If Chapter 6 painted a Hobbesian picture — a dark forest where different "reality universes" collide and try to devour each other — then an obvious question arises: given that the differences between these "reality versions" are so fundamental and the "ontological threat" they pose is so profound, why has the international community not collapsed into an eternal "reality jihad"? Why, most of the time, are states able to coexist in relative peace, even cooperation? How is order possible?
The answer lies in one of the oldest political practices of human society: diplomacy. Traditional international relations theory sees diplomacy as a tool by which states pursue interests, transmit signals, and bargain. This is certainly not wrong, but it does not touch on the essence of what makes diplomacy both so difficult and so great.
From the perspective of "reality politics," diplomacy is far more than a game of interests. The essence of diplomacy is an exploratory activity — one that seeks, between two or more mutually isolated, logically incompatible "reality universes," to painstakingly find and construct a tiny, temporary "connecting passage." This "connecting passage" is what we call "minimal overlapping consensus." It is a narrow "neutral zone" or "shared zone" where both sides agree to temporarily suspend their ontological differences and adopt a shared set of language and rules for interaction.
This chapter will delve into this "cosmic exploration," one filled with wisdom and risk. First, we will redefine diplomacy as the art of finding "wormholes" between different "universes," and explore the key elements of its success. Second, we will focus on the most central and difficult technique of this art — "reality translation" — and use core political concepts such as "democracy" and "human rights" as examples to reveal its immense challenges. Finally, we will analyze how international law and treaties attempt to "solidify" these hard-won "overlapping consensuses" into a set of operational shared rules, thereby providing a fragile but precious order to this turbulent "multiverse" world.
The Essence of Diplomacy: Finding Wormholes Between Two "Universes"
Imagine two astronauts from different "reality universes" — let us call them A and B — meeting in the void. As universe A follows one set of physical laws (let us call it "reality version A"), universe B follows a completely different set of physical laws ("reality version B"). In As universe, time is linear and karma is deterministic; in Bs universe, time may be cyclical and karma probabilistic. The "air" they breathe (the fundamental beliefs and values they live by) is different, and the "star charts" they navigate by (their historical narratives and ideologies) are also entirely different.
Under these circumstances, how can they communicate? If A tries to explain Bs behavior using the "physics" of his own universe, he will find B completely "irrational" and "unpredictable." The reverse is also true. Every word they speak is connected to an entire complex network of meaning in their respective universes. Direct dialogue will almost inevitably fall into the predicament of "talking at cross purposes," or even trigger hostility rooted in profound misunderstanding.
This is an extreme metaphor for the real predicament faced by international diplomacy. Diplomats are the "astronauts" sent to the edges of foreign "reality universes." Their mission is not to convince the other side to abandon its own "physical laws" and convert to ours — that is the logic of "reality jihad." Their mission is far subtler and more difficult: they must find, or jointly create, a "wormhole" between these two incommensurable universes.
This "diplomatic wormhole" is "minimal overlapping consensus." It is a theoretical "singularity," a tiny space where the laws of both universes can temporarily be "compatible." Within this space, both sides agree to:
Suspend ontological debates: We temporarily set aside the insoluble question of "which universes physical laws are the ultimate truth." We acknowledge that the other universes is "valid" on its own terms.
Find common interests or common threats: We look for a problem that poses a similar challenge to both our universes. For instance, there may be a "cross-universe meteor shower" (a common threat, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, or a global pandemic), or the possibility of exchanging "resources" that one has and the other lacks (a common interest, such as trade).
Jointly agree on a set of "temporary physics": To address this shared problem, we jointly agree on a provisional set of "rules of the game" or "communication protocols" applicable only within this "wormhole." This set of "temporary physics" may not be identical to the "mother laws" of either universe, but it is the only basis on which we can effectively collaborate.
A successful diplomat must therefore possess several extraordinary abilities, akin to those of a "cross-universe traveler":
Ability One: "Double Vision" — Understanding the Inner Logic of the Other's Reality
An outstanding diplomat must be able to temporarily "split his personality." He needs one eye firmly fixed on his own country's "reality version" and national interests, while the other eye must strive, without bias, to "enter" the other's "reality universe" and understand its "physical laws" and "star charts."
This means he cannot simply interpret the other side's behavior through the filter of his own country's "common sense" or "ideology." When the other side makes a seemingly "irrational" move, he should not immediately dismiss it as "evil" or "madness," but should instead ask: "Within their worldview and historical memory, what 'internal rationality' might lie behind this action?"
For example, when a country that has historically suffered repeated foreign invasions and territorial partitions takes an uncompromisingly tough stance on territorial matters — appearing "paranoid" to outsiders — a diplomat with "double vision" will see the deep "traumatic memory" and the "sacralization" of the concept of "sovereignty" behind it. He will understand that this is not merely a struggle over land, but a defense of the core myth of "national dignity." Only with this kind of empathetic understanding (note: empathy is not the same as sympathy or agreement) can one find a path to bypass the other side's "minefields" and engage in effective communication.
Ability Two: "Conceptual Alchemy" — Creating Sharable Ambiguous Language
Having identified a possible "zone of common interest," the next challenge for the diplomat is to use language to describe and construct this "shared zone." Using the language of either "universe" directly may provoke the other's vigilance and resentment, as it carries too much "ideological baggage."
Therefore, sophisticated diplomatic language is often a creative art of ambiguity. Diplomats must act like "conceptual alchemists," inventing new words or phrases with sufficient "interpretive elasticity" so that both sides can, from within their own "reality versions," give them non-contradictory interpretations.
Strategic ambiguity: When dealing with extremely sensitive issues (such as sovereignty disputes), both sides may jointly agree on an "ambiguous" formulation, for example, "shelving differences and pursuing joint development." This formulation does not resolve the fundamental question of "who is right and who is wrong," but it successfully "reduces" a "zero-sum" ontological conflict into a "functional" problem on which cooperation is possible.
Constructive concepts: Diplomats work hard to find and create concepts with positive connotations that can be accepted by different cultures — "greatest common denominators" such as "sustainable development," "a community with a shared future for humanity," and "win-win cooperation." The merit of these concepts lies in their high degree of abstraction and inclusiveness. They provide a non-confrontational "discourse platform" for countries of different "reality versions" to engage in dialogue together.
The purpose of this linguistic "alchemy" is not to pursue "precision," but to create "space" — a "diplomatic space" where different logics can temporarily coexist.
Ability Three: "Patience and Resilience" — Guarding the Fragile Flame of Consensus
The process of finding and constructing a "wormhole" is extremely long, arduous, and full of setbacks. The "hawkish" forces on both sides at home, inflammatory media, and unexpected incidents can all destroy months or even years of diplomatic effort in an instant.
Therefore, the core qualities of diplomatic work are strategic patience and extraordinary resilience. A diplomat must be like a night watchman tending a faint flame, patiently and repeatedly adding fuel to the dying fire of dialogue in a storm of misunderstanding and hostility.
They need to understand that success in diplomacy is often not marked by a grand "summit" or a "historic" agreement, but in countless trivial, unheralded communications; in the ability, at a moment of crisis, to pick up the phone and have a frank, effective "crisis management" conversation; in maintaining the "lifeline" of basic "communication channels" even when bilateral relations are at their worst.
In this sense, the essence of diplomacy is an anti-heroic, enduring, process-oriented art. It does not seek to "solve problems once and for all," because in a "multiverse" world, problems cannot be "solved once and for all." What it seeks is to "manage divergence," "build guardrails," and "prevent the worst from happening." It is a humble yet great craft — one that lays down, on the cliffside, even just a short section of deceleration track for the runaway train of human society.
Yet, among all the technical aspects of this craft, none tests wisdom more, and none is more prone to catastrophic consequences, than the question of "translating" core concepts between different "reality versions."
The Challenge of "Reality Translation": The Different Meanings of "Democracy" and "Human Rights"
When diplomats from two "reality universes" attempt to communicate through a "wormhole," the most fundamental technical problem they face is translation. However, the translation here goes far beyond converting words from one natural language (e.g., English) into their equivalents in another (e.g., Chinese). It is a far deeper challenge, which we call "reality translation."
For every core political or cultural concept is not an isolated word. It is like a star, its meaning determined by the entire "reality constellation system" it belongs to — that is, the country's historical narrative, ideology, and value coordinates. It has complex, invisible "gravitational relationships" with other "stars" (other core concepts) in that system. To forcibly "excavate" a word from one "constellation system" and "implant" it into another often results not in successful communication, but in catastrophic "meaning distortion."
This challenge of "reality translation" is most vividly illustrated by "democracy" and "human rights" — two of the most central and contentious concepts in contemporary international politics.
Case One: The "Multiverse" of "Democracy"
In the contemporary Western "reality version" (particularly the Anglo-Saxon liberal version represented by the United States), the meaning of "democracy" has been highly "converged" and "locked" into a specific set of institutional arrangements. The core of this "constellation system" is:
Individualist ontology: The foundation of society is the individual endowed with the capacity for autonomous choice.
Procedural justice first: Whether a political process is "democratic" hinges on whether its "procedure" meets a set of standards, such as regular, free and fair multiparty competitive elections.
Checks and balances: Government power must be limited and supervised by the separation of powers, a free press, and a strong civil society.
Openness of outcomes: Democracy does not promise a specific "good outcome"; it only guarantees a "fair competition" process, the result of which (who comes to power, what policies are implemented) is inherently uncertain.
In this "reality version," "democracy" is tightly linked with "election," "freedom," and "checks and balances" — these "stars" forming a logically self-consistent constellation. When those from this version promote "democracy" abroad, they are in effect promoting this entire "constellation system."
But what happens when the word "democracy" is "translated" into another "reality version" with a completely different "constellation system" — say, a major Eastern country deeply influenced by Confucian culture and Marxism?
In this "reality version," the core of the "constellation system" might be:
Collectivist ontology: The foundation of society is the overall interest of the family, the community, and the nation as a whole.
Substantive justice first: The criterion for whether a political system is "good" depends not on how "procedurally" elegant it is, but on its "substantive outcomes" — whether it brings social stability, economic prosperity, improved livelihoods, and national strength.
Concentration of power and meritocracy: An efficient, far-sighted team of "meritocratic governance," exercising concentrated power to formulate and execute long-term strategies, is seen as the optimal way to achieve "substantive justice."
Certainty of outcomes: Good governance means providing the people with stable, predictable "good outcomes."
In this system, although the word "democracy" is also used (because it is a "halo word" with global moral prestige), it is redefined and connected to indigenous "stars" such as "people-centered thought," "concentrating resources to accomplish major tasks," and "whole-process peoples democracy." Here, the weight of "democracy" falls not on "elections" and "checks and balances," but on "listening to the people," "governing for the people," and ultimately, "governance effectiveness."
Now we can clearly see the predicament of "reality translation":
When country A accuses country B of being "undemocratic," its criterion is Bs lack of "multiparty elections." In As "reality version," this is an indisputable factual judgment.
Country B, in turn, responds that As "democracy" is "hypocritical" because it leads to social fragmentation, political veto, and the manipulation of politics by capital, and has not produced "substantive" good governance. In Bs "reality version," this is also a perfectly reasonable judgment.
They are both using the word "democracy," but it is as if they are talking about two entirely different species. Their dialogue so often reaches an impasse not because one side is "lying," but because each is standing sincerely within its own logically self-consistent "reality universe," measuring the other by the "physical laws" of its own universe. This failure of "translation" is the root cause of why "values diplomacy" so often runs aground.
Case Two: The Semantic Drift of "Human Rights"
Like "democracy," "human rights" is a core concept whose meaning "drifts" dramatically between different "reality versions."
In the "reality version" represented by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, deeply influenced by Western Enlightenment thought, the "constellation system" of "human rights" has the following features:
The "innate" and "primary" nature of rights: Human rights are seen as "natural rights" that precede the state and are inherent in every person. Civil and political rights (freedom of speech, assembly, belief, etc.) in particular are placed at the highest, most central position.
Negative liberty orientation: The core of human rights is protecting the individual from "violation" by state power — a form of "negative liberty."
Universalism and transcendence of sovereignty: Human rights are universal, applicable to all cultures and nations. In certain extreme cases (such as genocide), the principle of "human rights" may override the principle of "national sovereignty."
However, in many non-Western, particularly post-colonial developing countries' "reality versions," the "constellation system" of "human rights" may exhibit a completely different structure:
The "social" and "stage-based" nature of rights: Human rights are not abstract and innate, but are realized under specific social and material conditions. In countries that have yet to escape poverty and conflict, the right to survival and the right to development are the "greatest human rights" and the "prerequisite" for the realization of all other rights.
Positive liberty orientation: Human rights are not only about being free from state violation; more importantly, the state has a duty to provide for the well-being of its citizens — a form of "positive liberty," such as the right to education, healthcare, employment, and security.
Collectivism and sovereignty first: In many cases, collective rights (such as national self-determination and national security) are considered to override individual political rights. Defending national sovereignty and preventing foreign interference is seen as the primary condition for safeguarding the human rights of one's own people.
Similarly, when country A sanctions country B for "human rights violations" (usually accusing B of violating civil and political rights), country B often retorts that country A itself has severe problems of racial discrimination, gun violence, and economic inequality, which equally "violate" the right to survival and development of its own citizens.
This debate once again reveals the chasm of "reality translation." Both sides wave the banner of "human rights," but their banners bear entirely different images. What they are arguing about is not a simple matter of "fact," but a profound ontological question: "What are the most important rights of a human being?"
The art of "reality translation": Where is the way out?
Faced with such immense challenges, is successful diplomatic "translation" possible? The answer is yes, but it requires exceptional wisdom and skill. A successful "reality translator" must:
- Avoid "conceptual imperialism": First, give up the impulse to impose the definitions of concepts from one's own "reality version" as universal standards. One must acknowledge the "polysemy" of concepts across different cultures.
- Seek functional equivalence, not literal equivalence: When translating a core concept, rather than searching for a word that literally corresponds (which is often impossible), look for a practice or institution in the other side's "reality version" that serves a similar "function." For example, instead of fixating on whether the other side has "multiparty elections," examine whether there exist other mechanisms that serve the functions of "power supervision" and "expression of public opinion," even if their form is entirely different from ours.
- Start with concrete problems, not abstract principles: Rather than engaging in a metaphysical debate about "what true democracy is," start with a concrete issue that both sides care about — for instance, "how can we better combat corruption?" or "how can we improve the scientific basis of government decision-making?" In the process of collaborating to solve concrete problems, both sides may unexpectedly discover shared practices and experiences, thereby building "overlapping consensus" at the level of action rather than principle.
"Reality translation" is a path strewn with thorns. It requires us to set aside intellectual arrogance and, with "cultural humility," listen to and understand worldviews radically different from our own. Yet once this difficult "translation" and communication achieves a breakthrough in a particular domain, yielding precious "overlapping consensus," the next challenge is how to solidify this fragile, verbal consensus into something more durable and reliable.
International Law and Treaties: Attempts to Solidify Overlapping Consensus into Shared Rules
After diplomats from two "reality universes" have, through arduous "wormhole" exploration and "reality translation," reached a "minimal overlapping consensus" in some narrow domain (for instance, banning a specific type of weapon, or regulating trade procedures between the two countries), they face a new problem: how to ensure that this verbal, fragile consensus does not easily evaporate with a change of leadership, shifts in domestic politics, or fresh misunderstandings?
The answer is to "textualize," "routinize," and "institutionalize" this consensus. International law and treaties, from the perspective of "reality politics," represent a systematic attempt to transform a hard-won "overlapping consensus" from a temporary "diplomatic space" into a relatively enduring, binding "zone of shared rules."
The signing of an international treaty means far more than the words on paper. It is a profound "reality-constructing ritual." In this ritual, two or more originally independent "reality versions" solemnly declare to the world: on the matters stipulated in this document, we agree to temporarily "merge" parts of our "realities" and abide by a common set of "physical laws."
However, this process of "solidifying" consensus is itself fraught with challenges and paradoxes. It is not a simple technical process of legislation, but the beginning of a new "reality struggle" over "how rules should be defined" and "how rules should be interpreted."
Challenge One: "Reality Wrestling" in the Drafting Process
The negotiation and drafting of an international treaty is itself a miniature collision and contest of "reality versions." Legal experts and diplomats from different countries come to the negotiating table bearing the deeply ingrained legal traditions, philosophical presuppositions, and linguistic habits of their respective "reality versions."
Differences in legal tradition: A country from the common law tradition (emphasizing precedent and procedural justice) and a country from the civil law tradition (emphasizing codified statutes and logical deduction) think in fundamentally different ways when drafting a treaty. A representative from a country deeply influenced by Confucian "rule by rites" may prefer principled, ambiguous provisions that rely on good-faith interpretation; while a representative from a country deeply influenced by Roman law's "contractual spirit" will insist on provisions that are precise, exhaustive, and capable of addressing every possible "loophole."
The trap of language: Every choice of word can be a battle of "reality translation." To reach a compromise, the final text of a treaty is often full of the aforementioned "strategic ambiguity" and "constructive concepts." While this ambiguous language may allow the treaty to be signed, it also plants "landmines" of enormous controversy for future interpretation and implementation. For example, the legality of "humanitarian intervention" under the UN Charter remains subject to fundamentally different interpretations among different "reality versions" to this day.
The imprint of power: More importantly, the process of making international law has never been equal. Countries with greater comprehensive national power, more international law experts, and a stronger capacity to set the agenda are often able to more successfully "embed" their legal concepts and interest preferences into the text of international law, making it appear "universal" and "neutral" while actually serving their particular "reality version." Many rules of international economic law and intellectual property law have been criticized as tools for developed countries to "universalize" their capitalist "reality version."
Thus, every international law or treaty that is ultimately born is not a purely rational product, but a hybrid of "reality compromise." It bears the marks of different "reality versions" wrestling, compromising, and stitching themselves together.
Challenge Two: "Second-order Translation" in Interpretation and Enforcement
The signing of a treaty is only the first step in "solidifying" consensus. When the text must be observed, interpreted, and enforced in practice, a new round of "reality translation" and struggle begins.
The struggle over interpretive authority: When disputes arise, who should authoritatively interpret the "true meaning" of the treaty? A hegemonic power, or a "neutral" body like the International Court of Justice? Yet even the judges of the International Court of Justice come from different "reality versions," and their judgments are inevitably influenced by their own legal and cultural backgrounds. Thus, the power to interpret international law itself becomes one of the central focal points of international political struggle.
The "double standard" of compliance: Whether a country strictly complies with international law often depends on whether the law aligns with its current national interest and the core principles of its "reality version." When international law conflicts with its core interests, a powerful country will not hesitate to choose "exceptionalism," claiming that its own situation is "special," or simply denouncing the international law itself as "unjust" or "outdated." This "selective compliance" greatly damages the authority of international law as a "shared rule."
The predicament of enforcement: Unlike domestic law, international law lacks a "world police" that stands above nations and possesses coercive enforcement power. The enforcement of international law ultimately depends on the will of the great powers, mutual supervision between states, and the pressure of international public opinion. When a powerful country is determined to violate international law, the international community often has little effective recourse beyond condemnation and limited sanctions.
These challenges reveal the profound paradox of international law as a "zone of shared rules": it aims to transcend and constrain the "reality versions" of sovereign states, yet its own legitimacy and effectiveness ultimately depend on the voluntary consent and support of those same sovereign "reality versions."
The True Value of International Law: A Fragile Lighthouse of "Shared Reality"
Despite all these difficulties, we cannot deny the immense value of international law and treaties. They may not be solid "fortresses," but they are fragile yet precious "lighthouses" — lit by human reason together — in the dark ocean of the "multiverse." Their true value lies not in their ability to "end" conflict, but in:
- Providing a "shared bottom line": Rules governing the conduct of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, even when frequently violated, by their very existence set a "moral bottom line" for human brutality. Their existence means that the outright slaughter of civilians and the torture of prisoners of war is, at least nominally, "illegal" and subject to condemnation.
- Building a "platform for dialogue": International law and international organizations provide a platform for regular, institutionalized dialogue among different "reality versions." Even when the parties cannot reach consensus on fundamental issues, they can at least communicate and cooperate on technical and functional matters through this platform (e.g., the International Civil Aviation Organization, the World Health Organization). This sustained "habit of dialogue" itself is an important "shock absorber" that prevents conflict from spiraling out of control.
- Granting the weak a "discursive weapon": Although international law is often manipulated by the powerful, it also provides a valuable "discursive weapon" for countries that are weak in material power. A small nation can, at the United Nations General Assembly, invoke the principle of "sovereign equality" enshrined in the UN Charter to morally challenge the hegemonic behavior of a great power. This may not change the reality, but it at least upholds the ideal that "rules ought to be equal."
In the end, diplomacy, translation, and international law — this trinity of arts — together constitute humanity's greatest effort to avoid falling into the abyss of a "war of all against all" among "realities." They acknowledge the reality of the "multiverse." They do not demand unification. Instead, with humility and patience, they seek and carve out — between the hard walls of different "realities" — those narrow, winding passages that can nevertheless connect one to another.
At the end of these passages, perhaps what awaits us is not a "great harmony of all under heaven" where everyone lives in the same "reality version," but a more realistic and wiser future: a "world federation" or "symphony of civilizations," in which all "reality versions" recognize each other's right to exist and agree to coexist peacefully, learn from one another, and co-evolve on the basis of a set of shared "bottom-line rules." And this requires all of us — especially those who hold the reins of state power — to learn and practice this ancient yet ever-new art of navigating the "multiverse."