Introduction – A new forum for a disharmonious world
The Global Public Security Cooperation Forum Lianyungang was first established in 2015 as the ‘Lianyungang Forum’; its original scope was focused on the nexus between public security and trade security for China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Lianyungang City was chosen as the host city because it is the mythical starting point for the Chinese classic book featuring the adventures of Monkey and his entourage in ‘Journey to the West’ (西遊記). The themes of searching for knowledge and seeking harmony links the location of Lianyungang City to the security forum’s safety and security mission. In 2022 the Lianyungang Forum commenced a significant upgrade which saw its scope, purpose and membership broadened. Relaunched as the Global Public Security Cooperation Forum Lianyungang (GPSCFL), the forum is organized by the China Association for Friendship. An international board of directors guides the strategic interests of the forum whilst the forum’s secretariate manages the content, research agenda, publications, and organisation of annual meetings.
The context for the GPSCFL’s enlargement comes from a global security environment that has been distracted by pockets of disharmony and division. That observation remains relevant as we start the year 2025, and thus this paper argues the need for internationalist, inclusive, cooperative and win-win outcomes.
About the GPSCFL
A principal focus of the forum is to create a space for international participation in public security dialogue. This is summed up in the forum’s tag-line "Cooperative Security for Common Prosperity”, and the forum’s meetings and research agenda seek to address identified needs for public security cooperation, specialist training and community safety research.
The context for the forum’s research agenda recognises that evolving crime challenges such as crypto-currency scams and the mal-use of artificial intelligence require global responses. One of the objectives being to explore avenues for international partnerships and consensus-building on complex public security topics, especially where cooperation is an essential part of making safety and security more effective. The forum is deliberate in choosing the term ‘public security’ in its title as it demarcates the GPSCFL from other regional security forums which have military security or economic security as their outcomes, such as the Xingshan Forum or Bo ’ao Forum. Public security is defined broadly to refer to “a state in which the lives, property, health, freedom, well-being, social environment and other public interests of citizens are relatively free from danger and both internal and external threats and the capacity to ensure the continuity of this secure state.” By bringing together international law enforcement practitioners, scholars and senior representatives under one banner, the forum seeks to promote effective collaboration and develop practical policing approaches to meet the strategic objective of a “more prosperous and secure world.”
To that end the expanded GPSCFL of September 2024 featured over 2,100 participants from 122 countries, regions and international organisations. The forum also extended its sub-forum agenda to cover 12 topics of public security interest; from police education and training to better data sharing and cooperation mechanisms; and from tourism safety to traffic management and UAV safety. A law enforcement technology and equipment exhibition ran alongside the main conference and was another new feature of the 2024 GPSCFL.
The GPSCFL is careful in its desire to be inclusive of differing models of law enforcement and mindful of differing civil society modes, it embraces a broad view of community safety and security, moving wider than common law Western-centric models of policing, and broader than civil law inspired models in parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia. The GPSCFL is interested in views from the North, South, East and West; this ‘all four winds of the Earth’ approach truly underscores the ‘G’ in Global and emphasises the ‘P’ in Public. While the GPSCFL adds to the efforts of similar forums in different parts of the world, its large size and broad scope are rare, and the GPSCFL is the only one of its kind based in Asia.
A disharmonious world needs more cooperation
As the year 2025 commences the academic and media domains are probably within their busiest phase of activity for decades; why? There are simply so many important stories to write about, and all of them holding international impact. From ongoing and significant regional wars that have divided the global community in terms of support and response, to the rise in populist nationalism alongside the influence of ‘green’ eco-minded politics. These features add to globally uneven post-Covid economic recovery, cyclical economic challenges, and climate-change worries; all part of a complex decade that when taken together have led some commentators to argue that the world is now moving into a ‘post-globalisation’ period.
If the preceding seven decades can be remembered as a time when ‘international institutions’ grew and flourished; from the U.N. and its many sub-bodies, regional blocs like the E.U. and ASEAN, and in the trading world came forth the WTO and numerous regional trading pacts and their supporting structures like APEC and AfCFTA, then what does the next decade hold? Will the role of international institutions truly diminish? This is where the GPSCFL seeks to assist the public security component of that challenge by providing research, innovation and support for cooperative public security efforts.
Realistically of course we cannot always expect harmonious and win-win results. The fractious global condition encourages us to also explore how we can maintain public security during times where we may need to call the situation ‘Disharmonious Cooperation’. This is a concept where states can respectfully disagree on some areas yet retain the ability to share ideas or mutually beneficial outcomes on other topics; specifically for this paper beneficial public security outcomes. The academic discourse in this area of disharmonious cooperation is notably less than in more positive forms of cooperation; where mutually agreed outcomes are the stated goals. Disharmonious cooperation theory positions its outcomes somewhere between small wins are better than no wins at all, and win-a-little cooperation is substantially better than direct no-win disagreements. The background to this form of cooperation is notably different to harmonious modes of cooperation, often set between parties that are actively disagreeing on important matters. Nevertheless, where parties can still come together within disharmony to find agreement of matters as important as public security, this is a significant and meaningful success.
Many of the most pressing and complicated security challenges in the World, such as terrorism, climate change, humanitarian emergencies, mal-use of artificial intelligence, and cyber-attacks, all these security problems transcend the territorial confines of a state and do not fit easily within traditional models of domestic or internal security. To adequately address these international security challenges requires internationally collaborative models, and that is exactly why the GPSCFL is a vital new feature on the global stage to encourage law enforcement research and cooperation, even during times of disharmony.
Empirical underpinnings for ‘disharmonious cooperation’
A hallmark of GPSCFL work is to seek solutions to difficult public security problems through empirical underpinnings. And acknowledging that international law enforcement cooperation is bolstered by trust between cooperating parties to make cooperation work, I focus on ‘trust’ (信任) as a foundational element. Trust being a factor that is easy to appreciate yet difficult to achieve in any international cooperation exercise; leaving the question open how forums such as GPSCFL can practically assist to build trust and increase cooperation in vital areas of public security.
Taking an internationalist approach recognises that partnerships can be formed on harmonious and mutually interested terms, however, sometimes they are forged from a pragmatic necessity to achieve something, even when relations between the parties are not harmonious. This means that collaboration is not only possible but essential, even when times are rocky. By taking examples from all corners of the globe we can take heart that different regions regularly navigate tensions to achieve cooperation progress, and this underscores the relevance of the GPSCFL approach.
The concept of disharmonious cooperation challenges the assumption that harmony is a prerequisite for collaboration. Instead, it recognizes that progress sometimes has to emerge from navigating tensions and finding areas of convergence. In a fragmented world, this framework offers a realistic and inclusive approach to global governance. As the global studies show, cooperation is not only possible but essential in addressing shared challenges. Whether through regional organizations, informal networks, or multilateral frameworks. Of course, harmonious cooperation and win-win attitudes are the most desirable modes for efficient international cooperation, but understanding disharmonious cooperation is helpful to remind us of a pathway for resilience and progress when times are complex, and agreement is divided. By embracing this perspective, states and regions can move beyond discord to achieve collective goals, ensuring that global cooperation remains a cornerstone of human advancement.
In the context of the current state of Sino-U.S. relations and the 2024 U.S. presidential election, one conclusion is that U.S. cooperation with China is set to continue to be competitive, if not somewhat combative for the foreseeable future. A reasonable question therefore is; what chances are there of improving global cooperation when two super powers are experiencing a period of disharmony? To that question, it’s helpful to recall both countries have well-developed theories and practices for managing areas of disagreement, cooperation and non-cooperation through difficult times. For the U.S. it may draw on experience with Realism and Deterrence Theory, while for China it may draw on Relational Theory and more contemporary ideas such as Dual Circulation and Selective Decoupling. The summary point of these complex and highly situational theories for both China and the U.S. is that in neither country’s long experience in managing times of disharmony do these practices actually result in zero cooperation. On the contrary, the practices, strategies and theories are designed to facilitate cooperation and improve bargaining positions; on the one hand limiting cooperation to areas deemed needed, and allowing full play to strategic competition in areas where it is deemed more advantageous.
By understanding how international cooperation works in good times and hard times the GPSCFL can be a role-model for helping to create the public security conditions to achieve ‘Cooperative Security for Common Prosperity.’ The following points summarise some key themes for successful cooperation fostered in the style of the GPSCFL:
• Pragmatism prevails: Across all regions, cooperation thrives when driven by practical necessity, such as economic stability, public security, or disaster response. This pragmatic focus often outweighs ideological differences.
• Informal and formal networks are needed: In all regions informal trust-based systems complement formal institutions, creating resilient and adaptable frameworks. Thus making the GPSCFL as a Track II body very relevant.
• Shared challenges as catalysts: Common crises, such as the safety and security implications of AI, transnational money laundering, or terrorism, often serve as unifying forces, compelling cooperation even in times of disharmony.
• Resilience amid tension: The ability to sustain collaboration despite discord reflects the strength and maturity of nations, showing that partnerships can function without full alignment, provided there is mutual benefit.
• Successful cooperation ought not be a zero-sum game in which one loses if the other wins: In all regions there is practice that supports action to strive for a result that recognises mutual benefits. Also, facilitating meaningful interactions is important to building effective cooperation, and found to be true in global practice, and is augmented by recognising that cooperation and competition can live comfortably side-by-side.
• Recognising the ‘Blame Game’ situation and helping to shift the currently fractured identity dialogue to areas of mutual interest for mutual benefit is likely to find resonance and success according to many regional examples.
Conclusion
In this paper I argue that despite some evidence of shifting sands in the enthusiasm for international institutions, the need for them remains strong. Specifically for this paper I argue a case of reinforcement for the global institutional approach in the area of public security. Especially as public security, community safety and a system of laws for society are the most basic of building blocks for any state, and such internal affairs remain the preserve of individual states and their jurisdictional boundaries. This critical nature of public security balanced against the fact crime readily crosses borders, leads to the obvious need for and benefits of the GPSCFL. Also, facilitating meaningful face-to-face interactions is important to building effective cooperation, and found to be a trust-building factor in all regions of the world.
A Track II process such as offered by GPSCFL is a good way for Track I process to locate the issues causing problems, surface them in ways that allow collaborative ideas to be shared and put solutions forward to encourage steps towards harmonisation, even if only superficial harmonisation is the achievable outcome. A safer and more prosperous world is surely what every nation desires, and the GPSCFL stands ready to play its part in achieving that goal.
