Diplomacy
Revisiting the Bandung spirit in a multipolar world

Fang Xuting, Research Assistant at Center for Turkish Studies, Shanghai University
How China articulates its diplomatic discourse?
From April 18 to 24, 1955, government delegations from 29 Asian and African countries and regions convened in Bandung, Indonesia, for a historic Afro-Asian Conference. On the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, against the backdrop of a rapidly transforming global order marked by the rise of the “Global South” and the restructuring of traditional international power dynamics, revisiting the memory of the conference and the enduring “Bandung Spirit” acquires new strategic significance. For contemporary China, it offers fresh value in advancing multilateral diplomacy, deepening South-South cooperation, and contributing to the reconfiguration of the international order.
Historical context of the Bandung Conference
In the 1950s, during the intensification of the Cold War, the two ideological blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union increasingly competed for influence in the Third World. Leaders of newly emerging states in Asia and Africa sought self-determination, while anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements gained momentum. The colonial system began to unravel. Independent nations in Asia and Africa became bolder in asserting neutrality in international affairs and grew increasingly active in United Nations forums in the early 1950s. For example, India repeatedly spoke on behalf of Asian and Arab countries, calling for a ceasefire and peaceful resolution to the Korean War. It openly criticized American military policy, showing no fear of power politics.
At the Bogor Conference held in late 1954, five countries—India, Indonesia, Burma (now Myanmar), Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan—issued a joint communiqué to formally initiate the first Asian-African Conference in 1955. Based on the principle of “independent governments,” thirty countries, including China, were invited to participate.
From the perspective of China’s diplomatic transition, the Bandung Conference represented a significant moment when the newly founded People’s Republic of China moved away from a revolutionary foreign policy and toward one based on state diplomacy. It symbolized a departure from the binary Cold War alignment toward an independent foreign policy grounded in peaceful coexistence. In fact, even before the conference—particularly following the Korean War (1950–1953)—China had already shown interest in moderating its foreign policy to present a more peaceful image to its Asian and African neighbors.
Although China’s participation in the Korean War was only a part of the broader conflict, its role was militarily decisive. The war’s outcomes significantly influenced the trajectory of socialist movements and national liberation struggles in Asia. The emergence of socialist states in both Asia and Europe enabled a geopolitical counterbalance to Western powers. For a considerable period, the bipolar confrontation between East and West maintained a strategic equilibrium, as Western powers led by the United States were no longer facing only the socialist bloc in Europe, but an alliance of socialist countries in both Europe and Asia.
Moreover, the war marked the first direct military confrontation between China and a major Western power since the founding of the People’s Republic. Through tenacious combat, China compelled the United States to return to the negotiating table, rescued the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from crisis, defended its own national borders, solidified the Sino-Soviet alliance, and elevated its international standing. China emphasized the war’s just cause—”resisting U.S. aggression and aiding Korea; safeguarding the homeland”—and linked its narrative to global anti-imperialist struggles, resonating strongly with the anti-colonial aspirations of newly emerging Asian and African nations. These rhetorical and ideological alignments laid a strong foundation for China’s solidarity with the Third World.
Lastly, China’s diplomatic and military engagement during the Korean War, including the Panmunjom negotiations, provided valuable experience in dealing with the West—an experience that would later prove instrumental in Zhou Enlai’s diplomatic success at the Bandung Conference.
On April 18, 1955, the Bandung Conference officially commenced. By the evening of April 24, the final plenary session unanimously adopted the Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference—the first joint statement in history issued collectively by 29 Asian and African countries. The communiqué included the Ten Principles of Bandung, which addressed issues related to anti-colonialism and national independence, adopted resolutions promoting global peace and cooperation, and reaffirmed the common aspiration of the Asian and African peoples to oppose aggression and uphold world peace.
The historical value of the Bandung spirit and China’s contributions
The Bandung Conference was the largest and most representative intercontinental summit of its time, covering the widest geographic area and population. It embodied the collective will of Asian and African nations to oppose imperialism and colonialism, safeguard national independence, and promote peace and development. The spirit of Bandung—seeking common ground while reserving differences, peaceful coexistence, solidarity, cooperation, and joint struggle—has since become a cherished intellectual legacy in world history. It had a profound impact on how developing countries later approached international relations. As a staunch supporter and active participant, China contributed significantly to the formation of the Bandung Spirit by offering Chinese wisdom and diplomatic experience.
1- The integration of China’s five principles of peaceful coexistence
The concluding section of the Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference included a declaration on promoting world peace and cooperation, which was adopted unanimously based on a Chinese proposal. This declaration outlined ten principles for conducting international relations, such as respect for fundamental human rights and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter; respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations; recognition of the equality of all races and nations, large or small; and non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The Ten Principles of Bandung fully incorporated all elements of Zhou Enlai’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and further developed them.
2- China’s consistent anti-imperialist and anti-colonial position
China’s leadership, reflecting on the historical context of the 1950s characterized by “war and revolution,” defined the newly founded People’s Republic as a socialist nation that had suffered colonial aggression and attained national independence. This identity guided its foreign policy during the Bandung era. At meetings leading up to the conference, Zhou Enlai articulated a typology of countries within the capitalist bloc, arguing that China should isolate the United States, win over the intermediate states, and unite with the most oppressed nations. Accordingly, China’s primary objective in attending the Bandung Conference was to break its international isolation and fully support the just struggle for national liberation in Asia and Africa—thereby playing a foundational role in shaping the Bandung Spirit.
3- China’s introduction of the “seeking common ground while reserving differences” diplomatic approach
Given the diverse ideological orientations of participating nations and the anti-communist propaganda led by the United States and its allies, many delegations were wary of China. Some even argued that both colonialism and communism should be condemned. Faced with this challenge, Zhou Enlai offered a conciliatory and inclusive response: “There are disagreements among us, but acknowledging such differences is, in itself, a form of agreement”. China deliberately adopted a “non-argumentative” approach, avoiding revolutionary or ideological rhetoric in response to accusations. This enabled the conference to proceed smoothly.
During the conference, China adhered to the principle of seeking common ground while reserving differences and signed the Treaty on Dual Nationality with Indonesia. Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Sunario praised the agreement as one reached “in the spirit of goodwill and tolerance between two Asian nations,” a spirit that, in his view, had guided the Bandung Conference itself.
The contemporary relevance of the Bandung spirit and its inheritance by China
Over the past 70 years, the global landscape has undergone profound transformations. The colonial system has collapsed, the bipolar Cold War confrontation has become a thing of the past, and economic globalization has deepened. Peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit have become the dominant themes of the era. However, the essential contradictions in the international community have not fundamentally changed. The unjust and unequal political and economic order persists, and tensions among civilizations, ideologies, political systems, and development models continue to exist.
Currently, three key characteristics define the global landscape. First, in the security domain, great power rivalry, bloc confrontation, regional conflicts, and domestic unrest interact and reinforce one another, shaping the international security order. The outbreak of the Ukraine crisis in 2022 may signal the end of the post-Cold War era and the beginning of what scholars have termed a “post-post-Cold War era,” marked by increasing global instability.
Second, in the ideological domain, the West’s narrative of “democracy versus authoritarianism” clashes with the Global South’s advocacy for “multiple modernities.” While the United States promotes value-based diplomacy and exclusionary alliances such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, Global South countries prioritize development rights and sovereign equality, rejecting the binary logic of alignment. Meanwhile, algorithmic amplification on social media has intensified information warfare, turning global public opinion into a new arena of great power soft power competition.
Third, in the economic domain, the rise of the Global South and the emergence of new forms of South-South cooperation have reshaped the global development landscape. Compared with the past, southern countries now possess greater material capacity, developmental experience, and institutional platforms. Their structural power has grown significantly, allowing them to play increasingly influential roles in today’s global transformations.
As a participant in the Bandung Conference and a key leader of the Global South, China must inherit and advance the Bandung Spirit by aligning it with the characteristics of the new era in order to effectively articulate its own diplomatic discourse in an increasingly multipolar world.
1- Using “peaceful coexistence” to mitigate bloc confrontation
China must continue to oppose Cold War thinking and promote a “comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable” approach to security. At the conceptual level, China’s proposed Global Security Initiative aligns with many of the Global South’s concerns. As such, it can serve as a guiding framework for forming a Global South Security Perspective. In practice, China should strengthen both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy among Global South nations. Two typical forms of multilateralism have emerged:
First, multilateral cooperation among major Global South powers, with BRICS as a typical example. In the context of intensifying great power competition, BRICS expansion—particularly the inclusion of Middle Eastern states—signals that the mechanism may play a greater role in security governance. Platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS should be used to coordinate security interests and counter the exclusivity of Indo-Pacific strategies.
Second, cooperation between Global South powers and entire regional groupings. Examples include China’s engagement with Africa, Arab states, and Pacific island nations. Forums such as the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the China–Arab States Cooperation Forum provide platforms for de-escalating regional hotspots and rejecting bloc-based confrontation.
2- Offsetting value-based diplomacy with the principle of “seeking common ground while reserving differences”
The concept of seeking common ground while reserving differences, first proposed by Zhou Enlai at Bandung, emphasized resisting ideological dogmatism in favor of pragmatic cooperation. Today, China must challenge the “democracy versus authoritarianism” narrative by emphasizing the principle of sovereign equality and the right of all nations to choose their own development paths. The principle of mutual respect and inclusiveness should guide international relations, supporting a model that emphasizes dialogue among civilizations and reciprocal learning among systems.
China must oppose unilateralism, zero-sum thinking, and hegemonic practices, while promoting a new type of international relations based on mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. It should also accelerate the construction of a Global South discourse system that prioritizes development rights. On international platforms such as the UN Human Rights Council, China must resist the politicization of human rights by Western powers. Moreover, international communication should be strengthened through platforms such as CGTN and TikTok, using effective Belt and Road cooperation cases to counter perception warfare.
3- Driving development paradigm transformation through South-South cooperation
From the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to the Bandung Spirit and the emergence of new South-South cooperation, the core has always been respect for the diversity of development paths and partnerships grounded in equality, solidarity, and mutual benefit. The goal is to overcome poverty and underdevelopment, build a just global order, and realize unity in diversity.
China must deepen the high-quality development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), particularly in Asia and Africa, focusing on infrastructure and capacity cooperation. According to the Outlook on the High-Quality Development of the Belt and Road Initiative for the Next Decade, China should prioritize “small but beautiful” livelihood projects, thereby fulfilling the Bandung ideal of economic mutual assistance.
China must innovate in South-South cooperation models. Traditional international development paradigms—largely shaped by the modernization experiences of developed Western countries—tend to flow unidirectionally, compelling recipient nations to conform institutionally to Western norms. In contrast, China should continue promoting the co-modernization model it has pursued with Africa. This approach emphasizes mutual interaction and shared agency, stimulating local initiative through bottom-up consultation, joint construction, and co-sharing, and thereby fostering more equal and sustainable development partnerships.
China must serve as a model of modernization. The new practices of Chinese-style modernization not only provide a solid foundation for China’s leadership in Global South development, but also offer alternative development paths to other Global South countries. With China–Africa co-modernization as a key strategic focus, China can help pioneer a new paradigm of international modernization cooperation.
In 1955, by seizing the opportunity presented by the Bandung Conference, the People’s Republic of China successfully broke through Western isolation and blockade, presenting itself as a trustworthy partner for the Third World. Seventy years later, China should once again draw upon the Bandung experience, integrating the Bandung Spirit with the practice of diplomacy with Chinese characteristics in the new era. In doing so, China will help construct a more just and reasonable international order and contribute to world peace and development. This is not only a tribute to history, but also a response to present challenges and an exploration of the future.
Diplomacy
Citigroup warns oil could hit $90 if Strait of Hormuz is closed

According to Citigroup, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could cause Brent crude oil prices to soar to as high as $90 per barrel. However, the company also argued that a prolonged shutdown of this critical waterway is unlikely.
Analysts, including Anthony Yuen and Eric Lee, referenced the bank’s current optimistic scenario, stating, “The closure of the strait could lead to a sharp increase in prices. However, we believe the process would be brief, not lasting several months, as all efforts would be focused on reopening it.”
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway at the entrance of the Persian Gulf. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s daily oil production, including from leading OPEC producers Saudi Arabia and Iraq, passes through it.
Citigroup estimates that a disruption could interrupt the flow of about 3 million barrels of oil per day for several months.
According to Citigroup, any interruption in Iran’s crude oil exports might have less of an impact on prices than anticipated. The bank noted that the country’s shipments have already decreased, with Chinese refineries purchasing less.
Brent futures are currently trading at around $77 per barrel.
Diplomacy
NATO chief introduces ‘DOGE’-style reforms ahead of Trump summit

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has begun to reduce employment within the alliance as part of a major restructuring effort.
Rutte, who took office as NATO chief last October, plans to eliminate two divisions at the Brussels headquarters and cut dozens of positions.
“He is basically DOGE-ing NATO,” said an alliance official, referring to the radical downsizing initiative in the US federal government led by Elon Musk earlier this year.
This previously unreported restructuring comes ahead of a critical summit in The Hague, which begins on Tuesday and will be attended by US President Donald Trump, amid widespread concerns that the NATO-skeptic president might one day withdraw from the military alliance.
The reforms are taking place in a complex geopolitical and defense environment, with wars shaking Ukraine and the Middle East, and warnings from the Trump administration that the US may take a backseat in Europe’s security in the future.
When Rutte took over from Jens Stoltenberg after his ten-year tenure last year, he announced in his first speech that there was “work to be done” to improve NATO. “My task is to ensure that our alliance continues to adapt to a more complex world,” he said.
The former Dutch prime minister wasted no time in restructuring the alliance’s bureaucracy.
In recent months, he has held two internal meetings with his staff, announcing a series of changes, including reducing NATO’s international staff divisions from eight to six.
The divisions to be eliminated are the Public Diplomacy Division, which serves as NATO’s press service, and the Executive Management Division, the alliance’s human resources department.
The functions of these divisions will largely be taken over by other departments. However, the assistant secretaries general, who are division heads appointed by the secretary general after consulting with member countries, will no longer continue in their roles, a directly knowledgeable official confirmed to POLITICO.
The Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, Marie-Doha Besancenot of France, left her post in March and has not been replaced. The head of the Executive Management Division, Carlo Borghini of Italy, will also be leaving his position.
Another official told POLITICO that dozens of positions will be eliminated as part of the restructuring, but added that the cuts do not “seem very high” and that new staff will be hired.
“This is something that happens when a new secretary general comes in,” a former senior NATO official told POLITICO about Rutte’s plans to restructure the alliance.
The former senior official said Rutte’s reform is not as reckless as Musk’s infamous Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, which resulted in the dismissal of American federal employees with almost no warning and the shutdown of US agencies.
“This is being done by insiders who really understand the priorities, the existing structures, and the processes. That’s why it’s a much more long-term and deliberate process than DOGE,” the official said.
NATO is headquartered in Brussels and employs approximately 4,000 people, including about 1,500 international staff for whom Rutte is responsible.
Most are temporary workers or “temporary staff”—typically younger, junior personnel on short-term, six-month contracts. Two current officials told POLITICO there has been a distinct shift toward reducing the number of temporary positions and making more roles permanent.
“It’s hard to ensure consistency if you go from temporary job to temporary job,” said the former senior NATO official, adding that discussions about high turnover and reducing reliance on short-term staff began before Rutte’s tenure.
“They are incredibly talented and dedicated people, and I hope that because of their experience and the fact that they already have security clearance, they will have the chance to apply for suitable contract positions,” the former official added.
Speaking on behalf of the alliance, a senior NATO official said regarding the staff cuts, “Secretary General Rutte is committed to an effective and efficient NATO,” and “he has initiated a restructuring process to optimize the operations of NATO headquarters.”
“The restructuring process, which has also taken into account the views of the staff and has been approved by the allies, is ongoing,” the official added.
Diplomacy
UK faces critical decision on potential US-Iran conflict

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has put his cabinet on alert for a potential US attack on Iran.
British officials describe the situation as “serious and volatile,” while the prime minister’s team has discussed whether Donald Trump will launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities from the joint US-UK airbase on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
So far, the United Kingdom has not been directly involved in the Israeli-Iranian conflict and appears determined to avoid any steps that could lead to the closure of its embassy in Tehran, a key Western diplomatic hub in the Middle East.
According to officials familiar with the discussions who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), Starmer discussed the possibility of a US attack on Iran during a meeting of the Whitehall emergency committee on Wednesday.
The meeting was attended by senior cabinet ministers, military officials, intelligence chiefs, and the US Ambassador, Lord Peter Mandelson.
The prime minister has maintained his call for “de-escalation,” which is the official reason for the UK not offering any support to Israel in defending itself against Iranian air attacks.
On Wednesday evening, Starmer held a phone call with the Emir of Qatar, who has close ties with Iran, to discuss the conflict.
Downing Street stated that Starmer and Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani emphasized “the need for de-escalation and diplomacy.”
At the G7 summit in Canada on Tuesday, Starmer noted that Trump had said “nothing to indicate he would get involved in this conflict.”
However, British officials later acknowledged that it was unlikely Trump would share his true intentions over dinner with Western leaders and that the White House’s approach to the crisis was an “iterative process.”
The US’s use of the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean for air strikes with B-2 stealth bombers could draw the United Kingdom further into the conflict.
A British official said there was no clear “yes or no” answer as to whether Washington would need London’s approval to use the base for an attack.
However, according to The Times, the US does require the UK’s permission to use the base.
A US military source told the newspaper, “Diego Garcia is under United Kingdom sovereignty. We request permission for any activity related to Diego Garcia.”
The US could also use the UK’s base in Cyprus, where it might be asked to deploy American refueling aircraft.
Last month, the United Kingdom signed a £3.4 billion deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, while retaining a 99-year lease on the airbase on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands.
Israel’s ambassador to London said on Tuesday that London’s defensive support had not been discussed or requested.
This contrasts with last April, when Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter jets shot down Iranian drones fired at Israel. RAF aircraft also provided assistance during Tehran’s missile attack on Israel last October.
The United Kingdom also assisted with US military strikes in Yemen last year.
Britain’s involvement in the current crisis could raise questions about the continued presence of British diplomats in Tehran, where the US does not have an embassy.
A Downing Street spokesperson said after the Whitehall committee meeting, “Ministers were briefed on ongoing diplomatic efforts and efforts to support British nationals in the region and ensure regional security.”
Starmer has repeatedly emphasized “Israel’s right to defend itself” and said Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but he has avoided stating whether he would support US intervention in the Israeli-Iranian conflict.
Attorney General Lord Hermer has raised concerns about the legality of London’s intervention in the conflict. According to his legal opinion, Britain should limit its involvement to “defensive” support.
However, another government source expressed concern that the UK refusing a US request to conduct bombing raids against Iran would have significant implications for the “special relationship.”
According to The Times, ministers at the meeting discussed various scenarios, including completely withholding support, allowing the use of Diego Garcia, providing logistical support, and a full-scale military intervention. A limited offer of support is seen as the most likely outcome.
No decision has been reached yet, and the government hopes that Trump can be persuaded not to intervene during a brief “window of opportunity” before US military forces are deployed.
The British military is on high alert over fears that troops deployed in the region could be targeted. There are currently 14 Typhoon jets in Cyprus to protect British personnel, and there are concerns that the 100 British soldiers stationed in Baghdad and Erbil could be attacked if the UK is seen to be participating in the conflict.
Theoretically, the Typhoons, flying over Iraq and Syria as part of “Operation Shader” against ISIS, could be used to protect British soldiers from drone attacks or to drop precision-guided Paveway IV bombs on proxy forces.
It is rumored that any US attack on Iran might initially focus on the heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, which Israel lacks sufficient bombs to destroy.
The US bunker-buster bombs capable of penetrating Fordow must be launched from American B-2 stealth bombers. In March, Washington deployed at least six B-2As to Diego Garcia as it increased pressure on Tehran to accept a nuclear deal.
Experts noted that the US could launch B-2 attacks from its main base in Missouri, but the additional distance and need for refueling would make any mission more challenging.
A British government spokesperson said they would “not comment on hypothetical operations.”
Meanwhile, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) announced that family members of British embassy and consulate staff in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem have been “temporarily withdrawn as a precautionary measure.”
This decision contradicts the FCDO’s current advice, which instructs British citizens in Israel to register with the British embassy or consulate but does not tell them to leave the country.
British officials stated that the number of people who have registered for advice and other consular assistance is in the “thousands,” most of whom are dual British-Israeli citizens.
The FCDO has reported that it is still possible to leave the country using commercial land routes through Egypt or Jordan, but it has advised British citizens not to attempt to exit Israel.
A Number 10 spokesperson said, “Our key message to British nationals is to follow the advice of local authorities, stay near shelters, and register their presence with the FCDO.”
-
Diplomacy1 week ago
Former diplomat warns forcing Iran out of the NPT is the greatest danger
-
Middle East1 day ago
US to launch major bombing campaign against Iran this weekend, Hersh reports
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
European defense autonomy and Germany’s military role enter a turning point
-
Middle East1 week ago
Netanyahu’s government survives no-confidence vote as Haredi crisis is delayed
-
Asia2 weeks ago
Japan, US showcase B-52 bombers in nuclear deterrence dialogue
-
Diplomacy1 week ago
Former CIA analyst says Israel used ceasefire talks as a trap
-
Middle East4 days ago
Iran targets Mossad and Unit 8200 in missile attack on Tel Aviv
-
Middle East1 week ago
Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear program, killing high-level commanders