Failures of ‘China First’ and ‘America First’

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States became the leader of the so-called Free World. It was the most powerful superpower during this period. It used this power to become the architect and guarantor of the new international order.

All this changed when Donald Trump became president and adopted the policy of America First. The United States abandoned this responsibility for sustaining the international system that it built. The United States has abandoned global leadership and Trump has even challenged the democratic norms America once fostered.

At this point in time, the world is waiting to see whether Beijing will lead the way to a new international order. Beijing has been trying to present itself as the champion of the developing world and as the international guardian of what it calls a more “just and equitable” new international order.

Geopolitical strategists, however, are beginning to suggest that actually, recent actions by Beijing show that it is not trying to take over the responsibilities of the United States as a global leader.

Patricia King of the Center for Asia Policy Studies writes: “China has shown little interest in assuming responsibility for a rival order or even a tightly organized coalition. Beijing instead seeks global reach without entanglement, partnerships without binding obligations and great power status without the burdens of leadership.”

It seems that Beijing acts decisively when its core interests are at stake, like in the South China Sea. However, it seems that Beijing does not want to get involved in managing regional and global crises unless its direct interests are at stake. This is a “China First” strategy which means prioritizing its narrow interests while disclaiming global responsibilities.

This is very similar to the “America First” policy of the Trump administration.

There are two clear examples of this. Beijing has avoided direct involvement with the war in Ukraine and the ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. It has avoided the behavior of its two allies, Russia and Iran, and has not taken any effort to bring this global conflict to an end.

This “China First” strategy works to Beijing’s advantage in the short term. However, by minimizing its exposure to crises rather than managing them, Beijing is actually perpetuating global instability that eventually will threaten its own interests. It seems that this preference for flexibility rather than formal alliances is based on the belief that so-called hostile powers will rally together to constrain China’s sovereignty and development. This has happened to China in the past.

At the beginning of the Cold War in the 1950s, Chinese leader Mao Zedong sought to prevent being isolated by forging alliance with the Soviet Union. However, this alliance drew China into the Korean War and resulted in huge human and economic losses for China. Furthermore, the United States, which was fighting on the Korean Peninsula, decided to deploy the Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait and sign a Mutual Defense Pact with Taiwan.

Taiwan therefore eluded Beijing’s control and was able to maintain its independence.

Since then, China’s leaders have avoided military conflicts abroad, relying instead on economic and diplomatic tools to expand its influence.

However, China’s expanding economic influence has led to friction with other countries. Moreover, China has begun to assert itself along its borders, like in the South China Sea.

The result is that China is now seen as an important economic power but is not seen as a potential security partner nor a credible leader for a peaceful global order.

Recent crises in the Middle East and Latin America have shown Beijing’s inability to protect its overseas interests. This recent development might cause China to change its course.

The present international order with a weakened America and a China acting solely for its own interests will probably lead to an international system without any leadership. This could be an era where great powers are not interested in sustaining international order but only their own country’s interests. Even the strongest countries in the world right now like the United States and China see transactional relationships as the best way to advance national interests.

Even in the United States, some national leaders have argued that retrenching from global engagement, scaling back in commitments to allies and partners and putting “America First” will ultimately serve America’s interest.

A foreign policy built around transactional ties and narrowly defined national priorities like the ones pursued by Trump and Xi Jinping may appear attractive in the short term but will eventually lead to a more fragmented and disorderly world.

Perhaps the answer lies in a genuine international system led by countries outside the superpowers that will act together and become the new balance of power. This means that the United Nations must be reformed to give countries outside the superpowers greater voice and authority. This reform of the United Nations should include reorganizing the Security Council and eliminating the veto power of an extremely small group of five countries.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]