Global Policy of ‘Community of Common Destiny’ and IR4: A Robust for Multiculturalism and Humanitarian Crisis Response

Abstract

Purpose: This study explores the combine synergy of China’s concept of “Community of Common Destiny (CCD),” and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR4.0) in alleviating humanitarian crisis/response and multiculturalism challenges of the time. The last decade has witnessed heightened resistance against accepting migrants and refugees especially in Europe and U.S and many other countries in general, exacerbated by nationalist politicians. These challenges are multifold, ranging from failed assimilation processes, insufficient funds for humanitarian course, aids dependent oriented solutions, weak solidarity, and xenophobia… etc. all these are evidence of moral backdrop across the world. Even though tools like the “Community of Destiny” and IR4.0 can well provide tangible opportunities for a better performing humanitarian crisis/response, revolutionize the integration policies that would accommodate the varied cultures and be beneficial to all in the society, these tools are misinterpreted, less understood, applied independently to problems it cannot handle on its own, thus rendering them less productive.
 Method: This study employs a qualitative approach consisting of literature review and official document analysis. Literature review consists of a comprehensive assessment of scholarly academic publications from competing perspectives in the fields of political philosophy, multiculturalism, IR4.0, international humanitarian organization websites, Business corporate blogs, Community of Common Destiny and international relations theories. The document survey is mainly related to the policy documentation/ speeches output of Chinese leaders, related international organizations, study reports, as well as media reports.
 Results: The study reveals that multiculturalism (cultural integration) challenges and humanitarian crisis/ response can be alleviated if the tenets of CCD are fully incorporated with IR4.0 opportunities. To this end, the CCD and IR4.0 offers more opportunities for states and companies to recruit and manage workers at distant locations. Skilled workers can offer their services at the comfort of their homes or localities (i.e. taking work to skilled worker), offering more in-training (victim skill capacitation and job access, and construction of more professional/educational facilities), reform their employment standards to include multicultural background checks, allowing refugees and migrants to be the solution to their problems, while states enact more relaxed refugee work permit policies. Further, disaster affected communities under study must benefit from collected data and analytic results that can help improve their living standards and guard against future catastrophes. Importantly, communities should be routinely trained on first-aid disaster management techniques. With CCD in mind and employing IR4.0 opportunities, humanitarian action responses would stand a better rating in terms of time efficiency and maximization of its ever scarce resources while increasing the number of donor partners.
 Conclusion: the CCD and IR4.0 are great opportunities for both humanitarian crisis/response action and declining multiculturalism. Though the CCD has been received with scepticism, the overall idea of promoting a harmonious society (community), where everyone shares equally is achievable in the IR4.0 era. Critics have pointed out that CCD’s weakness lies in the implementation and enforcement loopholes. However, the concept originality was designed as an international instrument for willing states to adhere without any coercion and function as it is the case with other international instruments such the Rome Statue where some major powers are not signatories. The CCD and IR4.0 opportunities open a new era for humanity and the world system must adapt to the changing humanism.