Chinese President Xi Jinping replied to letters from friendly personages from all walks of life in Brazil recently, encouraging them to continuously contribute to the cause of China-Brazil friendship.

With regard to the “Act Declaring the Maritime Zones under the Jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines” (hereinafter referred to as the “Maritime Zones Act”) and the “Act Authorizing the President of the Philippines to Establish the Archipelagic Sea Lanes in Philippine Archipelagic Waters” (hereinafter referred to as the “Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act”) announced by the Republic of the Philippines on November 8, 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China solemnly states the following:

I. The Philippine Maritime Zones Act illegally includes China’s Huangyan Dao and most of the islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao (Nansha Islands) and relevant waters into the maritime zones of the Philippines, and attempts to enshrine the illegal award of the South China Sea arbitration in the form of domestic legislation. China strongly condemns and firmly rejects this as the move gravely infringes upon China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall by no means be affected by the enactment of the Act.

II. China has sovereignty over Nansha Qundao and the adjacent waters, and Zhongsha Qundao (Zhongsha Islands), including Huangyan Dao, and the adjacent waters, and has sovereign rights and jurisdiction over relevant waters. The aforementioned territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests of China have solid historical and legal basis, and are compliant with international law including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

III. The territory of the Philippines is defined by a series of international treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Peace Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain (the Treaty of Paris), the 1900 Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines (the Treaty of Washington), and the 1930 Convention Between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States Regarding the Boundary Between the State of North Borneo and the Philippine Archipelago. The Philippines’ territory so defined has nothing to do with China’s Huangyan Dao and Nansha Qundao. The Philippines has invaded and illegally occupied Mahuan Dao, Feixin Dao, Zhongye Dao, Nanyao Dao, Beizi Dao, Xiyue Dao, Shuanghuang Shazhou and Siling Jiao of China’s Nansha Qundao, and by doing so has seriously violated international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. It broke its own promise and kept a warship illegally grounded at Ren’ai Jiao of China’s Nansha Qundao for decades, thus infringing upon China’s territorial sovereignty and violating the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), especially its Article 5 which asks the parties to refrain from action of inhabiting on the uninhabited islands and reefs. Once again China urges the Philippines to immediately withdraw all its personnel and facilities from the aforementioned islands and reefs and immediately tow away the warship illegally grounded at Ren’ai Jiao. The establishment of the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” beyond its own territorial scope by the Philippines infringes upon China’s territorial sovereignty, and is illegal and invalid.

IV. The Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the South China Sea arbitration without the Chinese government’s prior consent seriously violates UNCLOS and substantially impairs the integrity and authority of UNCLOS. The Arbitral Tribunal handled the case ultra vires and rendered the award in distortion of law; hence the award violates international law including UNCLOS, and is null and void. China has neither accepted or participated in the arbitration, nor does China accept or recognize the so-called award. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on the award. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by the award.

V. The Philippines’ attempt to whitewash its illegal claims and actions in the South China Sea by adopting the Maritime Zones Act in the name of implementing UNCLOS is illegal and invalid. The Act seriously violates the DOC and will inevitably complicate the situation in the South China Sea. China will firmly respond to any infringement or provocative actions taken by the Philippine side in the South China Sea citing the Act as the ground.

VI. The Chinese side urges the Philippine side to earnestly respect China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, immediately stop any unilateral moves that may escalate disputes or complicate the situation, and uphold peace and stability in South China Sea through concrete action.

VII. Many provisions contained in the Philippines’ Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act are incompatible with international law and resolutions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Chinese side demands that the Philippine side earnestly abide by international law and refrain from undermining the legitimate rights of all parties under international law, including UNCLOS.

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday extended congratulations to Donald Trump on his election as president of the United States, urging the two countries to find the right way to get along in the new era.

Xi called for the two countries to strengthen dialogue and communication, properly manage differences, and expand mutually beneficial cooperation.

Xi congratulates Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu on election as president of Fiji

In mid-October, 77-year-old University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer visited China. He delivered lectures at Chinese universities and engaged in a debate on global order and US-China relations with Yan Xuetong, director of the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua University. During book signings and photo sessions, he was warmly welcomed by Chinese readers.

Mearsheimer is a prominent realist scholar in international relations. He gained recognition for his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, which argues that conflict between great powers is inevitable. This viewpoint has sparked significant debate about great power relations.

More than 20 years later, the international landscape has shifted dramatically, but Mearsheimer's views remain unchanged. In an exclusive interview with the Global Times reporters Liu Xin, Zhao Juecheng and Yang Sheng in Beijing, Mearsheimer shared his concerns about current issues like China-US relations and the Ukraine crisis, criticizing US foreign policy. He also predicts that security competition between the US and China will intensify.

As a scholar rather than a politician, Mearsheimer is confident in his theory, but he emphasizes his openness to debate, and looks forward to future China-US ties proving him wrong. The following is part of the interview with Mearsheimer.
US foreign policy fosters chaos

GT: In recent years, China has described the global situation as a "major change not seen in a century." What are your thoughts on this?

Mearsheimer: I think it's true. The structure of the system has changed fundamentally.

When I was young, the world was bipolar. The US-Soviet competition defined international politics in large part. The Soviet Union disappeared in December 1991, and we went from a bipolar world to a unipolar world. In around 2017 that unipolar world came to an end, and we moved into a multipolar world. We went from a world where the US was the only great power on the planet to one where the US, China, and Russia were all great powers.

This is the first time that we have faced a multipolar world since World War II when you go from unipolarity to multipolarity.

The change in China-US relationship has also been huge. During the unipolar period, China-US relations were generally very good. Then when we went from unipolarity to multipolarity, which meant China was now a great power, it was a peer competitor of the US, and relations between the US and China fundamentally changed and became much more conflictual.

GT: What is your primary concern regarding complicated international relations at this time?

Mearsheimer: I'm concerned about three big issues. One is I'm concerned about the China-US relationship. I have long argued that relationship would be intensely competitive. I'm concerned that competition might turn into a war, and I don't want that to happen.

I'm also deeply concerned about the war in Ukraine and the possibility of escalation where the US, and NATO more generally, come into the conflict. Conflict between Russia on one side and Ukraine and the West on the other side will go on for decades… The US has done a terrible job handling the situation in Ukraine. The US is principally responsible for causing the war in Ukraine.

Then I'm concerned about the Middle East, and the wars that are taking place there. As is the case with Ukraine, it is possible that the US and Russia could be pulled into a war in the Middle East, although that's not likely.

GT: Do you think US foreign policy is contributing to global stability or fostering chaos?

Mearsheimer: I think it's fostering chaos if you have to choose between those two descriptions. It's fostering chaos in Ukraine and the Middle East. The US should have acted in fundamentally different ways.

The principal cause of the war in Ukraine was the West's efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO. The US was the driving force behind that decision. And the Russians made it clear from the very beginning that was unacceptable. Nevertheless, we continue to push to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Instead of trying to shut the war down, the US has, if anything, sought to push it forward, aiming to keep it going so Ukraine can defeat the Russians. The US should not have tried to bring Ukraine into NATO. Once the war started, the US should have gone to great lengths to prevent it.

With regard to the Middle East, the US should have gone to great lengths to push Israel to accept the Palestinian state, which is the root cause of the problem in the Middle East. The US should now be trying to prevent the war in Gaza, shut down the war with regard to Hezbollah, and make sure that the war that is unfolding involving Iran on one side and the US and Israel on the other side is brought to an end immediately. But the US is not doing that. The US is helping the Israelis to cause greater and greater trouble in the Middle East.

If you look at our performance on the world stage, we have been fostering chaos, not contributing to international stability.

GT: The advancement of technology has repeatedly altered the course of human history. Another renowned realist, Henry Kissinger, also began focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence on international relations in his later years. Do you think AI or other emerging technologies could change the "tragedy of great power politics?"

Mearsheimer: I don't think AI would transform the tragedy of great power politics. Why do we have this tragedy? It's because there is no higher authority in the international system that can come to the rescue of a state if it gets in trouble. At the same time, in the international system, you have powerful states that sometimes have bad intentions toward you.

AI doesn't solve that problem. What we need is a higher authority. We need a night watchman that can protect you. As long as you don't have a higher authority, AI doesn't matter.

AI could significantly influence how security competition is waged. Nuclear weapons did exactly that. Nuclear weapons, in a way, were revolutionary weapons. They are weapons of mass destruction. We've never seen anything that creates destruction on the scale of nuclear weapons. And nuclear weapons have all sorts of consequences on how states interact with each other.

However, nuclear weapons do not change the fundamental nature of international politics. We live in a nuclear world today. Yet we have a China-US competition, just like we had a US-Japan competition in the 1930s and early 1940s when there were no nuclear weapons.

Competition not 'bad guy' games

GT: In 2001, you published The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. According to your theory, known in academic circles as "offensive realism," competition and conflict between China and the US are inevitable during China's rise, and the US will strive to contain China. What led you to this conclusion?

Mearsheimer: I've long argued that once China rose and once China became powerful, the US would move in to make sure that China didn't become too powerful. This is the tragedy of great power politics.

The US and China had excellent relations during the unipolar period. The US pursued a policy of engagement. I argued at the time that once China became really prosperous, it would translate that economic might into military might which China should have done. I'm not being critical of China. The US would fear China and you would have this security competition set in. This just happens with great powers. It's not peculiar to China or peculiar to the US.

A lot of Chinese people think that the root of the problem is American behavior. The Americans are the bad guys. Many Americans think the root of the problem is the Chinese are the bad guys. This is not my view.

This is just how international politics works. When you have two very powerful states, they are going to end up fearing each other, and they are going to end up competing with each other. There's no way around that.

GT: You discussed Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan island and its negative impact on China-US relations with Chinese media. You mentioned that while a clash in the Taiwan Straits is unlikely in the near future, competition over the island will continue. What led you to this conclusion?

Mearsheimer: It was not smart for Nancy Pelosi to come to Taiwan and make provocative remarks. It is in America's interest to not speak loudly when it comes to Taiwan, because Taiwan is such a hot-button issue for China. What Pelosi did and others have done and will do is not smart.

I think the Taiwan question is a remarkably dangerous situation. Because for China, Taiwan is sacred territory. At the same time, the US wants to keep Taiwan on its side of the ledger, because Taiwan is strategically important to the US. If the US gave up on defending Taiwan, that would have negative strategic consequences. What we have here is a situation where Taiwan matters enormously to China, and it matters enormously to the US.

My view is that despite this dangerous situation, it's not likely that we will have a war anytime soon over Taiwan. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's not likely.

GT: Could you share your predictions for the future of China-US relations?

Mearsheimer: We already have an intense security competition. It has been somewhat dampened by the fact that the US is pinned down in Ukraine and pinned down in the Middle East. If the US was not pinned down in Ukraine and in the Middle East, the security competition in East Asia would be more intense.

Moving forward, this security competition is not going to go away. We will likely have some major crises in the decades ahead. But let's hope that leaders from both China and the US act smartly and find diplomatic solutions to the crises and don't end up in a shooting war with each other.

I just want to be very clear I'm not happy about the tragedy of great power politics. With regard to China-US relations, I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that over the next five years, the US and China work out harmonious relations and we all live happily ever after. Obviously, I don't think that's going to happen.

What would prove me wrong is if we had good relations. In other words, if China could rise peacefully. Let's hope that I'm wrong.

Not 'a dinosaur' in China

GT: You assert that the US cannot accept China emerging as a peer power. What motivates you to engage in these exchanges with China?

Mearsheimer: I don't think the root of the problem is Chinese behavior. I don't think the Chinese are the bad guys, and the Americans are the good guys. I think this is just how international politics works. And although I'm an American, the fact is that this is a case of a tragic situation.

I think it's very important that people hear my argument and think about it. You don't have to agree with me, but it's very important to understand the argument. Because if you're interested in maximizing our prospects of avoiding a hot war, understanding the nature of the conflict really matters.

GT: What's the difference between your Chinese audience and your US audience?

Mearsheimer: From the Soviet Union collapsed until about 2017, when we moved into a unipolar moment, the US foreign policy was all about what I call liberal hegemony. What we were trying to do was spread liberalism around the world. We were very powerful. And we had all these liberal ideas about international politics.

I was considered to be a dinosaur in the US. Nobody was interested in listening to me. Most people in the US said that my thinking about international politics was outdated and that liberal ideas were the wave of the future.

I first came to China in 2003 and I came numerous times after that and would talk to the Chinese people about my theory and about great power politics, they did not think I was a dinosaur in large part. Chinese thinkers were interested in great power politics.

Now, with the end of unipolarity and the coming of multipolarity, and the fact that we now have this security competition between the US and China, I think more people in the US pay attention to me.

China and India recently reached resolutions on relevant issues concerning the border. At the moment, the Chinese and Indian frontier troops are implementing the resolutions in an orderly way, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a press conference on Wednesday in response to a question regarding the process of disengagement in the India-China border. 

While analysts highlighted that the disengagement marks an end to the standoff, they emphasized that both countries need to collaborate to restore bilateral ties and India needs to shift focus from geopolitical rivalry and embrace the chance of meaningful cooperation. 

India Today reported on Wednesday that Indian and Chinese military commanders are scheduled to meet at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) to confirm the removal of temporary structures and vehicles. 

Indian Express said on Wednesday that India and China have completed the process of disengagement in two border areas. Citing sources, it said patrolling will commence soon, adding that talks would continue at the local commanders' level and there will be an exchange of sweets on Thursday.        

"Disengagement is the first step on implementing the resolution, meaning Chinese and Indian troops will no longer confront each other directly at the border. This does not restore the situation to what it was before April 2020 but rather establishes a buffer zone between the two forces to reduce tensions," Liu Zongyi, director of the Center for South Asia Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, told the Global Times on Wednesday. 

The next step may involve further consultations on implementing patrols, but the actual implementation may have to wait until spring next year when weather condition is suitable, Liu said.

According to a report from New Delhi Television on Tuesday, China and India "will each continue to have surveillance options" and will inform the other prior to stepping out on patrol "to avoid any miscommunication."

Liu said that the disengagement at the two areas will lay the groundwork for negotiations on similar arrangements and portals along the western section of the China-India border and other areas.

The resolution reached by China and India has garnered widespread attention. US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at a press conference on Tuesday that "we're closely following the developments… We welcome any reduction in tensions along the border." He also noted that the US has spoken with its Indian partners and been briefed on the matter but did not play any role in the resolution.

"US has long viewed India as a key tool and frontline force to contain China. With fewer border disputes between China and India, the US loses a major lever to fuel discord between the two nations. However, the gradual resolution of the border issue is clearly in the best interest of both China and India," Liu said. 

Liu said that China remains committed to viewing India as a development partner and hopes both nations can advance together and share the opportunity for development. 

Achieving these goals requires joint efforts, and China cannot do it alone. Both countries need to collaborate to restore bilateral ties. India should move beyond an outdated Cold War thinking and avoid viewing US-China competition as a strategic opportunity. Instead, it needs to shift focus from geopolitical rivalry and power balancing, minimize unnecessary conflicts, and embrace the chance for meaningful cooperation, Liu said.