Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

At a time when geopolitical fragmentation, ideological polarization and civilizational insecurity seem to define global affairs, China's convening of the Ministerial Meeting of the Global Civilizations Dialogue, under the theme "Safeguarding the Diversity of Human Civilizations for World Peace and Development," is both timely and necessary. The event challenges us to think beyond the mere celebration of diversity, as useful as that is as a starting point. The deeper challenge and opportunity lie in confronting the intellectual and moral limits of the dominant frameworks that have long shaped global norms, and in creating space for genuine dialogue across civilizational lines.

The world is not only entering a multipolar era in material terms. It is also facing a pluralistic reordering of value systems, ethical frameworks and political imaginaries. A sustainable future cannot be built on liberal universalism, nor on civilizational monologues dressed as dialogue. What is required is a conceptual new foundation for modernity, grounded in mutual respect, metaphysical humility and ethical pluralism. Exhaustion of liberal universalism

The liberal international order, which has dominated global discourse since the mid-20th century, was built on the assumption that all societies would - or should - eventually converge toward a model premised on a certain framing of individual rights, democratic self-rule, market capitalism and secular rationality. This belief was underpinned by a particular view of human nature: the individual as a self-legislating, autonomous subject, capable of moral reasoning independent of tradition, community or cosmic order.

Yet, this vision, however powerful in its historical moment, is now faltering - both in its practical reach and its intellectual credibility.

In the West itself, liberalism is increasingly seen as inadequate to address the deepening crises of moral atomization, political dysfunction and social inequality. Indeed, the nihilism of today is often sheeted home to liberalism itself. 

By contrast, the Chinese path out of liberal modernity does not rest on an attempt to reassert a sacred past. Nor does it follow the doctrinaire contours of socialism as historically defined by European materialist thought. Instead, China appears to be engaged in a long-term project of civilizational reconfiguration, a philosophical regrounding that draws from its own ethical traditions to construct a non-liberal yet modern political and moral order.

This project does not aim to restore feudal hierarchies or Confucian orthodoxy, but rather re-interpret Confucian, Taoist and classical political thought as sources of moral vocabulary and institutional imagination. Concepts such as harmony, moral cultivation and seeking commonality amid difference offer an alternative to the liberal dichotomies of self versus society, rights versus duties and individual versus collective.

Crucially, this approach does not rely on universal abstraction or ideological purity. It is pragmatic, context-sensitive and open to synthesizing elements from outside traditions (including Marxism) while remaining grounded in a relational understanding of ethical life.

What emerges is a non-liberal modernity that prioritizes social cohesion, role-based responsibility and moral development - not through coercion, but through embedded ethical norms and a holistic view of human flourishing.

Possibility of dialogue across ethical worlds

What then does "cross-civilization dialogue" mean in this context?

It cannot simply be a matter of cultural exchange or diplomatic niceties. Nor can it be reduced to a search for lowest-common-denominator universals. Rather, it must involve an acknowledgment of incommensurability - that different civilizations are grounded in distinct ontologies, metaphysical assumptions and ethical frameworks. That said, it also calls forth a search for resonance without reduction, namely the recognition that analogues exist across traditions (eg: the Confucian junzi and the Aristotelian virtuous person) which can foster philosophical mutuality. 

A cross civilization dialogue also works when there is a willingness to reimagine modernity, not as a singular path from tradition to progress, but as a field of plural trajectories shaped by civilizational experiences and moral priorities. 

In this light, China's Global Civilization Initiative can be understood as a call to transcend liberal hegemony without descending into cultural relativism or nationalist exceptionalism. It is an invitation to reconceive world order not as a project of homogenization, but as a framework for coexistence through negotiated ethical intelligibility.

From philosophy to peace

This kind of dialogue is not a luxury. It is a precondition for peace.

In a world of intensifying geopolitical tensions - between liberal and post-liberal states, between Western and non-Western models of development, and between secular and spiritual value systems - the risk of misunderstanding is not merely semantic. It is civilizational. Without deeper moral clarity about the differences and potential complementarities between worldviews, conflict is more likely to harden into irreconcilability.

At the same time, global challenges such as ecological sustainability, AI governance, public health and economic inequality require cooperation across civilizational lines. But cooperation cannot proceed without trust, and trust cannot be built on an implicit assumption of Western normative superiority.

Only by acknowledging the dignity of the moral architectures of other civilizations - not as obstacles to progress, but as sources of wisdom - can a truly multipolar, pluralistic global system emerge.

Cross-civilization dialogue must begin with the recognition that we do not share a singular past. Our intellectual genealogies, spiritual vocabularies and political imaginaries differ, sometimes profoundly. But we can build a common future, not by erasing these differences, but by constructing forms of interaction that are anchored in reciprocity, resonance and moral patience.

This requires rethinking the very foundations of modernity, and the courage to imagine that the West's modernity is not the only modernity.

The civilization dialogue is an important intervention in this emerging global conversation.

Peace is not achieved by dominance or assimilation, nor is it the product of cultural relativism. It emerges from the recognition of difference, the resonance of ethical traditions and the shared effort to recover what it means to be human together.

This is the deeper rationale behind China's initiative to safeguard the diversity of human civilizations. It is not merely an act of cultural diplomacy but a call to rethink the very foundations of global order, through a civilizational dialogue rooted in humility, virtue and relationships.

The author is an adjunct professor at the Queensland University of Technology, a senior fellow at Taihe Institute and a former advisor to Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn