Fundamental security shift

Sustainable peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of development, justice and harmony

The primary objective of US foreign policy during the Cold War was not to engage in an ideological struggle against communism, but to preserve the patterns of global relationships in the world system to produce and reproduce gross inequalities and generate advantage, benefit and privilege for the United States.

"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population … In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment," noted George Kennan, then director of policy planning at the Department of State, who was a leading architect of US post-war "containment "foreign policy.

"Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships that will allow us to maintain this position of disparity," he continued. "We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

This position of disparity has ensured wealth and power for the US and its Western allies.

Realizing this unequal distribution of wealth and power was closely tied to the functioning of the international system and the success of the US' network of alliances. The US was willing to offer international "public goods" and to act as a "hegemonic stabilizer" in the form of security protection and military aid via NATO and bilateral security partnerships with countries such as the Republic of Korea, Japan and Australia.

For the US-led West, defending the postwar structure of global wealth and power disparity is equivalent to maintaining international peace and security. Preserving this structure needs to be governed by a set of rules, norms and institutions, which are collectively referred to as the "rule-based international order". Anyone who does not follow such a "rule-based order" or challenges the US hegemonic position is automatically seen as a "security threat" or "systemic rival".

With the end of the Cold War, Western media and politicians celebrated the victory of democracy over dictatorship and capitalism over communism. The global narrative suggested that the post-Cold War international order had ushered in an era of Immanuel Kant's "perpetual peace". The triumph of liberal democracy was viewed as the "end of history", serving as the ideological foundation for the rise of a unipolar world, where the US unilaterally defined the "rules-based order" and pressured every country to conform to it.

The post-Cold War security paradigm of the US and NATO focused on military strength, control and deterrence to prevent any force from challenging the US-led postwar order. This emphasis on security measures, without establishing mechanisms for peace building, created a cycle of fear, oppression and resistance, ultimately undermining both peace and security in the long run.

Despite countries, particularly the US, having the highest military expenditures in history, local conflicts continue to rage, and larger wars threaten humanity's survival. It must be recognized that an increase in weaponized security does not create peace or keep the existing international order secure — if it did, the world would have been at peace long ago. Now more than ever, it is crucial to reshape our understanding of peace and security, and the relationship between the two.

When peace is prioritized, the focus shifts to addressing the root causes of conflict — such as injustice, inequality and lack of mutual understanding — through diplomacy, dialogue and cooperation. By tackling these underlying issues, sustainable security is more likely to follow, as the conditions that give rise to conflict or instability are resolved at their core. In this way, peace serves as the foundation upon which lasting security is built.

Today, the concept of peace and security has expanded beyond the traditional focus on military and defense to include non-conventional security domains such as cyber warfare, pandemics, climate change and financial digitization. Non-conventional security acknowledges that emerging threats can profoundly affect a nation's peace and stability, as well as its economy, public health and social fabric. Today, the world faces multiple challenges and conflicts across both conventional and non-conventional peace and security domains. The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, along with the great power tensions resulting from the US attempt to suppress China to maintain its dominance, serve as clear evidence that the US-led security policies are contributing to global disorder.

The correct approach is to prioritize peace first and then secure it, rather than relying on the belief that arms-based security can bring peace. NATO's security policies and practices reflect an outdated offensive deterrence mindset in a world that urgently needs defensive deterrence. Diplomacy has been cast aside, with conflicts — whether in Ukraine or Gaza — being addressed primarily through military force rather than peaceful negotiation. Regrettably, the US and NATO reject diplomacy. They use confrontation, sanctions, offensiveness and threats, and pump in weapons to the conflict zones and maintain — wrongly — that dialogue is not the road to peace. The world today spends 300-400 times more on militarism than on the United Nations. Furthermore, the threatened use of nuclear weapons as deterrence and terror, albeit for a political purpose, bears the implication of annihilating millions. China also has nuclear weapons, but it remains committed to a policy of "no first use" and to "never use nukes on countries that do not have nuclear weapons" since first proposing it in 1964.

A more effective approach to security would be to consider "common security" where security is achieved through defensive means. This involves ensuring that the methods for one country's security and safety needs do not encroach upon or threaten other countries' efforts of securing themselves, i. e.security that is built with, not against, others. This concept emphasizes defensive defense, both military and civilian, meaning that while we maintain strength in a defensive posture, we do not possess the capability to strike people thousands of kilometers away. Such an approach minimizes the perception of threat.

This implies a fundamental shift from the current security-to-peace paradigm: effective defense should be designed for self-protection but should not be used for offensive purposes. It can encompass both military and civilian aspects but does not fuel an arms race. This approach focuses on human and global security rather than solely on national military security, making significant investments in early conflict warning, conflict analysis, conflict resolution, mediation, strengthening UN peacekeeping, negotiations, reconciliation and forgiveness.

Chinese foreign policy, guided by the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, emphasizes national sovereignty, noninterference, and a collective and comprehensive approach to peace and security. It underscores that development and social stability are fundamental conditions for peace, which is the road to stable security.

In conclusion, peace is a proactive process that involves fostering trust, justice and mutual respect. When peace is achieved through dialogue, fairness and cooperation, security naturally follows, as people feel safe, valued and less inclined toward conflict.

Li Xing is a Yunshan leading scholar and a distinguished professor at Guangdong Institute for International Strategies, and professor of international relations at Aalborg University, Denmark. Jan Oberg is a former professor and co-founder and director of the independent Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Sweden. Li Qing is professor and executive president at the Guangdong Institute for International Strategies. The authors contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.