Xi Jinping Warns of Global Order ‘Crumbling Into Disarray’ as Iran Conflict Weighs on World Economy
Chinese President Xi Jinping used some of his starkest language yet on the state of international affairs when he told Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez that the global order is “crumbling into disarray.” The remarks, delivered during a high-level meeting in Beijing on April 14, 2026, marked Xi’s first substantial public commentary on the Iran war more than a month after it began and underscored Beijing’s growing concern over the conflict’s economic and geopolitical fallout.
Speaking at the Great Hall of the People, Xi said the international order was not merely under strain but actively deteriorating. The Chinese phrase he employed carried connotations beyond simple chaos, pointing also to moral decay and a breakdown of established norms. He paired the assessment with a call for China and Spain to work together against any “retrogression to the law of the jungle,” framing both nations as principled actors willing to stand “on the right side of history” in defense of genuine multilateralism.
The meeting came as Sánchez made his fourth visit to China in four years, seeking closer political and commercial ties at a moment of heightened global tension. Spain has positioned itself as one of Europe’s most vocal critics of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which began in late February 2026. Madrid closed its airspace to American warplanes involved in the operations and restricted the use of jointly operated military bases on Spanish territory. Sánchez has repeatedly described the intervention as illegal and a violation of international law, language that aligned closely with Beijing’s longstanding emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference.
During the talks and a subsequent press appearance, Sánchez pressed China to play a larger diplomatic role. He told reporters that Beijing was virtually the only major power he could envision helping resolve the situation in Iran and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. “I find it very difficult to find other interlocutors, beyond China, who can resolve this situation,” he said, while also urging greater Chinese engagement on conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon. Xi responded by pledging that China would play a constructive part in the Middle East and by elevating the bilateral relationship, with the two sides agreeing to deepen strategic coordination.
The timing of Xi’s comments was significant. Until the Sánchez meeting, Beijing had largely avoided direct public criticism of the Iran conflict, wary of complicating relations with Washington ahead of a planned high-stakes summit between Xi and U.S. President Donald Trump. The restraint reflected China’s dual priorities: maintaining stable ties with the United States while protecting its own economic interests and projecting itself as a responsible stakeholder in global governance.
Yet the war’s impact on China has been impossible to ignore. Although Beijing has managed fuel price spikes better than many countries thanks to substantial strategic oil reserves and a dominant position in renewable energy, its export-oriented manufacturing sector has suffered. Official data released around the time of the meeting showed Chinese export growth cooling sharply to 2.5 percent year-on-year in March 2026, a steep drop from the 40 percent surge recorded in February before the conflict fully disrupted shipping and demand. The slowdown illustrated how even an economy as large and diversified as China’s remains exposed to shocks in critical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil passes.
Xi’s language about “disarray” fits into a broader pattern of Chinese official rhetoric that portrays the post-1945 Western-led order as increasingly dysfunctional. For years Beijing has spoken of “changes unseen in a century” and the need for a more multipolar system that better reflects the rise of the Global South. The Iran war, combined with ongoing tensions in Europe and the Middle East, provided a concrete backdrop for that narrative. By describing the order as crumbling rather than merely evolving, Xi signaled that China views current crises not as temporary disruptions but as evidence of deeper structural failure.
The Spanish prime minister’s visit itself formed part of a wider diplomatic outreach by Beijing. In the months surrounding the meeting, leaders from several Western countries—including Britain, Canada, Finland, and Ireland—had traveled to China seeking engagement even as security and trade frictions with Washington persisted. For European governments uneasy with certain U.S. policies under the Trump administration, closer ties with Beijing offered both economic opportunity and a potential counterweight. Sánchez made that calculation explicit, arguing that Europe and China should coordinate more closely on trade tensions, geopolitical challenges, and climate issues while rejecting any slide toward a new Cold War or forced decoupling of supply chains.
Beyond the bilateral agenda, the two leaders discussed practical cooperation. Agreements covering agricultural products, transport, education, and science and technology were signed, and the two sides elevated their dialogue mechanisms. These steps were presented as concrete evidence that countries sharing a commitment to multilateralism could still advance practical collaboration even amid global turbulence.
Xi’s assessment has found echoes among some international financial voices. Concerns about prolonged disruption to energy markets, fertilizer supplies, and global growth forecasts have circulated widely. The International Monetary Fund had already revised global growth projections downward in light of the Middle East conflict, while private-sector analysts warned of recession risks if oil prices remained elevated for an extended period. China’s relatively resilient position—bolstered by domestic energy capacity—has allowed Beijing to present itself as a stabilizer rather than a victim of the chaos it describes.
Still, the “disarray” diagnosis carries political weight. It allows China to criticize unilateral military actions and protectionist measures without naming specific countries in every instance, while simultaneously offering itself as a partner for nations seeking alternatives to pure power politics. Sánchez’s public invitation for China to mediate reinforced that positioning. Whether Beijing will translate rhetoric into sustained diplomatic initiatives remains an open question; China has historically preferred quiet facilitation over high-profile mediation that risks entanglement in distant conflicts.
The meeting also highlighted Spain’s somewhat isolated stance within Europe and NATO. While other European governments have been more cautious in their criticism of the Iran campaign, Madrid’s government has been outspoken. By aligning publicly with Beijing on the need to uphold international law and reject the “law of the jungle,” Sánchez signaled that differences with Washington on Middle East policy would not prevent deeper engagement with China. That choice reflects a broader European debate about strategic autonomy and the costs of aligning too closely with any single power.
For Xi, the Sánchez talks offered an opportunity to project calm confidence at a time when China’s own economy faces headwinds from weak domestic demand, property sector troubles, and external shocks. By focusing on the failures of the existing order rather than China’s internal challenges, the leadership reinforced a narrative of external turbulence requiring national resilience and international partnerships on Beijing’s terms.
As the Iran conflict continues to ripple through energy markets, shipping lanes, and diplomatic alignments, Xi’s description of a world order in disarray is likely to be repeated and refined. It serves both as diagnosis and as invitation: an acknowledgment that the old rules are fraying, and a claim that China stands ready to help write new ones in cooperation with like-minded partners. Whether that claim produces tangible progress toward de-escalation in the Middle East or simply becomes another chapter in the long contest over the future of global governance will depend on actions that follow the rhetoric. For now, the message from Beijing is unambiguous—the international system is under severe strain, and the consequences are already being felt from the Strait of Hormuz to China’s export factories.
About The Author
