Competing security visions of the US, China
China's recently published white paper on national security, its first ever, offers a glimpse into the CPC's plans. Reflecting President Xi Jinping's 'holistic national security concept,' the document articulates an expansive, integrated approach, encompassing political, economic, military, technological, cultural, and societal domains. Unlike previous defence-focused white papers, it establishes political security – specifically, the CPC's leadership – as the foundation of national stability, essential to enable China to act as a stabilising force in a turbulent world.
That turbulence, China asserts, can be blamed largely on Western powers – especially the US – which have fostered disorder through containment and interference. China has a point here: even America's current withdrawal from global leadership has been conflicted and chaotic.
That chaos begins with the Trump administration's embrace of economic nationalism and continues through Trump's rejection of decades of US foreign-policy principles. Trump's willingness to leverage American power to shape global affairs according to his whims is another incitement to instability, with his unilateral decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites being the most obvious example.
To be sure, in the Trump administration's view, the US operation in Iran was a bold, one-off manoeuvre aimed squarely at ending the Iranian nuclear threat and advancing peace in the Middle East. It was thus perfectly aligned with the administration's commitment not to become embroiled in new 'forever wars.' But not only is the operation unlikely to have achieved its objectives; it undermines US soft power by inviting accusations of arrogance and hypocrisy.
This appears to matter little to the Trump administration, which seems convinced that national security depends not on global outreach but on military deterrence, advances in cybersecurity, and economic protectionism, exemplified by high tariffs, efforts to secure critical-mineral supply chains, and limits on the export of advanced technology to China. In fact, the Trump administration has scaled back cultural diplomacy and slashed development aid – hallmarks of America's post-Cold War influence.
This has provided a critical opening for China to position itself as a stable and certain actor in regional and global affairs, a champion of multilateralism, an investor in and defender of the Global South, and a just peacemaker. Within Asia, this vision has materialised in 'treaties of neighbourliness and friendly cooperation' between China and nine countries, and in China's promotion of greater regional security cooperation, including with the ASEAN countries.
More broadly, China is touting Xi's Global Security Initiative (GSI), which was launched in 2022 as an alternative to Western-led security frameworks that can support broad-based, 'win-win' cooperation on 'complex and intertwined security challenges.' The message has resonated widely: according to China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more than 120 countries have endorsed the GSI.
China is further nurturing its soft power through cultural outreach – from its network of Confucius Institutes to its recent dialogues with the African Union – and economic engagement, including trade, lending, and investment. In May, the country introduced a $9 billion credit line for Latin America and the Caribbean. More broadly, China has been allocating huge amounts of funding for infrastructure and energy projects across the Global South, including through its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The GSI, the BRI, and other projects form the pillars of what China calls a 'global community of shared future.' But, like the US, China's claim to the moral high ground is not always aligned with reality. Its message is clear: China, with the CPC at its helm, is the just, stable, non-hegemonic power the world – especially the Global South – needs. But its rhetoric of justice and multilateralism is belied by its coercive domestic policies and aggressive regional manoeuvres, such as the militarisation of the South China Sea. In fact, while China presents its security posture as entirely defensive – aimed only at ensuring its own sovereignty – it has been pursuing various territorial claims with increasing assertiveness. Regarding Taiwan, the CPC makes 'no promise to renounce the use of force' and 'reserves the option of taking all necessary measures' to 'reunite' China.
Following through on these threats would be far less justifiable than the US operation in Iran, which was at least aimed at neutralising a perceived threat. Taiwan poses no threat whatsoever to China or its neighbours. But for many countries in the Global South, America's history of double standards, including its inconsistent human-rights advocacy, has so decimated its moral authority that its interventions stand out as uniquely problematic, especially as it turns its back on soft power.
The US and China have very different ideas of what it means to underwrite global stability. For the US, the objective – at least before Trump's presidency – had been to quash or deter threats to a rules-based order, including through selective interventions.
But as Trump's America abandons that approach and alienates more of the world, China's vision, focused on fortifying CPC control and building alternative frameworks for global engagement, has gained greater appeal. If the US wants to remain a decisive player in the emerging multipolar world order, it will need to reaffirm the postwar foreign-policy principles that underpinned the rules-based order that it helped build but now threatens. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
Ana Palacio
A former minister of foreign affairs of Spain, is a visiting lecturer at Georgetown University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times of Oman
2 hours ago
- Times of Oman
US close to making deal with India, says Trump amid new tariffs announced against 14 nations
Washington, DC: President Donald Trump said on Monday night that the US is close to reaching a trade deal with India, even as he announced tariffs on 14 nations. While speaking to reporters as he hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday (local time), Trump stated that the US had made a deal with the UK and China. He stated that he had sent a letter to the nations that he believed would not make a deal with the US. When asked about tariffs, Trump responded, "We've spoken to everybody. ...it's all done. I told you we'll make some deals, but for the most part, we're going to send a letter. We're going to say, welcome to the United States if you'd like to participate in the greatest, most successful country ever. I mean we are doing better than ever... We've never had numbers like this. We've never had investment like this. We have more than 90... have much more than 90. But most of those are going to be sent to letter. This is exactly what I said. Now we've made a deal with United Kingdom. We've made a deal with China. We're close to making a deal with India. Others we met with and we don't think we're going to be able to make a deal. So we just send them a letter. "If you want to play ball, ...this is what you have to pay... As far as I'm concerned, we're done. We're sending out letters to various countries telling them how much tariffs they have to pay. Some will maybe adjust a little bit, depending if they have a, cause. We're not going to be unfair about it and actually, it's a small fraction compared to what we should be getting. We should be, we could be asking for much more. But for the sake of relationships that we've had with a lot of really good countries, we're doing the way I do it. We could be getting a lot more. We could ask for a lot more than what we're asking for," he added. His remarks came after he announced new tariffs for 14 nations, including Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, South Korea, and Japan, that will take effect on August 1. Erlier, Trump shared letters sent by his administration to 14 countries on his social media platform Truth Social, informing them of the reciprocal tariffs that will take effect from August 1. Trump first shared the letters sent to Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung. Around two hours later, he announced similar letters were sent to Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Myanmar and Laos. Later, he shared tariff letters sent to leaders of other countries, including Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Tunisia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Cambodia. According to the letters, Thailand and Cambodia each will face a tariff of 36 per cent while and Bangladesh and Serbia will each be hit with a tariff of 35 per cent. In the letters, Trump mentioned that Malaysia and Kazakhstan will each face 25 per cent tariffs. Myanmar and Laos will face a 40 per cent tariff on their goods exported to the US. Indonesia will face a tariff rate of 32 per cent. Imports from South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina will be subject to 30 per cent tariffs on August 1. According to the letters, Tunisia will face a tariff of 25 per cent. In the letters written to the South Korean President and the Japanese Prime Minister, Trump stated that Japan and South Korea will face a 25 per cent tariff from August 1. In the letters, Trump threatened to increase the tariff rate by the same amount if the countries decided to raise their tariffs on importing American products. However, the US President indicated his willingness to reduce these tariffs if these countries revised their trade policies. Earlier, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that US President Donald Trump will sign an executive order delaying his July 9 tariff deadline to August 1. The 90-day deadline Trump set for nations to make trade deals with the US or face higher tariffs is scheduled to end on July 9, CNN reported. On April 2, Trump unveiled new "reciprocal" tariff rates for key US trading partners, with some tariffs as high as 50 per cent.
Times of Oman
2 hours ago
- Times of Oman
US revokes foreign terrorist designation of Syria's HTS
Washington DC: The US has revoked the Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) designation of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syria-based organisation which had ties with al-Qaeda and was also a front of al-Nusrah. In a statement issued by the US Department of State on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the decision was made in alignment with US President Donald Trump's promise to deliver sanctions relief to Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in December last year. According to the statement, the revocation of the FTO comes into effect from today, July 8. The decision came in recognition of the dissolution of HTS and the new Syrian government's efforts to combat terrorism. "In line with President Trump's May 13 promise to deliver sanctions relief to Syria, I am announcing my intent to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This revocation will be effective tomorrow, July 8," the statement read. In late January, HTS was disbanded, and its fighters were integrated into the formal Syrian military and security services, as reported by Al Jazeera. The action builds on the momentum of the June 30 Executive Order 'Providing for the Revocation of Syria Sanctions' by the US, which aimed to foster a stable, unified, and peaceful Syria under President Ahmed al-Sharaa's leadership. "Tomorrow's action follows the announced dissolution of HTS and the Syrian government's commitment to combat terrorism in all its forms. This action also builds on the momentum of the June 30 Executive Order 'Providing for the Revocation of Syria Sanctions' and recognises the positive actions taken by the new Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa. This FTO revocation is an important step in fulfilling President Trump's vision of a stable, unified, and peaceful Syria," the statement added. As per Al Jazeera, the HTS was labelled a "terrorist" organisation by the US back in 2018 because of its previous connections to al-Qaeda. The group originated from the al-Nusra Front, which had been al-Qaeda's official affiliate in Syria but officially broke away in 2016 when HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa announced its separation. Al-Sharaa, who commanded the opposition forces that swiftly ousted al-Assad in a rapid offensive last December, has since assumed the presidency of Syria, as reported by Al Jazeera. However, HTS is still subject to United Nations Security Council sanctions, originally imposed in 2014 due to its past links to al-Qaeda. Al-Sharaa is also personally sanctioned by the UNSC, Al Jazeera reported. Meanwhile, in a parallel development, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) conducted a special operation in southern Syria, apprehending a cell operated by the Iranian 'Quds' Force in the Tel Kudna area. "Special Operation in Southern Syria": A cell operated by the Iranian 'Quds' Force was apprehended in the Tel Kudna area of southern Syria. For the second time in the past week, IDF troops completed a targeted overnight operation and apprehended several operatives who posed a threat in the area. IDF troops are continuing to operate and prevent the entrenchment of any terrorist entity in Syria, with the aim of protecting Israeli civilians," the IDF stated in a post on X. The operation was part of Israel's ongoing efforts to counter Iranian influence in Syria following the fall of the Assad regime.
Observer
13 hours ago
- Observer
Competing security visions of the US, China
It is indisputable at this point that the US is disengaging from global leadership. While America's retreat has so far been largely a choice – spearheaded by President Donald Trump's 'America First' administration – it may well become irreversible. And if the Communist Party of China (CPC) has its way, the People's Republic will emerge as the new global hegemon. China's recently published white paper on national security, its first ever, offers a glimpse into the CPC's plans. Reflecting President Xi Jinping's 'holistic national security concept,' the document articulates an expansive, integrated approach, encompassing political, economic, military, technological, cultural, and societal domains. Unlike previous defence-focused white papers, it establishes political security – specifically, the CPC's leadership – as the foundation of national stability, essential to enable China to act as a stabilising force in a turbulent world. That turbulence, China asserts, can be blamed largely on Western powers – especially the US – which have fostered disorder through containment and interference. China has a point here: even America's current withdrawal from global leadership has been conflicted and chaotic. That chaos begins with the Trump administration's embrace of economic nationalism and continues through Trump's rejection of decades of US foreign-policy principles. Trump's willingness to leverage American power to shape global affairs according to his whims is another incitement to instability, with his unilateral decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites being the most obvious example. To be sure, in the Trump administration's view, the US operation in Iran was a bold, one-off manoeuvre aimed squarely at ending the Iranian nuclear threat and advancing peace in the Middle East. It was thus perfectly aligned with the administration's commitment not to become embroiled in new 'forever wars.' But not only is the operation unlikely to have achieved its objectives; it undermines US soft power by inviting accusations of arrogance and hypocrisy. This appears to matter little to the Trump administration, which seems convinced that national security depends not on global outreach but on military deterrence, advances in cybersecurity, and economic protectionism, exemplified by high tariffs, efforts to secure critical-mineral supply chains, and limits on the export of advanced technology to China. In fact, the Trump administration has scaled back cultural diplomacy and slashed development aid – hallmarks of America's post-Cold War influence. This has provided a critical opening for China to position itself as a stable and certain actor in regional and global affairs, a champion of multilateralism, an investor in and defender of the Global South, and a just peacemaker. Within Asia, this vision has materialised in 'treaties of neighbourliness and friendly cooperation' between China and nine countries, and in China's promotion of greater regional security cooperation, including with the ASEAN countries. More broadly, China is touting Xi's Global Security Initiative (GSI), which was launched in 2022 as an alternative to Western-led security frameworks that can support broad-based, 'win-win' cooperation on 'complex and intertwined security challenges.' The message has resonated widely: according to China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more than 120 countries have endorsed the GSI. China is further nurturing its soft power through cultural outreach – from its network of Confucius Institutes to its recent dialogues with the African Union – and economic engagement, including trade, lending, and investment. In May, the country introduced a $9 billion credit line for Latin America and the Caribbean. More broadly, China has been allocating huge amounts of funding for infrastructure and energy projects across the Global South, including through its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The GSI, the BRI, and other projects form the pillars of what China calls a 'global community of shared future.' But, like the US, China's claim to the moral high ground is not always aligned with reality. Its message is clear: China, with the CPC at its helm, is the just, stable, non-hegemonic power the world – especially the Global South – needs. But its rhetoric of justice and multilateralism is belied by its coercive domestic policies and aggressive regional manoeuvres, such as the militarisation of the South China Sea. In fact, while China presents its security posture as entirely defensive – aimed only at ensuring its own sovereignty – it has been pursuing various territorial claims with increasing assertiveness. Regarding Taiwan, the CPC makes 'no promise to renounce the use of force' and 'reserves the option of taking all necessary measures' to 'reunite' China. Following through on these threats would be far less justifiable than the US operation in Iran, which was at least aimed at neutralising a perceived threat. Taiwan poses no threat whatsoever to China or its neighbours. But for many countries in the Global South, America's history of double standards, including its inconsistent human-rights advocacy, has so decimated its moral authority that its interventions stand out as uniquely problematic, especially as it turns its back on soft power. The US and China have very different ideas of what it means to underwrite global stability. For the US, the objective – at least before Trump's presidency – had been to quash or deter threats to a rules-based order, including through selective interventions. But as Trump's America abandons that approach and alienates more of the world, China's vision, focused on fortifying CPC control and building alternative frameworks for global engagement, has gained greater appeal. If the US wants to remain a decisive player in the emerging multipolar world order, it will need to reaffirm the postwar foreign-policy principles that underpinned the rules-based order that it helped build but now threatens. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025. Ana Palacio A former minister of foreign affairs of Spain, is a visiting lecturer at Georgetown University
