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

同济大学部分教职工致校长杨金龙的公开信

2026年7月31日,同济大学发布《关于开展2026年度全校专业技术职务评聘及考核续聘工作的通知》,明确全校专业技术岗位取消长期(终身)聘任协议,全面实行周期性考核,其中预聘岗每3年考核一次;长聘岗每6年一次大考,中间每3年中期评估;考核不合格者可能面临降薪、转岗甚至解聘。 改革旨在打破“铁饭碗”、激发教师活力,但对一线教师(尤其是青年教师和基础研究领域)压力较大。随后,网络流传一封“同济大学全体关切公平的教职工”致校长杨金龙的公开信。 公开信质疑规则“双标”:普通教师6年“非升即走”,而校长本人从副职到正职用了约7年多;一线教师承压重,而管理层(双肩挑领导)考核标准较宽松、科研工作量较低。公开信呼吁改革应自上而下、一视同仁,而非只针对基层教师。 这封匿名信在8月上旬迅速传播,引发广泛讨论。公开信没有标注发布时间和签署人具体姓名。公开信全文如下: 尊敬的杨金龙校长: 您好!作为同济大家庭的一员,我们始终敬佩您学术顶尖、履历耀眼——中科院院士、理论与计算化学领域权威,从中国科大副校长到同济校长,肩负百年名校发展重任,我们对您满怀敬重与期待。 此次学校推行人事制度改革,出台《关于开展2026年度全校专业技术职务评聘及考核续聘工作的通知》,取消长期聘任、实行全员周期考核:预聘岗3年一考,长聘岗6年一大考、3年中期评估,不合格者降薪、转岗乃至解聘。改革初衷是打破“铁饭碗”、激发活力,我们认同“不进则退”的发展逻辑,但对规则不公、标准双轨的选择性改革,深感困惑与不解,特此致信坦诚交流。 一、规则制定者,更应敬畏规则公平 您2018年4月出任中国科大副校长,2025年6月接任同济校长,从副职到正职,历时七年零两个月。而学校现行规则,要求普通教师六年聘期、非升即走——六年内未晋升,便面临解聘。我们不禁想问:您以顶尖学术资历,用七年多完成副职到正职的晋升,凭什么要求普通教师六年必须出成果、必须晋升?您的七年是“干部选拔需看岗位空缺、综合考察”,普通教师的六年却是“不晋升就滚蛋”,同一套制度,两种评判逻辑,公平何在? 二、一线教师承压最重,管理层却享豁免特权 此次改革名义“全员覆盖”,实际压力全压在一线教师身上:青年教师:非升即走,3年一考核,科研、教学双重高压,不敢有丝毫松懈;中年教授:6年大考、3年中期评估,基础研究需十年磨一剑,却容不得半点沉淀;双肩挑校领导:手握院士头衔、坐拥最优平台经费团队,科研工作量仅为普通教授的四分之一,考核标准形同虚设。科员升不上科长可继续任职,副校长七年等岗位空缺属正常,而普通教师六年不晋升就失业。制度的困难,从来不是同一套困难;规则的约束,从未平等覆盖所有人。 三、反对的不是改革,是选择性改革...

美国签证:扩大社交媒体审查,引发新争议

近日,美国扩大对外国签证申请人社交媒体账号审查范围的消息引发关注。 作者:毕研韬  发表:2026年8月8日 根据美国国务院相关安排,部分外国签证申请人在申请赴美签证时,可能需要接受更严格的网络背景审查,包括对其公开社交媒体账号、网络身份和公开发表内容进行评估。 美国认为,社交媒体审查可以帮助签证官更全面了解申请人的背景,识别可能涉及虚假身份、非法活动、暴力风险或其他国家安全隐患的信息。 在数字平台已经成为信息传播、社会动员和国际影响活动重要空间的背景下,政府希望通过增加信息来源,提高签证审查能力。 然而,这一政策也引发新的争议:如何区分真实安全风险与正常观点差异?数字足迹是否会成为影响一个人国际交流机会的长期标签?如果其它国家跟进效仿,这将如何影响全球社交媒体生态?这些问题正在成为数字时代国际传播和全球治理中的新议题。 一、美国为何扩大签证社交媒体审查? 从美国政府角度看,加强签证审查具有现实安全背景。 近年来,网络空间已经成为国家安全竞争的重要领域。外国影响行动、虚假信息传播、网络操纵以及极端主义活动,都可能通过数字平台跨越国界传播。传统的身份审查方式,越来越难以全面了解申请人的背景。 因此,美国认为,通过公开社交媒体信息了解申请人的网络活动,可以作为传统安全审查的补充。 据公开报道,美国此次扩大社交媒体审查,主要涉及部分需要进一步安全评估的外国签证申请人,包括学生签证(F类)、交流访问签证(J类)、部分工作类签证(如H类)以及其他相关非移民签证类别。...

日本2026年防卫白皮书:涉华新信号

日本2026年《防卫白皮书》近日发布,释放出一个值得关注的对华信号:日本对华安全认知仍在强化,但在涉及台湾问题的表述上出现了微妙调整。 作者:毕研韬  发布:2026年8月6日 过去几年,日本防卫文件不断强化“台海安全与日本安全之间的关联”。然而,2026年版本删掉了“台海局势攸关日本安保”这一表述,转而强调“台海和平稳定对国际社会稳定的重要性”。 这一删改并不意味着日本降低对台海的关注。相反,它反映出日本正在形成一种新的战略平衡:安全准备继续推进,政治表述适度降调。 这是2026年防卫白皮书释放的重要对华信号。 一、删除“日本安保关联”:日本为何调整台湾表述? 近年来,日本安全政策中一个明显趋势,是将台湾问题逐渐纳入自身安全框架。 特别是安倍晋三提出“台湾有事就是日本有事”的政治判断后,日本国内部分政治人物和安全研究者不断强调:如果台海发生重大危机,日本难以完全置身事外。 这一逻辑主要基于三个因素: 第一,地理因素。台湾位于日本西南方向,日本最西端的与那国岛距离台湾约110公里。日本认为,台海军事冲突可能影响冲绳、西南诸岛以及日本周边海空安全。 第二,美日同盟因素。美国在日本拥有重要军事基地。如果美国介入台海,日本是否提供基地、后勤和其他支持,将成为现实政策问题。...

王爱琳案件:给海外华人的警示

在地缘博弈加剧背景下,跨国背景意味着更高的社会责任与政治风险。 作者:毕研韬  发布:2026年8月6日 王爱琳(Eileen Wang)是美国加州阿卡迪亚市华裔政治人物,曾担任该市市议员和市长,并参与华人社区活动以及华文媒体运营。 2026年5月11日,美国司法部门指控她涉嫌未依法披露与外国政府有关的活动,并涉及外国代理问题。王爱琳已同意认罪协议,如罪名成立,最高面临十年监禁。 目前案件仍处于司法程序之中,最终结果有待法院裁定。 无论案件最终如何了结,它已经引发了一个更广泛的问题:在中美战略博弈加剧背景下,海外华人参与政治事务、社区活动和媒体传播,正在面临怎样的新风险? 一、海外华人参与政治面临新风险 从历史看,海外华人的发展过程是不断融入当地社会的过程。 过去,许多华人主要关注经济发展、教育提升和社区建设。随着社会地位提高,越来越多华人开始参与地方政治,进入公共事务领域。 这种参与本身,是民主社会多元化的重要体现。任何社会群体都有权通过合法方式表达诉求,参与公共治理。...