International Organization and China-US Strategic Competition: Evolution, Dynami

The China-US relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world.Whether the two countries will cooperate, compete or slide into conflict in their dealings is becoming one of the key factors affecting the stability of today’s international system.The US has regarded China as its peer strategic competitor and has formulated and implemented a China policy revolving around strategic competition.On the other hand, China believes that China-US relations should uphold “dialogue over confrontation, cooperation over conflict,opening over exclusion, and integration over decoupling” and that “even in competition, there should be limits based on internationally recognized fairness rules.”1“Drawing Wisdom from History to Light up the Road Ahead——Address by State Councilor Wang Yi at the Meeting in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Shanghai Communiqué,” February 28, 2022,https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/ziliao _674904/zyjh_674906/202202/t20220228_10646127.shtml.The strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations reflects their differences in interests, ideas and values and concerns over the future of international rules, international order,international leadership and global governance.China and the US should conduct healthy competition and avoid becoming vicious.They should expand areas of cooperation and prevent confrontation and conflict.

This article has three parts.The first part reviews the evolution process of China-US strategic competition in international organizations from the Cold War, the post-Cold War and the 21st century.It analyzes the characteristics and results of such competition.The second part explores the situations of China-US strategic competition in international organizations during the Trump administration and since the Biden administration.The third part probes the influence of China-US strategic competition in international organizations on international rules, international order,international leadership and global governance.

The Evolution of China-US Strategic Competition in International Organizations

China and the US are major countries with global influence.Strategic cooperation and competition marked China-US relations in international organizations.The strategic competition between the two countries can be divided into two stages.

The first stage is from the founding of New China in 1949 to the end of the Cold War, a period in which China-US relations went from strategic confrontation to strategic reconciliation and then to strategic cooperation.Although the “lopsided leaning toward Soviet” foreign policy adopted after the establishment of the new Chinese government has given it development opportunities, it also caused diplomatic imbalances that resulted in the longterm strategic confrontation between China and the United States.The Korean War was the manifestation and result of this confrontation.In the late 1960s and early 1970s, significant changes in the international environment and new external threats faced China and the United States, which pushed the two countries toward strategic reconciliation.From establishing diplomatic ties in 1979 until the end of the Cold War, China and the United States moved toward the comprehensive development of bilateral relations.They carried out strategic cooperation at the regional and global levels.

The second stage started at the end of the Cold War, during which China and the United States experienced a process from strategic friction to strategic cooperation and then to strategic competition.With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the common strategic rival of the two countries disappeared, and the foundation for strategic cooperation was missing.In this case, strategic frictions emerged on human rights, the Taiwan question,trade and other issues.However, at the beginning of the 21st century,China and the US have begun to cooperate strategically on global counterterrorism, dealing with the international financial crisis, and various regional security issues such as the Korean nuclear issue, the Iranian nuclear issue and the Libyan issue.The United States supports China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the two countries cooperate in the UN Security Council, APEC, G20 and other global and regional international organizations.However, the United States’ position changed after the Trump administration took office; it regarded China as its main strategic competitor and launched a trade war.The Biden administration has largely continued its predecessor’s China policy, with strategic competition becoming the defining feature of China-US relations.

International organizations are important “battlefields” and platforms of strategic competition between China and the US during and after the Cold War.The competition was reflected in the diplomatic struggles during New China’s return to the United Nations, the fight at the UN Commission on Human Rights, and the political competition in the World Health Organization (WHO) after the outbreak of Covid-19.In this process, the strategic competition shows different characteristics and results, and their position and strategies vary greatly.

First is the diplomatic struggle in New China’s return to the United Nations.From 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was founded,to China’s return to the UN in 1971.The two countries engaged in fierce political, diplomatic and military confrontations in and out of the UN.The Chinese government worked to restore its rightful seat in the UN immediately after the founding of the People’s Republic of China.However,the United States manipulated the UN by vetoing relevant proposals and using tactics such as “postponing review” and “important question drafts”to obstruct the rightful Chinese moves.In the 26th UN General Assembly in 1971, the US and some countries proposed a “dual representation”draft to create “two Chinas.” But the General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted Resolution 2758, which decided to restore all the rights of the People’s Republic of China in the UN.Before 1971, the US was obviously in a position of strength in the strategic competition between China and the US in the UN over the Korean War and China’s seat in the UN, while China was weak.Although returning to the UN is significant to China,the country’s influence in the UN is still limited, with the US and Western countries dominating much of the decision-making and agenda.The US also embargoes and restricts trade with socialist countries, including China,through international organizations such as the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) and contains China by establishing the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization.

Second, the contests in the UN Commission on Human Rights.After the end of the Cold War, human rights became an important area of strategic competition between China and the US at the UN.The two countries struggled over human rights issues on sanctions and countersanctions, most-favored-nation treatment, and the US State Department’s human rights report, with the Human Rights Commission becoming the main battlefield.Since 1990, the UN Human Rights Commission has adopted many Country Resolutions on Human Rights against developing countries.The United States and other Western countries often proposed draft resolutions on the so-called “human rights in China” at the UN Human Rights Council, mainly concerning the rights of citizens to personal freedom, political freedom and religious freedom, as well as the rights and interests of ethnic minorities, women and children.The Chinese government opposes the politicization and instrumentalization of human rights issues and adheres to a comprehensive view of human rights.It believes that what the United States has done is “an attempt to use human rights issues to interfere in China’s internal affairs out of domestic political needs.” It has proposed a “no action” motion against the United States’ draft resolutions.China has also engaged in human rights dialogue with other Western developed countries and gained support for its initiatives from developing countries.The Chinese initiatives reduced the number of cosponsors of China-related human rights proposed by the US.At the same time, China has repeatedly defeated anti-China proposals from the United States at the UN Human Rights Council.

After the Human Rights Council replaced the Human Rights Commission in 2006, the strategic competition between China and the US in human rights took on new features.Firstly, the situation of the China-US human rights confrontation has changed.Although the United States continues to criticize China on the so-called human rights issues related to Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, China is gradually taking the initiative on human rights issues.China has released the Human Rights Record of the United States since 2001 and the Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States every year since 2013 to counter the US concerning its various human rights issues.In addition, China has adopted the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Countering Foreign Sanctions.Second, China has engaged in constructive human rights dialogue and diplomacy.China’s vision of human rights, which is comprehensive,diverse and inclusive, as well as the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind, putting people first and promoting human rights through development, has been supported by an increasing number of countries.China has also submitted resolutions to the Human Rights Council, individually or jointly, on “the contribution of development to the promotion of human rights,” “promoting mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human Rights,” and “promoting and protecting economic, social and cultural rights and addressing inequality.” Third, besides the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly Third Committee (Third Committee) is another important arena of human rights competition between the two powers.Since taking office,the Biden administration has used multiple platforms further to intensify pressure on China on the human rights issue.Aside from returning to the UN Human Rights Council, it also hosted the so-called “Summit for Democracy” and criticized China’s human rights situation in the broader Third Committee.

Third, the competition in WHO.The struggle between China and the US in WHO after the outbreak of COVID-19 reflects the reversal of the strategic competition between the two countries in international organizations.As the specialized agency responsible for international health affairs under the UN framework, WHO is the main platform for international health cooperation and the main mechanism for global health governance.Since the pandemic, WHO has highly commended China’s epidemic prevention policies and achievements.China firmly supports the work of WHO and its leading role in global cooperation against COVID-19.

On the contrary, the US has constantly accused WHO of a lack of transparency and improper handling, demanded a comprehensive review and reform, and at one point “cut off” relevant supplies and announced its withdrawal from WHO.In WHO, China has played a constructive and leading role, actively advocated the concept of a global health community for all, and contributed to building this concept by sharing experiences,innovating mechanisms and providing assistance.China has taken an active part in international health cooperation under the guidance of the WHO.It has carried out multilateral cooperation with the Group of 77, ASEAN,the African Union and other organizations of developing countries in transregional international organizations such as the G20, BRICS cooperation mechanism and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and strengthened international health cooperation partnerships.China is also working with WHO to build a “Health Silk Road,” which opens up new space for cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative and provides new ideas for improving global public health governance.

The evolution of the strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations during and after the Cold War and since the 21st century reveals the great changes in the balance of power and the international status of the two countries.The changes reflect the important changes in the roles and functions of the two countries in international organizations and also show that the relationship between the two countries has greatly influenced the reform of the international system.During the Cold War, China was a typical developing country with a weak state and poor people.The United States is a developed country and a superpower in international politics.Although China and the United States are both permanent members of the UN Security Council, they differ greatly in status and influence in the UN and international organizations and in capabilities to use international organizations for strategic competition.Since the end of the Cold War, China’s national strength has increased, and its contribution and influence on international organizations have also been greatly improved.While America’s ability to control and dominate international organizations has declined, its use of international organizations to achieve its national interests and strategic goals has also become less effective.Since the 21st century, especially in the last decade, China’s rise and America’s fall on strategic competition in international organizations have become more obvious.During the Trump administration, the United States withdrew from more than ten international organizations, mechanisms and treaties covering international security, economy and trade, human rights, culture and education, and climate change.The country has become a negative factor for multilateralism.

In contrast, China upholds the international system with the UN at its core, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.China has not only promoted the establishment of new international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS Cooperation Mechanism and its New Development Bank, the United Nations Global Geospatial Knowledge and Innovation Center and the UNESCO Teacher Education Center, put forward the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, but also has carried out practical and fruitful cooperation with international organizations.The moves contributed positively to multilateralism, and the country became the most important pillar of multilateralism.The strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations has undergone a qualitative change.

The Dynamics of China-US Strategic Competition in International Organizations

The strategic competition between China and the US began after the Trump administration took office.Under the Trump administration, the strategic competition mainly focuses on the bilateral level.The United States focuses on competition with and decoupling from China in trade, science and technology, finance, public opinion, diplomacy and other fields.Although international organizations did not become the focus of strategic competition between the two in this period, the United States began to take action.At the regional level, the United States began to pay attention to and strengthen the Quad; At the global level, US withdrawal from international organizations is also for China’s reasons.

During this period, the United States used international organizations to compete strategically with China in three ways.The first is withdrawing from international organizations on the pretext that China controls them.A typical example is that the United States announced its withdrawal from WHO and Human Rights Council.The second one is to stop China’s socalled “infiltration” into international organizations, such as opposing the appointment of a Chinese candidate as Director General of World Intellectual Property Organization and preventing ideas initiated by China from being incorporated into relevant documents of international organizations.The third one is to interfere in China’s internal affairs in international organizations, mainly making groundless accusations against China’s policies and actions in Hong Kong and the South China Sea.

Biden generally inherited the previous administration’s policy of strategic competition with China, but the strategies for international organizations have changed.The first change is that the US returned to international organizations and competed directly with China.Contrary to Trump administration, which keeps withdrawing from international organizations, Biden administration attaches great importance to the role of international organization in strategic competition against China, so the US rejoined these international organizations.On January 20, 2020, his first day as president, Biden announced America’s return to WHO and the Paris Agreement; on October 14, 2021, the US returned to the Human Rights Council.The second change is that the US established new international organizations and mechanisms to engage in containment competition with China.Since taking office, Biden administration has continuously strengthened the Indo-Pacific Strategy, deepened security cooperation among the United States, Japan, India and Australia, launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), established the trilateral security partnership AUKUS and built an Asian version of NATO in a bid to encircle China.The third change is that the US maintained and strengthened traditional international organizations.Biden administration attaches great importance to solidarity and coordination with its allies, and included China-related issues in the agendas and documents of the G7 and NATO.In June 2021,the G7 summit, based on Biden’s proposal, set up a global infrastructure plan called Build Back Better World (B3W) to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.In April 2022, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said NATO’s new strategy “will take into account for the first time China’s growing influence and coercive policies on the global stage.” Even after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the US did not change its policy of treating China as its main strategic competitor.

International organizations have become new arenas for China-US strategic competition under the China policies of Trump administration and Biden administration.The strategic competition encompasses military security, politics, diplomacy, economy, science and technology, ideology and other fields.It is increasingly expanding from the bilateral and regional levels to the global.The strategic competition around international organizations shows the following major trends.

First, the United Nations is the focus of strategic competition between China and the US.The United States regards the United Nations as its“home turf” and a force multiplier for the interests and values of the US.2Jeffrey Feltman, “China’s Expanding Influence at the United Nations and How the United States Should React,” Brookings Institution, September 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/research /chinas-expandinginfluence-at-the-united-nations-and-how-the-united-states-should-react/.Around 2018, China’s growing influence in the United Nations began to arouse attention and alarmed some Western countries.Some European scholars started researching China’s interests and influence in the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the UN Development Program, the UN Industrial Development Organization, the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UN Security Council.3Maaike Okano-Heijmans, and Frans-Paul van der Putten, “A United Nations with Chinese Characteristics?” Clingendael, December 2018, https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/ files/2018-12/China_in_the_UN_1.pdf.American scholars believe that China uses the UN to pursue its goals and that China has enough money and diplomatic will to fill the vacuum left by the US, so they advocate that the US should compete with China in multilateral organizations and strive to win.4Daniel F.Runde, “Competing and Winning in the Multilateral System: U.S.Leadership in the United Nations,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2020, https://www.csis.org /analysis/competing-and-winning-multilateral-system-us-leadership-united-nations.

After Biden took office, one of the priorities has been to restore the US’s leadership at the United Nations and other international organizations.Since then, the US has reasserted its influence in the global fight against COVID-19 and climate change by hosting the global COVID-19 Summit and pushing the Security Council to adopt a resolution on climate and security.The United States has also returned to several United Nations agencies and has successfully run for some leadership and management positions, including Catherine Russell as executive director of the UN International Children’s Emergency Fund.5Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, “Fact Sheet: Restoring America’s Leadership at the United Nations in President Biden’s First Year,” United States Mission to the United Nations, January 20, 2022,https://usun.usmission.gov/fact-sheet-restoring-americas-leadership-at-the-united-nations-in-presidentbidens-first-year/.Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine crisis in February 2022, the United States has taken a series of actions, either alone or with other countries, at the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization,the International Maritime Organization, and the International Court of Justice—the moves aimed to isolate Russia and demonstrate its leadership in multilateral institutions.

Second, the United Nations is also a priority in China’s multilateral diplomacy.Since the 18th CPC National Congress, Chinese leaders have initiated a series of ideas, propositions and initiatives at the UN and other international forums, such as a community with a shared future for mankind, a global community of health for all, Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative.The moves have fully demonstrated China’s firm commitment to uphold multilateralism.Putting forward ideas and initiatives has become an important way for China to exert influence and play a leading role in UN.China’s contribution and support to UN and other international organizations are also increasing.In 2019, China became the second-largest contributor to the UN’s regular budget and peacekeeping assessments.China has also promoted the establishment of the China-UN Peace and Development Trust Fund and South-South Cooperation Fund, set up the International Research Center of Big Data for Sustainable Development Goals, and provided funds to UN agencies to support their relevant agendas and work.China has signed BRI cooperation documents with 32 international organizations, including the United Nations.In the past decade, many Chinese candidates have taken up leadership and senior management positions in UN agencies, including chief executive roles in the four specialized agencies.With these initiatives, projects, funds and personnel, China’s image and status in UN have been greatly enhanced.However, unlike the United States’ objective in UN of directing its policy,China’s pursuit in UN is to become a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, a defender of international order and a provider of public goods.6“Position Paper on China’s Cooperation with the United Nations,” Xinhuanet, October 22, 2021, http://www.news.cn /2021-10/22/c_1127986136.htm.

Third, in the strategic competition between the two countries in international organizations, the United States still occupies a dominant position, while China has recently gained some specific advantages.The Russia-Ukraine crisis has temporarily shelved and eased the internal differences and disagreements between Western countries.The Western countries led by the US have strengthened unity and coordination to jointly impose and escalate sanctions against Russia.Under the advocacy of the US, an international organization network has been formed to counter China, which is led by the US and is composed of bilateral alliances,the AUKUS, the Quad, the Five Eyes Alliance, the G7, and NATO.The cohesion of G7, NATO and other traditional US-led and Western international organizations has strengthened.In Europe, NATO expanded eastward by accepting traditionally neutral countries Sweden and Finland.In Asia, NATO extends its reach to China’s neighboring regions.In April 2022, Japan and South Korea were invited to the Meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs for the first time.South Korea became the first Asian country to join NATO’s cyber defense organization.In this context,NATO’s “globalization” and “Asia version of NATO” are accelerating, and even NATO’s “Asia Division” is on the horizon.Also driven by the “Indo-Pacific Strategy,” small multilateral groups led by the US, such as AUKUS and Quad, tend to expand and deepen.In May 2018, the US Pacific Command was renamed the US Indo-Pacific Command, and the US has also set up a special post of Indo-Pacific Affairs Coordinator.In May 2022,during Biden’s visit to South Korea and Japan, he launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity as the economic pillar of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, which has become a new tool for strategic competition with China.The US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said this move would effectively counter China.In addition, the US is also actively enlisting the European Union and ASEAN countries to participate in the Quad.

Facing the anti-China international organization networks promoted by the US, China proactively developed strategies and built networks for international organizations with its own mark.China has actively carried out multilateral diplomacy in recent years, and its voice, influence and decision-making participation in international organizations has increased.China has led the establishment of several new international organizations,attracted some international organizations to settle in China, and used the opportunity of hosting summits of international organizations to put forward China’s initiatives and programs and worked hard to train and transfer talents to international organizations.Yet China’s multilateral diplomacy must form synergy to build effective strategies and networks for international organizations.To effectively meet the Sino-US strategic competition, the focus of China’s strategy must aim to expand the country’s footprint and strive for a dominant position in international organizations.It is necessary to transform China’s existing advantages and contributions into decision-making and discourse power if it wants to achieve the set objective.The Chinese deficiencies in international organizations, such as the small Chinese staff size, lack of senior management, special envoys or advisers, and absence of organization headquarters or regional headquarters,must be addressed as soon as possible.In addition, China needs to actively build a network of international organizations dominated by developing countries.This network includes three levels: at the core are the BRICS cooperation mechanism and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank, in which China has played a leading role; in the middle layer are ASEAN and the African Union, with which China has established stable cooperative partnerships; in the outer layer is the Group of 77 and the UN Conference on Trade and Development, which includes more than 130 developing countries.In contrast to the military and economic advantages of the US-led network of international organizations, this network of international organizations that China plans to build has a broader membership and a more diverse political and cultural background, especially in the voting advantage in the UN.

Fourth, international organizations are key factor affecting the future direction of China-US strategic competition.The impact of the pandemic and the continued strategic competition among major countries have made bilateral interaction between China and the US increasingly difficult.Though both countries face many pressing domestic issues, multilateral affairs remain important in the foreign policies of the two largest economies and global powers.International organizations are not only the venues and mean for the strategic competition between the two but also the key factor determining whether the strategic competition will lead to cooperation or conflict.

Asia-Pacific or Indo-Pacific is the different focus of China and the US in their strategic competition in international organizations.China is a typical Asia-Pacific country, with its back to Eurasia and facing the Pacific Ocean.Due to this geographical feature, China attaches great importance to and actively participates in international organizations and mechanisms in Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,ASEAN, the East Asia Summit, the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Boao Forum for Asia.In addition, China led the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement(DEPA).As a two-ocean country, the United States has always balanced the Asian land powers mainly through bilateral alliances.Its participation in the Asia-Pacific international organizations is mainly the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, supplementing it by strengthening the Indo-Pacific concept,drawing in India, integrating its traditional Allies in the Asia-Pacific region,enriching the cooperation areas of the Indo-Pacific strategy, and accelerating its systematization and institution buildup are the main purposes of the US’strategic competition with China through international organizations or mechanisms.

The BRI and the Indo-Pacific Strategy reflect the different logic of the strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations.The BRI focuses on Eurasia, adheres to the principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, highlights the development logic of connectivity and strategic alignment, and adopts a path of cooperation and joint contribution.While the Indo-Pacific Strategy focuses on the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, emphasizes the socalled “principle of freedom and openness,” follows the security logic of geopolitics and strategic competition, and relies on alliances and partners.The competition between the BRI and the Indo-Pacific Strategy means that the competition between China and the US is shifting from the level of interest and influence to the level of rules and order.Military security and economic development are two aspects of strategic competition.The launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework shows that the US’strategic competition with China through international organizations has shifted from focusing on military security to encompassing both security and economy.China’s use of and participation in international organizations in the Asia-Pacific region is mainly reflected in economic development,and how to strengthen military and security cooperation in multilateral cooperation is a shortcoming that China needs to make up in the strategic competition with the United States.

Alliance and partnership are the different characteristics of strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations.During the Cold War, the US established NATO in Western Europe and several bilateral alliances in Asia, “thereby building a global alliance network with the United States at the core.” Since taking office, the Biden administration has expanded and strengthened alliances as the main means of strategic competition with China.The US has formed various alliances in military and security fields, trade, science and technology, and supply chains.Unlike the US confrontational alliances against a particular third party, the Chinese emphasize equal and win-win partnerships in China’s international organization strategy.Since their inception, the BRICS Cooperation Mechanism and the SCO have been a new type of relations

featuring partnership instead of an alliance and cooperation instead of confrontation.China has established comprehensive strategic partnerships with ASEAN and the African Union.The RCEP, the latest and largest regional trade agreement in which China actively participated, is also a partnership agreement.

The Consequences of China-US Strategic Competition on International Organizations

China and the US are the world’s two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council; the strategic competition between the two carries significant global implications.Strategic competition around international organizations directly affects international rules, order,leadership, and governance.

First, the strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations affects the compliance and reshaping of international rules.International rules are codes of conduct observed by all members of the international community, mainly reflected in international law, treaties, and agreements.The international rules system builds on the premise of international order and the foundation of global governance.The existing system of international rules is mainly formulated and dominated by Western countries led by the US.With the evolution of international relations and new global issues, unreasonable parts of existing international rules must be reformed and improved in public health, international trade and other areas.Also, new international rules must be formulated for new technologies such as artificial intelligence,digital technology and the Internet of Things.In addition, and emerging issues over governance in the polar region, deep sea, network and outer space.Therefore, observing and reshaping international rules is integral to international cooperation and global governance.The idea of new rules formulation is that international rules should not be formulated and interpreted by a few countries but should be decided and implemented by all member states through the UN and other international organizations.International rules should reflect the interests and appeal of the majority of countries.They should incorporate the ideas of countries with different ideologies and political systems rather than be decided by a few countries based on their values alone.

The strategic competition between China and the US around their national setting interests, systems and values is mainly reflected in the competition of rules in international organizations.The competition over rules formulation between the two mainly includes three aspects.

China and the US accuse each other of not abiding by or even breaking international rules.The two insist they are keen followers and practitioners of international rules while accusing the other side of breaking them.In recent years, the US has accused China of violating WTO rules.On the other hand, China criticized the US for breaking the treaty and withdrawing from international organizations, putting domestic law above international obligations, interfering in other countries’ internal affairs,waging wars to violate other countries’ sovereignty, and it charged what America did seriously violated the rules of international law including the UN Charter.

China and the US dispute the right of representation under existing international rules.The US is the most prominent beneficiary of existing international rules and has the biggest say in the formulation of international rules.The main international rules are written under US leadership, such as the rules of international trade and finance,international security and human rights.However, the US, taking a biased stand on international rules, use whatever suits its interests and ignore whatever does not.Under the Trump administration, the US has withdrawn from some international organizations or treaties.It has not acceded to important international conventions such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.China is likewise a major beneficiary of existing international rules but is more impartial in adopting them.China has acceded to 490 multilateral treaties and is a depositary for 13.At present, Chinese voices and influence on international rules are increasing.The difference between China and the US is mainly manifested in the US trying to maintain its privilege and leadership in existing international rules-making and implementation,while China is trying to reform and improve the existing international rules in a bid to reflect better the interests and aspirations of developing countries, including China.

China and the US compete for a leadership role in formulating new international rules.Rule-making competition is an advanced form of international competition.A leading voice in international rules formulation reflects a country’s soft and hard power and is an institutional guarantee for safeguarding national interests and improving international status.Competing for the leading role in formulating international rules in new technologies and emerging fields will become an important new battlefield in the China-US strategic competition.In key emerging technology areas,the US maintains advantages in talent, capital, and innovation; the key to maintaining these advantages is to take the lead in making international rules.China has maintained a strong catch-up momentum to narrow the gap with the US and is on the cutting edge in some areas.There are deficits in rules in new technology frontiers such as the Internet, outer space, the deep sea, and polar regions.Whoever leads and dominates the formulation of international rules will enjoy a significant first-mover advantage in these new areas.In the past decade, China has actively formulated governance rules in many emerging fields, such as formulating global digital rules and constructing international rules in the global public domain, such as cyberspace and outer space.In emerging areas such as cross-border payments, outer space technology cooperation, internet domain name assignment, and development-oriented finance, China competes with the US in the international system through such reform paths as substitution,superposition, transformation, and evasion.The US has a disproportional voice advantage in the existing international rules making.While China is gaining momentum in making new international rules, and its initiative has gained ground.

Second, the strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations affects the maintenance and reconstruction of international order.On May 26, 2022, in his speech on China policy, US Secretary of State Blinken addressed China as “the most serious and sustained challenge to the international order” because China is the only country with both the intent and ability to reshape the international order, so Blinken made a China strategy of “investing (at home), aligning (with allies and partners), and competing (with China)” to maintain its perceived rules-based order.Blinken’s statement reflected a misunderstanding and misjudgment of China and the international order.In fact, as the world’s two major powers,China and the US are the main beneficiaries of the existing international political and economic order.

The US wants to remain the dominant player in the international order.The US sees the international order as an important tool for strategic competition with China, arguing that “a strengthened and increasingly multilateral international order can continue to provide a critical tool for the United States and other countries to shape and constrain rising Chinese power.”7Michael J.Mazarr, Timothy R.Heath and Astrid Stuth Cevallos, “China and the International Order,”RAND Corporation, June 21, 2018, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand /pubs/research_reports/RR2400/RR2423/RAND_RR2423.pdf.However, the liberal international order established under the leadership of the US has been challenged by multiple factors,including the decline in the willingness and ability of the US to take responsibility, its domestic problems and crises of some Western countries led by America, the massive increase of non-Western countries and their demand for democratization, and the inability of the West to deal with global issues effectively.During the Cold War, the East-West confrontation severely damaged the international order, supposedly with the UN at its core.After the end of the Cold War, the United States emerged as the sole superpower.Still, it failed to assume the leadership responsibility of maintaining, improving, and rebuilding the international order to make it more equitable, reasonable, and effective.On the contrary, the hegemonic and unilateral actions of the United States and its containment of emerging powers have seriously damaged the foundations of the international order.To become the leader of the international order, the US must set an example in observing international law and rules, takes on responsibility as the major country in safeguarding international security and promoting global development, work with other major countries to provide more and better public goods to the international community, and provide more support and assistance for the development of small and medium-sized countries.

China wants to improve the international order.The UN has transformed the international order from one based on power to one based on both power and rules.The transformation manifests human progress and civilization.However, it cannot be denied that there are some unfairness in the present order, such as hegemony often transgressing and superseding rules, unfair distribution of power, lack of voice of small and medium-sized countries, and failure to respond to global challenges effectively.Therefore,on the one hand, China upholds the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law;on the other hand, China has put forward a series of initiatives, proposals and plans to reform and improve the global governance system and build a more just, reasonable, stable and effective international order.Visions like a community of shared future for mankind and the new type of international relations, as well as initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, all reflected China’s efforts and contributions to promoting the transformation of the international order.

Some scholars believe that due to the decisive advantages of some Western countries represented by the United States in international rules, systems and power distribution, “Sino-US strategic competition will not make the international order in the new transition period in a short and medium term,” and “as long as China and the US do not fall into a comprehensive strategic confrontation and geopolitical division,the international order will not take a fundamental turn.”8Zhu Feng, “International Order and China-US Strategic Competition,” Asia-Pacific Security and Maritime Affairs, No.1, 2021.However, just as the East-West confrontation and the US-Soviet rivalry were parts and main features of the international order during the Cold War, Sino-US strategic competition is likely to become a major factor affecting the future international order.The strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations is more directly related to the right to make international rules, the voice in global governance and the domination of the international order.

Third, the strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations affects the reorganization of international leadership.After World War II, the United States led the establishment of the UN and other international organizations and established its leadership in the post-war international order.During the Cold War, the US led the Western countries to fight against the socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union.With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the upheaval in Eastern Europe, the US won the Cold War.In 1991, American leadership peaked as the US led the multinational forces to victory in the Gulf War under the United Nations mandate.However, after the end of the Cold War, the USled NATO launched several wars, interfering in other countries internal affairs, and its hegemonism and power politics seriously weakened its prestige and leadership position.The 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the international financial crisis in 2008, and the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 have all damaged the national strength of the United States, and its willingness and ability to lead have been reduced.In particular, under the Trump administration, the United States has repeatedly broken its commitments,withdrawn from international organizations, and voluntarily abandoned its leadership and responsibilities in many international organizations, which runs counter to multilateralism.

To maintain its global hegemony and leadership, the United States regards China as a major threat and challenge.Under the Trump administration, the United States launched a trade war to decouple and compete strategically against China.However, the “America First” strategy and unilateralism policies to safeguard its interest have undermined the international leadership of the US.After Biden took office, the US resumed multilateral diplomacy, returned to several international organizations such as the WHO and the Human Rights Council, and more actively participated in UN affairs; the moves restored the US international leadership to some extent.At the same time, the United States used the opportunity of sanctions against Russia to strengthen the internal unity of traditional Western international organizations such as the G7 and NATO.In addition, by constantly enriching and enhancing cooperation under the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” framework, the United States competed fiercely with China to demonstrate its global leadership.

Unlike the United States, China’s foreign policy never aimed at becoming an international community leader.In April 1974, Deng Xiaoping attended the UN meeting as the Chinese leader for the first time.He told the international community that China would not be a superpower and would never seek hegemony.In December 1990,Deng Xiaoping pointed out that “we must not seek hegemony, and this is a fundamental state policy.”9“On Taking Advantage of Opportunities to Address Development Issues,” Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol.3, Peoples Publishing House, 1993, p.363.During these two critical moments in China’s relations with the outside world, Deng Xiaoping’s two statements set the tone for China’s diplomacy.They pointed out the right direction for China’s relations with the world.As China grows into the world’s second-largest economy, its contribution to the world is increasing,and its influence in international organizations is also growing.China’s contribution and performance are exemplary on such major UN agendas as peacekeeping operations, sustainable development agenda and climate change governance.A series of initiatives, propositions and programs put forward by China have played a key role in the settlement and governance of global issues.China has demonstrated leadership quality by establishing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Boao Forum for Asia, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS Cooperation Mechanism and its New Development Bank, and several institutions cooperating with the United Nations.

The Sino-US strategic competition in international organizations is that, on the one hand, the US is trying to maintain, restore and rebuild its international leadership.At the same time, China has demonstrated a certain degree of leadership skills and played a leading role in some areas and regions, but the country is not a leader, let alone in a pivotal leadership position.The realignment of international leadership will be a long process.

Fourth, the strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations affects the future of global governance system reform.After World War II, the basic feature of the global governance system was hegemonic governance, and some Western countries led by the US advocated the establishment and dominance of the global economic governance system.In the global economic organizations represented by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, these western countries control and share decision-making power, the discourse right and leadership because of their absolute dominance in the world economy.The Soviet Union and Eastern European countries fought and competed with the Western countries in politics, security and strategy through the Warsaw Pact Organization, etc.Still, economic organizations such as the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance could not impact the Western-led economic governance system.The Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, which emerged after the 1950s, advocated the establishment of a new international political and economic order.Although they formed “the Third World” relatively independent from the East and West politically, they failed to challenge the Western-led global economic governance system by any means.Global security governance after World War II is mainly reflected in the Security Council and its authorized deployment of peacekeeping operations.The Security Council has expanded from 11 countries to 15,with five permanent members having veto power on any Security Council resolution.During the Cold War, cooperation was the norm within the Western and Eastern camps, yet the confrontation between the East and the West was still the mainstream order of the day.

After the Cold War, there was a trend of change and transformation in global governance system.An important feature is the decline of hegemony and the rise of cooperation, or the shift from a power-based global governance system determined by strength to a cooperative global governance system oriented towards solving problems.Major progress has been made in global governance promoted and led by the UN, as represented by the Millennium Development Goals, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and climate change governance.Such cooperation is neither led by some Western countries nor decided by the five permanent members of the Security Council.Rather, it is carried out through extensive consultations among Member States,multiple negotiations by many groups of countries and the active participation of non-state actors.A large number of emerging governance organizations and mechanisms, ranging from organizational and institutional governance mechanisms such as the G20, the BRICS and its New Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to protocol-based and partnership-based governance mechanisms such as RCEP, CPTPP, and DEPA, are characterized by the absence of hegemonic state dominance and is driven by inter-state negotiations to solve a certain type of problems or deal with governance deficits.Even in global security governance, there is a trend of de-emphasizing hegemony,and traditional UN peacekeeping operations are transforming into governance-based peace operations.Conflict prevention, peacebuilding and peacekeeping require more “non-power” resources, capabilities and means than “power-oriented” military and economic strength, and the role of non-state actors is also increasingly prominent.In the governance of non-traditional security issues, the willingness and ability of all parties to cooperate are more important than the willingness and ability of hegemons themselves.

The strategic competition between China and the United States in international organizations determines the future trend of hegemonic governance and cooperative governance in a certain sense.“China is increasingly using its economic, political and institutional power to change the global governance system from within,” a US academic argues.However, the fact is that the United States is used to hegemonic governance and strives to preserve this governance model in its strategic competition with China, while China continues to explore and develop cooperative governance and seeks to achieve this governance with the United States in the context of non-conflict oriented, non-confrontational and win-win cooperation.

Conclusion

Against the intensifying strategic competition among major powers,international organizations have increasingly become a special and new battlefield of Sino-US strategic competition.The strategic competition between China and the US in international organizations reflects the two countries’ differing national interests and strengths and has the characteristics of competition in system and value.Compared with the bilateral and regional competition, Sino-US strategic competition in international organizations presents many new features.In the strategic competition, the US is still in a dominant position in terms of comprehensive strength.Still,with China’s rising power, the advantage of the US is relatively declining.This change in the balance of power has been reflected in international organizations.In response, the US began to limit China’s growing influence in international organizations and compete strategically with China through international organizations.

The strategic competition between China and the US has serious global implications.Under the dynamic shift of power balance in the international environment, how to conduct oneself in the strategic competitions in international organizations over rules, order, leadership and governance is a common challenge for China and the US.To sort out and analyze the strategic competition in international organizations,and conduct forward-looking research and judgment on its future trend,are not only a major topic that needs in-depth discussion in academic circles but also an urgent issue for major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics.

Based on the above analysis, China should adhere to genuine multilateralism and support the reform and improvement of the UN and other international organizations to keep the rules-based order while playing a leading reformer role to construct a better working international organizational order.At the same time, China and the US should commit to handling bilateral relations from a global perspective.On the one hand,China and the US should use the unique advantages of international organizations in consultation and cooperation, actively manage competition, minimize potential damage from unnecessary competition,and avoid zero-sum, destructive and bottomless vicious competition.On the other hand, China and the US should actively use the limited space for cooperation to build a healthy relationship of benign competition and active cooperation to improve global governance jointly.China and the US share the same fundamental interests in addressing many global challenges.The two sides should use international organizations to respect each other’s core interests to keep China-US relations healthy and stable in such areas as fighting the epidemic, tackling climate change, and strengthening economic and trade cooperation and people-to-people exchanges.Working for more cooperation space and actively minimizing competition is not only conducive to the development interests of the two countries and the two peoples and favorable for the overall stability and prosperity of the world.