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
CSTO strips Armenia of voting rights over two-year budget debt
Members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) have stripped Armenia of its voting rights and its ability to appoint representatives to official positions due to a two-year debt to the organization’s budget.
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “This decision was taken based on the organization’s charter due to Armenia’s failure to fulfil its obligations for several years.”
Prior to the CSTO leaders’ summit in Moscow, Peskov had stated that member states would “react” to the Caucasus country’s non-participation in the organization’s activities.
Ahead of the Moscow summit, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said his country’s “interest has run out” regarding the CSTO. Through his press spokesperson, he announced that he would travel to Türkiye on 11 November to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) instead of going to Russia.
The CSTO leaders’ meeting was held with the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin alongside the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
The leaders jointly took the decision to revoke Armenia’s voting rights.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the participants also signed a joint declaration.
The declaration stated: “We confirm our unconditional commitment to the goals set out in the CSTO treaty and charter towards creating favourable and stable conditions for the comprehensive development of member states.”
Pashinyan had frozen Yerevan’s de facto participation in the CSTO in February 2024, citing the organization’s failure to aid the Armenian side during the armed clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023.
Having referred to the CSTO as a “soap-bubble alliance” since that time, Pashinyan accused the organization’s members of “planning war” together with Baku. He stated that Armenia would not return to active work within the alliance at least “over the next five years”, adding that he would welcome it if the country were expelled from membership.
Relations between Armenia and Russia grew tense once again in the spring of 2026, after Yerevan moved closer to the European Union (EU) and the Kremlin responded with a trade war.
In May, Pashinyan refused to travel to Moscow to attend the Victory Day parade and declared that he did not support Russia on the Ukraine issue.
In response, Putin called on Yerevan to determine its foreign policy course through a referendum, advising Armenian authorities not to forget the fate of Ukraine.
Diplomacy
US urges Russia to draft proposals for new European security pact
The US administration has reportedly called on Russia to submit proposals for a prospective security treaty with Europe that would include measures to ease tensions between European nations and Moscow.
According to a report by news site Axios citing sources familiar with the matter, the US side conveyed the request during trilateral negotiations held in Abu Dhabi.
During the talks, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner suggested that the Russian delegation prepare a fresh proposal outlining its security concerns and demands.
The US delegation reportedly asked that this proposal clarify what kind of “symmetrical steps” Moscow is prepared to take to de-escalate tensions and “provide non-aggression guarantees to Europe”.
Another source familiar with the White House’s approach said the Trump administration aims to run the processes for a new European security architecture and a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine simultaneously.
Under this plan, the actual implementation of the security understandings would take effect only after the signing of an accord ending the conflict in Ukraine.
Assessing the approach to the process, the source said: “[Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy will not agree to any compromise without knowing what will happen next regarding security guarantees. Putin also wants to see the exact same picture clearly. This is precisely why the security portfolio is so decisive.”
The same official noted that the US will not reach a security agreement with Russia without the support of Europe and Ukraine, adding that Washington will not grant Moscow veto power over European security decisions.
Vladimir Medinsky, aide to the Russian president and head of the delegation in the Ukraine negotiations, previously stated that the fundamental objective was building a comprehensive new security system in Europe.
Medinsky noted that the structure in question must take on the character of “a fair, new, modern Yalta and Potsdam that carries the spirit of Helsinki 1975 and responds to contemporary realities”.
The Russian official argued that if such a system were established, peace lasting for decades, or even centuries, could be secured in Europe.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also announced that Moscow possesses its own position paper on how a new security architecture in Eurasia should take shape.
Lavrov stated that Russia hopes the Washington administration will “maintain its determination to pursue dialogue aimed at achieving an honest balance of interests where nobody’s security is impaired”.
Russian authorities have repeatedly stated that the country has no intention of attacking Europe.
Pointing out that they have no reason to fight NATO countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin previously said: “We have no interest whatsoever, neither geopolitical nor economic, political nor military.”
In a statement in October, Putin said Russia has no plans to attack anyone “in 2029, in 2030, or in the year 2050”.
On the other hand, Putin claimed that “all NATO countries are fighting Russia” and stated that the Russian military is currently the most combat-ready armed force in the world.
Following the contacts in Abu Dhabi, Kushner announced that he and Witkoff would travel to Moscow.
Explaining that they plan to meet Putin during the visit to discuss European participation in negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict, Kushner argued that the parties could make “far greater progress” if the Russian leader consents to such involvement.
Yury Ushakov, aide to the Russian president, stated that the US special envoys will arrive in Moscow on 12 November, with the planned meeting with the Russian president scheduled for the first half of the day.
Diplomacy
Vance leads indirect push for US-Iran ceasefire and nuclear talks
US Vice-President JD Vance has been personally involved over the past two weeks in indirect talks with Iran aimed at securing a fresh ceasefire and restarting nuclear negotiations.
According to Axios, Vance’s intense engagement indicates that he has taken it upon himself to extract the US from the conflict, which he views as responsible for the Republican Party’s shocking losses in this week’s elections.
This elevates the latest round of indirect talks to the highest echelons of the administration.
US officials and regional sources state that Trump is currently willing to let diplomatic efforts run their course to see whether any agreement is achievable.
Asked by reporters on Friday what his message was to Iran, Trump said, “We are talking to them.”
According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Vance speaks almost daily with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, and other mediators regarding the negotiations with Iran.
White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, are also involved in the process.
Sources say Vance and the Qatari and Pakistani mediators have been discussing the possibility of holding a working-level technical meeting between the US and Iran in the coming days, though this has not yet materialized.
Before the war began in late February, Vance was among the most sceptical voices in Trump’s inner circle on the issue, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution.
In April, he led the US negotiating delegation at the Iran summit held in Islamabad and was personally involved in the talks that yielded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the US and Iran in June.
Vance subsequently headed the US delegation during a series of direct talks with Iran in Switzerland.
Two weeks ago, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing that direct negotiations resume.
Rezaei is one of the closest advisers to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Iranian officials noted that Vance’s letter generated positive momentum toward restarting talks.
On Wednesday, Vance said the war was the primary reason for the Republicans’ repudiation at the polls.
Sources involved in mediation efforts report that while progress is being made, the process is moving very slowly.
On Friday evening, the prime minister of Qatar said, “Over the past few weeks, we worked with our colleagues in the US administration who have a sincere intention to contain the situation and de-escalate. Thanks to them and the voices of reason in Tehran, we prevented the situation from spinning out of control.”
The prime minister added that discussions with the Trump administration continued following the midterm elections, though they were not as active as in previous days “because there are other matters.”
Nevertheless, he noted that the US intention to find a diplomatic resolution “remains ongoing” and emphasized that an agreement is possible.
On Friday morning, Trump and the Emir of Qatar discussed Qatari efforts to bridge differences between the US and Iran as part of an accord.
According to a statement from his office, Sheikh Tamim emphasized the necessity of “pursuing dialogue and diplomatic channels to resolve differences, prevent the region from facing further escalation, and ensure freedom of maritime navigation as well as the security of energy supplies.”
Separately, Trump confirmed on Friday that the US military conducted a strike on an anti-aircraft missile launcher on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz after it fired a missile at a US fighter jet.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Europe6 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Diplomacy1 week agoProtesters storm Kyiv site holding soldiers over torture allegations
-
Russia2 weeks agoPutin proposes Arctic energy cooperation to US to ease gas sanctions
-
Europe1 week agoPro-Ukraine Republicans in US Congress dwindle after departures
-
America2 weeks agoRubio outlines Venezuela election plan, says US will not wait two years
