Signs of a new world order?

November 18, 2022

The issues of strategic choice, formation of a new world order (both political and economic), search for rational and productive forms of cooperation are among the most discussed and the most controversial. The G19 summit was expected to give at least some answers to the questions of the day. For us, the prospects of the convergence of the US and Chinese stand regarding the war in Ukraine and assistance of the world leaders to Ukraine's accession to the new global economic relations stand out as the key problem areas.

On the one hand, no one denies the need of renew the world order (at least economic) and outline the prospects of the world economy development. The reason is that although the USA remains the leading country in the world, the emerging countries (despite all contradictions in and around them) — in addition to China and India, also Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, etc. — assume (often rightly) a more active role in solving global problems, including economic. Even the "grain deal" was largely made possible through the persistence of Turkey, which will, of course, reap significant political and diplomatic dividends.

On the other hand, while the emerging countries are mainly focused on potential own benefits in the structure of the "new order", which makes it difficult to find solutions through compromise (or coordinated steps). At the same time, they tend to rely on the positive experience of large emerging countries, first of all, China, ignoring the fact that China's path to economic success is unique, and further economic expansion is rather contradictory (as is the suspicious attitude to China's activity in Europe).

Meanwhile, China itself has a significant potential to play a fundamental role in the formation of a new world order, more attractive to dynamic emerging countries — provided that they recognise China's leadership.

In this context, the summit in Bali was rather disappointing for Ukraine. The Ukrainian issue was discussed (and even somewhat approved) but did not become central for the USA, China, or most participants. Of course, it may be assumed that the two world leaders found it more important to exchange opinions for the governments to work on in the future. However, it is not the first month of the war in Ukraine, and mutual concern about the nuclear threat is clearly not enough.

Noteworthy, at international forums in 2022, where vital for us issues are considered, the USA and partners from developed countries show consistent support for Ukraine, while China often takes a far from pro-Ukrainian stand, primarily in matters of opposing and stopping the Russian aggression.

Simultaneously with the Bali summit, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on creation of a register of damages (and reparations) caused to Ukraine as a result of the Russian war. Although the General Assembly agreed that Russia should be held accountable for violations of the international law, especially its aggression, the international humanitarian law and human rights, it was another political declaration of little practical significance.

What is especially bad for Ukraine is that China was among the 13 countries that voted against the resolution. Moreover, other large emerging member countries of the G-19 (Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia), whose policy is significantly influenced by China and which are "concerned" about the formation of a new world order, took a neutral position (abstained). They have a strange "new order" in mind.

It turns out that the Russian aggression, which contributed to the "awakening" of Europe, is not worth much attention of emerging countries, many of which have only relatively recently gained independence. In such conditions, it is extremely difficult to hope for coordinated action regarding the creation of a new, fair world order, if the G-19 participants cannot find a common language even in sufficiently clear values ​​(defence from aggression).

For Ukraine, this is also a warning signal. In no case should we try to return to attempts of implementing a "simple" model of partnership, with the US as the political partner, and China as the economic partner No. 1, so much promoted by part of the domestic political elite.

The improvement of relations between the USA and China, which is likely to happen after Bali, does not mean that the circle of those who support Ukraine will expand. However, the civilisational significance of Ukraine, including in matters of food security, should be promoted in the emerging world.

Vasyl Yurchyshyn

Director, Economic Programmes

Born in 1955 in Kamyanets-Podilskyi.


T. Shevchenko Kyiv State University, Department of Cybernetics (1977).

Institute of Public Administration and Local Government at the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (1994).

Professor in Public Administration. Author of nearly 100 scientific works.


In 1977–1993, worked at the Kyiv University as an engineer, research fellow and senior research fellow;

1994–1999 — head economic researcher at the International Centre for Policy Studies, Fund for Banking and Finance Development;

1999–2004 — Assistant Professor, Department of Economic Policy of the Ukrainian (currently, National) Academy of Public Administration, office of the President of Ukraine;

1999–2004 — Research Director at the Agency of Humanitarian Technologies, later — Agency for Social Analysis;

2002–2003 — advisor to the Minister of Economy of Ukraine;

since April, 2004 — Professor, Department of Economic Policy of the National Academy of Public Administration, office of the President of Ukraine;

since June, 2005 — Economic Programmes Director at Razumkov Centre.

(044) 201-11-90