ABSTRACTS

3 Global Governance Approaches and China’s Solution in the Context of the Global Development Initiative

by Cao Dejun

【Abstract】In the context of changes unseen in a century, the willingness and ability of emerging countries to participate in global governance have increased significantly.During the transformation of global governance in which China is actively willing to participate, the China moment for global governance is coming. The traditional hegemonic stability theory overlooks the negative role of the hegemon in global governance, and ignores the agency of emerging powers to actively provide new international public goods. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, China’s active provision of international public goods has refuted the hegemonic stability theory and the logic of the “Kindleberger Trap”, providing a solid foundation for a new path to global governance for emerging powers. The inclusive development model of the Global Development Initiative (GDI), which transcends the limitations of the North-South development aid model, is a global application of China’s own development experience,embodying the best practices of China’s South-South development cooperation, and helps to constructively promote the quality and upgrading of multilateral mechanisms for international development. For a long time, China’s multi-level, methodical and distinctive diplomatic practices have exemplified the concept of inclusiveness of the GDI.Adhering to the development philosophy that “ it’s better to teach a man how to fish than feeding him fish”, China provides technical assistance to developing countries and shares its development models and experiences. In the provision of international public goods,China tries to nurture its leadership in the international community by encouraging the greatest consensus, adhering to the principle of incremental improvement, upgrading and expanding the global financial system with the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and promoting innovation in global digital governance.

【Key Words】global governance, international public goods, Chinese-style modernization, the Global Development Initiative

22 US Hybrid Warfare Strategy: Theory and Practice

by Chen Xiang

【Abstract】Hybrid warfare, which is now a hot topic in international security studies, is a strategic tool for the US to maintain its hegemony. As a review of past literature shows,the US theoretical research on hybrid warfare has gone through three stages — pre-theory,establishment, and development — in which the definition and research focus have constantly evolved. The primary objective of US hybrid warfare is to maintain its global hegemonic position that is manifested in military, political, economic, and cultural aspects. Since the key to this strategy is to widen the gap with its strategic competitors in terms of both power and influence, the US seeks to undermine its rivals’ internal and external security posture, political and diplomatic capabilities, economic and technological potential, and discourse and narrative system. To achieve this strategic goal, the US uses the new tool of hybrid warfare, which encompasses the full spectrum of competitive methods short of war such as unconventional military operations, proxy war, and political, diplomatic,economic, and information warfare. In its competition with China, the US looks to hybrid warfare as a powerful means to contain and suppress China. Given its strategic goal of hegemonic maintenance, the US has been steadily deploying and integrating multiple power elements such as military, political, diplomatic, economic, and information components to strengthen its strategic competition with China. The US Indo-Pacific strategy is seen as a manifestation of hybrid warfare in the Asia Pacific. Therefore, an examination of the theoretical logic and practice of US hybrid warfare helps to deepen the theoretical understanding of contemporary warfare and assess the future direction of US strategy for great power competition.

【Key Words】the US, hybrid warfare, hegemonic maintenance, China-US competition

40 The Enhancement of Digital Governance Interoperability in the US Alliance System and Its Strategic Effects

by Li Hongzhou&Xia Zifang

【Abstract】In recent years, the United States and its allies have consistently enhanced their interoperability in digital technology. This trend has grown increasingly salient with the popularization of digital governance tools. The enhanced digital technology interoperability is manifested in the shared digital tools, the harmonization of digital technology standards, and the cross-border flow of digital information. It has also had far-reaching implications: countries have shifted from co-promotion of “digital governance” to “digital-based governance” because governance boundaries have been blurred with the introduction of platform-based systems. The transformative impact of enhanced governance interoperability may serve to strengthen intra-alliance cohesion rooted in internal compatibility, possibly weakening the traditional form of cohesion,which is primarily based on external threats and effective institutional design. This article defines this process as alliance introversion where the interaction among allies shifts from traditional transnational coordination to a fully algorithm-based model as a result of digitization and the application of large, general-purpose models, the mutual embedding of domestic issues among allies, a common set of governance tools, and the convergence of governance models. It argues that the next phase in US efforts to promote technological interoperability with its allies will be to realize governance interoperability in terms of mutual embeddedness in domestic governance. This will cause an inward turn in the alliance because of increased cohesion among allies, evident in the industrial restructuring in high-technology, real-time intelligence sharing, and the homogenization of frameworks for dealing with domestic issues. This will also produce strategic effects in areas such as transnational strategic coordination within the alliance, the utility of wedge strategies, the expansion of the network of US allies and partners, and the bifurcation of the international landscape.

【Key Words】interoperability, digital-based governance, mutual embeddedness in governance, alliance introversion, strategic effects

66 UK-EU Relations after the Conclusion of the “Windsor Framework” Agreement

by Xu Ruike&Lu Yulin

【Abstract】Since the end of the Brexit transition period in January 2021, there have been continuous disputes between the UK and the EU over the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, leading to severe constraints on bilateral relations during the Johnson and Truss governments. After Sunak took power, the UK and the EU ultimately reached the “Windsor Framework” agreement through active negotiations,introducing new measures to address contentious issues such as barriers within the UK internal market, Northern Ireland’s shrinking economic rights and democratic deficits.The swift conclusion of the “Windsor Framework” agreement with the EU can be primarily attributed to a change in negotiation style by the Sunak government which helped to restore mutual trust with the EU. Other important contributing factors include the deteriorating political and security situation in Northern Ireland, and active American involvement against the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis. The “Windsor Framework”agreement, which enhances mutual trust between the UK and the EU, has facilitated cooperation in areas such as defense, diplomacy, finance, and scientific research. However,post-Brexit UK has yet to fully restore its institutionalized cooperative relationship with the EU, and the future of UK-EU relations remains clouded by significant uncertainty.

【Key Words】the Windsor Framework, UK-EU relations, Brexit, the Northern Ireland Protocol, UK diplomacy

91 A Multi-Level Analysis of the Biden Administration’s Narrative Competition with China

by Zhu Lingling

【Abstract】Both a cognitive framework and an instrument for understanding and interpretation, narrative is essential for the formulation and implementation of great power strategies and national policies. Following the clear and multiple levels of analysis in narratives in international relations, the Biden administration has woven a tripledanger narrative of “China as a coercive force,” “China as an authoritarian state,” and “China as an irresponsible competitor” at the level of the international system, the state,and (domestic) issues respectively. This shows that the US continues to view China-US relations through the lens of great power competition. Consistent with US narratives on security, identity, and development, the Biden administration’s tripartite narrative paints China as “a revisionist to the international order” to the international community,and “a threat to American national security and development” to the American public.This has served to foster domestic consensus and facilitate policy implementation at home and tarnish Chinese images and promote negative perceptions of China in the world to gain advantage in the competition for international discursive power. Thus, the tripartite narrative has become a powerful tool for the Biden administration in its strategic competition with China as it is conducive to the legitimacy of its domestic policies, and the establishment of a “united front” for competition with China by winning the trust and support of its allies internationally. The strategic goal of this narrative approach is to “outcompete” China by reducing US strategic costs and increasing those for China. A systematic multi-level analysis of the Biden administration’s narrative competition with China will deepen our understanding of the US competition with China and lay the groundwork for improving China international narrative.

【Key Words】the Biden administration, narrative competition with China, international system-level narrative, national identity narrative, domestic issues-level narrative

110 US Technical Standards Competition with China: Motivations, Initiatives and Challenges

by Hou Guanhua

【Abstract】Amid the intensifying US competition with China, the competition for technical standards has become an important part of US science and technology (S&T)competition with China. Given the economic, security and ideological value of technical standards, the primary goal of US competition with China is to ensure its dominance in technical standards, so as to protect its economic interests, safeguard its national security,and preserve its values. The essential competitive measures include discourse offensives,institutional reform, and alliance formation. In mounting discourse offensives, the US seeks to “stigmatize” Chinese standards through vilification and denigrating the Chinese system, so that China’s standards are made to appear morally condemnable in the world.In terms of institutional reform, the US enhances government intervention in the field of technical standards. Regarding alliance formation, the US assembles a technical standards alliance based on common values, seeking to exclude China from the formulation of international standards. However, the US approach to technical standards competition with China faces certain challenges. First, the US government’s intervention in technical standards has its limits, and there is no broad domestic consensus on the need to strengthen government intervention so as to compete with China. Second, the US and its allies have differences in the formulation of technical standards, especially given that the US and Europe are competing for dominance in technical standards. China should stay firmly committed to its standardization strategy and promote international standardization,while actively working to counter the US discourse offensives against Chinese standards.

【Key Words】technical standards, science and technology competition, government intervention, technology alliance

134 The Evolution of US Military Readiness in an Era of Great-Power Strategic Competition

by Wu Ruifang

【Abstract】The US concept of military readiness, which is rooted in national security considerations, is directly related to both national defense strategy and defense budget.Since there is no statutory definition, multiple interpretations of the term exist in various government agencies’ documents in terms of its intension, extension, conceptual tiers and scope of application. The definitional ambiguity has given rise to frequent controversy.Since the then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued the warning about a “hollow force” in 2011, “readiness crisis” has drawn great attention from both the government and the academia. Based on the research papers of US Congressional Research Service and official documents of the Department of Defense, this article unpacks the evolution of US understandings of military readiness and its implications for China by examining the causes of the controversies and latest developments in US readiness. It makes three arguments.First, the concept of military readiness is malleable and open-ended — as demonstrated by the debates surrounding it — in meeting the changing demands of US national security,and in practice it refers to the management and allocation of defense resources in the service of national security through congressional legislation and budget making. In essence it belies the habitual US practice of trying to maintain absolute military superiority by making advance plans in readiness and related efforts to secure the necessary defense resources. Second, there is a trend toward narrow definitions of the concept as the share in the military budget of their typical elements such as operations and management(O&M) and military personnel has not been diminished by the increase in expenditure for research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E). On the contrary, there has been an increase in the budget for training military personnel, and safeguarding and protecting their rights. Third, more attention and further analysis are called for in light of the features of US military readiness in dealing with strategic competitors. They include an acute crisis awareness, the ability to make self-corrections, a development model emphasizing a stable force size and structure and high-technology, and finally an emphasis on investment in people as the primary element in military readiness.

【Key Words】strategic competition, US military readiness, definitional ambiguity,national defense strategy, resource allocation