Following the back-to-back state visits to China in May by U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, many U.S. and European commentators noted that the summit meetings yielded little of real substance. But from a Chinese perspective, that didn’t matter. What mattered were the visuals, broadcast in the Chinese state media: like the emperors of old, Chinese leader Xi Jinping was receiving tribute missions from the most important foreign potentates. In symbolic terms, the visits reinforced Beijing’s narrative that China has overtaken its rivals and is once again at the center of the world.

Underlying this triumphant vision is the Chinese claim that where the Soviets mismanaged socialism and the Americans corrupted capitalism, only China has discovered the formula capable of reconciling state authority with market dynamism and restoring international harmony. But this nationalist story risks obscuring a fundamental historical reality: China’s rise has not happened outside the systems its rivals built, but through Beijing’s skillful exploitation of them. In its early decades, Communist China relied on the Soviet Union to help construct its foundations. And ever since Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening” policies connected China to the world economy in the late 1970s, China has used its access to Western markets to forge itself into an economic and military superpower.

Yet Beijing seems strikingly unaware that its continued success depends on the U.S.-led order. In recent years, Beijing has consolidated its control over supply chains and acquired unprecedented leverage over its trade partners. It has also become increasingly brazen in its bid for industrial dominance, brushing off complaints in Europe and the United States that its overproduction is undermining their industries. For example, at the World Economic Forum session in Dalian, instead of acknowledging that China relies on the willingness of (mainly Western) countries to continue absorbing the Chinese surplus, Chinese Premier Li Qiang asserted that China is simply more competitive because it invests in innovation. Beijing’s failure to acknowledge, let alone address, its overcapacity problem has driven China’s key trading partners—all of them major Western economies—to the point of exasperation.

For now, it may seem that China has the upper hand, having secured a dominant position in a number of key global industries and supply chains. European countries in particular have been weakened by Chinese competition, and the failure of the EU to muster a unified strategy toward Beijing risks eroding its internal economic, and even political, cohesion. But the long-term outcome may be very different from what China’s leaders assume. Growing frustration with China is already prompting the United States and Europe to take stringent countermeasures to protect their industries. Beijing is thus overlooking the defining paradox of its own success: China’s rise remains tied to the openness of the economies it hopes to surpass. Its road to a post-Western order still runs through the West.

ASCENDENCE DEPENDENCE

A great power’s ambitions are reflected in the way it perceives its place within the world. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China’s strategic ambition has been to restore the country to what its leaders regard as its rightful place at the center of the international order. In this worldview, Western hegemony represents the principal obstacle to the return of Chinese civilization to its natural centrality and, with it, to the restoration of global harmony.

Yet Beijing did not pursue this objective by rejecting existing international orders outright. Instead, it first exploited them to accelerate China’s rise and then progressively challenged them from within as its own power expanded. Both the Soviet- and the U.S.-led orders were treated as a means to an end and used pragmatically and selectively to maximize political and economic gains even while preserving and widening China’s space for maneuver.

Nowhere has this strategy been more evident than in China’s participation in the Western liberal order. Deng’s “reform and opening” entailed a pragmatic decision to exploit the liberal order for China’s benefit. From the 1990s onward, however, even as Beijing deepened its integration with the world economy, Chinese leaders increasingly came to view American primacy as the principal long-term obstacle to China’s national rejuvenation. They feared that sustained engagement with the West could encourage political liberalization and ultimately undermine the Chinese Communist Party’s monopoly on power.

Beijing therefore embraced a dual strategy: exploiting the openness of the existing order while gradually eroding its foundation. Under Xi, this tendency became even more explicit. Take the Belt and Road Initiative, the enormous international economic development and infrastructure program launched by Beijing in 2013 and now extending to more than 150 countries. By connecting developing and advanced economies—including some in Europe—through a vast China-centered network, underpinned by Chinese standards, supply chains, and financial networks, Beijing has sought to shift the center of gravity of the........

© Foreign Affairs