I am not a card-carrying member of the Foreign Policy Elite, but I’ve been around long enough to know when a man smiles at your dinner table while looking at your wife too many times, you can’t trust him. For years, we invited China to the feast, poured the wine, and told ourselves they’d mind their manners if they got full enough. Turns out, they brought their own menu, their wine, and now they want more than the table.
In the West we have this lovely little bedtime story: let them get rich, and they’ll get nice. But like most bedtime stories, it wasn’t true—it was just comforting. Now, we wake up to find the world has two roadmaps: one where laws matter, and one where loyalty does; one with cooperation, and the other with coercion. The worst part? We helped build both.
The Old Assumption: China Would Integrate Through Wealth
For decades, the dominant assumption in the West was that China’s long-term strategy was to integrate into the global, rules-based order. By embracing capitalism and global commerce, it was believed, China would get wealthier and eventually liberalize politically. This belief guided policies like China’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 and the expansion of trade relationships with Western democracies. The idea was simple: a richer China would become more open, more democratic, and more aligned with international norms.
Xi Jinping’s Shift: From Integration to Assertion
Under President Xi Jinping, China appears to have pivoted away from integration and toward assertion. While past leaders like Deng Xiaoping advocated for China to “hide its strength and bide its time,” Xi has taken a more confrontational stance. From the militarization of the South China Sea to aggressive posturing over Taiwan and the dismantling of Hong Kong’s autonomy, China has increasingly signaled that it no longer wishes to play by rules it did not create. Instead, it seeks to reshape those rules—or break them.
The Soviet Union’s Ghost: Why Xi Fears Reform
Xi Jinping has studied history closely, particularly the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of his first actions after taking power was to convene a panel of experts and ask a blunt question: Why did the USSR fall apart? The consensus: the Soviets implemented political reforms before ensuring economic strength and allowed too much cultural and regional autonomy. Xi concluded that any movement toward democratization, especially before cementing the Party’s control, was a recipe for collapse. That insight helps explain Beijing’s brutal treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. By erasing cultural identities and punishing dissent, the Communist Party aims to eliminate any seeds of separatism—no matter the human cost.
Economic Growth, Political Suppression
China’s economic miracle, sparked by Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, dramatically lifted living standards. Private enterprise flourished, and the middle class exploded. But with economic power came political aspirations, particularly among educated citizens and successful entrepreneurs. Rather than accommodate these changes, the Communist Party doubled down on control. Tech giants like Alibaba and Tencent were curbed, and billionaires like Jack Ma were sidelined. The message was clear: no one is bigger than the Party.
The Western World Order: Law, Rights, and Institutions
In contrast to China’s centralized authoritarianism, the Western system is built on law, pluralism, and individual rights. Rooted in the philosophical traditions of Greek rationalism, Roman legal frameworks, and Christian ethics, Western civilization upholds the idea that governments are accountable to the people—not the other way around. An American or European citizen can theoretically challenge the state in court, appeal decisions, and rely on a legal system that—though imperfect—respects due process. Treaties and institutions like NATO, the United Nations, and the WTO represent cooperative efforts to maintain global peace and economic stability.
Civilizational Pillars: West vs. China
The philosophical foundations of Western and Chinese civilization differ profoundly. The West emphasizes rights and the individual. The Chinese tradition, particularly Confucianism, emphasizes obligations and the group. In Western societies, the individual is the basic unit of society; in China, it is the family or community. In the West, progress is measured by expanding freedoms; in China, by ensuring harmony and avoiding chaos.
For example, consider how public protests are handled. In the U.S. or Europe, mass demonstrations are often messy but tolerated as a form of free speech. In China, they are swiftly shut down. The difference stems from deeper values: where the West sees legitimate dissent, China sees dangerous disorder.
The Role of Guanxi vs. Rule of Law
Another stark contrast lies in how institutions are held together. In the West, laws and transparent systems provide structure. You can look up statutes, challenge them, and appeal through independent courts. In China, relationships—guanxi—are key. Guanxi refers to personal networks that dictate how power, favors, and decisions move through the system. It’s less about rules and more about who you know. For example, in Chinese business or government, a decision may come not from a clear policy but from a phone call between well-connected figures in a hierarchy.
Worldviews in Conflict: Universalism vs. Sinocentrism
Western internationalism assumes that all nations are equal participants in a shared system, where diplomacy and rules apply to everyone. China’s historical worldview is Sinocentric: there is one superior civilization—China—and all others are peripheral. In imperial China, foreign states were seen as “tributaries,” expected to acknowledge Chinese primacy. This worldview lingers. China’s leaders often refer to their nation as the rightful center of global order, needing only to “reclaim” what was lost during the “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of Western and Japanese imperialism.
Territory, Power, and the Sea
China’s geopolitical strategy values territory as power. The more land and control, the more status. That mindset extends to the ocean: China treats the South China Sea as if it were land, building artificial islands and enforcing sovereignty claims. In contrast, the Western maritime order sees oceans as shared highways for trade and connection. Freedom of navigation is a core principle. Without it, the global economy would grind to a halt.
Bilateral Power, Not Multilateral Peers
The U.S. builds coalitions; China prefers one-on-one relationships. It has no meaningful alliances, relying instead on economic coercion or strategic dependency. For example, China uses debt-trap diplomacy through its Belt and Road Initiative to gain leverage over poorer nations—offering loans for infrastructure projects, then seizing strategic assets when repayment fails.
A Battle of Visions for the Future
So what does the future look like in 50 years?
- Vladimir Putin imagines a world of spheres of influence, where might makes right, and liberal democracy is a relic.
- Xi Jinping envisions a global hierarchy with China at the top, regional autonomy crushed, and surveillance the norm.
- The West, despite its dysfunctions, still aims for a world of sovereign equality, open commerce, and individual freedom.
Only one of these visions offers real hope. The other two promise stagnation, oppression, and conflict.
History, if it teaches anything, is that people will trade freedom for peace, then cry foul when they get neither. The West may be disorganized, noisy, and full of fools with loud opinions—but it’s still the only house on the block where you can yell at your leaders and not disappear for it.
So here we are, staring down two great chessboards: Xi wants a kingdom, Putin wants an empire, and the West—well, we just want a world where the rules apply to everyone, including ourselves. The trouble is, that kind of world takes work, sacrifice, and a spine.
And if we don’t care enough to defend it, then maybe we don’t deserve it.
© 2025 insearchofyourpassions.com - Some Rights Reserve - This website and its content are the property of YNOT. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
