Great power relations generally refer to countries in the international system that have significant influence, such as the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union. These relations, based on their interactions, determine the direction of the global order. In the process of de-globalization, great power relations have essentially become a power structure characteristic of the current era. In contrast to this, there are multilateral partnerships, such as the U.S.-EU relations and the transatlantic partnership. However, the process of de-globalization has actually shattered such multilateral relations because these forms of multilateralism are in direct conflict with Trumpism and the stance of American conservatives, such as the "America First" and "America First" principles, which are clearly contradictory.
Trumpism, at its core, is not concerned with multilateral organizations like the transatlantic partnership. Instead, it prioritizes relations between great powers. This explains why Trump has consistently sought to maintain favorable ties with Russia, while, despite various challenges, also advancing relations with China. Some may place emphasis on Trump's recent visit to the United Kingdom, but in reality, this visit was another manifestation of his "monarchical mindset". He has consistently sought to achieve a level of international status and global recognition superior to that of his political opponents, and such recognition can only be derived from relations with great powers and adherence to traditional values. The United Kingdom, with its historical and traditional ties, is well-positioned to offer him this sense of esteem. However, his visit did not, and indeed could not, address, let alone resolve, the deep-seated ideological divisions between the liberal and conservative factions within the Anglo-American relationship. As noted by King Charles III in his remarks at the banquet, Trump's positions on issues such as aid to Ukraine, compassion for immigrants, and the environmental and climate concerns he staunchly opposes were pointedly criticized. Nevertheless, in the context of Trump's "monarchical mindset", these issues remain relatively minor. The British, in turn, are fully aware of this inclination.
For China, how should it respond to the coming era of great power relations? From a geopolitical perspective, I propose the development of an innovative international relations theory of "Balance, Cooperation, Existence" (BCE) to address these great power dynamics. This theory can serve as both a guiding principle and a framework for China's future practice in great power relations.
The "Balance" part emphasizes interdependence and common ground, whether in industries, trade, or regional interests. There must be mutual give-and-take, with both sides benefiting. Meanwhile, "Cooperation" underscores the importance of regional collaboration as a foundation, including cooperation on specific agendas. Importantly, cooperation is crucial for peace, serving as the key to achieving the goal of "competition without total breakdown" in great power relations. Lastly, "Existence" stresses the need for independence, rejecting alliances to safeguard a country's own sovereignty. It calls for the safeguarding of national interests while maintaining China's status as a universal global player in international affairs.
It should be noted that an alliance relationship is essentially a form of multilateral relations, which are highly prone to dragging a country into alignment and sacrificing its own interests, often at the cost of significant, yet meaningless, consequences. In other words, one aspect of "Existence" lies in the risk control mechanisms within great power relations: while alliances may be leveraged as bargaining chips, they do not entail genuine commitment to alliances. Furthermore, "Existence" also carries an additional meaning: it is about safeguarding and fulfilling one's fundamental interests. This is crucial for ensuring the value of existentialism and for securing a key position as a great power with a transcendent status. Therefore, "Existence" has a dual meaning.
I believe that the BCE theory should serve as a foundational framework for future great power relations. In other words, as China engages with the world, it should present the BCE theory as a conceptual approach to gain global understanding. In essence, BCE represents a geopolitical philosophy grounded in existentialism. This signifies that the emphasis is not on challenge, but balance; neither is it reconstruction, but a pursuit of cooperation; nor is it an act of aggression, but a mode of independent existence. In order to earn greater respect and recognition in a world likely to be marked by ongoing conflict, China must seriously consider the "Balance–Cooperation–Existence" framework of the BCE theory. When the world accepts that China has a legitimate place in global affairs and when it is willing to negotiate to seek balance and engage in cooperation, only then will it truly become a global nation.
In reality, great power relations are a particularly complex and delicate domain, especially for an emerging power like China. To join the ranks of global nations, it is essential to draw upon historical knowledge and experience. One of the most critical lessons is to avoid overdoing things. While great power relations certainly involve strategic competition and psychological gamesmanship, this does not mean engaging in all-out confrontation. On the contrary, it is fundamentally a process of building leverage. The ideal approach is to "win the bigger game with smaller stakes". Overexertion, or the desire to decisively defeat the other side in one blow, is neither a sound principle nor an appropriate stance in great power relations, and it runs counter to the BCE framework.
While this is a big world, the number of great powers is quite limited. The absence of any one of them would leave a significant void, causing substantial disruptions that are difficult to repair. The notion of "it's either you or me," or even "the other's demise is better", is little more than empty rhetoric that simply does not hold up in reality. In the real world, great powers inevitably rely on one another in one area or another. This mutual dependence is precisely where the space for balance and cooperation lies, and it is also where the significance of existence is both maintained and highlighted.
Therefore, in great power relations, China will need to adopt a form of geopolitical language that the world can understand, one that clearly articulates its national position and aspirations. Only through this approach can China truly enter the stage of global great power relations and become a key player within it.
