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

美国人的“强迫劳动”,与中国人理解的不同

“强迫劳动”,是一个劳动法概念,还是一种国际贸易规则? 作者:毕研韬  发表时间:2026年7月2日 近年来,美国以“强迫劳动(Forced Labor)”为依据,对部分进口商品实施限制,尤其是在新疆相关产品问题上,引发了广泛关注。 事实上,同样是“强迫劳动”四个字,美国政策中的含义,与中国人的理解并不一致。 在美国,“强迫劳动”不只是劳动法概念,而是嵌入贸易、人权、供应链治理乃至外交政策之中的法律工具。 理解这一概念,需要区分法律定义、政策实践以及国际争议三个层面。 一、美国法律中的“强迫劳动”是什么? 美国法律关于“强迫劳动”的定义主要来源于国际劳工组织《1930年强迫劳动公约》(第29号公约),并被写入美国《1930年关税法》第307条(19 U.S.C. §1307)。...

在美国,发表什么文章会进入“外国影响”监管视野?

近年来,美国围绕“外国影响”(Foreign Influence)的监管持续加强,高校、智库、媒体、游说机构等都成为美国政府重点关注的领域。与此同时,一个很多中国人并不熟悉的问题也逐渐进入公众视野: 在美国,发表一篇文章也可能进入“外国影响”监管视野。 作者:毕研韬  发表时间:2026年7月1日 看到这里,很多人的第一反应可能是:“美国不是强调言论自由吗?为什么发一篇文章也会受到监管?” 实际上,这里的关键并不是文章本身,而是文章背后的关系、目的和身份。 一、美国关注的,不只是文章内容 美国宪法第一修正案保护言论自由。正常发表学术论文、新闻评论、时事分析或个人观点,一般不会因为观点本身而受到《外国代理人登记法》(FARA)的监管。 但是,如果一篇文章同时具有以下特征,就可能进入美国政府的关注范围: 文章是受外国政府、外国政党或外国机构委托撰写;发表目的是影响美国公众、国会议员或政府部门对某项政策的看法;作者与外国主体之间存在代理、指挥、控制或资助关系,而这些关系没有依法披露。 在这种情况下,美国政府关注的重点就不再是文章表达了什么观点,而是作者是否实际上代表外国主体在美国开展影响活动,以及这种关系是否应当依法登记和公开。...

美国涉藏政策新变化:国际传播进入法律框架

2024年7月12日,美国《促进解决西藏-中国争端法》(Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act)正式生效,引发国际社会的广泛关注。 作者:毕研韬  发表时间:2026年6月28日 从国际传播角度观察,这部法律有一个值得关注的变化:涉藏历史叙事和公共信息开始纳入美国法律政策框架。 这一变化虽然并未立即带来大规模政策调整,却反映出美国涉藏政策关注重点的进一步延伸。...

2025年美国涉藏重要政策文件:法案、报告与听证会

近年来,美国围绕西藏议题逐步形成由法律、年度报告、政策声明和国会监督共同构成的政策体系。与2024年《促进解决西藏—中国争端法》(Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act)生效后的立法高潮相比,2025年并未出台新的重大涉藏法律,但美国政府和国会继续通过年度报告、政策建议和监督机制推动相关政策落实,体现出涉藏政策的连续性和制度化特点。本文依据公开资料,对2025年的重要涉藏政策文件进行简要梳理。 一、美国国会暨行政当局中国委员会(CECC)《2025年度报告》 2025年12月,CECC发布《2025年度报告》,继续设立西藏专章,对过去一年西藏相关情况进行梳理,并向美国国会和行政部门提出政策建议。报告围绕宗教活动、文化保护、语言教育、生态环境以及相关法律政策等议题进行了总结,同时建议美国政府继续落实《2020年西藏政策与支持法》和《促进解决西藏—中国争端法》等既有法律。 与往年相比,2025年度报告延续了近年来的基本框架,没有出现重大调整,但继续将西藏作为CECC年度报告的独立章节,反映美国国会对华政策持续关注西藏议题。 二、美国国务院持续落实既有涉藏法律...