The legislation recently approved in Beijing aims to restore the principles of equality and fairness among all nations, bringing back a system governed by the rule of law.

China has recently enacted a fresh “foreign relations law,” which serves as a formalization of Beijing’s foreign policy objectives and its methods of responding to sanctions and containment efforts imposed by the West. This law explicitly expresses China’s stance against dominance and power-driven politics.

What implications does this legislation carry, and how does it affect the ongoing standoff between the United States and China?

Centralization of China’s Foreign Policy

In response to increasing insecurity and uncertainty stemming from containment efforts by the United States, China has undergone a significant centralization of its foreign policy-making process, shifting away from the previous decentralization that the West hoped would lead to an ideological transformation.

Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, this centralization has reinstated the Communist Party as the political core of the state, marking an end to the previous decentralization era.

Concurrently, China has prioritized the consolidation of its legal system to foster a stronger implementation of the “rule of law” within society. Beijing considers this issue crucial for the country’s development and foreign relations, emphasizing that it is not solely driven by power politics.

To effectively address the challenge posed by the United States, China believes that unifying all state and legal institutions through codification is the most favorable approach, as factors such as disunity, corruption, or conflicting interests could undermine its foreign policy objectives.

Consequently, China has also deliberately implemented regulatory crackdowns on specific business sectors and individuals, while reaffirming the ideological influence of the Communist Party over the nation.

Sustaining Multipolarity

The objective of this law becomes apparent when examining one of its main aspects, which is the legal incorporation of China’s commitment to establishing a multipolar global order, in contrast to the US-led unipolarity.

Beijing defines the multipolar world it envisions as “democratic,” where states are equal and collaborate, as opposed to certain states, like those in the West, exerting excessive influence over others.

The law outlines China’s vision for multipolarity, encompassing “global development initiatives, global security initiatives, and global civilization initiatives,” while advocating for a comprehensive, multi-tiered, extensive, and multidimensional approach to its external relations. I

t calls for reforming the global governance system and emphasizes the importance of upholding and practicing multilateralism through established mechanisms like the United Nations, as well as China’s own proposed initiatives such as the Belt and Road initiative (BRI).

The law also highlights various other key principles that China has long advocated for, including respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.

Notably, it calls for a subjective interpretation of human rights based on each country’s “own reality,” rejecting the notion that human rights should be universally applied with a rigid Western perspective.

China argues that the Western interpretation of human rights perpetuates power imbalances in the international system, disregards the economic realities faced by developing nations, and challenges China’s chosen path of development.

Counter Sanctions

The section of the law that has understandably garnered the greatest focus from the Western media is its provision for retaliatory measures against those who impose sanctions or tariffs on China, even if such actions violate international law.

This particular aspect has also been subject to misrepresentation, as the United States and its allies portray China’s response to hostile actions as “economic coercion,” conveniently ignoring the realities of their own actions against other nations and inventing new terminology to describe Beijing’s stance.

In reality, the foreign relations law clearly indicates that China’s utilization of countermeasures is defensive rather than offensive or “coercive.” According to China Briefing, China explicitly states that it will not initiate sanctions and implies its preference for resolving disputes through established global mechanisms for dispute resolution.

Therefore, any potential risks associated with sanctions, often referred to as “China Risk,” are contingent on the actions of lawmakers in the United States, Europe, and other nations. In essence, China argues that the responsibility for sanctions lies with Washington, Brussels, London, and other entities, rather than Beijing.

Moreover, the law emphasizes China’s commitment to upholding and strengthening the rule of law throughout the process. The implemented measures will not be arbitrary, indiscriminate, or illegal, as they will be conducted within the framework of legal guidelines.

Conclusion

China’s newly implemented foreign relations law represents an administrative and legal consolidation of the country’s own geopolitical struggle against the United States. Its primary objective is to establish a secure and stable environment that facilitates China’s economic development in the face of containment efforts.

Through this law, China centralizes and unifies the decision-making power in foreign policy, emphasizes its commitment to fostering a multipolar world, and establishes clear boundaries for retaliatory actions against Western attempts to impose sanctions.

Despite mainstream media potentially portraying these measures as “economic coercion,” a closer examination allows for a deeper understanding of China’s position, intentions, and the actual context at hand.

Remember that, historically, it was not China or any other Eastern country that ventured to the West and engaged in military and economic terrorism there. Rather, it was the West that forcefully exerted its influence upon Asia, imposing its will upon the region through military adventurisms, and by sending economic hitmen.

In fact, the Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang has recently demanded the United States explain its plans for the “destruction of Taiwan”, warning that any mishandling of issues related to the self-ruled island would shake the foundation of China-US relations.

The current state of affairs reveals the West’s limitations in effectively managing absolute economic and geopolitical power. In light of this reality, it becomes increasingly appropriate to consider transferring these powers to more experienced, wiser and matured leaderships in the East.