| T |
he joint declaration by China and Russia was far more than diplomatic posturing. It was a meticulously crafted document—equal parts ideological vision and strategic roadmap—aimed at redefining the global order. Far from symbolic defiance or routine solidarity, it was a deliberate assertion of a shared geopolitical agenda.
Central to this was a clear rejection of what they view as an outdated, exclusionary system long dominated by Western liberal hegemony. Rather than offering mere critique, they proposed an alternative rooted in multi-polarity, absolute state sovereignty and a recalibrated set of international norms.
Their core message was unmistakable: “We are not challenging the system—we are building a new one.” This single line encapsulated their strategy—not just to counter the West, but also to construct a parallel order that is normatively distinct, strategically competitive and institutionally autonomous. The vision they advanced repositioned the centres of global authority away from Washington, Brussels and London, and toward Beijing and Moscow—where new values and interests would shape the global agenda.
Couched in the language of fairness and inclusivity, the declaration was, in effect, a blueprint for a fundamentally different world order. International rules would no longer be shaped by liberal democracy, market capitalism or open society ideals, but by civilisational pluralism, state-centric governance and strategic sovereignty. It marked a clear shift from reactive alignment to proactive system-building—an attempt to redefine the very structure and language of global power.
The emerging Sino-Russian axis is not content to merely critique the global order—it is actively working to reshape it in its own image. Their ambitions extend into the most consequential domains of the 21st Century—outer space, cyberspace, artificial intelligence and biological security—each representing future arenas of conflict and control. In these fields, China and Russia reject inherited norms, seeking instead to author new rules and cast themselves as the moral and legal stewards of a more equitable global system.
Through proposals for legally binding treaties to prevent the weaponisation of space, both powers project themselves as responsible actors. Yet their advocacy is far from ideologically neutral. Beneath calls for peace lies a strategic calculation: to impose legal constraints that curb the technological freedom of their rivals— particularly the US —before they achieve dominance. It is a pre-emptive effort to anchor emerging technologies within frameworks aligned with their interests.
Their push to lead, not follow, in shaping future technological regimes reflects ambitions that go beyond military parity. It is about controlling the structures of innovation, cooperation and legitimacy in domains that will define global power. By advancing early legal codification, Moscow and Beijing aim to embed their priorities while blunting the normative and technological advantage of the West. Their language of balance masks a deeper contest for ideological and institutional supremacy.
This posture was not defensive but strategic and forward-looking. Both states recognised that in the 21st Century, true power would lie not just in weapons or wealth, but in rule-making—who governed the emerging frontiers of technology, law and narrative. They were determined not to let that authority be the exclusive preserve of the West any longer.
In cyberspace, this ambition was even more pronounced. Rejecting the open, decentralised model of internet governance championed by the West, China and Russia advocated for a vision of digital sovereignty—one marked by rigid state control, surveillance and censorship. Their push to internationalise internet governance was less about inclusivity and more about wresting influence from American-dominated institutions.
As Henry Kissinger once noted, “Control over information is the real currency of power in the modern world.” In this context, cyberspace is not a common to be shared, but a battlefield to be claimed; rules must be written before the war is lost.
This strategic posture extended to biological and chemical weapons as well. Their joint emphasis on strengthening verification under the Biological Weapons Convention and accusations against the United States—alleging covert bioweapons activity under the guise of public health—served both defensive and offensive purposes. They sought to shift global scrutiny, undercut US credibility and reframe the narrative of who represents a threat to international peace. Here too, the power of narrative becomes an instrument of foreign policy.
The invocation of history, particularly the sanctity of World War II’s legacy, is not accidental; it is a deliberate move to reinforce domestic legitimacy and resist attempts to delegitimise their strategic behaviour today.
In this volatile and contested global environment, Pakistan finds itself at a crucial crossroads. The tectonic shift toward multi-polarity brings with it immense opportunities but also grave risk. Islamabad is at a historical inflection point. The time for transactional foreign policy, shaped by fleeting alliances and conditional aid, is over. What is required now is strategic clarity, consistency, and above all, autonomy. As Zbigniew Brzezinski warned, “In geopolitics, countries that are reactive rather than proactive tend to be used rather than respected.” Pakistan must internalise this lesson.
The gravitational pull toward China is understandable. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a part of the Belt and Road Initiative, has drawn Islamabad closer to Beijing’s sphere of influence. China’s ascent as a global power, now visibly in lockstep with Russia’s vision, offers an alluring alternative to the unpredictability of the West. This partnership, while vital, must not morph into dependence. Asymmetrical entanglements—even with a strategic partner—can limit Pakistan’s ability to manoeuvre independently. The risk - becoming a passive node in someone else’s architecture - is not just economic but also strategic.
Pakistan’s history with the United States remains a cautionary tale. From the Cold War alignment to the post-9/11 counterterrorism alliance, the relationship has often been marked by tactical convergence and strategic distrust. American aid has historically come with strings and expectations. It has frequently been withdrawn suddenly.
Washington’s deepening alignment with New Delhi—seen by many in Islamabad as part of a broader containment strategy against China—can only reinforce its perception of Pakistan as expendable. This pattern of conditional partnerships underscores the urgency for Islamabad to redefine its global role.
Rather than a rejection of one potential ally an unconditional embrace of the other, Pakistan should assert its agency, crafting a foreign policy that aligns with its long-term interests rather than the short-term agendas of others.
In the words of George Kennan, “A country’s foreign policy should be a reflection of its internal strength and clarity of purpose.” Pakistan must engage with multiple centres of power, balancing relations with China, the US, the Muslim world, Russia, and its immediate neighbours. This will demand diplomatic dexterity, economic resilience and institutional credibility; it should urgently cultivate the attributes.
The quest for strategic autonomy must also be underpinned by a reassessment of economic policy. Pakistan’s chronic reliance on external financial support—from the IMF to bilateral bailouts—has consistently undermined its ability to act independently.
Economic sovereignty is a prerequisite for diplomatic independence. Investing in indigenous innovation, diversifying trade partnerships and strengthening regional economic integration must become central to its national agenda. The alternative is continued vulnerability and diminished leverage.
As the global order fragments and reconstitutes itself along new lines, the space for smaller and middle powers to assert influence is not shrinking—it is transforming. The China-Russia manifesto signals a profound reimagining of the international system. But it is neither inevitable nor universally accepted. In the fluid environment, Pakistan has a rare chance to position itself not as a client state but as a confident, non-aligned actor. It must avoid becoming collateral in a great power rivalry. It must refuse to be defined by other contests. It must say “no” when its interests demand it, and “yes” only when its sovereignty is respected.
History will not be kind to nations that misread the moment. Pakistan has miscalculated before; it need not again. A world rewired offers it the chance to rewrite its own script. The moment demands courage and clarity.
(Concluded)
The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.