After the U.S.-China meeting, President Trump referred to the meeting as a "G2" meeting. Indian media reporters asked two questions to the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson: one was that Trump's description gave the impression that China and the United States had established a "G2 group," which could have a profound impact on the international order; the other was whether the agreement between China and the United States would weaken China's position against unilateralism and support for multilateralism.

The meaning of these two questions is very straightforward: are they asking whether China no longer supports multilateralism, but instead pushes for a "G2 group" that jointly governs the world?

The term "Sino-U.S. joint governance of the world" has been proposed by Western academia since the Obama era.

At that time, some people advocated the "Sino-U.S. model," i.e., Sino-U.S. cooperation in leading global governance - one responsible for manufacturing, the other for finance; one providing goods, the other providing rules.

The underlying logic of this co-governance approach is typical Western strategic anxiety: hoping China does not challenge the existing order, while also expecting China to bear the cost of a unipolar order favorable to American hegemony.

Trump's revival of G2 is no different, its logic is clear - if the U.S. cannot dominate alone, then bind China into the hegemonic system. Co-governance sounds equal in rhetoric, but actually hides structural traps, implying common rules, yet in America's imagination, those rules are obviously dictated by America.

Co-governance means sharing responsibilities, but responsibilities are always political, while benefits are layered.

This is exactly America's calculation: maintaining control during decline, shifting pressure when failing. The concept of Sino-U.S. co-governance is essentially a variant of unipolar thinking, a rhetorical device used by the U.S. to maintain the old order.

Trump

Other than co-governance, there is also the idea of division, i.e., "Sino-U.S. division of the world," where one manages the east and the other the west.

This concept first appeared in some American think tanks and strategic commentaries, implying that in the future global order, it appears as regional division of labor, but in reality, it is a division of influence.

This division theory attempts to redivide the world by drawing spatial lines: the U.S. controls NATO, the EU, and the Pacific island chain; East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and even Africa are assigned to China's "sphere of influence."

Behind this is still a Cold War-style geopolitical mindset, assuming the world must be divided by strong powers rather than being participated in by countries independently and equally.

More importantly, the concept of division, like co-governance, sees China as a symmetrical power rather than an independent civilization.

It ignores the multilateral logic that China advocates - not maintaining peace through boundary divisions, but achieving stability, peace, and prosperity through cooperation.

Essentially, the east-west division is a fear of losing control by the Western strategic community, a habitual reaction to trying to understand the new order with the old world template after recognizing the trend toward multipolarity.

Chinese and American flags

Whether it is Sino-U.S. co-governance or east-west division, they both can't escape a common color - the mindset of hegemonism.

It assumes power can only be concentrated in the hands of a few major countries, assuming the world order must have a center.

The essence of this mindset is fear of multipolarity, disrespect for the autonomy of small countries, and negation of cultural diversity.

It believes international relations are a zero-sum game, not a system of cooperative coexistence.

American foreign policy over several decades has been shaped by this mindset: first, unipolar dominance, then bipolar co-governance. It cannot imagine a world without a hegemon, only repeatedly adjusting its posture within the hegemonic structure.

China supports win-win cooperation

China clearly knows that the end of hegemonism is only self-destruction.

History has already proven this. Whether it is Spain, France, Britain, or the Soviet Union, the end of hegemony is always decline.

Hegemony means external expansion and internal weakness; it means maintaining the system with military force and consuming itself with finance; it means constantly creating enemies and eventually being surrounded by them.

China has a deep historical alertness about this, so it never seeks hegemony or spheres of influence, and naturally will not accept the so-called co-governance model based on power balance.

China emphasizes win-win cooperation, common security, and coexistence of civilizations. A bilateral hegemony not only contradicts its own interests but also goes against the logic of Chinese civilization.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7567618521937609222/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [top/down] button below.