Foreign

So-called “rules-based international order” reveals U.S. hegemony

Published

3 years ago

May 17, 2023

By Huan Yuping, People’s Daily

Some people in the United States, to hype the Group of Seven (G7) Summit to be held in Japan’s Hiroshima, are raising their pitch in peddling the so-called “rules-based international order.”
However, what they say is not new. The so-called “rules-based international order” is just a disguise that’s been used by the United States more and more frequently in forcing bloc confrontation and pressuring other countries.
Saddling other countries with its own wills and standards and replacing international law widely accepted by the international society with rules that only suit itself and its allies, the United States is indeed pursuing hegemonism and power politics. The international community is deeply aware of the harm of these practices.
I.
The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative fabricated by the United States is totally groundless.
In 1945, the World Anti-Fascist War secured a great victory, and justice defeated evil. The making of the UN Charter laid a cornerstone for the modern international order and established contemporary basic norms governing international relations. Over the past more than 70 years, it is widely accepted by the international community that there is only one international system in the world, namely, the international system with the United Nations at its core; there is only one international order, which is the one underpinned by international law; there is only one set of rules, namely, the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative fabricated by the United States has no relation at all to the international order widely accepted by the international society today.
This narrative is not written in the UN Charter nor included in the resolutions of the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council. The “rules-based international order” is not recognized by the international community, and only works in the clique formulated by the United States and parts of its allies.
The “rules-based international order” never has a clear explanation on who should be making the rules, what rules should be made, how the rules should be obeyed or what rules should be protected. The explanation by the U.S. side is quite arbitrary and selective.
Some commented that the “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States is just a blurred term that never exists in international law established after the World War II, one that has no concrete connotation.
Fabricating the so-called “rules-based international order” narrative, the United States aims at explaining and applying international law at its own will and monopolizing the right to define international rules and order. The more ambiguous the “rules” and “order” are, the more discretion the United States enjoys. Any country could be labeled as a “rules and order breaker” for any practice that touches upon the hegemonic interests of the United States.
American columnist Peter Beinart noted that “Since the ‘rules-based order’ is never adequately defined, America’s claim to uphold it can never be disproved.”
A British scholar called the discussion over the term which American politicians have never defined a fight against the mist.
The U.S. doesn’t have to peddle the so-called “rules-based international order” narrative, if it really wants to safeguard the international order. All it should do is to uphold the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order underpinned by international law.
The United States should pay its long overdue contributions to the UN regular budget and peacekeeping budget, ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, stop standing alone in obstructing the resumption of the negotiations on a verification protocol under the Biological Weapons Convention, stop refusing to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice, and stop violating WTO rules again and again.
The United States has long been seeking supremacy. It takes a selective approach to international rules, and uses international organizations when they suit its interests and abandon them otherwise. The United States is undermining international order in the name of safeguarding it. Its true intention is to set up an “American order” outside the existing and recognized international system and order, so as to safeguard its hegemony and private interests.
II.
The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States stems from and serves American hegemony.
The United States has become the only superpower in the world since the Cold War ended, gaining a supreme position in the globe. To get rid of the restrictions from the UN system and international law, the United States fabricated the “rules-based international order” narrative to gloss over American hegemony.
According to scholar Paul Poast from the University of Chicago, the “rules-based international order” emerged in 1990s and was more and more frequently used by the White House after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The “rules-based international order” has been synchronized with the expansion of the U.S. hegemony since the end of the Cold War.
The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States, though literally comes with “rules” and “order,” always has two standards.
From the perspective of the “rules-based international order,” combating extreme and violent terrorists is considered counter-terrorism in the United States but a human right issue in other countries; safeguarding national security is considered necessary in the United States but a violation of democracy and freedom in other countries; supporting international exchanges is justified in the United States but considered propaganda and infiltration in other countries.
Such double standards exactly indicate the remarks by American historian Alfred McCoy that “You must follow international law unless you’re America.”
Under the disguise of verbal tricks, U.S. hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices of military intervention, economic sanctions and technological blockage all hypocritically become a part of the “rules-based international order.”
From the wars the United States launched in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, to the color revolutions it started in European and Asian countries, and to the unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction it imposed on dozens of countries, the “rules-based international order” has brought no stability to the world at all, but only turbulence and disasters.
The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States is also a tool of the country to rope in its allies and start bloc confrontations.
The United States is addicted to containing its “imaginary enemies.” All “rivals” or “competitors” of the United States are labeled “rule breakers” or “order subverters.”
However, the frequent trouble-making by the United States in the name of “rules-based international order” has presented a clearer and clearer picture to the international society that behind the narrative is the hegemony of the United States that places everything after its own interests, and the major threat against the stability of the international order is exactly the U.S.-led group politics under the disguise of the so-called “rules-based international order” narrative.
III.
In today’s world, multiple challenges and crises are intertwined. As a community with a shared future, humanity needs to work hand in hand to tackle these challenges and crises. Under such a background, it is more necessary and urgent for the international community to jointly safeguard the UN-centered international system, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms of international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
The United States should come to realize that the world does not need a country dictating other countries, nor does the world need a “coalition of shared values.” What the world needs is mutual respect despite difference in ideology, values and development level, solidarity and joint efforts in line with the UN Charter and international law in order to tackle global challenges together.
The international community’s determination to choose justice over hegemony has become even stronger today. Developing countries are gaining an increasingly higher awareness for strategic independence and are more active on safeguarding the international order. They believe it’s important to uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and safeguard true multilateralism.
Having suffered among the heaviest casualties in the world anti-fascist alliance during WWII, and as a founding member of the UN and the first country to sign the UN Charter, China sees it as its solemn duty to defend the authority of the UN and uphold the post-war international order. The country has the best record in abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, international law and the basic norms of international relations.
To contain China, the United States has done everything to label China a challenger to the international order. However, such defaming cannot affect the international community’s opinion.
The international structures of power are going through profound changes, with the international system and order in intensive reform. To oppose hegemonic “might is right” practices, transcend the outdated mindset of bloc confrontation, jointly safeguard the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and follow the golden rules in state-to-state interactions such as equal sovereignty and non-interference in other countries’ domestic affairs is not a proposal of only China, but a common aspiration of most countries in the world. Only by recognizing this point, can a country play a constructive role in safeguarding the stability of the international order.
The exclusive clique established by the United States cannot represent the international system with the UN at its core. The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States cannot replace the international order underpinned by international law. The laws and rules applicable to only the United States and its allies cannot represent the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The international order will only become fairer and more equitable, which can never be stopped by the hegemony of a few countries.

Foreign

Japan must face consequences for dangerous provocations on Taiwan question

Published

6 days ago

November 24, 2025

Our Reporter

By Zhong Sheng, People’s Daily

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi recently made public remarks suggesting the possibility of military intervention in the Taiwan Strait, grossly interfering in China’s internal affairs. Despite repeated representations from China, she has refused to repent for her blatant and provocative rhetoric, which represents a blatant violation of the one-China principle and the guiding principles set forth in the four China-Japan political documents. Her actions have gravely undermined the political foundation of China-Japan relations and severely offended the sentiments of the Chinese people.

Assertions by a handful of Japanese politicians that China is “overreacting” to Takaichi’s erroneous comments are a misrepresentation of facts and a deliberate attempt to discredit China’s legitimate and reasonable position. The Taiwan question bears directly on the political foundation of mutual trust between China and Japan.

In 1972, the two countries signed the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement and officially established diplomatic relations, which states that the Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation. In 1978, the two countries signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between China and Japan, which affirmed the principles and contents of the joint statement in legal terms and set out the legal parameters for China-Japan relations.

In 1998, the two sides released the China-Japan Joint Declaration on Building a Partnership of Friendship and Cooperation for Peace and Development, in which Japan undertook to “continue to maintain its stand on the Taiwan question which was set forth in the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement” and “reiterated its understanding that there is one China.”

In 2008, the China-Japan Joint Statement on All-round Promotion of Strategic Relationship of Mutual Benefit stipulated clearly in Article 5 that “The Japanese side reiterated that it will continue to abide by its position on the Taiwan question stated in the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement.”

The above is what is laid out in the four political documents between China and Japan regarding the Taiwan question. It constitutes the solemn commitment made by the Japanese government and has a legal effect under international law. There is no room whatsoever for ambiguity or misinterpretation. Whichever political party or person is in power in Japan, they must always abide by the commitment of the Japanese government on the Taiwan question.

Takaichi’s statements fundamentally contravene the guiding principles set forth in these political documents and strike at the foundation of the China-Japan bilateral relationship. As the leader of a country, she should have exercised basic political responsibility and worked with China to promote the sound development of bilateral relations. Instead, shortly after expressing a commitment to the position outlined in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, she irresponsibly claimed that a “Taiwan contingency” could be a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan and implied that Japan may invoke the so-called right to collective self-defense to interfere militarily in the Taiwan Strait.

Such rhetoric is deeply corrosive to the political foundation of China-Japan relations. It reflects provocative strategic intentions and poses a serious threat to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the region. No sovereign nation can tolerate such flagrant interference in its internal affairs or accept threats of military action from foreign leaders.

Takaichi must take direct responsibility for the political damage her remarks have caused. The only responsible course for the Japanese side is to confront its historical and bilateral obligations with sincerity, cease inflammatory behavior, retract the erroneous statements, and take concrete steps to honor its commitments to China.

A sound and stable China-Japan relationship serves the interests of the Japanese people. Undermining bilateral ties not only runs counter to the prevailing regional and global trends but also lacks public and political support.

In recent days, the extreme and provocative moves of the Takaichi administration have triggered widespread criticism from insightful voices within Japan. Takakage Fujita, secretary-general of the Association for Inheriting and Propagating the Murayama Statement, stated that Takaichi’s remarks violate international law and inflict serious harm on bilateral relations. An editorial in The Tokyo Shimbun criticized her comments as “reckless and careless,” emphasizing that such statements are unacceptable from a sitting prime minister.

Numerous Japanese netizens have bluntly questioned Takaichi’s diplomatic competence, urging her to retract her misguided remarks. Some Japanese people have even organized demonstrations to protest her irresponsible and provocative behavior. Japanese politicians should take these rational voices seriously and refrain from further escalating tensions along a dangerous trajectory.

On matters of fundamental principle, the Chinese people remain unwavering. The Taiwan question lies at the very heart of China’s core interests. Any attempt to challenge this red line will be firmly opposed by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people and the entire Chinese nation.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of Taiwan’s restoration to China.

As a former aggressor that inflicted innumerable atrocities in Taiwan, Japan bears a historical responsibility to reflect deeply on its past and exercise heightened caution in its approach to the Taiwan question. Aligning with forces that seek to divide China runs counter to the prevailing trend of peace and development. Should Japan persist in this course, it will inevitably bear the consequences of its actions.

(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy and international affairs.)

Foreign

Bamboo innovation drives low-carbon development in E China’s Anhui

Published

6 days ago

November 24, 2025

Our Reporter

By Han Lei, People’s Daily

In Chizhou, east China’s Anhui province, bamboo is emerging as a sustainable alternative in daily life. Products traditionally made from plastic, such as straws, ice cream sticks, disposable chopsticks, and cutlery, are increasingly being replaced by bamboo-based alternatives.

At a manufacturing facility in the Chizhou High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, automated production lines produce five million bamboo straws daily. Each year, two billion bamboo straws are exported to more than 40 countries and regions, displacing approximately 6,000 tons of plastic and reducing carbon emissions by 36,000 tons.

“Bamboo straws do not soften in water or break easily, and they are fully renewable and biodegradable,” said Yin Mingliang, the company’s general manager. However, he noted that producing even a simple item like a straw posed significant technical challenges, including issues with mold resistance, heat tolerance, and high production costs.

Initial attempts to resolve these problems through partnerships with three PhD research teams were unsuccessful. A breakthrough came in 2017 when a fourth team, after three years of development, enhanced machinery efficiency to produce 2,000 straws per hour and reduced the unit cost to 0.04 yuan ($0.0056), roughly on par with plastic straws.

The company has also developed an integrated pyrolysis system that converts bamboo wastes into high-value products such as activated carbon and hard-carbon anode materials for sodium-ion batteries. The process captures and reuses steam, enhancing energy efficiency.

Chizhou, home to more than 600,000 mu (40,000 hectares) of bamboo forest, has historically underutilized this natural resource. Recently, the city launched a three-year action plan to promote bamboo as a plastic substitute, extend the industrial value chain, and raise incomes for local farmers.

“Who would have thought that bamboo, once overlooked, could now fetch a good price?” said Shu Rengui, a villager from Languan in Hengdu township of Shitai county, Chizhou, as he harvested bamboo in the morning mist. Shu supplies bamboo to a nearby processing facility and earns around 40,000 yuan annually from the business.

At a bamboo-processing base in Meijie township, Guichi district of Chizhou, two processing plants have been built, capable of handling 35,000 tons of bamboo annually. According to Zhang Yu, the site manager, more than 40 villagers are employed at the base, contributing to local income growth.

Chizhou has developed an integrated industry model linking leading enterprises, circular industrial parks, bamboo-splitting plants, and village cooperatives, establishing a full production chain that spans primary, advanced, and deep processing.

According to an official with the local forestry bureau, Chizhou now has 89 bamboo-processing enterprises with an annual capacity of 900,000 tons. In 2024, the city’s bamboo industry reached an output value of approximately 3 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 26 percent, and provided employment for nearly 40,000 rural households, boosting average household incomes by over 20,000 yuan.

The city is also expanding its global footprint. Through platforms such as the Canton Fair, or the China Import and Export Fair, bamboo products from Chizhou, including skewers, chopsticks, and straws, have entered markets in the EU, India, Japan, South Korea, and other countries and regions.

In December 2023, a Chizhou-based company was invited to speak at a side event organized by the International Bamboo and Rattan Organization during the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP28, sharing China’s experience in plastics substitution.

Bamboo industry development in Chizhou is accelerating. At the first high-quality bamboo industry development conference for Anhui province in 2024, Chizhou High-Tech Industrial Development Zone signed a framework agreement with CRRC, China’s leading train maker, to establish a national bamboo circular-industry park headquarters in Chizhou. Plans are also underway to develop more than 50 such parks in bamboo-rich regions across the country.

Foreign

China set to advance intelligent, integrated, multi-dimensional transport network by 2030

Published

6 days ago

November 24, 2025

Our Reporter

By Han Xin, People’s Daily

China is accelerating the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into its transportation sector, aiming to establish an intelligent, integrated, and multi-dimensional national transport network by 2030. A recently issued government guideline outlines 16 targeted tasks across four strategic areas, including technological innovation and scenario-based application, in a bid to enhance mobility, improve safety, and reduce environmental impact.

The guideline emphasizes self-reliance in core technologies and sets out a roadmap to ensure China’s transport infrastructure ranks among the world’s most advanced by the end of the decade. The strategy centers on breakthroughs in applied AI technologies, innovation in intelligent transport products, and the development of large AI models tailored to comprehensive transport systems.

“Strengthening the supply of key technologies is essential to build a full innovation chain from research and development to practical application,” said Wang Yunpeng, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and president of Beihang University. Wang added that developing large-scale AI models would enable the creation of a “transport brain,” equipped with high-quality datasets, algorithm libraries, and digital toolchains to support intelligent transformation across the sector.

Progress in large transport models is already well underway. The Transport Foundation Model Innovation and Industrial Alliance — launched under the guidance of China’s Ministry of Transport — has brought together more than 50 leading enterprises, AI companies, and universities and research institutes, identifying 860 typical AI application scenarios.

At the enterprise level, China Logistics Group introduced a large model serving over 40 specific scenarios including multimodal transport and warehouse scheduling. A “smart hub” built upon a transport large model developed by Chinese tech firm Baidu has been deployed in over 10 cities, serving over 1 million vehicles equipped with L2 driver-assistance driving systems.

“Demonstration regions across the country are applying large-model-based solutions in areas such as road network monitoring and early warning, active management of high-traffic corridors, and integrated mobility services,” said an official from China’s Ministry of Transport. By enhancing capacity along major transport routes and implementing multi-tiered, refined traffic management models, these demonstration corridors have achieved approximately a 20 percent increase in traffic efficiency and a 30 percent improvement in emergency response efficiency during unforeseen events.

Enabled by big data analytics and high-precision modeling, AI is establishing a robust digital foundation for China’s transport infrastructure. Statistics show that the 20 designated demonstration regions for digital transformation of highway and waterway infrastructure now encompass more than 60,000 kilometers of upgraded corridors, comprising approximately 54,000 kilometers of highways and 7,500 kilometers of waterways. These improved sections form a critical backbone of the national integrated, multi-dimensional transport network.

Diverse application scenarios are essential for driving the deep integration of AI into the transportation sector. The newly issued guideline identifies intelligent application scenarios across seven major areas, including assisted driving, smart railways, and smart shipping, designed to accelerate innovation through real-world implementation. “These scenarios span almost all segments of the transport system, offering broader opportunities for testing and deploying new technologies and products,” Wang said.

On the waterways front, China now has 52 automated terminals. Domestically developed intelligent operating systems for fully automated container terminals have been implemented at more than a dozen terminals both domestically and internationally. Electronic navigation charts for waterways have been successfully deployed along the Yangtze River’s main and branch routes. The accelerated adoption of intelligent technologies across ports, waterways, and vessels is significantly enhancing the efficiency of waterborne transport.

Parallel advancements are also transforming China’s road networks. The Beijing-Xiong’an expressway, powered by Baidu AI Cloud, leverages the collaboration between vision and language-based large models to deliver second-level alerts for major traffic anomalies. Didi Autonomous Driving, in collaboration with Chinese automaker GAC Aion, has developed a new generation of factory-installed autonomous-driving vehicles. As autonomous driving converges with vehicle-road collaboration, a growing number of “smart vehicles” are taking to “smart roads,” accelerating the evolution of intelligent mobility.

Deep integration of AI and transportation also depends on next-generation infrastructure. The guideline outlines targeted measures in terms of computing power, data, and networks to strengthen the supply of essential elements.

For computing power, the guideline calls for better coordination of computing resources within the transport sector and strengthening computing capacity based on major transport infrastructure and local conditions.

In terms of data, China will accelerate the development of comprehensive transport big-data centers, promote data sharing, and build high-quality dataset construction to fully leverage data as a production factor.

In terms of network infrastructure, the guideline calls for the integrated application of multiple network technologies, the construction of intelligent sensing systems and the development of high-speed data transmission channels to enable low-latency, high-reliability, and wide-coverage connectivity for vehicle-road collaboration, remote operations, and real-time monitoring.