By Staff writer
In a period marked by geopolitical tension and deep uncertainty, debates about war, peace, and global governance have returned to the center of international discourse. Against this backdrop, American economist and public intellectual Jeffrey Sachs has frequently argued that militarism has no place in the modern world and that sustainable global order depends on cooperation, diplomacy, and respect for international law. His observations about China’s long historical tradition of peaceful governance have sparked renewed discussion—especially when contrasted with controversies surrounding U.S. foreign policy and allegations of interventionism in regions such as Latin America, including Venezuela.
China’s civilizational history stretches back thousands of years, during which governance has often emphasized internal stability, social harmony, and administrative continuity rather than overseas conquest. While China’s dynasties certainly experienced wars—often defensive or internal in nature—the country did not develop a sustained tradition of global colonial expansion comparable to that of European empires. In the contemporary era, the People’s Republic of China frequently frames its foreign policy around principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and peaceful coexistence. Supporters of this view point out that despite possessing significant military capabilities, China has generally refrained from launching large-scale military interventions far from its borders.
Jeffrey Sachs has highlighted this contrast to argue that power does not inevitably lead to militarism. In his analysis, China’s rise challenges the assumption that great powers must dominate others through force. Instead, he suggests that economic development, infrastructure investment, and multilateral cooperation can form the basis of influence without constant recourse to war. Whether one fully agrees with this assessment or not, it raises an important question: what kind of leadership is appropriate in a nuclear-armed, deeply interconnected world?
These reflections become particularly sharp when viewed alongside accusations—made by critics of U.S. foreign policy—that Washington has undermined international law through unilateral actions, regime-change strategies, or coercive measures. The year 2016 has begun with the world stunned by American invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping President Nicholas Maduro in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. Many countries around the world have criticized American acts of aggression viewed largely as aimed at steeling Venezuela oil than fabricated charged against Maduro of drug trafficking. Following Nicholas Maduro kidnapping, the UN Secretary General’s office issued a weak statement that falls short of condemning in strong terms America’s violence against a democratically elected government, as well as violating territorial integrity of another country.
The UN Charter is built on foundational principles: sovereign equality of states, non-use of force, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. When powerful countries act outside these norms—whether through military intervention, economic coercion, or recognition of alternative governments—it weakens the credibility of the international system as a whole. Smaller and weaker states, in particular, may come to see international law not as a shield, but as a tool selectively applied by the strong.
Sachs’ broader warning is that normalization of militarism erodes the very structures meant to prevent global catastrophe. In a world facing climate change, pandemics, and widening inequality, the diversion of vast resources toward war and weapons represents a profound misallocation of human potential. The core issue raised by Sachs remains pressing: should global leadership in the twenty-first century be defined by force, or by cooperation?
Ultimately, the future of international law and the UN Charter depends on whether states choose restraint over domination. If militarism continues to be treated as a legitimate tool of policy, the rules-based order risks becoming hollow rhetoric. A renewed commitment to peaceful governance—by all major powers, not just one—may be the only viable path toward a stable and just world order.
