US unipolarity vs China's multipolarity: Whose vision will shape the new global order?
Cold War II is transforming the global system, with two competing visions: The US wants to revive colonialism and spheres of influence. China wants a multipolar order of sovereignty and cooperation.
The United States is waging a new cold war against China. This has been openly admitted in Washington for several years.
The First and Second Cold Wars are different in some significant ways. The ideological split is not exactly the same.
The United States is capitalist and constitutes the heart of the capitalist world-system, whereas China is socialist. However, the People’s Republic of China is not the Soviet Union; it does not lead a socialist bloc of countries, and Beijing has been clear that it does not seek to “export” revolution.
“We will not import other countries’ models, and will not export the China model”, President Xi Jinping asserted in 2017 — although he added, “We will provide more opportunities for the world through our development”.
With that established, it should be stressed that just because China is very different from the USSR does not mean that there is no ideological aspect of Cold War Two.
There are unambiguous ideological differences between the US and China, and each promotes a very different vision of international relations.
The Second Cold War, therefore, will still have an enormous impact on the new global order that is being shaped.
In short, the political model that Washington seeks to impose on the world is the exact opposite of the political model being advocated by Beijing.
The Donald Trump administration wants to return to the politics of the colonial era of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when Western empires carved up the world and treated other regions as their imperial “spheres of influence”, denying sovereignty to Global South countries.
In stark contrast, China — which was a victim of colonialism in the Century of Humiliation — opposes Western hegemony, and wants to lift up the Global South as the protagonist of a more equitable international order.
Beijing advocates for a multipolar system in which all countries, regardless of size, have a voice on the international stage and equal representation in multilateral institutions.
Beijing considers sovereignty to be a sacred principle that must be respected and guaranteed, in a firmly established system of international law that every country must abide by, whether or not it is a great power or a small nation.
Two speeches at one event illustrate the opposing visions of the US and China
These two opposing global visions were clearly articulated at the 2026 Munich Security Conference in February.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered an overtly pro-colonialist speech in which he called to reverse the decolonization of the Global South, revive “the great Western empires”, and “build a new Western century”.
The top US foreign-policy official demonized Global South anti-colonial movements as a nefarious plot by “godless communists”. He also praised the colonization of the Americas by European conquistadores, while whitewashing and denying the genocidal crimes against humanity that they committed against indigenous peoples.
Rubio’s imperialist tirade could not have been any more different from the remarks delivered by China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi.
Wang denounced the “the law of the jungle and unilateralism” of the US, instead calling for a system of “international collaboration” based on “win-win cooperation”.
The top Chinese foreign-policy official declared (emphasis added):
The monopolization of global power by a small number of countries is unpopular. We live in a multipolar world and need to practice true multilateralism.
There needs to be greater democracy in international relations. Global affairs should be discussed by all and the future of the world should be decided by all.
We need to make sure that all countries abide by the same set of rules, i.e., the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. All countries should be equal in terms of rights, opportunities and rules, and all countries, in particular small and medium-sized ones, should be able to find their places and play their roles in international relations.
Compared back to back, these speeches succinctly demonstrate the ideological divisions of Cold War Two.
The multipolar model of international relations that China is promoting is the polar opposite of the unipolar one advocated by the United States.
Beijing defends decolonization and wants a global order based on multipolarity, multilateralism, and peace; while Washington uses military force and wages economic warfare in a desperate attempt to restore a unipolar system in which it can act unilaterally, anywhere on Earth, without consequences.
Washington wants an international system based on the law of the jungle
The extreme imperialist worldview of the US government was articulated by Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, the far-right white nationalist Stephen Miller.
In an interview on CNN in January, Miller defended the Trump administration’s illegal invasion of Venezuela, in which US troops killed more than 100 people and kidnapped internationally recognized President Nicolás Maduro.
Miller argued that the global political order is and should be based on the principle that might makes right. He stated the following in a segment with CNN host Jake Tapper:
STEPHEN MILLER: The United States — this is sort of foundational — the United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere.
We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.
It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our own backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us; to hoard weapons from our adversaries; to be able to be positioned as an asset against the United States, rather than on behalf of the United States.
JAKE TAPPER: Sovereign countries shouldn’t be able to do what they want to do?
STEPHEN MILLER: The Monroe Doctrine and the Trump Doctrine is all about securing the national interest of America.
…
The future of the free world depends on America being able to assert ourselves and our interests without apology.
These are not just the fringe views of one individual. This is the imperialist ideology that is openly promoted by top officials of the US government, including Trump and Marco Rubio.
Rubio’s pro-colonialist speech at the 2026 Munich Security Conference made it clear beyond a doubt that the goal of the US empire is to reverse the decolonization of the latter half of the 20th century and to drag the world back to the colonial era of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
China’s vision of a multipolar world
The model of international relations that China is promoting is that of a multipolar world based on multilateralism, win-win cooperation, and respect for the sovereignty of all countries, including and especially small ones.
The People’s Republic of China is profoundly opposed to imperialism and hegemony, and not only for ideological reasons, but also due to its own history.
During the Century of Humiliation — from the start of the British Empire’s First Opium War in 1839 until the revolution of 1949 — China was partially colonized by numerous Western powers and Japan. The European empires, Japan, and the United States all invaded China, exploited its workers and resources, and even seized control of parts of its territory.
Since its foundation in 1949, the People’s Republic of China has done everything it can to defend its sovereignty and make sure the Century of Humiliation is never repeated.
This history very much informs the policies of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Beijing’s vision for the world was spelled out in the speech given by Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the 2026 Munich Security Conference.
This was the antithesis of the remarks delivered by Rubio.
The following is an excerpt of Wang’s speech (all emphasis added):
Over the past year, the international landscape was marked by growing transformations and turbulence, and the law of the jungle and unilateralism went rampant. Humanity has come to a new crossroads for the cause of peace and development. At such a juncture, President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), and called for following the five principles of sovereign equality, international rule of law, multilateralism, the people-centered approach, and real actions, with a view to jointly building a more just and equitable global governance system. The GGI aligns with the progressive trend of the times, represents the biggest common ground of the world’s nations, and has thus received widespread response from the international community shortly after its announcement. It injects new impetus into the endeavor to build a community with a shared future for humanity, and offers a compass for the giant ship of history to navigate through storms toward a brighter future. Now that humanity has weathered wind and rain to come this far, pulling together should be the imperative choice. We should reform and improve global governance to set the ship of history on the right course.
In reforming and improving global governance, the priority is to revitalize the United Nations system.
The founding of the U.N. was an important outcome of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, a historic choice made by previous generations after painful reflection on past agonies, and the peace endeavor that nations have invested their greatest efforts in thus far. This edifice was jointly built by the people of the world. We have every responsibility to reinforce and renovate it, and no right to destroy it or tear it down.
The U.N. is not perfect, but it remains the most universal and authoritative intergovernmental organization in the world. On the U.N. platform, each country, regardless of its size or wealth, has a voice and a sacred vote as well as its due obligations and equal rights. Without the U.N., the world would revert to the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak, and many small and medium-sized countries would lose the multilateral foundation critical to their survival and development.
Therefore, what is imperative for us today is to recommit to the founding mission of the U.N., revitalize the leading role of the U.N., abide by the purposes of the U.N. Charter, and enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the U.N. system, so that the organization will be able to better adapt to the needs of the 21st century and unleash renewed vitality.
In reforming and improving global governance, the key lies in the collaboration and cooperation of all countries.
The reason why the international system is not functioning well enough lies not with the U.N. itself, but rather with certain country seeking to magnify differences and disagreements, put itself above everyone else, stoke bloc confrontation and even revive the Cold War mentality. All these have eroded the foundation of trust, worsened the atmosphere for cooperation, and impeded the functioning of international institutions.
To safeguard international collaboration and cooperation, it is important to seek common ground while shelving differences and pursue win-win cooperation. The world is a diverse place. It is only natural that countries differ in social system, history, culture, interests and demand. And it is precisely the differences that necessitate dialogue and cooperation. There is no reason why countries cannot respect each other and contribute to each other’s success. Just like the way gentlemen engage with one another, there could be harmony without uniformity.
A review of history shows, from the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, to overcoming the global financial crisis, from the climate response to fighting terrorism, none of such progress would have been possible without countries coming together for sincere cooperation despite their differences. Let us always bear in mind that unity brings strength, and only in unity can we find hope.
In reforming and improving global governance, multilateralism should be always upheld.
The monopolization of global power by a small number of countries is unpopular. We live in a multipolar world and need to practice true multilateralism. There needs to be greater democracy in international relations, global affairs should be discussed by all and the future of the world should be decided by all.
We need to make sure that all countries abide by the same set of rules, i.e., the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter. All countries should be equal in terms of rights, opportunities and rules, and all countries, in particular small and medium-sized ones, should be able to find their places and play their roles in international relations.
To practice multilateralism, major countries in particular should lead by example. They should take the lead in pursuing cooperation, instead of conflict or confrontation. They should take the lead in observing rules, instead of applying double standards. They should take the lead in promoting equality, instead of imposing their will onto others. They should take the lead in encouraging openness, instead of resorting to self-serving unilateralism.
The Global South is rising collectively. The global governance system should also stay up-to-date to give more prominence to their voices and representation. Time will prove that the more democratic international relations are, the more peaceful the world is; the stronger multilateralism gets, the more effective global governance becomes.
However, the People’s Republic of China is not the Soviet Union; it does not lead a socialist bloc of countries, and Beijing has been clear that it does not seek to “export” revolution.
“We will not import other countries’ models, and will not export the China model”, President Xi Jinping asserted in 2017 — although he added, “We will provide more opportunities for the world through our development”.
With that established, it should be stressed that just because China is very different from the USSR does not mean that there is no ideological aspect of Cold War Two.
There are unambiguous ideological differences between the US and China, and each promotes a very different vision of international relations.
The Second Cold War, therefore, will still have an enormous impact on the new global order that is being shaped.
In short, the political model that Washington seeks to impose on the world is the exact opposite of the political model being advocated by Beijing.
The Donald Trump administration wants to return to the politics of the colonial era of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when Western empires carved up the world and treated other regions as their imperial “spheres of influence”, denying sovereignty to Global South countries.
In stark contrast, China — which was a victim of colonialism in the Century of Humiliation — opposes Western hegemony, and wants to lift up the Global South as the protagonist of a more equitable international order.
Beijing advocates for a multipolar system in which all countries, regardless of size, have a voice on the international stage and equal representation in multilateral institutions.
Beijing considers sovereignty to be a sacred principle that must be respected and guaranteed, in a firmly established system of international law that every country must abide by, whether or not it is a great power or a small nation.
Two speeches at one event illustrate the opposing visions of the US and China
These two opposing global visions were clearly articulated at the 2026 Munich Security Conference in February.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered an overtly pro-colonialist speech in which he called to reverse the decolonization of the Global South, revive “the great Western empires”, and “build a new Western century”.
The top US foreign-policy official demonized Global South anti-colonial movements as a nefarious plot by “godless communists”. He also praised the colonization of the Americas by European conquistadores, while whitewashing and denying the genocidal crimes against humanity that they committed against indigenous peoples.
Rubio’s imperialist tirade could not have been any more different from the remarks delivered by China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi.
Wang denounced the “the law of the jungle and unilateralism” of the US, instead calling for a system of “international collaboration” based on “win-win cooperation”.
The top Chinese foreign-policy official declared (emphasis added):
The monopolization of global power by a small number of countries is unpopular. We live in a multipolar world and need to practice true multilateralism.
There needs to be greater democracy in international relations. Global affairs should be discussed by all and the future of the world should be decided by all.
We need to make sure that all countries abide by the same set of rules, i.e., the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. All countries should be equal in terms of rights, opportunities and rules, and all countries, in particular small and medium-sized ones, should be able to find their places and play their roles in international relations.
Compared back to back, these speeches succinctly demonstrate the ideological divisions of Cold War Two.
The multipolar model of international relations that China is promoting is the polar opposite of the unipolar one advocated by the United States.
Beijing defends decolonization and wants a global order based on multipolarity, multilateralism, and peace; while Washington uses military force and wages economic warfare in a desperate attempt to restore a unipolar system in which it can act unilaterally, anywhere on Earth, without consequences.
Washington wants an international system based on the law of the jungle
The extreme imperialist worldview of the US government was articulated by Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, the far-right white nationalist Stephen Miller.
In an interview on CNN in January, Miller defended the Trump administration’s illegal invasion of Venezuela, in which US troops killed more than 100 people and kidnapped internationally recognized President Nicolás Maduro.
Miller argued that the global political order is and should be based on the principle that might makes right. He stated the following in a segment with CNN host Jake Tapper:
STEPHEN MILLER: The United States — this is sort of foundational — the United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere.
We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.
It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our own backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us; to hoard weapons from our adversaries; to be able to be positioned as an asset against the United States, rather than on behalf of the United States.
JAKE TAPPER: Sovereign countries shouldn’t be able to do what they want to do?
STEPHEN MILLER: The Monroe Doctrine and the Trump Doctrine is all about securing the national interest of America.
…
The future of the free world depends on America being able to assert ourselves and our interests without apology.
These are not just the fringe views of one individual. This is the imperialist ideology that is openly promoted by top officials of the US government, including Trump and Marco Rubio.
Rubio’s pro-colonialist speech at the 2026 Munich Security Conference made it clear beyond a doubt that the goal of the US empire is to reverse the decolonization of the latter half of the 20th century and to drag the world back to the colonial era of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
China’s vision of a multipolar world
The model of international relations that China is promoting is that of a multipolar world based on multilateralism, win-win cooperation, and respect for the sovereignty of all countries, including and especially small ones.
The People’s Republic of China is profoundly opposed to imperialism and hegemony, and not only for ideological reasons, but also due to its own history.
During the Century of Humiliation — from the start of the British Empire’s First Opium War in 1839 until the revolution of 1949 — China was partially colonized by numerous Western powers and Japan. The European empires, Japan, and the United States all invaded China, exploited its workers and resources, and even seized control of parts of its territory.
Since its foundation in 1949, the People’s Republic of China has done everything it can to defend its sovereignty and make sure the Century of Humiliation is never repeated.
This history very much informs the policies of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Beijing’s vision for the world was spelled out in the speech given by Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the 2026 Munich Security Conference.
This was the antithesis of the remarks delivered by Rubio.
The following is an excerpt of Wang’s speech (all emphasis added):
Over the past year, the international landscape was marked by growing transformations and turbulence, and the law of the jungle and unilateralism went rampant. Humanity has come to a new crossroads for the cause of peace and development. At such a juncture, President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), and called for following the five principles of sovereign equality, international rule of law, multilateralism, the people-centered approach, and real actions, with a view to jointly building a more just and equitable global governance system. The GGI aligns with the progressive trend of the times, represents the biggest common ground of the world’s nations, and has thus received widespread response from the international community shortly after its announcement. It injects new impetus into the endeavor to build a community with a shared future for humanity, and offers a compass for the giant ship of history to navigate through storms toward a brighter future. Now that humanity has weathered wind and rain to come this far, pulling together should be the imperative choice. We should reform and improve global governance to set the ship of history on the right course.
In reforming and improving global governance, the priority is to revitalize the United Nations system.
The founding of the U.N. was an important outcome of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, a historic choice made by previous generations after painful reflection on past agonies, and the peace endeavor that nations have invested their greatest efforts in thus far. This edifice was jointly built by the people of the world. We have every responsibility to reinforce and renovate it, and no right to destroy it or tear it down.
The U.N. is not perfect, but it remains the most universal and authoritative intergovernmental organization in the world. On the U.N. platform, each country, regardless of its size or wealth, has a voice and a sacred vote as well as its due obligations and equal rights. Without the U.N., the world would revert to the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak, and many small and medium-sized countries would lose the multilateral foundation critical to their survival and development.
Therefore, what is imperative for us today is to recommit to the founding mission of the U.N., revitalize the leading role of the U.N., abide by the purposes of the U.N. Charter, and enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the U.N. system, so that the organization will be able to better adapt to the needs of the 21st century and unleash renewed vitality.
In reforming and improving global governance, the key lies in the collaboration and cooperation of all countries.
The reason why the international system is not functioning well enough lies not with the U.N. itself, but rather with certain country seeking to magnify differences and disagreements, put itself above everyone else, stoke bloc confrontation and even revive the Cold War mentality. All these have eroded the foundation of trust, worsened the atmosphere for cooperation, and impeded the functioning of international institutions.
To safeguard international collaboration and cooperation, it is important to seek common ground while shelving differences and pursue win-win cooperation. The world is a diverse place. It is only natural that countries differ in social system, history, culture, interests and demand. And it is precisely the differences that necessitate dialogue and cooperation. There is no reason why countries cannot respect each other and contribute to each other’s success. Just like the way gentlemen engage with one another, there could be harmony without uniformity.
A review of history shows, from the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, to overcoming the global financial crisis, from the climate response to fighting terrorism, none of such progress would have been possible without countries coming together for sincere cooperation despite their differences. Let us always bear in mind that unity brings strength, and only in unity can we find hope.
In reforming and improving global governance, multilateralism should be always upheld.
The monopolization of global power by a small number of countries is unpopular. We live in a multipolar world and need to practice true multilateralism. There needs to be greater democracy in international relations, global affairs should be discussed by all and the future of the world should be decided by all.
We need to make sure that all countries abide by the same set of rules, i.e., the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter. All countries should be equal in terms of rights, opportunities and rules, and all countries, in particular small and medium-sized ones, should be able to find their places and play their roles in international relations.
To practice multilateralism, major countries in particular should lead by example. They should take the lead in pursuing cooperation, instead of conflict or confrontation. They should take the lead in observing rules, instead of applying double standards. They should take the lead in promoting equality, instead of imposing their will onto others. They should take the lead in encouraging openness, instead of resorting to self-serving unilateralism.
The Global South is rising collectively. The global governance system should also stay up-to-date to give more prominence to their voices and representation. Time will prove that the more democratic international relations are, the more peaceful the world is; the stronger multilateralism gets, the more effective global governance becomes.
I find this discussion very interesting and thought provoking. I see the US as trapped in a situation as a declining power trapped where it can no longer project its power globally but has enough residual power to do a lot of damage-- which we are seeing now. Its proposed power projections are more and more pretensions. The Trump administration are the delusional die hards sifting through the ashes and will eventually be replaced by administrations willing to face the new world realities-- when and if this essential transition happens is the big big question?? The deep state and the vested interests running the country are so deeply embedded any positive transition may be impossible. As long as the US pursues its present course it is in the long run marginalizing itself as a pariah failed state. Asia's dramatic rise has shown that economic, not military prowess take the measure of the global structures. America's refusal to embrace 21st century realities appears its ultimate downfall. As Chalmers Johnson observed too long ago those US aircraft carriers are still trying to find the Japanese fleet of yore.
replaces class analysis with moral language—“mutual cooperation,” “shared development,” “South–South solidarity.”
But there is no Global South acting as a class. There are only capitalist states, each led by a ruling class pursuing its material interests.
Under capitalism, cooperation among states is impossible in principle. Capital competes, expands, and dominates. Whether it is the West, China, or India, all export capital, seek markets, secure resources, and protect their own bourgeoisie.
China’s relations with Africa and Latin America follow a clear imperialist logic:
capital export and debt-based leverage
infrastructure tied to Chinese firms
extraction of minerals and commodities
reinforcement of dependent, primary-export economies
alliances with comprador bourgeois regimes, not workers
This is unequal exchange, not mutual development.
Different from Western imperialism in style, not in class character.
A genuinely ML speech would openly name:
imperialism
unequal relations
class struggle
China’s own material interests
Instead, this speech offers bourgeois internationalism—state harmony without class struggle.