CGTN Poll: Global governance must break free from the paradox of 'trading insecurity for security'

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

The stage of the main event of the 13th Beijing Xiangshan Forum, Beijing, China, September 15, 2026. /VCG

Editor's note: Ding Chun is executive vice dean of the Institute for Belt and Road and Global Governance, director of the Center for European Studies, and professor at the School of Economics, Fudan University. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Amid an international landscape marked by intertwined changes and turmoil, the security deficit has become increasingly worrying. The international community has never lacked demands for security; what is truly scarce is effective approaches to address such demands. A survey launched by CGTN targeting internet users worldwide shows that 89.6% of respondents call on all countries to resolve international disputes through dialogue and consultation. Held for two decades, the Beijing Xiangshan Forum has provided a positive response to such public expectations.

The world is undergoing accelerated evolution of profound changes unseen in a century, with geopolitical conflicts dragging on. More concerning than the rising number and intensity of conflicts is the policy orientation of certain countries that seek to safeguard their own security concerns through bloc expansion, unilateral sanctions and the securitization of a broad range of issues. Such practices may lead to the dangerous outcome of "creating more insecurity in the name of security," trapping the international community in the paradox of "trading insecurity for security." The survey indicates that 80.8% of respondents oppose hegemonism, power politics and arbitrary imposition of sanctions on other countries; 74.5% of respondents believe that countries should not impose their own values and systems on others and that ideological confrontation should be avoided.

In fact, ignoring the legitimate security concerns of other countries may fuel arms races and strategic suspicion. If a country builds its own security on the persistent insecurity of others, it will only end up in a deeper security dilemma. When all nations attempt to buy their own security by raising risks for their rivals, the world will only end up with shared insecurity.

Furthermore, international security governance cannot remain the exclusive affair of a handful of major powers. Countries of the Global South are directly affected by many conflicts and their spillover risks, and deserve a more representative voice in agenda-setting and rule-making. By highlighting the roles and visions of Global South countries, this forum is advancing a shift in international security governance from domination by a few states toward more equal and inclusive collective participation. In the survey, 80.4% of respondents from Global South countries pointed out that Cold War mentality and power politics threaten world peace and exacerbate security challenges, calling on all nations to jointly build a balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture.

The more turbulent the times, the more we must preserve room for dialogue; the wider the divergences, the more we must uphold consultative governance. Issues including China-US strategic stability, the Ukraine crisis, the Middle East situation, maritime security, space security and the military applications of artificial intelligence are inherently fraught with sharp differences. Meaningful security dialogue is never a mutual affirmation among like-minded parties, but a process where sides with diverging views can still state their concerns, define boundaries and contain risks. Dialogue cannot resolve conflicts automatically, yet it can reduce miscalculations and prevent limited differences from escalating into uncontrolled confrontation. The value of the Xiangshan Forum lies in preserving a realistic path away from all-out confrontation for the world amid a high-risk, low-trust international environment.