Is Trump representing the United States ceding its position as the global hegemon? No matter which direction the situation develops in the future, China and world history will always remember this day.
Recently, the United States quietly released the "National Security Strategy" report, causing a stir throughout the Western world. Some media and experts even believe that the release of this report means the United States has officially ceded its global hegemonic position. Is this view reasonable? What does it mean for China?
In fact, whether this report "means the United States is ceding its position as the global hegemon" depends on the observer's perspective.
From within the U.S., liberal school observers indeed believe that the United States has given up its position as the global hegemon. Scholars who hold this view have hope for the United States, which should be the liberal hegemony described by Mearsheimer.
Put simply, the United States is the global hegemon, and all global matters need to be approved by the United States. The United States maintains its hegemonic credibility through its global influence.
However, conservative school observers do not think so. In response to the Trump administration focusing on domestic revival and unwillingness to bear excessive military pressure for allies, these observers are delighted, believing that this is exactly what the United States should do, and also the prerequisite for helping the United States consolidate its hegemonic position.
European media scoff at this, because Europe cannot currently confront Russia alone. If the United States withdraws as planned, Russia will pose a serious challenge to European security. To draw the U.S.' attention, some people proposed that this report indicates the United States is ceding its global hegemonic position.
So what does the security report specifically include?
This report differs from previous ones. The report begins by first emphasizing what "strategy" is, that is, the way and method the United States uses its own resources to pursue its own interests.
The report clearly states that previous U.S. administrations did not fully understand what "U.S. interests" included and what "U.S. goals" should be, leading to using the U.S. country's finances and the taxes paid by U.S. citizens to intervene in global affairs.
Moreover, some of these affairs are core interests of some allied countries, but they have no close relationship with the U.S. It's like the U.S. has been continuously "bloodletting" and doing others' work. The Trump administration believes this national security strategy report is very failure.
Therefore, the entire national security strategy report mainly revolves around one main issue — "America First."
When the U.S. determines whether to intervene in an issue, it needs to define whether it is related to U.S. national interests. If related, it needs to intervene strongly; if not related, it should reduce intervention.
According to the report, the specific priority areas include five aspects: prohibiting uncontrolled large-scale immigration, protecting core rights and freedoms by reducing government intervention, promoting shared responsibility and transfer, actively promoting peace agreements between other countries, and strengthening U.S. economic security.
These five aspects basically outline all the content of the U.S. National Security Strategy report. Here is a detailed analysis:
Prohibiting uncontrolled large-scale immigration. The Trump administration believes that large-scale immigration will lead to domestic resource strain, weakening social cohesion, distortion of labor costs, and risks such as drug proliferation, terrorism, and espionage. Therefore, the U.S. needs to strengthen border control.
Moreover, Trump had previously stated on social media that from now on, the U.S. will prohibit immigrants from developing countries from living in the U.S. Although this may cause a loss of talent, it could help the U.S. address the drug problem.
Reducing government intervention to protect core rights and freedoms. This essentially reiterates the Republican Party's philosophy, reducing interference in citizens' lives, limiting government power, adhering to a small government policy, improving government efficiency, reducing public spending, and spreading this concept among ally countries to a certain extent.
Pushing for shared responsibility and transfer. This mainly refers to the U.S. allies. The report cites the Hague commitment, stating that U.S. allies should use 5% of their GDP to cover defense costs, thus transferring the burden from Americans.
This mainly targets Europe. There have been reports that the U.S. has repeatedly asked Europe to take on more responsibility, and after 2027, the U.S. may completely withdraw from NATO, leaving the entire NATO defense to Europe to manage.
Actively promoting peace agreements between other countries. This reflects Trump's diplomatic approach, essentially a commercial mindset. By using U.S. strength to intimidate and entice, actively intervening in global situations. Through the U.S. pushing for more conflicts to be resolved and signing more peace agreements, expanding U.S. influence and making more money for the U.S.
Strengthening U.S. economic security. The content mainly includes the Trump administration's long-sought balance of trade, not allowing other countries to take advantage of the U.S.; ensuring access to key supply chains and materials, reviving Hamiltonism; re-industrialization; revitalizing the U.S. defense industry; paying more attention to energy and financial fields. Essentially, this enhances the international competitiveness of "Made in America."
Together, these five points outline the following framework:
On the ideological level, the Trump administration aims to quickly revitalize various industries in the U.S., focus on promoting the development of domestic industries, and build a strong U.S.
On the action level, Trump wants to return to the Monroe Doctrine era, ensure absolute influence in the Western Hemisphere, and maintain the U.S.' core position in the global economic system, which is basically sufficient.
If we analyze the ideology and actions according to this, even if the U.S. indeed gives up its global hegemonic position, this is more of a temporary tactic. "Retreating" is to better "advance," and retreating is to make future strikes more powerful.
This point is extremely important for us Chinese to understand the underlying logic of the Trump administration's actions.
Therefore, if the Trump administration's strategic goals can be steadily advanced, then in the future, we may face a much stronger U.S.
For China, in the short term, we need to pay attention to the investment security in Latin America and South America. The ports in Panama Canal, Peru, mineral investments, and infrastructure investments may face some impact. Any business has competitors. Under the background of the U.S. implementing the above policies, once the local government changes its policy, our investments may become cheap for others.
In the long term, we need to pay more attention to the fact that the success of a country's development strategy lies in the alignment of goals and means. Even if the U.S. gradually cedes its global hegemonic position, we cannot blindly fill the power vacuum left by the U.S.' withdrawal.
Because according to historical experience, strategic overextension often marks the beginning of decline for a great power. In the face of such a dramatic change that could shake the global order, we can just develop according to our own pace.
Author｜Lu Zenglin, Master of Strategic and Supply Chain Research, School of Foreign Affairs
Original article：toutiao.com/article/7580921228853035556/
Statement：This article represents the views of the author himself.