021). Not only domestically, China is also building new coal plants abroad. This is apparent in their Belt and Road Initiative, which seeks to fund the development of economic corridors and infrastructures from China to countries like Southeast Asia, Central, and South Asia, Russia, Europe, Africa, and South America (Widyanto, 2019). Unfortunately, more than 60% of the projects funded through the BRI scheme are based on non-renewable resources. Quoting the analysis of Nicholas Stern (Pandey, 2020), this investment in non-renewable resources is problematic because the recipients of the BRI funding scheme are “at least two times the population of China, with an income per capita half of China’s.” If recipient countries continue with China’s trajectory, they will likely follow China’s emission track. Consequently, the 1.5°C caps will be surpassed in no time. That is why it seems that even though China is greening domestically and internationally, it is only “dumping” its emission to other countries in the long run.
We can also argue that China’s domestic greening is merely temporary. For example, let us look at the drop in emissions during the 2007 financial crisis. Not long after the crisis, emissions suffered another spike due to economic stimulus programs that fuel development based on non-renewable energy (Myllyvirta, 2022). The same would happen now. China’s 1,4% drop in CO2 emission will likely be temporary as China’s government scrambles to rebuild the economy through coal-based initiatives after the economic drop during the pandemic.
Based on the data mentioned above, it is safe to say that China’s current climate action is nowhere near enough to keep us below the 1.5°C temperature cap. This position is supported by the Climate Action Tracker (2022), who said that if China continues on the current domestic pathway, it is very likely that China will push a 2 to 3°C degree warming by the end of the century. Technically speaking, a radical solution like degrowth should be seriously considered by China.
China’s moral obligation to implement degrowth
Though China is seen by many as the leader in climate progress, the debate on degrowth has so far been neglected in China. Though promising, rural degrowth movements like the New Rural Reconstruction Movement (NRRM) continue to be ignored by the mainstream ideology of China (Alcock, 2019). Instead, a single-minded, capitalistic pursuit of the rise of GDP takes center stage, leading China to grow into the budding power it is today. This tunnel vision on economic growth erases moral consideration on why constant growth is unjust and why China should implement degrowth. Here, a two-level analysis of China’s moral obligation to implement degrowth will be elaborated, both at the domestic and international level.
Domestically, economic progress in China has eliminated absolute poverty throughout the region. However, its benefit can only be felt by a selected few in the urban region (Feng & Yang, 2021). By 2015, the top 10% of the population had increased its share of national income from 27% in 1978 to 41%. The bottom 50% had seen a drop in income from 27% to 15% (London School of Economics, 2019). While only a selected few can enjoy the economic benefits, the environmental impact of China’s coal-based economy also spreads to the rural population. Here is where the concept of degrowth becomes essential. Degrowth seeks to create environmental balance while reducing inequality, two aims that normal economic growth has disregarded completely.
A similar pattern can also be seen in the international scene. Quoting Hickel (2021), inherent in the growth process is unjust in that even though excess consumption is done in rich, developed countries, the developing countries are the disproportionately disadvantaged ones. The Global South experiences an appropriation of the atmospheric commons by the developed countries and a destruction of the ecosystem (Hickel, 2021). China has so far reached a high level of economic growth, and in the process, it has severely impacted the environmental balance of the world, especially the Global South. This colonization of the Global South is not only done by China but also the rest of the Global North in its process of economic progress. In this context, it will be unjust for degrowth or other environmental projects to be campaigned when the one who pollutes the earth the most is not doing anything much to change their ways. China has developed enough. It is time for China to implement degrowth so that economically, the Global South can catch up and environmentally, the balance can be restored.
Several disclaimers are needed to end this article. First, that it might be wrong to implement a Western idea in China, which is what scholars have been doing not just in the realm of climate justice but also in analyzing China in general. Second, I have not exhausted every reason why degrowth should be supported, nor have I written in detail how degrowth can be implemented in China. This is an important room to explore to continue the degrowth debate in China. However, despite this article’s shortcomings, this article is clear in its stance that degrowth is a crucial action for China to take. Not only is it technically necessary to offset China’s excessive emission, but it is also a morally justifiable action for China to undertake both at the domestic and international levels.
In Beijing, on the evening of June 24, 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping chaired the High-Level Dialogue on Global Development in virtual format and expressed his views.
The following Presidents were connected: Abdelmadjid Tebboune (Algeria), Alberto Fernández (Argentina), Abdel Fattah El-Sisi (Egypt), Joko Widodo (Indonesia), Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi (Iran), Kassym-Jomart Tokayev (Kazakhstan), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Macky Sall (Senegal), Cyril Ramaphosa (Republic of South Africa), Shavkat Mirziyoyev (Uzbekistan), as well as Brazilian Vice President Hamilton Mourão, and Prime Ministers Hun Sen (Cambodia), Abiy Ahmed Ali (Ethiopia), Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama (Fiji), Narendra Modi (India), Ismail Sabri Yaakob (Malaysia), Prayut Chan-o-cha (Thailand).
Focusing on the topic “Promoting a Global Development Partnership for the New Era for jointly implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” leaders from all countries had an in-depth exchange of views on important issues such as strengthening international development cooperation and stepping up the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They discussed ways to promote development cooperation and reached broad and important common understandings.
President Xi Jinping announced the opening of the Dialogue. The leaders of the participating countries watched a video clip to recall the important moments of cooperation between emerging markets and developing countries in recent years.
President Xi Jinping delivered the speech entitled “Forging High-Quality Partnerships for a New Era of Global Development”.
He emphasised that development is a timeless issue for humanity. Only through continuous development can people’s dreams for a better life and social stability come true. Over the years, developing countries have worked unremittingly to explore development paths suited to their national realities and to pursue economic and social development. Such efforts have produced remarkable outcomes. Emerging markets and developing countries currently account for half of the world’s economy and notable progress has been made in science and technology, education, social development, culture and many other areas.
Countries have met at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is eroding decades of gains in global development; the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is encountering difficulties; the North-South divide continues to widen and crises are emerging in food and energy security. At the same time, people in all countries are keener about pursuing peace, development and cooperation; emerging markets and developing countries are more resolved to seek strength through unity, and the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation is bringing greater opportunities to countries around the world.
President Xi Jinping underlined that this is an era rife with challenges, but it is also an age full of hope. There is a need to get a good grasp of the overarching development trend in the world; to firm up confidence and act in concert and with great motivation to promote global development and foster a development paradigm featuring benefits for all, balance, coordination, inclusiveness, win-win cooperation and common prosperity.
Firstly, international consensus on promoting development need to be jointly built. Only when people all over the world live better lives can prosperity be sustained, security safeguarded and human rights solidly grounded. It is important to put development front and centre on the international agenda in view of fully delivering on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and building political consensus to ensure that everyone values development and all countries pursue cooperation together.
Secondly, it is crucial to jointly create an enabling international environment for development. If protectionist measures continue, anyone attempting to form exclusive blocs will end up isolating themselves. Maximum sanctions serve no one’s interest, and decoupling and supply disruption practices are neither feasible nor sustainable. It is important to pursue development in real earnest and promote it in concert; to build an open world economy and shape a more just and equitable global governance system and institutional environment.
Thirdly, it is useful to jointly promote new drivers for global development. It is important to promote science, technology and institutional innovation; to speed up technology transfer and knowledge sharing; to boost the development of modern industries; to bridge the digital divide, and accelerate the low-carbon transition, with a view to achieving stronger, greener and healthier global development.
Fourthly, we need to jointly forge a global development partnership. Only by working together can we accomplish great things with a far-reaching impact. Developed countries need to fulfil their obligations; developing countries need to deepen cooperation, and the North and the South need to work in the same direction to forge a united, equal, balanced and inclusive global development partnership. In this process, no country or individual should be left behind. It is important that we support the United Nations in steering and coordinating global development cooperation, and encourage business communities, social groups, media and think tanks to take part in such cooperation.
President Xi emphasised that the People’s Republic of China has always been a member of the big family of developing countries. China will take pragmatic steps to provide continued support to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The People’s Republic of China will allocate more resources for global development cooperation. It will upgrade the South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund into a Global Development Cooperation Fund. It will also increase its contribution to the UN Trust Fund for Peace and Development. Such efforts will further support cooperation within the Global Development Initiative (GDI).
China will work with all parties to advance cooperation in priority areas, and mobilise resources for development to deepen global cooperation on poverty reduction and eradication. It will build capacity for food production and supply, and promote clean energy partnerships. It will step up innovation, research and development, and joint production of vaccines. It will work on the conservation and sustainable use of land and marine ecology, and enhance literacy and citizens’ skills. It will transform and upgrade the path to industrialisation at a faster pace, and enhance connectivity in the digital age to give new momentum to all countries’ development. China will set up a platform for sharing experience and knowledge on international development, as well as a global development promotion centre and a global knowledge network for development to exchange governance experiences. It will host a global forum on youth development and take part in the launch of a global action plan on youth development, in a bid to pool as much strength as possible for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
President Xi Jinping emphasised that, as an ancient Chinese saying goes – “With one heart and one mind, we can accomplish everything we aspire for” -. the People’ Republic of China will firm up confidence, and stride forward in pursuit of a high-quality partnership to usher in a new era of prosperity and development in which there are no countries in charge, and their colonies in obedience.
The personalities participating in the Dialogue made their own comments. They thanked the People’s Republic of China for initiating and hosting this high-level Dialogue on global development and highlighted President Xi’s insights on global development cooperation.
Emerging markets and developing countries are a crucial force in building a fairer and more balanced international order and promoting peace, security, equality and development. They need to strengthen solidarity and cooperation, and work with the international community to bring the issue of development to the fore so as to build a better world that meets the needs and expectations of most developing countries. This Dialogue has helped the parties to reach new understandings on international development cooperation; to safeguard the developing countries’ common interests, and to give new momentum for maintaining world peace and promoting common development.
The Heads of State and Government participating in the Dialogue agreed that development is the foundation of security. They said that China’s initiatives address the concerns and meet the needs of developing countries, and they support forging international consensus; mobilising resources for development; and accelerating the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They hoped to step up cooperation in several areas, including epidemic prevention and control, food safety and energy security.
The parties also expressed serious concerns about the negative impact and spillover of unilateral sanctions and the heavy toll paid by developing countries, which are more vulnerable than rich countries, and – as colonies – are in the grip of Western imperialism. The parties emphasised the need to practise true multilateralism, uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, support equity and justice, and advance reforms in the global governance system.
They argued that emerging markets and developing countries should coordinate and cooperate to the best of their abilities; strive for greater representation and voice in international affairs; ensure the continued sound functioning of the international economic and financial system; and work for the ongoing recovery and sustainable development of the world economy.
The BRICS and developing countries participating in the Dialogue fully expressed their political consensus on global development and the implementation of appropriate measures for practical cooperation in the priority areas under China’s Global Development Initiative (GDI).
The current state of defense in Indonesia cannot be ignored. Despite the fact that it is still a developing country,...
The African Union (AU) Information and Communication Directorate (ICD) in close partnership with GIZ (German Corporation for International Corporation) is...
Countries already under pressure from the economic fall-out of the COVID-19 pandemic, risk seeing the same economic turmoil and human...
On July 7th, Bloomberg News headlined “EU Bureaucracy Seen Blocking 1.5 Billion-Euro Loan to Ukraine”, and reported that, “The executive...
Preliminary findings of two Marburg virus cases have prompted Ghana to prepare for a potential outbreak of the disease. If...
While the negative impacts of COVID-19 appear to be receding, households in the Lao PDR are facing new and emerging...
Early in the Russia-Ukraine war, having placed the bet on Vladimir Putin, China was declared by most international analysts as among...
Scandal: Ukraine sells military equipment donated by NATO countries
An Assessment on China’s Inflation Trend and Outlook
European Union vs Eurasian Union: Geopolitical and Economic Significance for African Union
Will Europe Even Greenlight DeFi Regulation?
The Flawed Fabric of Pakistan’s Economic Policymaking
What is a web application and how to build it?
The Folly of a European Security Architecture: Why Peace is Hard to Come?
Why should M-Learning be the preferred method of training?