The shift of global power: Has the US given the crown to China?

In 2005, an event was held in Washington with the participation of the US ambassador to Thailand. The discussion centered on copyright issues and other political matters affecting American manufacturers and their companies in Thailand. During the event, one participant asked the ambassador about the unrest in southern Thailand. The US representative responded that the country was trying to influence the situation.

At that moment, another listener asked about the activities of the US consulate in the southern Thai city of Songkhla. The ambassador paused briefly and then replied, “It is now the Chinese consulate.”

In reality, there had never been a permanent US consulate in Songkhla. There was only a center that handled visas and other administrative matters. Nevertheless, a fully functioning Chinese consulate was later established at the same location previously used by the US mission.

This development symbolized the awakening of a “dragon” that had long been simmering in its lair with its ambitions. China began gradually reducing the US influence that had spread across the planet, starting with its own “backyard” in Southeast Asia. Over time, this movement expanded globally, with Beijing challenging Washington in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Of course, such a shift did not happen overnight. The Asian financial crisis, US destabilization in the Middle East, its involvement in conflicts that caused the deaths of millions, and other missteps created an opening for China to seize the initiative.

Despite its numerous foreign policy errors, the United States still had an opportunity to maintain its unparalleled influence. Washington could have countered China by strengthening diplomatic ties, improving its global image, promoting fairness in international organizations, and effectively using the concept of “soft power,” introduced into politics by Joseph Nye.

However, the White House did not choose this path. American journalist and analyst Joshua Kurlantzick, in his book Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World, detailed the mistakes the United States made on the international stage at the beginning of the century. The shortcomings he highlighted stemmed from misguided foreign policy decisions and unfavorable conditions for the US.

What is striking is that the same errors and questionable decisions Kurlansik wrote about in his 2002 book continue to be repeated by the current White House administration, almost down to the last detail.

This article will explore how the missteps of several previous US administrations handed China greater global influence. It will also examine how Donald Trump’s policies followed a similar trajectory, raising concerns about what this could mean for Washington’s future.

The decline of the “Empire”

In his book The Grand Chessboard, renowned political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski described the United States as a modern empire. He argued that the US was fundamentally different from historical empires, such as Rome, in terms of its sphere of influence and other advantages.

But in 1997, the same year Brzezinski’s book was published, a severe financial crisis erupted in Asia. It began in Thailand and then spread throughout Southeast Asia. That year, the Thai national currency broke its dependence on the dollar. Soon after, Indonesia, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Malaysia all fell into crisis.

By 1998, the financial turmoil that started in Asia also hit several Latin American countries. These nations, deeply tied to the United States in many areas, waited for Washington’s help for two years. But it became clear that the US could not support everyone equally.

As a result, attitudes toward the United States began to shift—first in Thailand, then in other countries affected by the crisis. Bill Clinton, who had once been considered almost a national hero in Bangkok, suddenly faced criticism.

By 2003, the US-led invasion of Iraq under the George W. Bush administration became a decisive factor in the decline—and in some cases, the collapse—of American influence not only in Southeast Asia but in various parts of the world. Global support for US policies sharply decreased.

Meanwhile, Beijing’s image began to rise in the eyes of many around the world. Despite China’s internal problems, its human rights violations against minorities, and its repressive domestic policies, the United States was increasingly perceived as the more aggressive and destructive power. At the start of the 21st century, the global population faced a stark dilemma: between China, which was forcibly assimilating Uyghurs, and the United States, which had caused the deaths of millions in the Middle East, Washington was seen as the greater evil.

Surveys conducted during those years reflected this perception. Gradually, China started to wrest away America’s once-positive image. Journalist and analyst Joshua Kurlantzick —who spent much of his career in Thailand—highlighted early signs of this shift, using the contrasting receptions of George W. Bush and Hu Jintao during their respective visits to Australia as key examples.

In October 2003, then-US President George W. Bush visited one of Washington’s closest allies, Australia. The country, which had long since loosened its ties with Great Britain, had become a staunch partner of the United States. Australian soldiers had fought alongside Americans in Vietnam, Korea, and even during the Iraq invasion.

However, Australia’s participation in the Iraq coalition clashed with the sentiment of its citizens. The moment Bush’s plane landed, protests erupted in Sydney, Canberra, and other major cities. Demonstrators gathered outside the American embassy, accusing the United States of arrogance and self-interest.

This was not just a public reaction. Bush soon learned that anti-American sentiment had also taken root within Australian political circles. Before he could begin his speech in parliament, deputies shouted in protest. As he left the chamber, he was met by even louder demonstrations on the streets. Although not formally expelled, the US president’s visit ended under a cloud of rejection.

A few days later, the contrast was striking. Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Australia and received a vastly different welcome. Like Bush, Hu addressed the Australian parliament, but his reception was far more cordial. Bush had left without spending a full day in the country, but Hu stayed longer, participating in multiple events.

For Australian business circles, China represented new opportunities. Public opinion polls at the time showed 70 percent of Australians had a favorable view of China, while fewer than 50 percent supported the United States. Even more telling, over 50 percent of respondents supported free trade with China, compared to just 34 percent for the US.

This was a significant blow to America’s image. Adding to the decline, a 2005 BBC survey conducted in 22 countries found that a large majority believed China’s role in international affairs was more positive than that of the United States.

Kurlantzick noted that the struggle for reputation and influence between China and the United States was increasingly being resolved in Beijing’s favor, from Latin America to Central Asia. He cited examples such as Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez’s decision to redirect oil exports to China instead of the US, and Uzbekistan’s first president, Islam Karimov’s decision to close the American military base in the country.

Main reasons

The world’s attitude toward the United States began to shift in the final decade of the 20th century. By that time, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had already died as a result of sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United States through the United Nations. The reputation that had started to erode during the Clinton era deteriorated even further under George W. Bush, particularly after the atrocities committed in Baghdad.

However, Iraq was not the only factor behind the global collapse of America’s image. There were several other contributing reasons. Joshua Kurlantzick identified factors such as the reduction of funds for public diplomacy, stricter entry restrictions to the United States, flawed trade policies, a biased approach to international organizations, and the blatant human rights violations associated with the Guantanamo prison.

Ultimately, these combined factors turned what was once Washington’s strong global position into a fragile one. At the time, Andrew Moravcsik, a scholar specializing in European-American relations, observed that going forward, many countries would neither admire America nor seek to emulate its model of development.

This sentiment was confirmed by a 2005 BBC survey showing that two-thirds of respondents across 21 countries opposed the spread of American values in their nations. For the United States, things unfolded in the opposite direction of its ambitions, and this trend has persisted ever since, though at varying speeds and in different forms.

Meanwhile, China was being received in an entirely different way. Beijing’s political leadership skillfully exploited the blunders made by the United States on the global stage. In reality, China had been preparing for such opportunities long before they arose.

After Mao Zedong—whose policies repeatedly plunged the country into crises—the political elite adopted far more strategic and pragmatic approaches. The “Great Leap Forward” that Mao failed to achieve was realized under Deng Xiaoping. From liberalizing agriculture to opening the country to foreign investment and attracting foreign technology, reforms were carried out almost flawlessly.

By 1989, China had reached such a level of development that even the Tiananmen Square massacre did not unite the world against it. At the time, China’s global influence was still relatively limited. Instead, Beijing made free trade its primary weapon. The country’s purchasing power steadily grew.

As the United States’ influence in the world began to wane, Beijing moved into the vacuum. China started asserting itself in regions where Washington had once held a dominant advantage—first in Southeast Asia, then the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. Unconditional loans, state-backed business initiatives, and the spread of the Mandarin language became key tools for expanding China’s influence.

Moreover, China has been achieving its strategic goals far earlier than anticipated. When Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, he introduced the “Chinese Dream,” a vision to achieve moderate prosperity by 2021—the centenary of the Communist Party—and to become one of the world’s leading developed nations by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. Yet the country, which lifted 800 million people out of poverty in just four decades, has reached many of these milestones ahead of schedule.

Trump is about to hand over the crown to China

In his 2007 book, Joshua Kurlantzick outlined several reasons why China would eventually replace the United States on multiple fronts: the weakening of public diplomacy, stricter migration policies, flawed trade strategies, withdrawal from international organizations, the war in Iraq, and human rights abuses such as Guantanamo.

Today, we are witnessing these same actions being repeated by current US President Donald Trump, without any deviation, not even a comma. A comparative analysis shows that the very mistakes that eroded America’s global image in the early 2000s are being replicated by the Trump administration.

Let’s begin with the weakening of public diplomacy and the reduction of funding for it. Public diplomacy refers to the process by which a country builds a positive image and reputation among the populations of other nations. In 1953, the United States established the US Information Agency to oversee public diplomacy worldwide. This agency launched extensive broadcasts through Voice of America radio to build international audiences supportive of American policies.

If public diplomacy is understood as creating a positive image among the world’s population, then USAID also serves this purpose for the United States. Through its aid programs, USAID enhanced America’s reputation not with words but with tangible actions, making it more effective than other agencies in this regard.

However, after returning to power for a second term, Donald Trump has moved toward completely dismantling these two key instruments of America’s soft power. Since March of this year, cuts began at Voice of America, and soon its operations were suspended entirely. The last video on its official YouTube channel was uploaded four months ago, and it is currently inactive. USAID was officially shut down on July 1. The Trump administration justified these decisions as an end to what it called “wasteful spending.” Yet no one appears to be considering the long-term strategic consequences.

Another major issue is migration. Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration has become harsher than ever. It is estimated that the United States hosts 11–13 million undocumented immigrants, a population unlikely to be fully deported because of the immense cost. Despite warnings since January about the financial burden, Trump has taken drastic measures, handcuffing illegal immigrants like criminals and deporting them on military planes. In doing so, he is not only cutting off cheap labor but also restricting the inflow of skilled workers and even students who could contribute to the United States. The rejection of foreign students—one of America’s greatest assets—could have unprecedented long-term repercussions.

The third issue is America’s distancing from the institutions that underpin the international order. Trump is repeating this mistake even more severely than past administrations. He announced the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement during his inauguration on January 20. Days later, relations with NATO grew tense. He shocked many by opposing UN resolutions against invasions and violence, and similar incidents continue to occur today. Most concerning is the damage being done to the system of the World Trade Organization under Trump’s leadership.

The fourth problem is flawed trade policy. This year, the United States initiated a trade war with Canada and Mexico. By imposing tariffs on its two neighbors, Washington disrupted free trade and strained relations with two of its most important partners. This decision, which risked harming the entire US economy, was justified by citing illegal migration and the fentanyl crisis. Although a temporary agreement was reached, tariffs were later reinstated, causing price hikes for consumers. No lasting deal has yet been secured.

On top of this, Trump imposed additional tariffs on the European Union and, as of April 2, on nearly the entire world. His primary target was China. As a result, the tariff war between Beijing and Washington escalated rapidly to 125 and 145 percent. Later, Trump reached partial agreements with China and around 100 other countries on some trade issues. However, in the meantime, US companies lost several trillion dollars as a result of the trade war. It became evident that investors were hesitant to commit to the United States amid growing policy uncertainties. Repeated statements have emphasized that America is no longer an attractive destination for investment. Thus, the trade war, which was initially intended to bring investment and production back to the US, ultimately had the opposite effect for Trump and the country.

Finally, Trump has gone even further on issues such as military intervention and the Guantanamo Bay prison. Let’s start with Guantanamo Bay. Opened in 2002 by George W. Bush to hold high-risk detainees, the prison population had gradually been reduced until Trump’s presidency, leaving only 15 prisoners before he took office. However, Trump revived the notorious facility, which had faced international criticism for two decades. It was announced that undocumented immigrants who committed serious crimes would be sent there. On February 4, reports indicated that several such immigrants were transferred to this infamous prison in Cuba.

In addition, the current US leader has dragged the country into a conflict initiated by Israel and nearly pushed it into a very difficult situation. Despite repeated confirmations from the IAEA and even US security agencies that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons, Trump delivered an unprecedented blow to the Persian state. As a result, the United States faced widespread condemnation from many countries, with its actions deemed unacceptable on the international stage.

Thus, under Trump, the United States is undermining its global standing and influence through an increasingly aggressive foreign policy. Many experts, from economists to political analysts, argue that Trump is steering the country into a black hole. Developments in recent years, in some ways, confirm this assessment. If Trump’s foreign policy—chaotic and unpredictable like the weather—does not change, it may take only three to four years for Beijing to claim the global crown. Considering that China has already seized many opportunities left by the United States in similar circumstances in the past, such a scenario cannot be ruled out.