Home 亚洲 Does China Really See America as Declining?——A Discussion with The New York Times
亚洲北美

Does China Really See America as Declining?——A Discussion with The New York Times

Share

Abstract: This article examines and challenges the implicit assumption in a recent The New York Times commentary that China has formed a unified perception of the United States as a declining power. It argues that Chinese views of America are far more diverse and internally contested than many external narratives suggest. While some Chinese scholars, commentators, and policy elites believe the United States is experiencing structural decline, others continue to view America as possessing enduring strengths in innovation, finance, institutional resilience, and global influence. The article further contends that both China and the United States are increasingly vulnerable to “cognitive simplification” — the tendency to reduce complex societies into singular strategic identities. It concludes that such simplification may itself become a strategic risk in contemporary international relations, narrowing the space for mutual understanding and increasing the potential for miscalculation.

Key Words: American Decline Debate, Cognitive Simplification, international communication, Strategic Perception, US-China Relations

By BI Yantao

May 12, 2026

Recently, The New York Times published an opinion article titled Trump Is Coming to a China That Has Moved On, which implicitly advances an important proposition: that China increasingly views the United States as a “declining power.”

This observation is not entirely unfounded.

Over the past decade, narratives about “American decline” have become increasingly common in Chinese online discourse, parts of academia, and strategic studies circles. Especially after the global financial crisis, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, rising political polarization, mounting debt, and the “Trump phenomenon,” arguments about a “crisis of the American system” have gained broader traction in China. The phrase “the East is rising while the West is declining” has become one of the most recognizable expressions of this sentiment. Yet such views do not mean that China has reached a unified internal consensus about America’s future.

To conclude from this, however, that “China has formed a unified perception of American decline” risks oversimplifying the country’s far more complex and internally diverse cognitive landscape. The issue is not merely whether the United States is declining, but who gets to define how “China” sees America.

“China Thinks” Is Not a Simple Proposition

When discussing China, Western media often unconsciously employ what might be called a “single-subject narrative”, such as “China believes,” “Beijing thinks,” “China sees the United States as,” “China is preparing for”.

Such formulations are common in journalism, but they often obscure an important reality: China is not a cognitively homogeneous community. Particularly regarding perceptions of the United States, substantial differences have long existed within China.

One school of thought argues that the United States is entering a phase of structural decline.

Those who hold this view typically emphasize intensifying political polarization, growing social fragmentation, deindustrialization, unsustainable fiscal deficits and debt, declining global governance capacity, the rising costs of alliance maintenance, challenges to dollar hegemony, and the weakening appeal of liberal Western narratives.

In their view, America’s problem is not imminent collapse, but the increasing cost of sustaining global hegemony. This assessment aligns in many ways with the logic of “hegemonic decline” in international relations theory.

China Also Has a Strong “America Remains Powerful” Camp

At the same time, another markedly different perspective has long existed within China.

A number of strategic analysts, business leaders, and intellectuals do not accept the conclusion that the United States is undergoing irreversible decline.

They argue that despite America’s serious internal problems, its deep structural advantages remain extraordinarily strong, including the world’s leading innovation ecosystem, elite universities and research networks, dominance of the dollar and global financial system, a powerful alliance structure, the ability to attract top global talent, advantages in AI, semiconductors, biotechnology, and other frontier sectors, and strong institutional self-correction mechanisms.

From this perspective, the United States is experiencing a cyclical adjustment rather than a civilizational decline.

This group is particularly wary of one strategic danger: mistaking America’s temporary disorder for irreversible long-term decline.

Historically, the United States has repeatedly been predicted to decline — during the rise of Japan in the 1970s, after the Vietnam War, and following the 2008 financial crisis. Yet each time, the United States demonstrated a significant capacity for reorganization and adaptation.

For these observers in China, the most important thing about America is not its problems, but its resilience.

China and the United States Are Both Misreading Each Other

What deserves greater attention is that China has not formed a unified “American decline consensus,” just as the United States has not formed a unified “China rise consensus.”

In recent years, the American strategic community has also displayed deep divisions:

some believe China is steadily rising; others argue that China has already peaked; some foresee long-term economic stagnation in China; others still view China as possessing enduring systemic competitiveness.

In other words, both China and the United States are attempting to interpret each other while failing to reach stable internal consensus themselves.

This suggests that one of the greatest risks today may not be confrontation itself, but cognitive simplification — and the media play a major role in this process.

When a complex, multilayered China with substantial internal disagreements is compressed into a singular strategic actor, the outside world is more likely to develop the illusion that “China unanimously believes America is declining.”

Reality is far more complicated.

The “American Decline” Narrative May Itself Become a Strategic Risk

Historically, one of the most dangerous moments in international politics occurs when one major power believes another is declining while that power still retains enormous capabilities.

A “declining power” is not necessarily a safer power. In some cases, it may become more sensitive, more reactive, and more determined to defend the existing order. Similar cognitive structures appeared historically between Germany and Britain, and between Japan and the United States.

This is partly why the phrase “declining but dangerous” has become increasingly common in American strategic discourse.

In fact, many within China’s strategic community hold a similar view. They argue that the real question is not whether America is declining, but whether it is willing to accept relative decline.

Therefore, the most important issue today may not be whether America is declining, but whether China and the United States are developing increasingly rigid and deterministic perceptions of each other.

Once such judgments become ideological, emotionalized, and heavily mediated, the space for genuine mutual understanding may continue to shrink.

Cognitive Complexity Matters More Than Emotional Judgment

The New York Times article captures certain real emotional and cognitive shifts within Chinese society. But its problem lies in the impression it may leave on outside audiences: that China has already formed a unified, stable, and definitive consensus regarding American decline.

In reality, Chinese perceptions of the United States are far more diverse than many outsiders assume.

Some believe America is declining. Some believe it remains the world’s strongest country. Others believe America is both declining and still dangerous. These differences themselves demonstrate that China is not a single-track cognitive community.

In international communication, an increasingly important question is this: Are we trying to understand the real “other,” or are we continuously constructing a simplified image of the other? 

That question may ultimately matter more than whether America is declining.

BI Yantao is Professor at the School of International Communication and Arts, Hainan University, China and Senior Research Fellow at the Charhar Institute. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the positions of affiliated institutions.

Related Articles

海南大学研究生复试风波:五个月了,至今未公布处理结果

投稿人:顾明川  发布时间:2026年9月10日 2026年4月,海南大学国际传播与艺术学院研究生调剂复试工作发生重大失误。12名考生收到并确认复试通知后,学院临时取消了复试资格。对此,海南省教育厅回应称,确实是学校方面的原因。 据传,事件发生后,海南省委书记曾做出批示,教育部予以关注,海南省教育厅进行了调查。上述情况目前尚未见有关方面公开确认,但如果相关信息属实,那么公众更加有理由追问:为什么五个月过去了,至今仍然没有看到调查和处理结果? 12名考生最终能够恢复复试资格,只能说明考生眼前的问题得到了初步解决,并不意味着招生事件本身已经处理完毕。 有关方面至少应该回答几个基本问题:究竟发生了什么?问题出在哪里?责任如何认定?有关人员是否需要承担责任?学校采取了什么整改措施?如何避免类似问题再次发生? 这些问题长期没有公开答案,损害的已经不只是当事考生的权益。它首先损害的是高校自身的形象和公信力。 研究生招生是高校最重要、最敏感的工作之一,直接关系考生的学习机会和职业发展。考生和家长选择一所大学,不只是看学校排名、专业实力和就业前景,也判断这所学校是否公平、规范、可靠,是否值得信任。 如果面对一次已经造成实际影响的招生事件,学校迟迟没有公开责任认定和处理结果,公众难免会产生疑问:学校究竟如何看待这次事件?是否进行了反思?是否建立了防止类似问题发生的机制? 高校的声誉,不仅建立在取得了多少成绩之上,也建立在发生问题之后如何面对问题。 更值得警惕的是,如果相关部门已经介入,而事件长期没有公开结果,其负面影响可能进一步扩大。 教育主管部门承担着维护教育公平、规范招生秩序的重要职责。对于研究生招生这样的重大事项,如果出现问题之后长期没有公开处理结论,容易使考生和社会产生一种不良感受:面对高校招生中的问题,究竟有没有一个明确、有效的监督和问责机制?...

依赖外国网红:中国国际传播的一个陷阱

中国真正需要的不是在“记者”和“网红”之间二选一,而是建立一个更加开放、多元的国际传播生态。 作者:毕研韬  发布:2026年9月7日 近期,《纽约时报》前驻华记者王月眉(Vivian Wang)接受“不明白播客”主持人袁莉采访的内容,引起了关注。 在采访中,王月眉提出了一个判断:中国似乎越来越不需要外国记者,而希望通过外国网红、视频博主让世界“看见中国”。 这种变化意味着中国国际传播能力的提升,还是中国越来越难以被外部社会完整理解? 一、外国网红正在成为中国国际传播的新入口 外国网红传播有一个传统媒体很难比拟的优势:它更像朋友推荐。 一个外国人说“我来到中国以后发现高铁这么方便”,这种第一人称叙事降低了传播的距离感,也绕开了传统国际新闻长期存在的政治框架。 问题在于:网红能够替代记者吗?答案是:不能,至少不能完全替代。 二、记者和网红看到的是两个不同的中国...

“认知福祉”:一个中国学者陌生的重要概念

近年来,Epistemic Welfare(认知福祉)概念进入西方学术讨论,用于讨论政府与社会是否有责任为人们建构可靠认知而创造必要条件? 作者:毕研韬  发布时间:2026年9月6日 一、从“信息获得”到“认知福祉” “认知福祉”并不是通常意义上的心理幸福,也不是简单地让人获得更多信息。 2023年,法律学者Klaudia Majcher从权利角度提出epistemic welfare。此后,Aaron Hyzen、Van den Bulck、Manuel...

被星宇解约的年轻人:瞄准企业软肋,开启新式维权

2026年夏天,常州星宇车灯股份有限公司把自己和107名刚刚走出校园的年轻人推上了舆论场。 作者:毕研韬  发布:2026年8月29日 星宇股份2026年招录了440名高校毕业生。入职一个多月后,公司集中约谈部分员工。据多名毕业生反映,他们被要求在主动离职和调往生产一线之间做出选择,最终107人与公司解除劳动合同。 8月25日,常州市人力资源和社会保障部门发布调查通报,确认了107人解除劳动合同的事实,并指出企业在协商过程中“方法简单生硬,缺乏充分有效沟通”,对公司人力资源总监做出停职处理。8月27日,星宇股份公开致歉,公布了包括求职生活补贴、住宿和进一步补偿在内的补救方案。 事情本来可以止步于此:企业道歉,员工维权,地方部门介入,舆论批评,但事情没有这么简单。 真正值得关注的是,这些年轻人把维权的目光投向了境外。 一、年轻人失去的,不只是一个岗位 对应届毕业生来说,被解约意味着什么? 不是简单地“重新找工作”。 他们刚刚步入社会,职业规划、求职节奏和人生安排都建立在这份工作之上。 更重要的是,应届毕业生身份具有特殊的就业价值。...