The unity that defeated fascism 80 years ago offers inspiration for today's divided world, according to Chen Xulong, executive vice dean of the Institute for National Security and Governance at the University of International Business and Economics.

Chen argues that global challenges like climate change, nuclear threats and AI governance demand the same cross-ideological cooperation that led to the victory in World War II.

However, Chen blames binary thinking, power politics and Cold War mentality, particularly NATO expansion and U.S. strategy, for pulling international relations back into confrontational patterns that prevent such cooperation.

Speaking on "Diplomacy Talk," Chen hails Beijing's Global Security Initiative (GSI) as a solution, crediting China's approach with concrete successes, including Saudi-Iranian reconciliation, while highlighting the International Organization for Mediation as a potential cornerstone model for implementing the initiative.

Following is the transcript of the interview.

Diplomacy Talk: 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. What profound implications does that victory hold for today's international security frameworks?

Chen Xulong: Looking back at that world war, which engulfed nations across the globe and caused immense suffering and loss, we should have realized even then that humanity is a community with a shared future and shared security. We should have upheld the principle of common security. This is why today we advocate a vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. Reflecting on that war 80 years ago makes us even more convinced of the enduring importance of these security concepts.

Diplomacy Talk: Does the kind of security cooperation that transcended ideological differences and social systems during World War II still have a place in today's international community?

Chen Xulong: I believe such cooperation remains not only possible but also absolutely necessary. Back then, the international community overcame ideological differences and various divisions to unite against a common threat and defeat fascism, ultimately achieving victory. Today, we still face various global risks and challenges, including climate change, nuclear proliferation and the potential dangers of runaway AI. All nations face shared threats that demand collective action. This requires transcending ideological divides, resolving conflicts, and pursuing cooperation. Therefore, the potential for such collaboration has grown stronger than ever, not diminished.

Diplomacy Talk: While the international community was able to temporarily set aside differences to defeat fascism back then, today we see deep divisions over issues like the Ukraine crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Does this mean that advancing the principle of common security faces even greater challenges now than 80 years ago?

Chen Xulong: Achieving common security remains an immense challenge. In the 1990s, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) adopted documents pursuing a common security model for the 21st century. Yet the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis has exposed the failure of that vision. This offers particularly profound lessons for reflection.

Western countries have established numerous peace and security research institutions with diverse schools of thought. Yet they have failed to offer a practical solution for European security or broader regional stability. While successful models of common security exist within the EU, the critical failure lies in extending security beyond the bloc's institutional boundaries. When mishandled, these boundaries transform from administrative lines into security fissures, becoming dividing lines, fracture lines, and even confrontation lines.

This has been evidenced by the Ukraine crisis. The root cause of the failure to maintain regional security lies in some countries' binary thinking. Why has NATO persistently expanded eastward, disregarding Russia's opposition and violating its own past commitments? Even more alarmingly, it attempts to expand into the Asia-Pacific. It tries to impose binary thinking onto other regions, risking new conflicts. This is a highly dangerous development demanding utmost vigilance.

We should uphold the principle of common security, as emphasized in China's vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. This vision underlines inclusiveness and harmony without uniformity. It asserts the principle of indivisible security, requiring mutual respect for all nations' security interests and accommodation of all parties' legitimate concerns. Only in this way can common security be achieved.

Diplomacy Talk: China has invested significant diplomatic resources in resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but the conflict continues to drag on. How do you view the challenges facing the implementation of the GSI?

Chen Xulong: Security problems are indeed quite prominent in today's world, and this is inseparable from the global strategy pursued by the United States. It has forcibly pulled international relations back into an era of great power competition, where realist approaches and might-makes-right thinking are becoming increasingly dominant. International relations have been securitized, even over-securitized, and behind this still lurks a binary mindset. Under these circumstances, we face more security challenges, risks and dilemmas.

The GSI was proposed precisely to better address these issues, and it includes some Eastern wisdom. We emphasize harmony in diversity, seeking common ground while setting aside differences, and working to expand commonalities while reducing differences. We stress the principle of indivisible security, meaning that all countries in the world should enjoy security instead of certain countries or blocs claiming higher levels of security at others' expense.

The outbreak of the Ukraine crisis has deep-rooted causes, and it's not easy to resolve. China has been consistently promoting peace talks and mediation. We are working together with other Global South countries to leverage their input on this matter, and this approach is yielding positive results.

However, conflicts have their own logic, and resolution is only possible when they reach a certain stage. Meanwhile, the international community should also create good conditions and a favorable atmosphere for conflict resolution, and this is what China and other Global South countries are doing.

Diplomacy Talk: The GSI advocates a vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. Some scholars argue this concept draws not only from contemporary practice of international relations but also from China's historical philosophy of harmony and its political tradition of pursuing peaceful coexistence among nations. How do you view the role of this cultural foundation in shaping China's present-day perspective on security?

Chen Xulong: Indeed, China's vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security incorporates contemporary international experience, yet diverges fundamentally from Western frameworks.

In terms of comprehensive security, Europe prioritizes human security under the OSCE framework, but China emphasizes coordinated efforts to deal with both traditional and non-traditional security threats. In terms of common security, Europe aims to achieve it through building institutional blocs, but China adopts a more inclusive approach that transcends cultural, religious and ideological divides.

This divergence stems from contrasting security philosophies. Chinese civilization has embraced the "harmonious coexistence." This holistic security paradigm offers the international community a more adaptive framework for our era.

Diplomacy Talk: The GSI has been in place for over three years. Within this framework, what would you consider to be the most representative success story?

Chen Xulong: One landmark success is China's contribution to the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation. Their restoration of diplomatic relations triggered a wave of reconciliation in the Middle East.

Equally noteworthy is China's mediation among Palestinian factions. China's success in facilitating intra-Palestinian reconciliation lays crucial groundwork for advancing the two-state solution in the region, establishing an independent State of Palestine, and enhancing its international standing and legitimacy.

Additionally, within the GSI framework, China is playing a leading role on emerging challenges like AI governance. China's Global AI Governance Initiative exemplifies this proactive approach. These cases collectively attest to China's contributions to implementing the GSI.

Diplomacy Talk: The GSI has garnered broad endorsement across developing countries. Yet the U.S. and other Western countries remain cautiously skeptical or openly resistant to it. Does this reluctance stem primarily from conceptual differences, or does geopolitics drive it?

Chen Xulong: I believe both factors are at play. The West operates based on the notion of "civilizational superiority," historically manifested as Eurocentrism. This creates resistance toward initiatives proposed by China or other Global South countries.

Yet paradoxically, they subconsciously embrace elements of these frameworks that they perceive as reasonable or positive. Consider the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity. While they do not explicitly acknowledge it, its essence resurfaces in Western constructs like the "One Planet Summit" or "one Earth" philosophy.

Hence, we need not focus on nominal or lexical uniformity. What matters is substance. Their rhetorical recognition — or lack thereof — carries little weight in reality.

From a perspective of adversarial geopolitics, they frame China as a strategic rival to be suppressed. Consequently, even reasonable and valuable concepts China proposes face rejection, misrepresentation or outright attacks. We have seen this pattern too often to be surprised.

Yet we remain confident that most nations can clearly distinguish between truth and distortion. They recognize this initiative as a high-quality global public good from China. This is why they embrace and jointly advance its implementation.

Diplomacy Talk: The establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) in Hong Kong represents a significant institutional innovation by China to advance the peaceful resolution of international disputes. In your view, could this institution evolve into an operational model for the GSI and establish a distinct Chinese approach to international dispute settlement that differs from existing mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC)?

Chen Xulong: The IOMed will undoubtedly emerge as a cornerstone model and a defining beacon for implementing the GSI. Within the GSI framework, China advocates for peaceful resolution of international disputes, but such commitments must transcend rhetoric and require institutional underpinnings. The IOMed provides that operational architecture. Crucially, its location in Hong Kong epitomizes civilizational confluence between East and West. As it mediates conflicts case by case, accumulating tangible successes, the IOMed will evolve into a vital demonstration platform for GSI implementation.

Diplomacy Talk: Yet some may question China's political position in conflict mediation. Is it possible for China, through the IOMed, to assure all other parties that China is not merely a stakeholder but, more importantly, an impartial mediator?

Chen Xulong: Concrete results will be more convincing. The IOMed will demonstrate its value through tangible case outcomes. When disputing parties turn to China for mediation and engage with the IOMed in Hong Kong, this will constitute an implicit endorsement of China's peaceful conflict-resolution philosophy, the mechanism's efficacy, and the platform's credibility. Ultimately, results will testify — case by case — to whether our principles and practices deliver effective, equitable outcomes. It is through this accumulation that the IOMed will prove its success.

Diplomacy Talk: Some countries have the belief that they should rely on China for development and on America for security. What is your view on this perspective?

Chen Xulong: Historically, this narrative persisted in the Asia-Pacific region, emphasizing China's strength in development while noting its limited role in security provision.

However, in recent years, China has significantly strengthened its global security role, articulating positions, proposing initiatives and delivering tangible outcomes. For example, China has proposed the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security that has gained broad international endorsement. It has also launched the GSI and action plans in AI governance and other security domains. Moreover, China has enhanced security cooperation with neighboring countries and global partners through security projects and joint law enforcement mechanisms.

Through these measures, China's security capacities have been substantially reinforced. I am confident that China will continue expanding its influence in maintaining security and increasing its role in global security governance. China has established flagship institutional platforms that demonstrate this growing influence, including the World Peace Forum, the Beijing Xiangshan Forum and the Global Public Security Cooperation Forum in Lianyungang. Therefore, we should have confidence in the implementation of the GSI.

Presenter: Wang Xiaohui

Production supervisor: Xue Lisheng

Co-production supervisor: Li Xiaohua

Executive producer: Zhang Liying

Producer: Zhang Ruomeng

Editors: Zhang Heling, Jiao Yuan, Lyu Yiyi, Xia Fangting

Produced by chinadiplomacy.org.cn