Dissecting China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) and Global Development Initiative (GDI)

The outlined Chinese security strategy diverges dramatically from that of the Western powers regarding both principles and practises, creating a new ground for conflict between the two sides. Chinese President Xi Jinping originally declared the launch of a "Global Security Initiative" (GSI) at the 2022 Bo'ao Forum for Asia, a global security conference hosted by China, as a Chinese "vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security." The Chinese Foreign Ministry followed up on this declaration with its recently unveiled GSI concept statement over a year later. The paper is divided into four sections: an overview of China-sponsored institutions that are intended to act as coordination platforms; a brief introduction outlining current threats to international peace and security; a statement of the normative values guiding China's strategy; a list of "priorities for cooperation" that makes up the majority of the paper; and a summary of all of the above.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative (GDI), and other well-known policies are joined by the Global Security Initiative (GSI). Scholars studying China have always paid attention to the GSI since its beginnings. Given that the project was launched shortly after the beginning of Russia's conflict in Ukraine, a turning point in the post-Cold Conflict era that might have long-lasting effects on how international security is governed, this is not particularly surprising.

GSI AND GDI

Chinese President Xi Jinping previously introduced the Global Development Initiative (GDI) at the UN on September 21, 2021, and the GSI is its political equivalent. The GDI was introduced as a response to the worldwide economic crisis during the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas the GSI came after the Ukraine crisis. Both programmes have been associated with Mr Xi's catchphrase, "fostering a community of shared future of mankind," in turn. But the GDI's objective is to steal the international discussion on the global development agenda, bring it under Chinese tutelage, and infuse it with Chinese ideals, just as the GSI seeks to direct debate on global governance. The GDI has acquired popularity inside the UN system and in the development field. These two programmes provide China's "blueprint" for altering the world order. They are probably part of a body of concepts that will still be developed; they are all intended to build upon one another and create a more comprehensive picture of a new system of world administration. Two key instruments for assisting China in achieving global dominance are the GSI and GDI. Therefore, the twin programmes represent a changing Chinese worldview where internal policies are externalized. Beijing wants to foster an atmosphere supporting China's security, prosperity, and sovereignty interests.

The GDI, which Wang Yi launched at the UN, "puts development first and the people at the centre, and seeks to expedite the implementation of the 2030 Agenda." He made a connection between GDI and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and noted that President Xi had announced significant steps to implement the GDI, such as the establishment of a Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund, an increase in contributions to the China-UN Peace and Development Fund, and a global development promotion centre. He outlined a number of initiatives that China was prepared to launch under the auspices of GDI, including 1,000 new capacity-building programmes, practical cooperation projects in poverty reduction, food security, industrialization, and other areas, collaboration in digital and innovative agricultural financing, animal and plant disease prevention and control, and sustainable soil and water resource management, collaboration in clean energy projects, and collaboration on a number of other initiatives. 

In light of the aforementioned, it is clear that Xi is systematically promoting the ideas of GSI and GDI to construct a story that is favourable to China. The US-led alliances, particularly the Quad, are currently the target of attacks using these ideas. The main argument raised by these ideas is that, in contrast to US-led alliances and initiatives, Chinese action plans give answers to other countries' issues and protect their sovereignty and national interests.

ANALYSING GSI

China has resorted to GSI because of its growing economic and geopolitical power internationally, which has increased its vulnerability to security concerns. With the help of numerous nations in the 'Asia-Pacific' area, China is able to solve security issues, exert its influence, and safeguard its interests. The GSI is a significant component of China's effort to balance the influence of the US and its allies. After Xi Jinping's recent re-election, the 'unusual' third term, continuity, and anticipated modifications to current policies have attracted attention among local and international audiences. Xi, who views himself as a leader of the world, plans to aggressively seek China's influence with measures that might upend the current order. China's attempts to build its reputation and present itself as a responsible global participant include GDI, GSI, and GCI. Second, there are differences of opinion over how to handle both conventional and non-conventional security threats, as well as the difficulties presented by the emergence of new areas. China launched a discussion on GSI as an extension of the national security concept, along with Xi Jinping's other ideas, including the "New Security Concept,""Major Power Diplomacy,""Asian for Asian," and "Asia-Pacific Security System." This was done in response to the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China.

The GSI's new objective does have a truly global focus. Beijing has typically concentrated its cautious forays into security agencies on specific regions (primarily Africa) and stressed the need to find local solutions to local problems, despite the fact that China is already an economic power with global reach and widely perceived as a future, or even present, superpower capable of competing with US influence. An extremely broad notion of security serves as the foundation for the GSI. China may be a pioneer in this area, but it is no longer an outlier in global politics. Prior Chinese discussions on this topic have already produced a comprehensive strategy embracing sixteen sub-fields in economic, political, and social life as well as foreign and domestic risks to regime survival and societal stability. This idea has been formally recognized as "comprehensive national security" since 2014, and it has guided institutional change and the growth of China's security state. The text within clearly distinguishes between Western and US normative and practical security approaches. The US isn't specifically mentioned in the document, and neither are any other nation-state actors, but this "other" is still present when China positions its strategy in opposition to "hegemonism,""unilateralism and protectionism," and a "Cold War mentality," all of which are frequently used to criticize US attempts to restrain rising Chinese power through economic sanctions and security alliances. The text also criticizes US-led interventionism and multilateralism in addressing urgent security challenges while restating the long-standing Chinese diplomatic ideals of national sovereignty and UN centrality as fundamental standards. In terms of actual policy, the initiative rejects the widely employed Western tactic of economic sanctions against violators, associating it with war as an intrinsically not peaceful measure.

GSI AND MULTILATERAL GROUPINGS (QUAD/AUKUS/ASEAN)

The GSI can be viewed as a response to US-led security initiatives such as the QUAD and AUKUS. The QUAD and AUKUS are military in nature and need to identify potential targets for collective action by their members. The evolution they have potentially risks having a goading effect on China. Communication channels between QUAD/AUKUS and concerned countries like China are necessary for effectively improving mutual apprehension. The future operationalization of QUAD or AUKUS will impact their members' economies. They will utilize economic interdependence with China and the rest of the world to support their military capacity and cooperation. The nature of future relationships between QUAD or AUKUS and non-members should be seen as uncertain rather than a net loss of security to China. 

ASEAN's potential in managing regional and global security affairs is greater than generally recognized. The notion of ASEAN centrality has resulted in initiatives such as dialogue partnerships and mechanisms like the ASEAN Regional Forum. ASEAN diplomatic and consultative platforms continue to exist despite the changing regional security dynamics. They aim to improve the increasing competition and potential confrontation among major powers. China, the US, and other major powers cannot afford to take ASEAN for granted. The GSI is a repetition of the principles of peaceful coexistence subscribed to by China and other Asian countries since the 1955 Bandung Conference. The GSI emphasises principles more and does not require choosing between China and other countries security partnerships. Chinese thinking does not support the creation of security blocs, even those involving China. The GSI envisioned ASEAN and its member states treating China's security as indivisible from the geographical region of East and Southeast Asia. 

CONCLUSION

The GSI is very different from how Western governments address international security challenges. It emphasizes the superiority of national sovereignty over foreign interference, the importance of the UN and multilateralism over smaller coalitions of the willing, neutral over forceful mediation and development over political inclusion. These factors also offer areas of convergence with other Global South nations, a natural audience for earlier campaigns to advance Chinese leadership, and a source of demand for answers to pervasive local security challenges. The GSI looks intended to fill this void, just like the BRI before it and might be similarly competitive among third nations.

In reality, China's main strategic goal includes the GSI and GDI. The combined goals of the BRI, Maritime Silk Road, GSI, and GDI are to establish a world order that serves Chinese interests. These are intended to change the current situation in the region. These Chinese ideas may be more widely accepted with high-voltage propaganda and influence operations. QUAD and FOIP members and supporters should observe this closely since it directly contradicts their objectives. ASEAN has to be aware of how its growth and unity are affected by the SCS Code of Conduct. India, which serves as the Indian Ocean's primary security supplier, must carefully watch how it affects its security objectives. Since China can play the long game, the difficulties presented by these ideas shouldn't be dismissed.

References

1.       Abb, Pascal. “China’s new Global Security Initiative: a rising power spreads its wings.” PRIF BLOG (blog), March 2, 2023. https://blog.prif.org/2023/03/02/chinas-new-global-security-initiative-a-rising-power-spreads-its-wings/.

2.      “China’s New Artifice: Global Security Initiative - Indian Council of World Affairs (Government of India).”https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=7462&lid=4998.

3.      FULCRUM. “The Chinese Offer of a Global Security Initiative: Anything New?,” February 22, 2023. https://fulcrum.sg/aseanfocus/the-chinese-offer-of-a-global-security-initiative-anything-new/.

4.     “Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative——China’s Latest Solutions to World Peace, Security and Development.”http://sc.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zxhd/202208/t20220805_10735867.htm.

5.      Ha, Hoang Thi. “Why Is China’s Global Development Initiative Well Received in Southeast Asia?,” no. 2023 (2023).

6.     Pradhan, S. D. “Significance of Chinese GSI and GDI: Tools to Reshape the International Order.” The Times of India.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ChanakyaCode/significance-of-chinese-gsi-and-gdi-tools-to-reshape-the-international-order/.

7.      Rao, Dokku Nagamalleswara. “‘Global Security Initiative Concept Paper’: China’s Road Map for New Security Architecture – Center For Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS),” April 10, 2023. https://www.claws.in/global-security-initiative%E2%80%82concept-paper-chinas-road-map-for-new-security-architecture/.

8.     Ratiu, Andrea. “How Beijing’s Newest Global Initiatives Seek to Remake the World Order.” Atlantic Council (blog), June 21, 2023. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/how-beijings-newest-global-initiatives-seek-to-remake-the-world-order/.

9.     Standard, Business. “Xi Jinping’s Global Security Initiative,” May 17, 2022. https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/xi-jinping-s-global-security-initiative-122051701606_1.html.

10.   The Economist. “China’s Global Development Initiative Is Not as Innocent as It Sounds.”https://www.economist.com/china/2022/06/09/chinas-global-development-initiative-is-not-as-innocent-as-it-sounds.

11.     Times, Global. “China Stands Ready to Put into Action of GDI, GSI: Government Work Report - Global Times.”https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202303/1286694.shtml.

12.    “Unpacking China’s Global Development Initiative | Lowy Institute.”https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/unpacking-china-s-global-development-initiative.

13.    “Xi Kicks Off Campaign for a Chinese Vision of Global Security | United States Institute of Peace.” https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/10/xi-kicks-campaign-chinese-vision-global-security.

Pic Courtsey-Nuno Alberto at unsplash.com

(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)