Opinion

Trust Instead of Ideology - Should We Take China at Its Word?

1. The Question of Threat

In the West, China is widely perceived as a threat - militarily and ideologically. China itself feels threatened, mainly by the United States. Yet a closer look tells a different story.

Is China really threatened? A glance at the map shows: the United States does not pose an acute danger to China. There is no encirclement with nuclear weapons nearby, no Cuban-missile-crisis scenario with extremely short warning times. The regional U.S. presence is limited to around 100,000 troops and is largely symbolic within alliances. No neighbor, except North Korea, possesses nuclear weapons. Taiwan is regarded by Beijing as an internal matter - not as an object of external expansion. Even here, the pressure is less about threat and more about nudging China toward a peaceful solution - almost a "Chinese" strategy in itself.

Are we ourselves threatened? Compared to the present danger Europe faces from Russia, the question seems misplaced. Deliveries of dual-use goods to Moscow and purchases of cheap oil and gas are not a threat in themselves.

Or is the real danger our own mindset - seeing economic and technological competition as a threat rather than as the normal motor of shared progress? By framing competition as a security risk, we create the very sense of threat we then attempt to respond to.

2. Competition or Threat?

Economic and technological rivalry with China has often been described in the West as a "yellow peril." But is this not a fundamental mistake in our own system of thought?

We have always understood competition as a driver of progress: in markets, in research, in the competition of ideas. To redefine competition now as a threat is to betray that principle.

Sound policy must distinguish: competition is not an attack but a call to renewal. It challenges us to do better - not to fear, not to arm ourselves, not to erect absurd tariff barriers that damage global trade and other missteps of that kind.

3. China Exports Goods, Not Ideology

The ideological threat we remember from the Cold War with the Soviet Union does not apply in China's case.

The USSR sought to spread its ideology and saw itself as the vanguard of world revolution. China, in contrast, treats its "communism" above all as an internal form of organization - historically and geographically shaped for thousands of years, not as an export model.

Beijing seeks trade, invests in infrastructure and technology, and creates dependencies in that way. This is classical power politics, not ideological mission.

4. China and the Question of Trust

On 24 February 2023, China published a peace initiative on Ukraine, legally impeccable in form. It referred to the UN Charter, to sovereignty, to negotiations - a text that could be taken seriously.

Yet the images we see today - President Xi flanked by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, side by side with leaders fueling or supporting the war in Europe - sit uneasily with the principles of that initiative.

The question that arises is straightforward: Does the word given in 2023 still stand, or does the new symbolism mean something else?

5. Europe as an Independent Actor

Precisely because the United States is preoccupied both at home and abroad, Europe now has a special opportunity.

Europe must be able to trust China's word. Hence the questions stand:

  • You called credibly for peace in 2023 - do you still stand by it today?
  • You affirmed the sovereignty of all states - does this apply when you stand side by side with those who began and continue this war in Europe?

This is a demand for clarity and reliability. It is no sign of weakness but of self-confidence: trust instead of ideology, de-escalation instead of martial rhetoric.

In this way, Europe shows its own profile - not as an imitator of the United States, but as an independent actor giving voice to peace and international law.

6. Conclusion

China is not the Soviet Union. Its self-understanding does not stem from a 20th-century ideology but from an ancient culture stretching back millennia - to thinkers who long before Christ reflected on order, harmony, and the right balance.

There is no global mission to impose a Chinese model on others. There is no acute military threat. What we face is economic and technological competition - which means stimulus and challenge for us, not danger. At the same time, recent appearances reveal an ambivalence that raises questions.

That is why the issue arises today: Does China still stand by its 2023 peace initiative, or what else does the new symbolism signify?

This question must be asked openly - not with martial gestures, but soberly and directly. Only on the basis of trust can reliable policy be built - trust instead of ideology.