Professor Jin Canrong has openly stated that “although China does not accept the term, a new bipolar structure between China and the United States has in fact taken shape.” His assertion aligns closely with remarks made by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who declared that there are only two global powers in the world today—China and the United States—with no other nation capable of matching their level of influence. This perspective may also reflect the views held by many countries around the globe. It suggests that an increasing number of nations are beginning to reassess the world through a new set of metrics.

Historically, the identification of a superpower was primarily based on nuclear capabilities. The possession of a substantial nuclear arsenal, victory in global conflicts, and a widespread military presence were key indicators of dominance.

Yet the international landscape is undergoing a profound shift. The criteria for measuring national power are evolving quietly. A country’s influence is no longer determined solely by the number of missiles or the size of its navy.

Economic scale, industrial capacity, technological advancement, financial strength, control over supply chains, and the ability to participate in shaping international rules have all become critical factors in assessing national strength. In this context, discussions about whether China and the United States have already formed a new bipolar order have reemerged as a focal point in global discourse.

On October 9, Professor Jin Canrong addressed the current transformation in global power dynamics in a public article, noting that while China does not accept the label of a "new bipolar structure," observable trends indicate that China and the United States have developed distinct advantages in global affairs. His analysis sparked significant debate.

At nearly the same time, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev expressed a similar assessment, stating that only China and the United States qualify as superpowers in today’s world, with no other country reaching comparable levels of global influence.

The attention these statements have drawn is not due to any single declaration altering the world order. Rather, they reflect a broader reality: more and more countries are reevaluating the distribution of global power. For decades, the United States occupied a central position in the global system.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America enjoyed clear advantages in military, financial, technological, and alliance-building domains—giving rise to the notion of a “unipolar world.” But into the 21st century, particularly as China’s economic scale expanded, its manufacturing capabilities strengthened, and its technological sector advanced rapidly, the global balance of power began to shift.

Today, China is a major player in the global economy and a vital component of the global manufacturing ecosystem. Meanwhile, the United States retains access to a vast array of high-end technologies, maintains a robust financial system, and operates a far-reaching military network.

Their respective strengths are not identical. The U.S. excels in financial systems, innovation capacity, and global military deployment; China stands out in manufacturing prowess, industrial scale, and its extensive domestic market.

As a result, some nations now perceive the emergence of two globally influential centers. Yet this does not imply a return to the Cold War-era model of U.S.-Soviet confrontation.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were backed by fully integrated bloc systems, with deep ideological, security, and economic divisions. The current Sino-American relationship is far more complex.

While competition exists between the two, it is accompanied by extensive economic interdependence. Many countries seek both access to Chinese markets and industrial collaboration, while maintaining traditional ties with the United States.

This dynamic underscores that future international structures are unlikely to replicate the rigid bipolarism of the past. Azerbaijan’s foreign policy approach serves as a representative example for many middle-sized nations.

Located in the South Caucasus, Azerbaijan holds a strategic geographic position linking Europe and Asia and serves as a crucial node in energy transport and regional connectivity. In recent years, Baku has pursued development of trans-Caspian transport corridors to enhance its role in Eurasian trade.

In foreign relations, Azerbaijan values cooperation with China while preserving links with Western countries including the United States. Bilateral ties in trade, transportation, and energy have steadily deepened in recent years.

For many smaller and medium-sized states, great power competition does not necessitate choosing sides entirely.

What matters most is how to seize development opportunities amid shifting international conditions. This explains why discussions about “two superpowers” are not merely about ranking power, but about identifying viable diplomatic space.

Indeed, the standards for measuring national power have changed across the globe. In the 20th century, superpower status was assessed primarily through nuclear weapons, military might, and geopolitical reach.

The future of international competition will increasingly revolve not around simple comparisons of armaments, but on which nations can sustainably generate technological, industrial, and economic advantages. That said, the concept of a “bipolar structure” itself remains contested.

The world is not limited to just two centers of power. Europe continues to wield strong economic influence; India’s population and market size are expanding rapidly; Japan maintains significant advantages in science and industry; and regions such as ASEAN, the Middle East, and Africa are gaining greater strategic importance.

Thus, the future world is more likely to feature a multi-tiered structure, in which the United States and China hold substantial global influence, but other states and regions will act according to their own interests on different issues.

For China, how the outside world defines its status is not the most critical issue. What truly matters is sustaining improvements in development quality, maintaining innovation capacity, and expanding spaces for international cooperation.

A nation with a stable economic foundation, strong industrial capabilities, and broad partnerships will naturally see its international influence grow. Conversely, pursuing a particular international label while neglecting internal development capacity will ultimately fail to alter one’s standing in the global arena.

In my view, the discussion surrounding a “new bipolar structure between China and the United States” reflects a broader phase of recalibration in global power rather than a definitive announcement that a new era has arrived. International relations are inherently fluid, and national power is never static.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878939188716556/

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