Nigeria Times

By Huan Yuping, People’s Daily

Some people in the United States, to hype the Group of Seven (G7) Summit to be held in Japan’s Hiroshima, are raising their pitch in peddling the so-called “rules-based international order.”

However, what they say is not new. The so-called “rules-based international order” is just a disguise that’s been used by the United States more and more frequently in forcing bloc confrontation and pressuring other countries.

Saddling other countries with its own wills and standards and replacing international law widely accepted by the international society with rules that only suit itself and its allies, the United States is indeed pursuing hegemonism and power politics. The international community is deeply aware of the harm of these practices.

I.

The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative fabricated by the United States is totally groundless.

In 1945, the World Anti-Fascist War secured a great victory, and justice defeated evil. The making of the UN Charter laid a cornerstone for the modern international order and established contemporary basic norms governing international relations. Over the past more than 70 years, it is widely accepted by the international community that there is only one international system in the world, namely, the international system with the United Nations at its core; there is only one international order, which is the one underpinned by international law; there is only one set of rules, namely, the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative fabricated by the United States has no relation at all to the international order widely accepted by the international society today.

This narrative is not written in the UN Charter nor included in the resolutions of the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council. The “rules-based international order” is not recognized by the international community, and only works in the clique formulated by the United States and parts of its allies.

The “rules-based international order” never has a clear explanation on who should be making the rules, what rules should be made, how the rules should be obeyed or what rules should be protected. The explanation by the U.S. side is quite arbitrary and selective.

Some commented that the “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States is just a blurred term that never exists in international law established after the World War II, one that has no concrete connotation.

Fabricating the so-called “rules-based international order” narrative, the United States aims at explaining and applying international law at its own will and monopolizing the right to define international rules and order. The more ambiguous the “rules” and “order” are, the more discretion the United States enjoys. Any country could be labeled as a “rules and order breaker” for any practice that touches upon the hegemonic interests of the United States.

American columnist Peter Beinart noted that “Since the ‘rules-based order’ is never adequately defined, America’s claim to uphold it can never be disproved.”

A British scholar called the discussion over the term which American politicians have never defined a fight against the mist.

The U.S. doesn’t have to peddle the so-called “rules-based international order” narrative, if it really wants to safeguard the international order. All it should do is to uphold the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order underpinned by international law.

The United States should pay its long overdue contributions to the UN regular budget and peacekeeping budget, ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, stop standing alone in obstructing the resumption of the negotiations on a verification protocol under the Biological Weapons Convention, stop refusing to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice, and stop violating WTO rules again and again.

The United States has long been seeking supremacy. It takes a selective approach to international rules, and uses international organizations when they suit its interests and abandon them otherwise. The United States is undermining international order in the name of safeguarding it. Its true intention is to set up an “American order” outside the existing and recognized international system and order, so as to safeguard its hegemony and private interests.

II.

The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States stems from and serves American hegemony.

The United States has become the only superpower in the world since the Cold War ended, gaining a supreme position in the globe. To get rid of the restrictions from the UN system and international law, the United States fabricated the “rules-based international order” narrative to gloss over American hegemony.

According to scholar Paul Poast from the University of Chicago, the “rules-based international order” emerged in 1990s and was more and more frequently used by the White House after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The “rules-based international order” has been synchronized with the expansion of the U.S. hegemony since the end of the Cold War.

The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States, though literally comes with “rules” and “order,” always has two standards.

From the perspective of the “rules-based international order,” combating extreme and violent terrorists is considered counter-terrorism in the United States but a human right issue in other countries; safeguarding national security is considered necessary in the United States but a violation of democracy and freedom in other countries; supporting international exchanges is justified in the United States but considered propaganda and infiltration in other countries.

Such double standards exactly indicate the remarks by American historian Alfred McCoy that “You must follow international law unless you’re America.”

Under the disguise of verbal tricks, U.S. hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices of military intervention, economic sanctions and technological blockage all hypocritically become a part of the “rules-based international order.”

From the wars the United States launched in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, to the color revolutions it started in European and Asian countries, and to the unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction it imposed on dozens of countries, the “rules-based international order” has brought no stability to the world at all, but only turbulence and disasters.

The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States is also a tool of the country to rope in its allies and start bloc confrontations.

The United States is addicted to containing its “imaginary enemies.” All “rivals” or “competitors” of the United States are labeled “rule breakers” or “order subverters.”

However, the frequent trouble-making by the United States in the name of “rules-based international order” has presented a clearer and clearer picture to the international society that behind the narrative is the hegemony of the United States that places everything after its own interests, and the major threat against the stability of the international order is exactly the U.S.-led group politics under the disguise of the so-called “rules-based international order” narrative.

III.

In today’s world, multiple challenges and crises are intertwined. As a community with a shared future, humanity needs to work hand in hand to tackle these challenges and crises. Under such a background, it is more necessary and urgent for the international community to jointly safeguard the UN-centered international system, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms of international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The United States should come to realize that the world does not need a country dictating other countries, nor does the world need a “coalition of shared values.” What the world needs is mutual respect despite difference in ideology, values and development level, solidarity and joint efforts in line with the UN Charter and international law in order to tackle global challenges together.

The international community’s determination to choose justice over hegemony has become even stronger today. Developing countries are gaining an increasingly higher awareness for strategic independence and are more active on safeguarding the international order. They believe it’s important to uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and safeguard true multilateralism.

Having suffered among the heaviest casualties in the world anti-fascist alliance during WWII, and as a founding member of the UN and the first country to sign the UN Charter, China sees it as its solemn duty to defend the authority of the UN and uphold the post-war international order. The country has the best record in abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, international law and the basic norms of international relations.

To contain China, the United States has done everything to label China a challenger to the international order. However, such defaming cannot affect the international community’s opinion.

The international structures of power are going through profound changes, with the international system and order in intensive reform. To oppose hegemonic “might is right” practices, transcend the outdated mindset of bloc confrontation, jointly safeguard the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and follow the golden rules in state-to-state interactions such as equal sovereignty and non-interference in other countries’ domestic affairs is not a proposal of only China, but a common aspiration of most countries in the world. Only by recognizing this point, can a country play a constructive role in safeguarding the stability of the international order.

The exclusive clique established by the United States cannot represent the international system with the UN at its core. The so-called “rules-based international order” narrative of the United States cannot replace the international order underpinned by international law. The laws and rules applicable to only the United States and its allies cannot represent the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The international order will only become fairer and more equitable, which can never be stopped by the hegemony of a few countries.

By Bu Le, People’s Daily

Boasting a civilization spanning more than 5,000 years, China is home to many thousand-year-old cities. According to incomplete statistics, 30 cities in China were built over 2,000 years ago, and 142 cities have been officially designated as national historical and cultural cities.

The history of cities represents the evolution of human civilization, a truth that holds universally without exception. Then, in the 21st century today, can a country design and build a “city of future” with lasting importance for the millennium to come? 

Impossible as it sounds, the miracle is happening in Xiong’an New Area, north China’s Hebei province.

Six years ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the plan to set up Xiong’an New Area. “We will relieve Beijing of functions nonessential to its role as the capital and use this effort to drive the coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region; and we will develop forward-looking plans and adopt high standards for building the Xiong’an New Area,” he said.

Xiong’an New Area is a historical heritage for future generations. Xi call for “global vision, international standards, distinctive Chinese features, and future-oriented goals” in the planning and construction of Xiong’an New Area has served as an important guideline for the development of the area.

Xiong’an has caught global attention since its establishment.

Singaporean newspaper Lianhe Zaobao pointed out that Xiong’an New Area will shoulder the strategic mission of searching for a path to the great transformation of the Chinese nation.

British daily business newspaper Financial Times said that Xiong’an New Area boosts strong and clear anticipation of growth in northern China.

Relevant articles published on the website of the Associated Press noticed that Xiong’an New Area is established to alleviate Beijing’s non-capital functions and promote the coordinated development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, and bridge the economic disparity between the capital and the industrial and rural areas surrounding it.

Xiong’an New Area may provide an alternative development model and is expected to become a high-tech hub and a laboratory for intelligent city planning, according to an article published on the website of The Diplomat magazine based in Japan.

An article on the website of the British weekly newspaper The Economist quoted an official statement by China that the development of Xiong’an New Area is a “strategy crucial for the next millennium.” However, it said that it would be unwise to bet all on the rise of Xiong’an, because “over the years China has tried to build numerous new cities, several of which have been costly failures.”

It’s assumed that it must take a long time for Xiong’an New Area to finally take shape, since its development is considered a national project of millennial significance. This is probably why discussions regarding Xiong’an cooled off gradually after it became a hot topic worldwide for a period. 

For more than two years after China officially announced its plan to establish, nothing significant was built in the area except for some basic projects and temporary structures designed to ensure necessary operations.

However, a grand blueprint was being formed step by step.

More than 1,000 experts and over 200 teams from home and abroad, together with more than 2,500 professional and technical personnel, have participated in the formulation of the master plan for Xiong’an New Area.   

To the surprise of the world, the “city of future” has experienced tremendous changes within a mere six years. It has been transformed from ground zero to an emerging modern city with neatly aligned new buildings, flat and wide streets, and ubiquitous greenery.  

On May 10, 2023, Xi made an inspection tour of Xiong’an, which was his third visit to the new area, bringing the new area under the spotlight once again. From the media’s focus on the inspection tour, major progress has been achieved in the development of Xiong’an.

The country has basically completed the top-level construction and development of Xiong’an, secured major progress in infrastructure construction, achieved initial results in relieving the non-capital functions of Beijing, improved the ecological environment management and protection of the Baiyangdian Lake in the new area, witnessed positive progress in deepening reform and opening up, gradually improved the conditions for the gathering of industrial and innovation elements, and promoted the relocation and resettlement work in an orderly manner.  

The miraculous transformation of Xiong’an has aroused discussions, with many saying they have never before seen a plan for a city be formulated this way, which can take over Beijing’s non-capital functions and pays so much attention to the inheritance of fine traditional culture.

They are also surprised by the integrated construction and planning that cover projects above and below ground as well as on online platforms, and such great efforts to improve the ecological environment of the Baiyangdian Lake.

These remarks bear testimony to the historical foresight of the Chinese leadership.   

Over the past six years, new changes have taken place in Xiong’an day by day, and major progress has been achieved in the construction of the new area every year. A high-level modern city is sprouting up.

The miracle that is unfolding in Xiong’an has demonstrated that effective city design of “millennial significance” requires not only a well-established civilization, but historical foresight and remarkable wisdom of a country’s leadership. Furthermore, the plan will only work when the government of the country has the resolve for continuous implementation.

By Liu Shiyao, Yu Sinan, People’s Daily

A Long March-7 Y7 rocket, carrying the Tianzhou-6 cargo spacecraft, blasted off at 9:22 p.m. (Beijing Time) on May 10 from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site in south China’s Hainan province.

After around 10 minutes, the spacecraft separated from the rocket and entered its designated orbit. This marked a complete success of the first launch mission after China’s crewed space station program entered the stage of application and development.

Tianzhou-6 is the first spacecraft to visit China’s space station supporting its new operation phase. It is also the first of a modified batch of the Tianzhou cargo ships – from Tianzhou-6 to Tianzhou-11.

The cargo spacecraft is tasked with ferrying supplies for the space station, providing in-orbit support, and sending multiple payloads for space scientific experiments.

Greater loading volume and larger carrying capacity is the most important feature of Tianzhou-6. With a loading capacity of more than 7 tons, Tianzhou-6 has emerged as the world’s largest cargo spacecraft in service and also the most versatile of its kind in terms of supporting capability in orbit.

In the recent mission, Tianzhou-6 transported supplies including daily supplies for six astronauts of the Shenzhou-16 and Shenzhou-17 spaceships to be launched, propellants, and experiment-related items.

A Tianzhou cargo craft has two parts – a cargo cabin for transporting supplies and a propulsion section. The propulsion section ensures power, energy and communication and replenishes propellants for China’s space station.

The improved carrying capacity of Tianzhou-6 provides more goods for astronauts to sustain a longer stay in space. This reduces the launch frequency of cargo spacecraft from twice a year to three times every two years, which will substantially reduce transportation costs.

After the upgrade, the cargo capacity of the airtight cabin increased by 24 percent from 5.5 tons to 6.7 tons, and that of the whole spacecraft rose from 6.9 tons to 7.4 tons, said Dong Shengran, chief designer of the cargo spacecraft system at the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST). Dong added that the spacecraft’s payload ratio went up from 0.51 to 0.53.

Another highlight of this launch mission is that the proportion of the number of domestic components in Tianzhou-6 and its successors has increased significantly, and 100 percent localization of key components has been realized.

The research team has promoted the optimization of the spacecraft’s configuration to improve its reliability while reducing its costs. The spacecraft meets the requirements for remote control from the ground station and transmission of images and data to the ground.

Since China began the construction of its space station with the launch of the Tianhe core module in 2021, four cargo spacecraft, from Tianzhou-2 to Tianzhou-5, had been launched until the completion of the space station in 2022.

They delivered supplies between the space station and ground station, and verified key technologies for the space station during their in-orbit operations, such as the first transposition test of the Tianzhou-2 cargo craft using a robotic arm, the first in-orbit refueling, and a fast automated rendezvous and docking in about two hours for the first time.

Tianzhou-6 delivered 98 experiment-related items with a total weight of some 714 kilograms, including research samples and supporting equipment, to China’s space station, according to Lyu Congmin, deputy chief designer of the China Manned Space Program’s space application system and research fellow with the Technology and Engineering Center for Space Utilization under the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Astronauts would transfer these supplies into the space station modules after the docking of the cargo craft with the space station, Lyu said.

As scheduled, these supplies will be used to carry out 29 scientific experiments and application tests in four fields: space life science and biotechnology, fluid physics and combustion science in microgravity, material science in space, and new technology tests for space applications, according to Lyu.