By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent forum sponsored by Beijing at the UN, China’s ambassador to the United Nations, Fu Cong, criticized unnamed countries for hindering developing nations and undermining global institutions. These comments seemed directed at the United States and its recent actions, such as withdrawing from international agreements and weakening alliances. The forum, titled “Vision China,” focused on the importance of multilateralism and peacebuilding in the 21st century, coinciding with the gathering of global leaders at the UN General Assembly. This event followed a significant show of force and nationalist pride earlier in Beijing, where leaders from multiple nations attended events hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Read the original article here
Chinese envoy calls out Trump administration for eroding institutions, breaking norms is a fascinating premise, and frankly, it’s a situation that reflects a broader complexity in global politics. It’s almost surreal to consider that even someone or something like a revived *Kony 2012* campaign could be seen as making a reasonable point in the current climate. That’s how deeply the ground has shifted. The fact that this kind of criticism could be leveled, and potentially resonate, speaks volumes.
The very fact that this situation is happening, with investigations into companies like Nvidia – a cornerstone of the US economy – and other actions, paints a picture of a nation perhaps not operating at its most strategically astute. This is happening while the former administration was supposedly “negotiating” a ban on TikTok, a move that, in hindsight, looks like a strategic mismatch. The comparison to a game of Connect 4 versus chess is apt, highlighting a stark difference in strategic depth and long-term thinking.
It’s important to recognize that this isn’t necessarily a case of black and white, or good versus evil. The narrative becomes much more complicated because the other side, China, is not without its own issues. We’re talking about a nation that has been accused of running similar, if not identical, programs of detention and re-education. The parallels are unsettling. China’s backing of Russia in the war against Ukraine is another critical factor. Through economic cooperation, political support, and the supply of essential war goods, China undermines the principles of the UN, including respect for territorial integrity and peaceful conflict resolution.
This isn’t about taking sides, it’s about seeing the nuances. What’s happening is more complex than a simple assessment of good and bad. What is being laid bare here is a more fundamental erosion of trust in global institutions and a shift toward a world where power politics reign supreme.
This is because, even if one agrees with the criticism being leveled, we cannot forget that China itself is not a paragon of international cooperation or adherence to norms. China’s actions are not only undermining international institutions, but are also creating the very environment that Trump eroded. It’s a vicious cycle.
The focus on institutions is an important one. Which of them are worth saving? This is a pertinent question when considering how many are failing to do their job. The United Nations, for example, appears to struggle to maintain even a basic level of peace. The irony is palpable.
It is a complex web of geopolitics, hypocrisy, and a general erosion of trust in international structures. The invasion of Iraq, which happened in defiance of a UN vote, further underscored the weakness of those institutions and their inability to stop certain actions.
The purchase of Russian oil by Europe, and the role of other nations in supporting the conflict in Ukraine, demonstrates a disregard for the very principles they claim to uphold. These actions highlight the complexities of global affairs and the difficulty in achieving truly coordinated action.
The South China Sea dispute illustrates the challenges of upholding international law and order in the face of powerful interests. Almost all parties involved ignore UNCLOS, which is supposed to be the framework for governing the sea. This shows that even countries that bring cases against others don’t always adhere to the ruling.
In the end, it is a game of power. It is not chess, it is tic-tac-toe, but bigger. And the implications are far-reaching.