To answer the key questions about world multipolarity
BEIJING, Feb. 22, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A report from People's Daily:
At the recently held 61st Munich Security Conference (MSC), multipolarity became the focus of discussion.
Is today's world truly moving toward a multipolar order? How can the world ensure a healthy and stable transition to multipolarity?
The answer to these critical questions concerns the stability of the international order and world peace and development.
A multipolar world is both a historical inevitability and a reality. The Munich Security Report 2025, themed 'Multipolarization,' states that today's world is characterized by 'multipolarization.' This assessment aligns with the prevailing consensus in the international community.
In international relations, 'pole' refers to key influential political and economic forces in the global system. At its core, multipolarity is a global power and governance system featuring extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit.
Since the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the world has rapidly transitioned toward multipolarity. All countries and regions have increasingly sought a more independent and autonomous position in international affairs.
Today, multipolarity is a direct reflection of the changing global power dynamics. According to the International Monetary Fund, emerging markets and developing economies contributed 58.9 percent to the global economy in 2023. The Munich Security Report 2025 highlights that BRICS nations account for about 40 percent of global trade and 40 percent of crude oil production and exports.
This is not just about economic development - it is a basis for structural change in global order.
The MSC saw 30 percent of its speakers this year representing the Global South, a testament to the world's multipolar trajectory. Global South countries are asserting greater independence in global affairs. They have actively promoted greater democracy in international relations through platforms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, injecting vital momentum into the world multipolarization process.
The report notes that multipolarization is not only evident in the diffusion of material power but also in the fact that the world has become more polarized ideologically. Developing nations have grown more self-assured in exploring the path to development independently. Together, the Global South is advocating for equal exchanges, inclusiveness and mutual learning among civilizations.
A multipolar world better reflects the international community's aspirations for justice, fairness, and win-win cooperation. It aligns more closely with the realistic need for peace and development, and is more conducive to the reform of the global governance system.
Increasing representation and voice of developing countries in global governance does not signify the 'decline of the West.' Rather, it fosters a more balanced and cooperative international system and helps maintain the vitality of multilateralism in a multipolar world. Just as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres suggested, multipolarity promises to be 'a way to fix multilateralism.'
To prevent disorder and conflict during the transitional period in the international order, the key lies in working for an equal and orderly multipolar world. The international community should jointly advocate equal treatment, respect the international rule of law, practice true multilateralism, and pursue openness and mutual benefit. It should be a factor of certainty in the multipolar system, and strive to be steadfast constructive forces in a changing world.
To build an equal and orderly multipolar world, rules must be followed. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter provide fundamental guidance for handling international relations, and an important cornerstone of a multipolar world.
To build an equal and orderly multipolar world, views on cooperation must be updated with the times. One prominent concern about multipolarity is that it may lead to an inadequate supply of global public goods. To prevent this, nations must strike a balance between national and collective interests, and embrace a correct view of cooperation.
By practicing true multilateralism, promoting extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit, and advancing a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, all parties can strengthen their ability to tackle challenges and pursue development with solid steps.
The international community should seize this historic moment to shape an equal and orderly multipolar world. By prioritizing wisdom over fear, cooperation over confrontation, and rules over disorder, the world will move toward a brighter, more inclusive future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office
For the past 70 years, Gallup has measured US presidents' approval ratings. Bill Clinton had the highest approval ratings at the time he left the Oval Office. Donald Trump's first-term rating is tied for eighth place with George W. Bush's and Jimmy Carter's. President Donald Trump is seeking to rewrite US immigration policies, has reshaped how world leaders use social media, and has made historic changes to the federal workforce. But in his first term, he made history in a way he may wish to forget: He was the first president since Gallup began tracking presidential job approval in the 1930s to fail to exceed a 50% approval rating at any point during his term. In Gallup's latest poll, conducted during the first half of May, 43% of respondents said they approved of Trump's performance, down from 47% in polling conducted during the first six days of his second term in January. In the recent poll, 53% said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. This number has held steady since March, a month rocked by leaked Signal chats and the economic shake-up of tariff policies. (A handful of people in each poll said they had no opinion of Trump's job performance.) For nearly a century, the polls have been used to measure the public's perception of US presidents' performance, with Gallup asking Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the current president] is handling his job as president?" The American Presidency Project from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled the final Gallup ratings of each president's term from the past 70 years, signaling how popular each leader was when they left the Oval Office. See how US presidents from Harry Truman to Joe Biden rank in this end-of-term polling. We've ordered them from the lowest approval rating to the highest. Richard Nixon Approval rating: 24% Even though Nixon won the 1972 election in a historic landslide, the end of his presidency was tainted by the Watergate scandal that led him to resign on August 9, 1974, when faced with the threat of an impeachment and removal. Surveyed August 2 to 5, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against the president but before he resigned, 66% of respondents to the Gallup poll said they disapproved of Nixon's presidency, the highest of any president on the list. Harry S. Truman Approval rating: 32% Assuming the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, Truman served two terms covering the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, including the Korean War, which was widely unpopular and contributed to Truman's low approval rating by the end of his second term in 1953. When asked December 11 to 16, 1952, 56% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Jimmy Carter Approval rating: 34% Carter had high approval ratings — and a disapproval rating in the single digits — during the early days of his term, but his handling of international affairs, such as the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, along with a struggling economy, ultimately made him unpopular by the end of his term. He lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and faced a disapproval rating of 55% in polling conducted December 5 to 8, when he was readying to leave the White House. George W. Bush Approval rating: 34% Despite uniting the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw his public approval fade during his second term. His approval rating spiked after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. After his reelection, his popularity began to decline as the Iraq War extended. His handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the onset of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to his growing unpopularity. From January 9 to 11, 2009, as Bush prepared to hand over the presidency to Barack Obama, 61% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Donald Trump Approval rating: 34% Trump's presidency was divisive from the start, as he entered the White House with an approval rating below 50%. He's the first president in modern history to never exceed 50% approval on the Gallup polls during his presidency. While his approval ratings dwindled over the course of his four years in office, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular came under scrutiny ahead of his loss in the 2020 election. His lowest approval ratings in office came during the final Gallup poll, conducted January 4 to 15, 2021. Most of that polling period took place immediately after the Capitol insurrection on January 6, and Trump faced a disapproval rating of 62%, the worst after Richard Nixon's at the time he left the office. Joe Biden Approval rating: 40% While Biden saw continuous approval ratings over 50% during his first six months in office, rises in inflation and illegal immigration, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, contributed to lowering approval ratings. His lowest-ranking Gallup poll, in which 36% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the role, came in July 2024, a month after his debate performance against Trump shifted focus toward his age and fitness for office. As he left office, in polls collected January 2 to 16, 2025, Biden received a disapproval rating of 54%. Lyndon B. Johnson Approval rating: 49% After assuming the presidency because of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson won the 1964 election in a historic landslide, but he faced decreasing approval ratings over his handling of the Vietnam War. Low approval ratings, along with a divided party, led Johnson to withdraw from the presidential race in 1968. At the time of his withdrawal, 36% of poll respondents said they approved of his handling of the presidency. By the time he left the office, however, his ratings had gone up to 49% approval. In polling conducted January 1 to 6, 1969, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, and 14% said they had no opinion, one of the higher percentages among the listed presidents. Gerald Ford Approval rating: 53% Assuming the presidency at the time of Nixon's resignation, Ford served as US president from August 1974 until January 1977, after he lost the election to Jimmy Carter. During his presidency, Ford faced mixed reviews, with his approval dropping after he pardoned Nixon and introduced conditional amnesty for draft dodgers in September 1974. Polled December 10 to 13, 1976, after he had lost the reelection to Jimmy Carter, 32% of respondents said they disapproved of Ford's handling of the presidency, and 15% said they had no opinion on it, the highest percentage of the listed presidents. George H. W. Bush Approval rating: 56% Though the elder Bush lost his reelection bid in the 1992 presidential election against Bill Clinton, the public opinion of him was positive by the end of his term. In the weeks before his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1992, however, he had only a 29% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency. A recession and a reversal of his tax policy contributed to his drop in popularity. In polling conducted January 8 to 11, 1993, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, while 56% said they approved. Barack Obama Approval rating: 59% Since the beginning of his presidency in 2009, Obama had a high approval rating for a modern-day president; he averaged nearly 47% approval over eight years. At his lowest point, in polling conducted September 8 to 11, 2011, 37% of poll respondents said they approved of his presidency, the decline most likely influenced by the president's healthcare policies and his handling of the 2008 economic crisis and the following rise in unemployment rates. In polls conducted January 17 to 19, 2017, when Obama was leaving office, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, with 59% saying they approved. Dwight D. Eisenhower Approval rating: 59% After winning the 1952 election in a landslide, Eisenhower saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, never dropping below the disapproval rating. Holding office during critical Cold War years, Eisenhower saw his stay positive throughout the end of his second term, with only 28% of respondents polled December 8 to 13, 1960, saying they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, the lowest of the presidents listed. Ronald Reagan Approval rating: 63% Reagan's strong leadership toward ending the Cold War and implementing his economic policies contributed to consistently positive ratings during his presidency and the subsequent election of his vice president, George H. W. Bush, as his successor to the presidency. By the time he left office, 29% of respondents in a Gallup poll conducted December 27 to 29, 1988, said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Bill Clinton Approval rating: 66% After winning the 1992 elections against the incumbent George H. W. Bush, Clinton saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, though he faced mixed opinions at times during his first term because of his domestic agenda, including tax policy and social issues. Despite being impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives over his testimony describing the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton continued to see positive approval ratings during his second term. Near the time he left the White House, he had an approval rating of 66%, the highest of all the presidents on this list. In the poll conducted January 10 to 14, 2001, 29% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: Trump's looming cuts to high-speed rail project represent a 'backward vision'
To the editor: The Pentagon is projected to spend a staggering $2.1 trillion on the F-35 fighter jet program. This weapons system has been plagued by cost overruns, technical failures and delays. Many military analysts now consider the F-35 already obsolete, a Cold War relic in a world facing very different threats. Yet, the Trump administration has raised no concerns. In fact, it's proposed increasing the Pentagon's budget by $150 billion this year, funneling even more money into machines of war. Now contrast that with California's high-speed rail project: a first-of-its-kind system in the U.S. that's projected to create tens of thousands of jobs, stimulate billions in economic activity and drastically reduce carbon emissions. Instead of supporting this vision of a cleaner, more connected America, the Trump administration has actively undermined it ('Trump administration sees 'no viable path' forward to finish high-speed rail project, moves to pull federal funding,' June 4). It's a backward vision: We pour trillions into fighter jets designed to kill, while blocking a transportation system designed to move people, strengthen our economy and protect our planet. Imagine if we invested that $2.1 trillion into a nationwide high-speed rail network, connecting major cities, revitalizing regional economies and leading the world in sustainable infrastructure. It's time to rethink our priorities. The California high-speed rail project deserves more support, not less. Donald Flaherty, Burbank .. To the editor: The fight over high-speed rail is ridiculous. I just returned from three weeks in Japan, a place where bullet trains run the length and breadth of the country and ordinary trains that connect with them go to places the bullet trains don't. When someone wants to go from Tokyo to Kyoto, they don't think about flying or driving, they hop on a train. Compared to Japan, it's as if we're in the Stone Age when it comes to transportation. Plus, these trains run clean on electricity and don't spew harmful exhaust fumes. Murray Zichlinsky, Long Beach This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Trump's looming cuts to high-speed rail project represent a ‘backward vision'
To the editor: The Pentagon is projected to spend a staggering $2.1 trillion on the F-35 fighter jet program. This weapons system has been plagued by cost overruns, technical failures and delays. Many military analysts now consider the F-35 already obsolete, a Cold War relic in a world facing very different threats. Yet, the Trump administration has raised no concerns. In fact, it's proposed increasing the Pentagon's budget by $150 billion this year, funneling even more money into machines of war. Now contrast that with California's high-speed rail project: a first-of-its-kind system in the U.S. that's projected to create tens of thousands of jobs, stimulate billions in economic activity and drastically reduce carbon emissions. Instead of supporting this vision of a cleaner, more connected America, the Trump administration has actively undermined it ('Trump administration sees 'no viable path' forward to finish high-speed rail project, moves to pull federal funding,' June 4). It's a backward vision: We pour trillions into fighter jets designed to kill, while blocking a transportation system designed to move people, strengthen our economy and protect our planet. Imagine if we invested that $2.1 trillion into a nationwide high-speed rail network, connecting major cities, revitalizing regional economies and leading the world in sustainable infrastructure. It's time to rethink our priorities. The California high-speed rail project deserves more support, not less. Donald Flaherty, Burbank .. To the editor: The fight over high-speed rail is ridiculous. I just returned from three weeks in Japan, a place where bullet trains run the length and breadth of the country and ordinary trains that connect with them go to places the bullet trains don't. When someone wants to go from Tokyo to Kyoto, they don't think about flying or driving, they hop on a train. Compared to Japan, it's as if we're in the Stone Age when it comes to transportation. Plus, these trains run clean on electricity and don't spew harmful exhaust fumes. Murray Zichlinsky, Long Beach
