Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution to proclaim December 4 every year as the International Day Against Unilateral Coercive Measures. The voting outcome - 116 votes in favor, 51 against and 6 abstentions - offers a microcosm of global politics, showcasing overwhelming support for the resolution while dissent emanates from the US, EU states, and several other countries in the global North.

The adoption of this resolution constitutes a collective rebuke of the rampant abuse of unilateral coercive measures: a rejection of double standards in sanction enforcement, the use of economic instruments as weapons, and the might-makes-right logic of power politics. "The establishment of this day marks a step forward in the development of global governance, demonstrating the international community's collective aspiration for fairness and justice," Li Haidong, a professor at China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.

Why are unilateral coercive measures so universally condemned? The term "unilateral coercive measures" has become a political label that evokes widespread aversion. At its core, the problem lies in bypassing the UN and elevating one country's domestic laws above international law.

At a deeper level, these coercive measures often hide behind the guise of "national security," while in reality, they serve geopolitical strategies and containment. For instance, US sanctions imposed in recent years on high-tech firms of various countries - including China - are primarily aimed at suppressing the rise of emerging technological powers. This logic of undermining rules in the name of upholding them not only harms the targeted nation's development rights but also shreds the global fabric of trust.

Recent US unilateral measures - especially the tariffs - have gone against market norms and caused major disruptions across global supply chains. This practice of "one country calling the shots while the whole world foots the bill" has thrown normal economic order into turmoil.  

Regarding unilateral coercive measures, Zimbabwe's UN representative said during the meeting that the Southern African Development Community region "is no stranger to this injustice" - for over two decades, his own country has endured a unilaterally imposed sanctions regime that has "restricted access to concessional finance, disrupted trade and investment, impeded innovation and slowed down infrastructure development." 

China has also been one of the victims of unilateral economic coercion. From semiconductors to electric vehicles, it has faced deliberate containment across multiple areas. However, China has always opposed unilateral coercion and advocated for true multilateralism. From the Belt and Road Initiative cooperation to promoting the expansion of the BRICS cooperation mechanism, China is committed to building an open world economy.

"China's stance demonstrates responsibilities as a major power amid a turbulent international environment," Li said. "It aligns Chinese ideas with contemporary demands and exemplifies China's proactive engagement in global governance."

China's UN envoy stated that unilateral coercive measures "place the domestic laws of one country above international law and the laws of other countries," replacing "dialogue and consultation with coercion and power politics." Between a community of shared development and wielding the threat of sanctions, which approach wins broader trust? The answer is evident.

What the international community seeks is real multilateralism - a governance model based on institutions, rules, and equitable consultation - where every nation participates as an equal.

When the UN inscribes "International Day against Unilateral Coercive Measures" into its calendar, it's not issuing an empty slogan. It's voicing the collective will of most nations: The world has long suffered under hegemony. Hopefully, the establishment of this day lights a road sign for a new era where balance and fairness can guide global relations.