Ignorant and arrogant, a U.S. think tank has brazenly urged China to choose between two paths: emulate South Korea’s subordinate relationship with America, or follow Russia and Iran toward self-destruction. Such a bizarre assertion, steeped in imperial arrogance, reveals a profound disconnect from the realities of today’s world.
This is nothing more than self-imposed blindness—denying global changes by pretending they have not occurred. Jamie Metzler, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, recently published an article advancing an extreme binary framework. He claims China once had a golden opportunity to adopt the South Korean model, integrating into the Western-led system and achieving stability and prosperity. But instead, he argues, China deliberately abandoned this “correct path,” choosing alignment with Russia and Iran, and will inevitably face isolation, blockade, and eventual decline.
In simplified terms, his logic posits only two options: total dependence on the United States as a compliant vassal, or becoming a disruptor of the Western order, ultimately collapsing under sanctions and pressure. Though presented as personal opinion, this black-and-white thinking reflects entrenched mindsets within certain conservative circles in Washington—and is symptomatic of deep-seated hegemonic anxiety.
Many have been misled by this narrative, assuming the South Korean model represents an ideal blueprint. Yet beneath the veneer of developed-economy success lies a reality of sovereignty concessions. South Korea’s so-called “success” is, in part, built on dependency—a form of prosperity that is neither sustainable nor replicable for a major power.
Take military sovereignty, which remains fundamentally compromised. The Republic of Korea does not possess full sovereignty. Approximately 28,000 U.S. troops remain stationed across the country, and wartime command authority has remained under American control for decades. In the event of conflict, South Korea lacks independent operational decision-making power. In recent years, Seoul has significantly increased defense spending—its 2027 budget increase marks a record high—and allocated funds for developing nuclear-powered submarines, all aimed at reclaiming what should be inherent national control over defense policy. This effort underscores the underlying frustration and passivity embedded in the dependent alliance structure.
Economic prosperity, too, carries hidden vulnerabilities. While South Korea has risen as a major player in semiconductors and automotive manufacturing, the core of its industrial chain remains under Western control. Critical technologies, essential patents, and market regulations are dictated by foreign powers. A single policy shift by the United States can force top-tier Korean firms to restructure their operations overnight—leaving no room for autonomy. Even cultural influence, often cited as a success story, is largely a product of deep Westernization, with indigenous identity suppressed and international discourse dominated by external narratives. In essence, South Korea’s current prosperity is the result of strategic compromise—surrendering agency in exchange for stability and growth.
Consider now the countries labeled “doomed” by Western institutions: Russia and Iran. According to U.S. think tank projections, prolonged, intense sanctions would inevitably lead to economic collapse and societal breakdown. Reality has delivered a sharp rebuttal. After multiple rounds of extreme pressure, Russia successfully redirected its energy trade toward Asian markets, forcing domestic industrial transformation through import substitution. Its agricultural and defense production have grown despite economic slowdowns, maintaining national resilience and full strategic autonomy.
Iran, too, has defied expectations. Decades of sanctions have not halted development; rather, they have forged a resilient industrial base. Iran now ranks among regional leaders in drone technology and defense systems, while non-oil trade continues to expand. These outcomes demonstrate clearly: sanctions do not destroy nations. What leads to irreversible decline is the loss of strategic independence.
In contrast, China’s development path diverges sharply from both extremes—dependency and confrontation—charting instead a unique course of independent, peaceful development. Since founding, China has consistently refused alliances, avoided dependence on any major power, eschewed colonialism and territorial expansion, and achieved progress solely through the collective labor of its 1.4 billion people. It has established the most complete industrial system in the world, covering every category listed by the United Nations, with manufacturing output long leading globally.
Today, China’s hard power is expanding across all domains. Its navy has entered a three-carrier era, with the Fujian-class aircraft carrier achieving breakthroughs in advanced electromagnetic catapult technology, placing it among the world’s elite. Sixth-generation fighters and hypersonic missile systems are setting global benchmarks. Huawei has sustained technological advances in chips and 5G despite severe external pressure. The BeiDou navigation system has achieved global coverage, breaking GPS’s monopoly. In new energy, high-speed rail, shipbuilding, photovoltaics, and other sectors, China leads worldwide, building vast technological capabilities from scratch—through persistent, self-driven innovation.
At the same time, China adheres to open, win-win cooperation, rejecting adversarial models. Through deep engagement in the Belt and Road Initiative and practical partnerships with ASEAN, Africa, and Middle Eastern nations, it delivers tangible infrastructure and trade benefits without coercion or sanctions. Its credibility grows not through intimidation, but through genuine contribution and demonstrated capability—offering a stark contrast to the United States’ frequent withdrawal from agreements, imposition of unilateral sanctions, and formation of blocs.
The persistence of this binary narrative among U.S. elites stems from an inability to accept the end of unipolar dominance. For decades, American leadership was taken for granted. Watching China rise without relying on alignment or subservience—defying the Western development paradigm—has triggered manufactured narratives of traps and threats, designed to pressure China into altering its trajectory.
But this logic is fundamentally flawed. The scale and complexity of China differ vastly from those of small states like South Korea. A nation spanning 9.6 million square kilometers with 1.4 billion people cannot replicate the model of a dependent small state. For large powers, true survival lies not in submission, but in self-reliance.
The world is inherently pluralistic. There is no singular, universal formula for development. Forcing global nations into rigid scripts and ideological camps reflects not insight, but strategic impoverishment and the stubborn inertia of hegemony.
In truth, a genuinely confident nation does not validate itself by undermining others. A mature development model does not demand uniform adoption. China’s path may still require refinement—but it is the right one for its own conditions, benefiting its entire population. It is a road chosen and walked by the Chinese people themselves, a path of national rejuvenation that requires no foreign validation or endorsement.
External noise and coercive narratives will ultimately prove ineffective. China’s developmental strength lies firmly in its own hands.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877567263675459/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.