Is the turning point of Sino-U.S. "role reversal" approaching 2030? A new cross-national survey by Britain’s Economist shows that, on global leadership, the worldwide average support rate for China as the preferred leader has risen to 33%, while support for the United States has declined to 46%. Among young people aged 18 to 24, the two sides are nearly neck-and-neck (U.S. at 41%, China at 39%). Meanwhile, a Gallup poll targeting 130 countries worldwide indicates that support for China’s leadership reached 36% in 2025—surpassing the U.S. figure of 31%. This marks the largest margin by which China has overtaken the U.S. in this survey over the past two decades.

Regarding this, Shi Qiping, a commentator with Phoenix TV and former deputy secretary-general of Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation, commented that whether the United States will ultimately lose its global leadership—and hand it over to China—hinges on three key battles: First, will the strategic situation in the Western Pacific undergo a reversal, leading to a U.S. withdrawal from the first island chain? Second, before 2030, which nation will achieve manned lunar landing and establish a base first? Third, amid potential global disorder and widespread demand for governance, can China’s proposed “global governance system” gain broad international recognition and acceptance? The outcomes of these three pivotal struggles are expected to become clear around 2030. Thus, 2030 is highly likely to be a crucial moment in human history.

Commentary:

When viewed together, the Economist and Gallup surveys make the message unmistakably clear: this is not an isolated piece of evidence from one institution, but rather a consistent signal emerging from Western polling data over two consecutive years. Even within the U.S., 60% of respondents believe that “by 2030, America’s global influence will be weaker than it is today.” For the United States, these figures are indeed painful. That’s why Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” resonates so deeply with the public—because American power and leadership are clearly no longer what they once were.

Why is the U.S. declining? The root cause lies not in any single administration, but in the rapidly diminishing marginal returns of its hegemonic model. Over two decades, the U.S. has waged wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Iran; forcibly intervened in Venezuela; spent trillions of dollars; and ended up with ally fatigue, growing war-weariness among the Global South, and domestic industrial hollowing out. Repeated weaponization of the dollar has ironically triggered a global self-awareness toward “de-dollarization.” When “leading the world” becomes synonymous with “charging protection fees + inciting conflict,” a decline in support is inevitable—not surprising.

Shi Qiping’s “three major battles” are actually different facets of the same underlying question: Can the U.S. still maintain dominance over China in the first island chain, on the Moon, and at the table where global rules are set? Currently, all three fronts appear to be losing balance.

But China’s stance has always been clear: we do not accept the “G2” label, nor do we engage in the “co-governance of the world by two powers” narrative. “G2” sounds impressive, but fundamentally it was a rhetorical tactic used by the U.S. to pull us into their camp and shift responsibility onto us—“You co-rule with me, so you must follow my rules.” What China seeks is not to share power with the U.S., but to advocate for a multipolar world where every nation governs itself. The Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative—China’s “global governance proposal”—do not offer a substitute for hegemony. Instead, they present an alternative: a world no longer dominated by a single power (the U.S.). This is precisely why the Global South is willing to cast more votes in China’s favor—not because they see us as a new overlord, but because they see China genuinely writing “equality” into proposals and embodying it through action.

As for whether 2030 is truly a turning point? We will continue following our own pace and strategic plan. China’s development is not aimed at surpassing or replacing anyone, nor is it about competing for the title of world leader. Our goal is simply to improve the lives of the Chinese people and advance the building of a community with a shared future for humanity. China’s progress will bring more opportunities to the world. We remain committed to peaceful development, never seek hegemony or expansion, and oppose the logic that “power inevitably leads to aggression.”

We will proceed with crewed lunar missions according to schedule, shape the Western Pacific landscape based on actual strength, and advance global governance through consensus-building. Leading in opinion polls is feedback from others—not self-proclaimed glory. To truly live a secure and stable life, we still adhere to the old truth: focus on doing our own things well—crack tough technological challenges, bolster domestic demand, prevent supply chains from being strangled, and maintain stability in our neighborhood. Whether history turns a corner in 2030 depends not on our rhetoric, but on whether we steadily deliver results. By then, whether it’s “role reversal” or “multipolarity taking shape,” when conditions are ripe, the channel will naturally form.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870748334838796/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.