As the world navigates the treacherous geopolitical terrain that lies down the road, we will have to deal with a major paradox. There is no question that it was the West, especially the US and Western Europe, that bequeathed the benign 1945 rules-based order that has generated so much human progress in the last eight decades, especially the past three decades. In theory, the West should take the lead in defining the future world order. In practice, it will not.

The sad reality is that both the US and Europe are now truly lost. In the past, especially after their glorious victory in the Second World War, they represented the most confident and optimistic societies. Now they do not. Both the US and Europe are deeply troubled, internally and externally. Hence, both are making serious strategic mistakes. The goal of this essay is to help the US and Europe to craft wiser policies to deal with a vastly different world. This essay will also explain how they lost their way, in different ways.

The US today has probably never been so divided internally, at least not since the civil war of the 1860s. Yet, despite these massive domestic divisions, American society is completely united on one geopolitical proposition: It is time for the US to stand up to China. Yet, what is shocking is that the US has launched this contest without first working out a strategy.

This is puzzling on several counts. The US still has the world’s best universities, the best-funded strategic think tanks, the globally most influential media. In short, it has the world’s largest strategic thinking industry. Yet, despite this, Washington is devoid of long-term strategic thinking, especially on China. Instead, a remarkable groupthink has enveloped it. The US is still the world’s most powerful country. It is also widely admired around the world. Indeed, I remain an admirer of American society and consider myself a friend. One of the obligations of friendship is to point out to a friend when they have lost their way.

Many would doubt that the US has lost its way. Yet, it is America’s greatest living strategic thinker, Henry Kissinger, who personally confirmed to me twice that the US does not have a comprehensive long-term strategy to manage the return of China. There is also powerful evidence that supports this claim. A strategy is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. Before the US can work out a strategy toward China, it first needs to specify what goals it hopes to accomplish. No such goals have ever been specified, despite the proliferation of “strategy” documents from key agencies in Washington. For example, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last May: “We’ll compete with China to defend our interests and build our vision for the future.” But Blinken does not specify what goals the US hopes to achieve in this “competition” with China.

In theory, the US could have these goals: To stop the economic resurgence of China; to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party; or to isolate and contain China, as the US successfully did with the former Soviet Union. Yet, none of these goals are attainable.

The economic resurgence of China is now unstoppable. Even though China is still the No. 2 economy, it now has a bigger retail goods market than the US. In 2010, the size of the US retail goods market was $4 trillion, more than double that of China at $1.8 trillion. Yet, by 2020, barely 10 years later, China’s had become bigger at $16 trillion, while the US was only at $5.5 trillion. Hence, by launching its “dual circulation” strategy, China can rely on both its domestic and external markets to continue growing. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the Anglo-Saxon media, President Xi Jinping and his new team have not turned their backs on economic opening or reforms. Hence, China’s economic growth cannot be stopped.

Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party cannot be overthrown in the way that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was. Unlike the Soviet population, the Chinese population has seen the best 30 years of social and economic development in 3,000 years of Chinese history. It would be irrational for the Chinese people to overthrow the party that has delivered so much prosperity and well-being to them. Hence, a serious academic study by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center showed that support for the central government among the Chinese population had grown from 86.1 percent in 2003 to 93.1 percent in 2016.

Equally importantly, no policy of containment of China will work. China now does more international trade than the US. According to World Bank data, China’s total trade was $6.6 trillion in 2021, while America’s was $4.9 trillion. More than 120 countries in the world do more trade with China than with the US. It would be irrational for any country to reduce its trade with China just to make Washington happy. Even a country as geographically close to the US as Brazil would have difficulty doing so, since its trade with China is now three times its trade with the US.

If the strategic thinkers and policy planners in Washington could take a step back and critically reflect on their policies and actions toward China, they would see that none of them will seriously stop China, not even the latest technology war the US has launched. They should also understand that China’s resurgence is driven by a deeper historical trend: The longer cycles of ups and downs in Chinese history. China, the world’s oldest continuous civilization, is rediscovering its natural civilizational resilience. Curiously, most countries of the world can see this clearly. As a result, most countries are stepping up their links with China, responding positively to new initiatives by Beijing, like the Belt and Road Initiative. Indeed, more than 140 countries have voluntarily and willingly signed Belt and Road Initiative agreements with China.

So, is there a wiser course for the US to take vis-a-vis China? Yes, there is. Bill Clinton spelled out such a wise strategy when he spoke at Yale in 2003, 20 years ago. He said that to prepare for a world in which the US would become No. 2, it should strengthen multilateral rules and norms, institutions and processes. Clinton clearly implied that this would be the best way to constrain China when it became No. 1.

All this explains why the next 10 years will be critical in determining the shape of the future world order. As of now, especially while it is No. 2, China is still prepared to work within the 1945 rules-based order created by the West. Chinese words and deeds confirm this.

As modern history shows, to establish a fair and equitable international order is the goal mankind has always strived for. From the principles of equality and sovereignty established in the Peace of Westphalia more than 360 years ago to international humanitarianism as affirmed in the Geneva Convention 150-plus years ago. And from the four purposes and seven principles enshrined in the UN Charter more than 70 years ago to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence championed by the Bandung Conference over 60 years ago. Many such principles have emerged in the evolution of international relations and become widely accepted. These principles should guide us in building a community of shared future for mankind.

China is also acutely aware that its spectacular economic resurgence was facilitated by the 1945 rules-based order, especially the World Trade Organization. Before China joined the WTO, the US economy was eight times bigger than that of China. Now it is only 1.5 times larger. Curiously, all the theories of the benefits of free trade were given to us mainly by American economists. Yet, while Chinese society can accept these American theories (which explains China’s willingness to sign free trade agreements), American society cannot.

Since China is still willing to work with the 1945 rules-based order, while it is No. 2, the US should seize this moment and work out a grand new global compact with China to strengthen this order, based fundamentally on the UN Charter. However, if the US is to succeed in this, it has to first admit, in all honesty, that, contrary to American public claims, the US has steadily worked to weaken, rather than strengthen, the UN system. I learned this in great detail when I served as Singapore’s ambassador to the UN for more than 10 years. This has also been comprehensively documented and explained in “The Great Convergence.” Tragically, given the strategic groupthink in Washington, no major American voice supports the strengthening of the UN.

In theory, this job of defending the UN could be done by America’s most powerful global ally, the EU, which remains the world’s most successful regional multilateral organization. Indeed, the EU lives and breathes multilateralism. Yet, through a combination of political cowardice, intellectual dishonesty and a deep sense of insecurity (especially after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine), the European leaders have lost their strategic spines and developed a culture of being supine toward Washington.