Foreign Affairs: China is a status quo power, not a global threat

In a thought-provoking essay by Foreign Affairs, the prevailing U.S. narrative portraying China as an aggressive, expansionist power is rigorously challenged.

The article argues that Washington’s bipartisan consensus—that China aims to displace the United States as the global superpower—is largely a misreading of Beijing’s intentions. Experts from both Democratic and Republican circles, from Elbridge Colby to Rush Doshi, depict China as a long-term revisionist threat, particularly regarding Taiwan. Yet, a close review of Chinese statements, policy white papers, and historical claims paints a different picture: China is primarily a status quo power, focused on internal stability, economic growth, and the defence of core territorial claims, rather than a global hegemon seeking to reshape the international order.

The article emphasises that China’s foreign policy ambitions are deeply historical and ideologically rooted, not reactive to contemporary power dynamics alone. Core territorial concerns—Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang—have been consistent since the Qing dynasty and the early 20th century. The paper highlights that China’s interest in Taiwan is less about semiconductors or strategic advantage and more about historical sovereignty and national narrative. Similarly, while China has expanded its presence in the South and East China Seas, its claims are primarily defensive and historically grounded rather than proof of aggressive expansionism.

According to Foreign Affairs, China’s growing international influence is largely economic and diplomatic, not militaristic. Programs like the Belt and Road Initiative are designed to alleviate domestic industrial overcapacity and cultivate global support for China’s development model—not to impose Chinese governance abroad. Even Xi Jinping’s Global Governance Initiative underscores multilateral cooperation rather than unilateral dominance, explicitly aiming to strengthen existing United Nations frameworks. Chinese leaders’ rhetoric, often misread by Western analysts, emphasises engagement and stability, not displacement of the United States. For instance, phrases such as “the East is rising and the West is declining” are descriptive, reflecting China’s perception of shifting global power balances, rather than prescriptive ambitions for global primacy.

The article critiques Washington’s policy of military-first deterrence, arguing that it risks creating unnecessary tensions. By focusing on warfighting, military deterrence, and economic decoupling, the U.S. may inadvertently provoke China and destabilise East Asia, undermining its long-term security. Instead, the essay advocates a more nuanced approach: recognising China’s genuine core interests, engaging economically and diplomatically, and preserving the status quo on sensitive issues such as Taiwan. Healthy competition in trade, technology, and education is framed as mutually beneficial and less likely to trigger conflict than a militarised posture.

Ultimately, Foreign Affairs urges U.S. policymakers to reassess the lens through which they view China. By distinguishing between Beijing’s actual aims and the exaggerated threat perceived in Washington, the United States can avoid strategic overreach, reduce tension, and engage China in constructive ways. Understanding China as a cautious, internally focused competitor—rather than a revisionist aggressor—is essential for crafting sustainable policies in the 21st century.

By Vugar Khalilov