[Andrew Sheng] US-China ideological clashes

Andrew Sheng US-China ideological clashes A major debate has emerged among international strategists regarding the nature of the growing competition between the United States and China, with deep philosophical differences shaping the trajectory of their rivalry. Central to this discussion is the question of which system, Western liberal realism or Chinese strategic pragmatism, will ultimately define the future of global governance and security. According to recent analysis published in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-led global order is grounded in a long-standing strategic tradition that emphasizes maintaining American supremacy to ensure stability, protect democratic values, and sustain economic and military superiority. This perspective, often referred to as "liberal realism," holds that any challenge to American influence is inherently revisionist, threatening the established norms that have governed international relations for decades. Key figures in this discourse include Paul Scharre, a prominent defense analyst, who argues that emerging technologies such as drones, artificial intelligence, and robotics are fundamentally altering the balance of power. These innovations not only undermine traditional American strengths in air and naval dominance but also empower non-Western states, such as Iran, to wage asymmetrical warfare that diminishes U.S. influence. Similarly, former Pacific Command Admiral Dennis Blair asserts that China's military expansion is not aimed at self-defense but rather at reshaping the geopolitical landscape of East Asia. He advocates for a robust deterrence strategy based on U.S. alliances, forward military presence, and technological innovation to safeguard regional stability. In contrast, scholars such as Michael Beckley and Hal Brands draw upon classical geopolitical theories to frame the U.S.-China rivalry as a continuation of an enduring struggle between maritime powers and land-based challengers. They reference Halford Mackinder’s concept of the "heartland", a central area of land control, and Nicholas Spykman’s "rimland" theory, which describes the strategic importance of coastal regions. According to these academics, the current contest reflects a broader historical pattern in which dominant maritime powers resist the ambitions of land-based revisionists. They further suggest that the so-called "autocratic axis", comprising countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, is driven more by opposition to U.S. dominance than by ideological alignment, while the "democratic coalition" is internally divided due to conflicting national interests and divergent approaches to engaging with Beijing. Chinese strategic thinking, meanwhile, is rooted in ancient texts such as The Art of War by Sunzi, alongside modern statecraft principles. This framework views the current rivalry as part of a larger historical cycle, wherein the West has dominated global affairs for five centuries, and China seeks to restore equilibrium by challenging that dominance. Chinese analysts argue that the existing international order is biased toward preserving Western hegemony, with mechanisms such as tariffs, sanctions, and narratives used to suppress the development of non-Western nations. From this perspective, the U.S. and its allies control critical chokepoints in trade, technology, and financial systems, effectively encircling land-based powers in the heartlands of Asia. The most profound difference between the two sides lies in their definitions of success and conflict. While many Western strategists adopt a zero-sum mindset, viewing the outcome as either U.S. dominance or the imposition of an authoritarian model in the region, Chinese statecraft embraces a more nuanced, systemic approach. It prioritizes achieving objectives without direct confrontation, leveraging perception management, and balancing power through a combination of soft and hard means. This philosophy, influenced by centuries of Chinese thought, acknowledges the complexity of global interactions and the role of unpredictable factors such as natural disasters and unforeseen events. This ongoing intellectual battle underscores the depth of the ideological divide between the two superpowers, with implications extending far beyond military and economic spheres into the very foundations of global governance. As both sides continue to refine their strategies, the evolving nature of their rivalry will likely shape the course of international relations for years to come.