Illustration: Xia Qing/GT
Editor's Note:"While the extent to which today's world is
MKsportsalready multipolar is debatable, the world's 'multipolarization' is a fact," reads Munich Security Report 2025, an annual report serves as a discussion starter for the Munich Security Conference (MSC) which is scheduled from this Friday to Sunday. How is the West interpreting and adapting to the multipolarization? And what is China's role in multipolarization? Josef Gregory Mahoney (
Mahoney), an American professor of politics and executive director of the International Center for Advanced Political Studies at East China Normal University, shared his insights with the Global Times (
GT) reporters Li Aixin and Xing Xiaojing.
Photo: Courtesy of Mahoney
GT: Which aspect of the Munich Security Report 2025 made the deepest impression on you?Mahoney:One of the truest lines in the report can be found in the Executive Summary: "Donald Trump's presidential victory has buried the US post-Cold War foreign policy consensus that a grand strategy of liberal internationalism would best serve US interests."
On one hand, "liberal internationalism" has always been a myth. It was merely a superficial ideology, which in reality masked US hegemony and military expansion.
On the other hand, that myth was especially popular among Europeans who believed themselves to occupy a moral high ground relative to the US while nonetheless free riding, substantially, on US military power and global hegemony. Of course they realized the US had dirty fingers in dark dealings around the world, including illegal invasions, regime changes, proxy wars, and so on, but with the US they asserted they had chosen the lesser evil, relative to their portrayals of other great powers. In other words, Europe pretended to be morally superior to everyone, even though it was free-riding on American imperialism, and despite the fact that neither China nor Russia posed a danger to them.
Liberalism within Europe is also already a ghost, insomuch as European governments continue to accommodate the US and have increasingly accommodated their own rightward turns within Europe.
GT: In your view, what might be a constructive approach for the West to adapt to multipolarization?
Mahoney:As a Marxist and a realist in tune with Beijing's line, I support the new internationalism and civilization model of China, which employs a principles-based foreign policy based on mutual recognition and respect, and fosters win-win cooperation to address development needs while confronting crises like climate change to ensure a shared future for humanity. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in the White House shares the same vision.
The prevailing position in Washington is that the US is no longer capable of dominating the world as it once did but still the biggest power, while the world as a whole is in a transitional period of major and middle powers reestablishing their exclusive spheres of influence. Washington's goal is perpetuating relative power for as long as possible.
GT: The report claims that "China's advocacy for a multipolar order is well received in the so-called Global South but is ultimately a rhetorical cover for amassing power to compete strategically with the US." It also argues that China is trying to position the BRICS grouping… as a counterweight to the G7. How do you respond to this assessment? Mahoney:First, by using the term "so-called Global South," the authors cast doubt on whether the Global South actually exists. The reality is that the Global North, represented by G7 countries, have worked together to preserve their interests at the expense of the Global South, but they do not wish to admit it.
Second, it's therefore natural for some to view BRICS as the antithesis of the G7, given that the G7 is disinclined to recognize the Global South or to take responsibility for generations of exploitative and hegemonic policymaking. This policymaking not only helped the G7 countries reach their development levels, but also has been used thereafter to sustain power through various schemes that perpetuate underdevelopment and insecurity in much of the Global South.
BRICS was not created as the antithesis of the G7, but inevitably it seeks greater fairness for its members and others in the Global South. This is not a voting bloc built to resist the G7. This is merely people who collectively represent the majority of the people in the world, who belong to emerging economies, who demand fair and equal treatment. In other words, this is just a shared sense of justice, which the rich nations perceive as a "conspiracy."
GT: What role do you believe China has played in the realm of global collective security? And what role can it play in the upcoming MSC?Mahoney:China is the only major power that has consistently promoted a principles-based foreign policy, one that emphasizes peace and win-win development in tandem with mutual understanding and respect. China is the only major power to eschew small-bloc building and war. China is in the forefront of promoting peace, helping adversaries reconcile, providing peacekeeping troops, supporting UN development goals, and helping the Global South develop while also creating the means for addressing climate change, as the world leader in green innovation and greener production and development. Increasingly, China is also the unshakeable bulwark upon which multinational organizations like the UN, WHO, WTO depend in this era of Western neglect and abandonment. China is also helping lead the way in building new "mini-lateralisms" like the SCO, BRICS, and others that carry forward equitable ideals in foreign relations, creating new multilateral solutions to solve longstanding security and development challenges.
To be sure, China is absolute in its maintenance of its own sovereignty and national security, and some people around the world have misread associated actions as being unnecessarily provocative and hegemony-seeking. But this is putting the cart before the horse, and then pretending the horse is a wolf and the cart a chariot for war.
GT: How would you assess the trend toward "multipolarization" within the MSC? Some observers argue that the MSC, while addressing global security issues, remains structurally dominated by Western narratives, while non-Western participation plays a symbolic role, as misunderstanding toward emerging countries is still abundant. What is your perspective on this?Mahoney:Let's point to an example. We recently saw Australia rushing to send payments for nuclear submarines to Washington, shortly after Trump has returned to office - submarines that Australia doesn't need and can't really afford - as many in Canberra well-understand. They know as well as anyone that China does not pose a military threat to Australia and there's no need for Australia to position itself as a military threat against China, especially on America's behalf.
In short, there are some in the West who have a reasonably clear understanding of China who nevertheless pander to Washington's whims because they're more afraid of the US. Australia rushed those payments despite a growing consensus in Australia that AUKUS is a fool's errand that imagines an enemy that doesn't exist while feeding the US military industrial complex, and all for trying to buy goodwill to avoid being hit by US tariffs.
However, there's a lurking awareness at least that China is not the adversary many pretend it to be; that China is not anti-democratic or hegemony-seeking; that China is not supporting Russia in Ukraine; and that commercial Chinese technologies do not pose economic or security threats. We see such awareness, for example, among TikTok refugees in RedNote, and we see increasing disillusion among many in Western countries with their political systems and future prospects.
Consequently, we might be nearing a tipping point where a larger number of people around the world understand that China is a friendly nation that beckons a brighter future, one that can offer others practical solutions and wisdom as they seek constructive alternatives for advancing development and peaceful coexistence.
