Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

During his MK sportsrecent visit to Ukraine, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy claimed that the Donald Trump administration's plan to drastically cut the US' international aid budget could be a "big strategic mistake" that allows China to step in and further its global influence. Days before that, EU leaders also signaled that China would be the biggest winner in the transatlantic trade war if Washington made its repeated threats to impose tariffs on EU goods into reality. Canada's Ontario Premier Doug Ford also claimed in December that "the only people that win is China on a disagreement between Canada and the US."

The Trump administration's prioritization of American interests, tariff hikes and withdrawal from international organizations have panicked the US' Western allies to some extent. However, those countries don't dare to openly criticize Washington's "America First" policy. Instead, in response to Trump's policies, some Western allies seem to have adopted a "clever" strategy of playing the "China-US competition" card, aiming to influence US decisions by hyping the "threat" rhetoric posed by China's rise to the US and its allies. The "China winner" rhetoric, be it from the UK, EU or Canada, is trying to convey the following message to Washington: If the US insists on its own way, which will harm the interests of its allies, China will be the biggest beneficiary.

The "dichotomy" thought of some Western politicians and its product "zero-sum game" thinking is the fundamental source of this series of behaviors and arguments. For example, Western political circle often uses the "democracy vs autocracy" comparison and other dichotomies to describe and define the West and the non-West, allies and non-allies, in an attempt to confront, defeat and even eliminate the "rivals" they identify through alliances.

In response to the policies of the new US administration, some Western allies are trying to play the "China-US competition" card, attempting to influence US decision-making by emphasizing the "threat" posed by China's rise to the US and its allies. The underlying logic of this strategy is to reshape China as a common adversary, encouraging the US to reconsider its unilateral actions and strengthen cooperation with its allies. This mind-set divides the world into opposing camps, assuming that one side's gain must come at the expense of the other. 

Whether it's raising tariffs or cutting international aid, the goal of the US government is to please its domestic voters, not to safeguard the overall interests of the West. Therefore, the attempt by some Western politicians to influence the US' decisions through the "China-US competition" card is akin to climbing a tree to catch a fish. The statements from Western politicians also reveal their strategic anxiety. In the face of the US' unilateralism and protectionism, instead of reflecting on their own issues, some Western politicians are trying to shift the blame onto China. This approach is neither wise nor responsible.

The West's "China-US competition" narrative and the "China winner" rhetoric not only fail to prevent China's rise, but may also cause them to miss opportunities for cooperation with China. This strategy is not only ineffective, but also highlights the strategic confusion and selfish mind-set of some Western politicians in the face of changing international dynamics. Simplifying international relations into a binary framework while ignoring the potential for win-win cooperation will undermine the effectiveness of multilateralism, which is also detrimental to the West. 

In today's deeply integrated, globalized world, the West should abandon this outdated mind-set and promote effective global cooperation. The priority for Western politicians should not be to amplify the "China threat" rhetoric but to reflect on their own policies and seek new pathways for cooperation with other nations.

The author is an assistant research fellow at the Institute of Marxism of the Chongqing Academy of Social Sciences. [email protected]