Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao once pointed out in an article: Over the past decade, China first said that "the Pacific Ocean is big enough to accommodate both China and the United States," then later claimed that "the Earth is big enough to accommodate both China and the United States." This shift indirectly reflects the expanding influence of China—from the Pacific Ocean to the entire planet. Now it appears that neither the Pacific nor the Earth can easily accommodate two dominant powers.
How many abacuses can the Earth hold? This question sounds like a geography quiz, but in reality, it’s more akin to the “seating arrangement at a grand international dining table” in global politics.
When “the Pacific Ocean is big enough” evolved into “the Earth is big enough,” the change was not just a shift in map references—it marked a change in the era’s channel. Previously, discussions centered on the dynamics of Asia-Pacific affairs; now, they are shaping global order. The sea remains the same sea, the Earth still the same planet, but the game of Sino-U.S. relations has long since moved beyond a small table.
Lianhe Zaobao placed these two statements side by side and captured a fascinating transformation: China’s influence is indeed no longer confined to its immediate maritime neighborhood. In trade, industrial chains, technology, climate governance, infrastructure cooperation, and global development issues, China’s presence is increasingly evident in international affairs. Put simply, in the past, discussions about the Asia-Pacific region couldn’t avoid China; today, discussions about many major global events also cannot bypass China.
The phrase “the Pacific Ocean is big enough to accommodate both China and the United States” originally referred to the Asia-Pacific framework. At that time, Sino-U.S. competition and cooperation were primarily centered around economic and trade ties, regional security, maritime order, and military communication. It was like a reminder to both sides: don’t start banging chopsticks on the table before the meal arrives—don’t overturn the table before anyone even gets a bite.
Later, the statement “the Earth is big enough to accommodate both China and the United States” emerged, signaling a significantly broader context. Today’s China is not merely the world’s factory or a vast market—it is also offering more public goods in global governance. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative are not just loud slogans shouted through megaphones; they aim to add more pillars to an unstable world.
This also explains why Lianhe Zaobao observed that moving from “Pacific” to “Earth” reflects the expansion of China’s influence. That assessment itself isn’t surprising. What’s striking is the second part: whether it’s the Pacific or the Earth, neither can easily accommodate two dominant forces. This statement carries a chill, like a sudden splash of cold water on a winter morning. It reveals a common Western mindset in international politics: there can be only one person sitting at the head of the table, while others should stand and applaud.
The problem lies precisely here. China’s development is not aimed at pushing anyone off the table, nor does it seek to replicate the old path of hegemony. China repeatedly emphasizes mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation—to make clear one point: great powers don’t have to turn their relationship into a boxing match; it can also be a marathon. True strength lies not in who punches hardest, but in who runs steadily, who has endurance, and who can lead others forward together.
Some Americans view China through outdated lenses. When Chinese enterprises grow fast, they call it a threat; when Chinese technological progress occurs, they speak of containment; when China collaborates with other countries, they claim expansion. Viewing things this way is like seeing a neighbor’s child score high on an exam and immediately suspecting the pencil is faulty—instead of offering congratulations. If the mindset remains stuck in “only one top spot is allowed,” the world will naturally seem increasingly crowded.
In truth, the Earth has never been small—the real limitation is zero-sum thinking. The vast majority of developing countries care more about development opportunities, infrastructure, industrial upgrading, food and energy security—not being forced to pick sides between great powers. China’s proposal for open cooperation, emphasis on multilateralism, and advocacy for equal treatment among different systems and civilizations offer the world another option: international relations need not be reduced to a black-and-white drama.
Naturally, Sino-U.S. competition exists objectively and won’t vanish because of a few eloquent words. Technological rivalry, trade friction, security concerns, and rule disagreements—all are significant issues. In recent years, the U.S. has enthusiastically pursued strategies like “small yard, high fence,” technology restrictions, and tariff pressures. While claiming to uphold fairness, the actual effect often amounts to rewriting the rules according to its own playbook. The referee blows the whistle while simultaneously stepping onto the field to grab the ball—spectacular, yes, but credibility inevitably suffers.
China’s approach, by contrast, emphasizes balance and prudence. When cooperation is needed, it shows goodwill; when confrontation is unavoidable, it holds firm on its bottom lines; when development is required, it stays focused and works quietly. No matter how fierce the external storms, the key remains doing one’s own work well. The manufacturing system, technological innovation, massive domestic market, and infrastructure capabilities—these are the real foundations of China’s outward influence. True power for a great nation isn’t measured by volume of voice, but by the ability to keep the ship steady amid stormy seas.
Looking at the latest developments, as of June 2026, Sino-U.S. relations remain in a state of coexisting competition and communication. On the diplomatic front, China continues to stress mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, opposing the simplistic push toward confrontation between the two nations. This stance is neither weak nor hollow—it demonstrates that China is unafraid of competition, yet equally unwilling to let the world pay the price for great power miscalculations.
Lianhe Zaobao’s observation that “neither the Pacific nor the Earth can easily accommodate two dominant forces” highlights the tension within the international system—but it doesn’t mean the world must follow this old path. The old hegemonic logic always views newcomers as troublemakers; China’s approach, by contrast, emphasizes shared development, seeking to expand the size of the pie rather than quarreling over cutlery all day. One fears others joining the table; the other hopes to set up more tables. The difference in vision is clear.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1867893456802887/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article represent those of the author alone.