The Global Significance of the Global Civilization Initiative

On March 15, 2023, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting, which received widespread international support and recognition. The GCI follows the Global Development Initiative proposed in September 2021 and the Global Security Initiative in April 2022, marking the third global initiative put forward by Xi. This initiative highlights the CPC’s commitment and broad vision in the new era. The GCI transcends the narratives of “End of History,” “Western-centrism,” “Might Makes Right,” and “Clash of Civilizations”, contributing China’s wisdom to the human civilization, respecting the diversity of civilizations, and promoting peaceful development and mutual learning among civilizations. It holds significant practical value and global importance.

1. Breaking the “End of History” Narrative for the Flourishing of Human Civilization

In 1989, American scholar Francis Fukuyama published “The End of History?” in The National Interest magazine. He later expanded this article into the book “The End of History and the Last Man” in 1992. Fukuyama argued that the end of the Cold War marked the end of communism, with the Western liberal democracy claiming the final historical victory. The “End of History” notion, based on previously universal values, assumed that history’s development is linear, trending toward a universal “end point.” However, history has proven to be far more complex and uncertain than Fukuyama predicted. The development of civilizations worldwide is influenced by geography, history, culture, and social structures, each following a unique path. Over the past three decades, human political civilization has not evolved as Fukuyama predicted. The “End of History” notion failed to foresee the rise of emerging economies, geopolitical shifts, and the new challenges humanity faces in the globalization process. Notably, the successful practice of Chinese modernization demonstrates an alternative to the Western model, ending the “End of History” notion with undeniable facts.

Contrary to the linear perspective of the notion, the GCI recognizes the different historical backgrounds and cultural traditions of countries, each at different stages of development. Different civilizations are equal and integral parts of the garden of human civilization. The GCI acknowledges the universal pursuit of values such as peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, emphasizing respect for diverse interpretations of these values by different civilizations. In pursuing these values, civilizations should be allowed to explore development paths suited to their characteristics and needs. The GCI transcends the one-way view of history, asserting that the development of civilizations is diverse and dynamic, without a definitive “end point.” It opposes imposing a single political or economic model as the only correct choice for other countries. Facing unprecedented global challenges of economic stagnation, widening wealth gaps, ecological crises, and ethics risks of technology, it is essential to adopt the inclusive and open perspective of the GCI, set aside civilizational biases and discrimination, and seek more effective solutions through closer international cooperation and mutual learning among civilizations.

2. Transcending “Western-centrism” by Respect of Civilizational Diversity

“Western-centrism” is a worldview and historical perspective that centers on Western civilization, treating Western history, culture, political systems, and economic models as the sole standards of civilization while considering other civilizations as backward and ignorant. American sinologist John K. Fairbank once believed that modern Chinese society was stagnant, lacking internal drive to break traditional constraints until Western impacts in the mid-19th century prompted China to evolve into modern society. This view overly magnified the role of Western forces in China’s modern transformation apart from reflecting the influence of “Western-centrism.” This narrative, however, has dominated international discourse for a long time, treating Western values, lifestyles, and political-economic models as benchmarks, disregarding or denying the achievements of other civilizations. As multipolarity and economic globalization deepen, the biased and narrow perspective of “Western-centrism” increasingly hinders mutual understanding and cooperation among civilizations, sometimes even exacerbating conflicts. The limitations and drawbacks of this view are becoming more evident. Rational voices in the international community increasingly call for overcoming the arrogance and prejudice of the West and seeking more equal, diverse, and inclusive perspectives in theory and practice.

China, as one of the world’s oldest civilizations, has accumulated rich historical experience and cultural wisdom over millennia. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, especially during the more than 40 years of reform and opening-up, China’s socialist construction and development achievements have not only established an effective path but also provided new development models and choices for other countries. The GCI surpasses the unilateralism and egoism present in “Western-centrism,” advocating multilateralism and cooperation to address global challenges, showcasing a new global governance perspective based on common interests and mutual respect. The GCI provides a new view of civilizational development, fully respecting the right of each civilization to choose its development path. In contrast to the byproduct of unequal interests and imbalanced development created by “Western-centrism,” the GCI upholds openness, inclusiveness, and universality, offering a fairer and more reasonable new development model. Facing various global challenges and common problems, the GCI chooses cooperation over confrontation, mutual learning over exclusion, and win-win outcomes over zero-sum games, contributing the Chinese wisdom of fully respecting civilizational diversity and constructing a fairer, more reasonable, and harmonious world order.

3. Moving Beyond “Might Makes Right” to the Chinese Wisdom for Peaceful Development of All Civilizations

The “Might Makes Right” narrative has a long history in the West, asserting that a nation with strong power will inevitably seek expansion, trying to dominate others on the international stage to protect and expand its interests. Historically, many great powers, upon becoming strong, adopted expansionist and hegemonic behaviors, such as European colonial expansion and the US-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. These examples are seen by some as empirical evidence of the “Might Makes Right” notion. However, this view overly emphasizes competition and confrontation, ignoring the possibility of resolving conflicts and achieving win-win outcomes through peaceful means. It often leads to self-centered and short-sighted international policies, intensifying tensions and conflicts in international relations. The limitations of “Might Makes Right” are becoming increasingly evident in today’s complex and ever-changing international environment. Understanding international relations requires transcending simple power struggles and seeking new ideas for civilizational interaction based on respect, cooperation, and mutual benefit.

The “Might Makes Right” theory does not align with the Chinese cultural traditions. Historically, China held a leading position but even at its peak of comprehensive national power, it did not engage in colonial plunder, gunboat diplomacy, or impose unequal treaties on others, nor did it invade other nations to proclaim dominance. The GCI is rooted in the rich wisdom of China’s fine traditional culture, which has continued for thousands of years, and it adheres to the historical lesson that “a nation, however large, will perish if it is belligerent.” By upholding principles of harmonious coexistence and valuing peace in interactions, it successfully moves beyond the outdated logic of the “Might Makes Right” theory. The GCI explicitly rejects such old mindset, emphasizing that the rise of national power does not inevitably lead to expansion or hegemony. Instead, it champions the basic principles of peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit in managing relationships between different civilizations, committed to maintaining world peace and promoting the common development of human civilization. Together with the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind, it provides the international community with a model for avoiding zero-sum games and achieving win-win development. Within the framework of these initiatives and concepts, nations actively uphold fairness and justice in international affairs, oppose any form of hegemony and power politics, jointly face common challenges, share the fruits of civilization’s development, and enhance the common well-being of all humanity. This new model and new order of international relations, based on mutual respect and equality, will help create a more harmonious, stable, peaceful, secure, and prosperous international society.

4. Replacing “Clash of Civilizations” with Civilizational Exchanges and Mutual Learning

In the 1990s, American scholar Samuel Huntington introduced the so-called “Clash of Civilizations” theory in his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, in which he argued that post-Cold War conflicts would stem not from ideological or economic differences but from cultural and civilizational disparities. He categorized the world into eight major civilizations and predicted that civilizational clashes would dominate future conflicts, particularly predicting that Islamic and Confucian civilizations would pose significant challenges to Western civilization. According to the theory, following the end of the Cold War, the global structure shifted from bipolar to multipolar, with national actions no longer solely determined by ideology. Instead, civilizational conflicts were expected to dominate global politics, with civilizational boundaries becoming the front lines of future conflicts. Since its inception, the theory has been highly controversial, criticized for potentially exacerbating tensions between civilizations and hindering peaceful coexistence and dialogue. Unfortunately, the theory has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the psychological expectation of inevitable civilizational clashes itself increases the likelihood of such conflicts. Elevating the “Clash of Civilizations” theory to a political value or philosophy, by overemphasizing the heterogeneity and conflict between civilizations, undoubtedly leads to more disputes and discord among civilizations.

The GCI demonstrates China’s active role in promoting civilizational exchanges and mutual learning, providing new solutions to the civilizational confrontation posited by the “Clash of Civilizations” theory. The narrow perspective and pessimistic expectations of the theory sharply contrast with the reality of deepening global cooperation and increasingly close cultural exchanges. Rather than civilizational conflict, the international community needs a more inclusive and diverse perspective to respect the differences between civilizations. Nowadays, an increasing number of countries recognize the GCI as a new ideological concept that replaces the “Clash of Civilizations” theory while vigorously promoting exchanges, dialogues, cooperation, and mutual learning among civilizations. The GCI transcends the narrow framework of the “Clash of Civilizations” theory, advocating mutual respect, equal dialogue, and deep exchange between civilizations. The GCI reflects the traditional Chinese cultural value of “harmony without uniformity.” Despite significant differences in culture, religion, and values among nations, these differences should not be sources of conflict. The GCI advocates for civilizations to engage in dialogue and exchange on equal footings, opposing the use of a single standards to measure the merits of others and promoting more just and open international cultural exchange mechanisms. In recent years, China has also greatly promoted cultural, educational, and art exchanges and cooperation with countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative, enhancing mutual understanding and respect between civilizations and gathering strength for civilizational exchanges and mutual learning.

(Authors: Ahmed Al-Saeed, an Egyptian sinologist and CEO of Bayt Al-Hekma; Wang Jun, a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Peking University)