Author: Editors

Author: Baogang He

Introduction: from domestic multiculturalism to global multiculturalism

Since the late twentieth century, multiculturalism has served as a normative and institutional response to the presence of cultural diversity within liberal democratic states. Foundational theorists emphasised group-differentiated rights (Kymlicka Citation1995), intercultural dialogue (Parekh Citation2000), and political recognition (Taylor Citation1995). At its heart, multiculturalism addressed internal diversity and sought to generate national unity through the recognition of difference.

However, the intensification of great-power rivalry, the resurgence of civilisational narratives (Acharya Citation2017; Katzenstein Citation2010), diaspora mobilisations (Adamson and Demetriou Citation2007), and the securitisation of cultural difference (Burke Citation2008; Huysmans Citation2006) have pushed questions of identity, culture, and belonging beyond national borders. Cultural diversity is increasingly entangled with international relations. Domestic multiculturalism inevitably intersects with international forces and transnational political dynamics.

Multiculturalism is increasingly entwined with the uncertainties of great-power rivalry and transnational security politics. The geopolitics of Islam, cast as the ‘new foe’ following the Cold War defeat of communism, has produced an illusory clash between a humanitarian West and a jihadist Islam. Confucianism has also come to be viewed by some policymakers and commentators as a threat to Western civilisation and national security. This perception has contributed to the closure of many Confucius Institutes across the United States, which are increasingly portrayed as vehicles for ideological influence rather than cultural exchange. Their closure has become a vivid illustration of the renewed tensions – and perceived civilisational clash – between Confucian traditions and Western liberal values in the current geopolitical climate. In this climate, multiculturalism risks being framed not as a civic principle but as a security problem.

Across Europe, multiculturalism has come under sharp criticism. Leaders in the United Kingdom and the European Union have retreated from the language of ‘multiculturalism,’ substituting the softer notion of ‘interculturalism.’ Historically, Britain’s imperial migrations brought large populations into industrial corridors such as the M62, which later became emblematic of what was widely judged a failure of multicultural integration. The European experience demonstrates that multiculturalism, when left to social and economic neglect, can harden social divides rather than promote cohesion. The ‘death of multiculturalism’ discourse in Dutch, German, and British newspapers reflects an attempt to reinforce monocultural visions of national identity by socioculturally constructing and amplifying the figure of the Other (Ossewaarde Citation2014).

By contrast, settler societies such as Australia and Canada have continued to embrace multicultural practices as part of their national identity. Yet even in these states, new practical challenges are emerging. The rise of geopolitical conflicts has made multiculturalism a site of security contestation. For example, during the 2024 Gaza war, the public display of the Palestinian flag became a flashpoint in Australia. While the government classified Hamas as a terrorist organisation, diaspora communities viewed the flag as a legitimate symbol of grief and solidarity. This divergence of meaning strained social cohesion, polarised public debate, and highlighted the precariousness of multiculturalism in times of international conflict.

In an era when cultural pluralism is increasingly weaponised – both within domestic politics and through intensifying global rivalries – defending and renewing multiculturalism requires a shift from a domestically bounded model to a concept of global multiculturalism. In this new environment, traditional multiculturalism, anchored primarily in national institutions and domestic cultural accommodation, is no longer adequate. A more expansive framework is needed – one that recognises global cultural flows, civilisational interactions, and cultural differences. This article advances global multiculturalism as such a framework.

Three global conditions make this shift urgent. First, civilisational fears are becoming geopolitical drivers. Second, diasporic communities are increasingly implicated in foreign policy debates. Third, over-securitisation risks reproducing authoritarian logics within democracies. Global multiculturalism offers a principled and pragmatic alternative.

Rather than letting geopolitics discourse dictate the limits of multicultural tolerance and turn multiculturalism into both a perceived failure and, at times, a security concern, this paper argues that a renewed, globally oriented approach is urgently needed. It proposes a global multicultural framework capable of addressing how cultural diversity intersects with transnational forces, strategic rivalries, and civilisational narratives, and how multicultural cooperation fosters trust and reduces tensions across nations. Such a transition, though difficult, would expand multiculturalism from a national framework into a global ethic.

The aim of this short paper is to defend the value of multiculturalism by advancing the concept of global multiculturalism – a framework better suited to an era of intensifying geopolitical competition. It begins by offering a clear conceptualisation of global multiculturalism, distinguishing it from traditional, domestically anchored approaches. It then briefly examines how the Journal of Multicultural Discourses (JMD) has contributed to the study of multiculturalism, positioning the journal as an intellectual home for this emerging paradigm. Finally, the paper identifies alternative pathways and new normative possibilities for cultural coexistence in a conflict-prone world and examines the several mechanisms or measures to illustrate the multicultural logic of security.

Cite: Baogang He, “Defending security through diversity: towards a global multicultural approach to geopolitics”, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 16 Feb 2026, 20(3–4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2026.2624086

Authors: Haibo Li, Dong Wang

This paper evaluates the impact of China’s 2018 “Winning the Blue Sky Defense Battle” (WBSDB) Action Plan using a balanced city-level panel of 31 provincial capitals and municipalities from 2013 to 2024. Using a Difference-in-Differences (DID) framework with the Synthetic Control Method (SCM), we examine the evolution of PM₂.₅ and SO₂ under China’s targeted anti-pollution campaign. In the main specification, the treated cities are Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai, while a broader 11-city coding is reported as a robustness check. The baseline DID suggests a negative but statistically insignificant average effect on PM₂.₅, whereas the effect on SO₂ is not robust. Dynamic event-study estimates indicate that the policy is better understood as reversing a worsening pre-policy trajectory rather than generating an immediate discrete drop. To complement the DID evidence, we implement SCM for Shijiazhuang, the provincial capital of Hebei, which serves as the closest city-level proxy for Hebei in the current dataset. We also find that a heavier secondary-industry share is associated with worse PM₂.₅ outcomes, consistent with the notion of an industrial “structural shackle.” Taken together, the results suggest that China’s air-quality governance has moved beyond the stage of relatively easy end-of-pipe gains and entered a more difficult phase in which further progress depends on deeper industrial restructuring.

Author: Trissia Wijaya

This paper examines the uneven and contested trajectory of China’s Green Belt and Road Initiative (GBRI) through a D/d analytical lens, distinguishing between “big D” development as a state-led intervention project and “little d” development as the geographically uneven dynamics of capitalist accumulation. While GBRI is often framed as a coherent strategy for advancing green transformation and positioning China as a global environmental leader, this study argues that its outcomes are shaped by deeper, structurally embedded processes of capitalist development that generate uneven and often contradictory results across contexts.

Drawing on the case of Indonesia’s electric vehicle (EV) and nickel industry, the paper demonstrates how GBRI operates not only as a vehicle for exporting Chinese green technologies and finance, but also as a site of class formation, power struggles, and reconfiguration of transnational production networks. It introduces the concept of a “transnationalised battery class” to capture the alliances between Chinese firms, domestic elites, state actors, and global capital, which together shape investment patterns, policy directions, and distributional outcomes. These dynamics are reinforced by overlapping pressures, including China’s industrial overcapacity, host countries’ developmental aspirations, and broader geopolitical shifts in the global political economy.

The analysis shows that the green transition under GBRI is neither linear nor uniformly beneficial. Instead, it is characterised by uneven development, intensified extractivism, new forms of authoritarian governance, and persistent inequalities, even as it creates opportunities for industrial upgrading and integration into global value chains. By foregrounding the dialectical relationship between “big D” and “little d” development, this paper provides a more nuanced understanding of the political economy of green transition in the Global South. It highlights the need to move beyond state-centric or technocratic accounts and to incorporate class analysis into the study of global green development and China’s evolving role within it.

Authors: Xiao Ma, SUN SHENG HAN, Shuya Yang, Xinrui Gao

Apartment quality has become a critical issue in Australian cities. While the pursuit of rapid, mass, and relatively affordable housing supply, alongside the role of transnational housing finance and production, has been investigated, their built environment outcomes are rarely examined. This paper aims to address the gaps in understanding the impacts of these housing supply initiatives on the variation in apartment quality and built environment outcomes. It investigates 1) how apartment design corresponds to transnational gentrification trends, and 2) how transnational gentrification and apartment quality issues are framed in official discourse. Interview data and policy documents are collected and analysed using a framework that structures transnational gentrification around three players: transnational developers, transnational investors and transnational residents. The findings demonstrate that the quality of Australian apartments cannot be adequately safeguarded through domestic policies. It must take into account the dynamics of transnational gentrification. Theoretically, this study extends the concept of transnational gentrification by demonstrating the different facilitators, representations and impacts in Australian housing development.