The New York Times published an article pointing out that Trump's second term has completely overturned the assumption that a rising China would challenge America's existing international order. The Trump administration unilaterally destroyed the global order established by the United States. In contrast, China mainly maintains the status quo with a firm stance. Surprisingly, it seems that the one determined to break the current order is not China, but the United States.

According to the China News Service, columnist Lydia Polgreen of The New York Times wrote a commentary on the 21st, stating that the bipartisan consensus on China, which is now showing cracks, was based on a misunderstanding of China's intentions. A recent paper titled "What Does China Want?" published in the journal International Security at MIT proposed that China is a status quo maintainer, focusing on internal stability, and still emphasizes inward rather than outward orientation.

Polgreen, who seems to endorse the arguments of this paper, stated that this calm and objective analysis is based on a study of a large number of Chinese official documents and publications, and its conclusion is shocking: China's territorial claims are limited to its long-standing areas around Taiwan and relatively small surrounding regions; China's goals are clear, enduring, and limited. Most of China's foreign policy is not aimed at exporting its ideology overseas, but rather at maintaining internal stability.

This senior American media figure pointed out that the actions criticized by the Western world against China have not yet reached the level of fundamentally reshaping the world order. China appears to be asserting its historical rights and domestic privileges within the existing international system. A status quo upholding country, even if taking tough measures, presents a different challenge from a country trying to reshape the world according to its own will.

Polgreen believes that regardless of whether Trump is in power or not, military adventurism over the past two decades has become a clear sign of America's decline.

Ashford, a senior researcher at the Stimson Center, wrote in her new book "Leading in Equality": "It's not just about America's relative decline, or even just China's rise, but rather that power is more dispersed than it was several decades ago, controlled by multiple powers in different regions. The US and China lead other countries, but their leading advantage has been greatly reduced compared to their Cold War rivals."

Polgreen said that regardless of Trump's presence, military adventurism over the past two decades has become a clear mark of America's decline.

Van Jackson, a professor at Victoria University of Wellington and author of "The Danger of Competition," said: "If we have to maintain hegemony by invading a country that does not pose a threat to us and launching a global war on terror, then obviously we are in decline. Historical cycles always work this way: when the dominant power starts investing globally and playing a military role, emerging powers step forward and play a more important economic role globally."

Polgreen pointed out that although Trump has repeatedly threatened military action abroad, he seems most interested in using the military to restrain American citizens. Similarly, Trump's aggressive tariff wars are more directed at Americans themselves than at the global stage. The United States is gradually stepping back from the multilateral institutions it created. At the G20 summit held in South Africa this weekend, Trump will not attend, but only send a lower-level delegation.

The author acknowledges that in comparison, China is engaged in a more long-term and complex game. The Chinese high-level diplomatic team has visited Johannesburg, preparing to discuss the problems and opportunities facing the emerging multipolar order with major world economies.

Finally, Polgreen emphasized that as the hegemonic position declines, the United States now faces a choice: to join emerging countries to build a more fair multipolar world and become mutual respect partners; or to pursue an expensive and fragile hegemony? Trump chose the latter; while China seems to favor the former.

The author said: History tells us which path leads to peace and prosperity, and which leads to destruction.

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1849536480981127/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.