Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
By Dr. Shehab Al-Makahleh
For decades, the defining question of international politics was straightforward: Which country possesses the strongest military, the largest economy, or the greatest technological advantage? Today, however, a far more consequential question has emerged: Which power does the world trust most?
The answer to that question may shape the international order more profoundly than aircraft carriers, semiconductor factories, or stock market valuations. The strategic competition between the United States and China has entered a new phase—one in which global legitimacy, credibility, and public perception have become strategic assets equal to conventional power. Soft power is no longer merely a complement to hard power; increasingly, it determines whether hard power can be translated into lasting geopolitical influence.
Recent international polling suggests that a significant shift is underway. For the first time in decades, China is beginning to outperform the United States in measures of global approval and favourability — not because Beijing has become universally admired, but because Washington’s international image has weakened while China has steadily refined its global narrative.
According to the latest findings published by the Gallup World Poll, China surpassed the United States in global leadership approval during 2025, recording a median approval rating of 36%, compared to 31% for the United States.
This development raises a broader geopolitical question: Has the balance of global influence begun shifting from military supremacy toward political credibility?
The New Currency of Power: Trust
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has dominated the international system through unmatched military capabilities, technological leadership, financial influence, and an unparalleled alliance network. Yet international leadership has always depended on more than material power.
The American political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr. argued that countries influence others not only through coercion but also through attraction—a concept he famously described as soft power. Today’s geopolitical competition extends beyond military deployments or trade agreements. It increasingly revolves around diplomacy, technology, infrastructure investment, public diplomacy, education, innovation, and international reputation.
Countries are asking a new question: Who is the most dependable partner during periods of uncertainty?
A Historic Shift in Global Opinion.
According to the Pew Research Center, which surveyed more than 42,000 respondents across 36 countries, China is now viewed more favorably than the United States in a majority of countries surveyed—the first time such a shift has been observed since Pew began measuring global attitudes. Perhaps the most remarkable finding is geographical.
China’s improving image is no longer limited to countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. Positive perceptions have also increased among several advanced economies, including Canada, reflecting growing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policies. This does not necessarily indicate overwhelming enthusiasm for China. Rather, it reflects declining confidence in American global leadership.
Why Has America’s Image Declined?
Several developments explain Washington’s declining international standing. The return of President Donald Trump and the revival of the “America First” doctrine have reshaped U.S. foreign policy. Tariff disputes with allies, confrontational trade negotiations, criticism of NATO burden-sharing, and a more transactional approach toward alliances have reinforced the perception that Washington increasingly prioritizes short-term national interests over long-term international leadership.
These policies have affected relations with Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and several Asian allies. Equally significant has been the growing unpredictability of American foreign policy. Frequent policy reversals between successive administrations have led many governments to question whether American commitments remain durable beyond a single presidential term.
Military crises have also influenced international perceptions. The recent U.S.–Iran confrontation, regional instability in the Middle East, and disruptions affecting maritime security and global energy markets have reinforced the perception that Washington increasingly relies on coercive diplomacy and sanctions rather than long-term political engagement. Domestic political polarization has further complicated America’s global image. Persistent divisions over immigration, elections, fiscal policy, and constitutional governance have raised questions abroad regarding the long-term stability of the American political model.
China’s Alternative Model
While Washington has struggled with questions of consistency, Beijing has invested heavily in presenting itself as a predictable, long-term strategic partner. China’s international strategy has emphasized infrastructure, industrial development, technology transfer, and economic cooperation. Its flagship foreign policy initiative—the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—has become one of the most ambitious infrastructure programs in modern history.
Through massive investments in ports, railways, highways, industrial parks, logistics corridors, and energy infrastructure across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, China has deliberately positioned itself as a development partner rather than a military patron. This strategy contrasts sharply with the traditional Western approach of projecting influence through security alliances and military basing. At the same time, China has significantly expanded investment in cutting-edge sectors including artificial intelligence, renewable energy, electric vehicles, advanced manufacturing, digital infrastructure, and scientific research. These investments serve a dual purpose: they secure China’s access to critical resources and markets while simultaneously showcasing its technological prowess and commitment to innovation-driven growth.
Beijing has also increased its diplomatic engagement by presenting itself as a mediator in regional disputes, emphasizing political dialogue over military escalation in conflict zones from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa. By positioning itself as an honest broker that favors negotiations over confrontation, China reinforces its preferred image as a supporter of stability and economic development rather than a disruptive force. This carefully cultivated narrative—of a nation that builds roads rather than bombs, that brokers peace rather than foments war—has resonated with many Global South nations weary of Western lectures and interventions. Yet the sustainability of this image will ultimately depend on whether Beijing can reconcile its aspirational rhetoric with the realities of its more assertive behavior, a tension that will define its credibility in the years ahead.
Soft Power Has Limits
None of this means China has become universally accepted; the gap between perception and reality remains wide. Beijing continues to face persistent international criticism regarding its human rights record, particularly in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, alongside ongoing concerns over transparency in governance and data practices. The status of Taiwan remains a flashpoint, with many nations viewing Beijing’s assertiveness with alarm, while the South China Sea disputes have fueled accusations of bullying and militarization. Market access issues, including forced technology transfers and intellectual property concerns, continue to frustrate foreign businesses, and debt sustainability associated with some overseas infrastructure projects has raised serious questions about China’s development model.
Moreover—and perhaps most critically—many positive views of China appear to reflect deep dissatisfaction with Washington rather than wholehearted support for Beijing’s political system, making this shift in perception as much an indictment of American foreign policy as an endorsement of Chinese leadership. The current trend therefore suggests less a Chinese triumph than an American credibility challenge, a crisis of trust that Washington must confront not through rhetoric but through renewed consistency, reliability, and principled engagement on the world stage.
The Future of Great-Power Competition
The broader lesson extends beyond Washington and Beijing. Power in the twenty-first century increasingly rests on three interconnected pillars:
Hard Power: The Tangible Arsenal of Influence
Hard power represents the most visible and conventional form of national strength. It encompasses military capabilities, including troop strength, advanced weaponry, naval and air superiority, and rapid deployment capacity. Economic strength is the engine that sustains hard power, fueled by GDP size, trade networks, energy resources, and industrial output. Technological leadership—from artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities to space-based systems and precision-guided weaponry—has become the decisive edge in modern warfare, allowing a nation to project force with unparalleled accuracy and strategic surprise. Without these foundational assets, a state’s influence is limited by its vulnerability.
Institutional Power: The Architecture of Global Governance
Institutional power operates beneath the surface of military confrontation, yet its impact is often more enduring and pervasive. This form of influence revolves around rule-making authority: the ability to draft the laws, treaties, and frameworks that bind international behavior. Financial governance is a key pillar—controlling global currencies, development banks, and debt structures—effectively granting the power to sanction or reward nations. International standards, whether in trade, technology, or environmental policy, are set by those who shape them, and compliance becomes a subtle form of submission. Technological regulation extends this reach into data flows, artificial intelligence ethics, and digital sovereignty, ensuring that the norm-setters remain a step ahead of those forced to follow.
Perception Power: The Currency of Trust and Credibility
Perception power is the least tangible yet arguably the most fragile and valuable asset in international affairs. Credibility hinges on a nation’s word holding weight—when it makes a promise or issues a warning, the world believes it. Reliability reflects consistency over time, a demonstrated record of honoring commitments and standing by allies. Strategic consistency means that foreign policy is not erratic or unpredictable, allowing other nations to plan and build long-term relationships. International trust is the sum of these factors; it reduces the need for coercive force because partners and adversaries alike understand where a nation stands. Without perception power, hard and institutional strengths become suspect—respected but not trusted, feared but not followed.
History demonstrates that great powers rarely lose influence simply because another state becomes richer. They decline when allies, partners, and global publics lose confidence in their leadership. Likewise, rising powers succeed not merely by accumulating wealth but by convincing others that cooperation with them offers greater predictability and long-term stability. The strategic competition between the United States and China has entered a fundamentally new phase. Military deterrence will remain vital, backed by conventional and nuclear arsenals that preserve the balance of terror between major powers. Economic competition will continue to shape alliances and rivalries, as trade routes, supply chains, and energy flows become strategic weapons in their own right. Technological rivalry will intensify—from AI and quantum computing to space-based systems—because whoever masters the next frontier of innovation may hold the keys to both military and economic supremacy.
Yet all of these may ultimately be overshadowed by a less tangible but increasingly decisive factor: global public opinion. In an era of instant information and social media virality, the narrative of who is “right” and who is “wrong” can be as powerful as any missile battery. Governments can win battles and dominate markets, but if they lose the court of international perception—losing credibility, trust, and moral authority—they may find their hard-won advantages hollow. The decisive arena of the twenty-first century may not be the battlefield or the boardroom, but the screens of billions, where hearts and minds are won or lost in the span of a single headline.
The country that succeeds in convincing governments, businesses, and societies that it represents stability, opportunity, and responsible leadership will enjoy advantages extending well beyond military or economic power. If recent polling reflects a durable trend rather than a temporary reaction to current events, Washington faces a profound strategic challenge—not rebuilding its military, but rebuilding international confidence.
For Beijing, the challenge is equally demanding. China has invested heavily in reshaping global perceptions through ambitious infrastructure projects, diplomatic outreach, and narratives of peaceful development. But improving perceptions is far easier than sustaining them. The world is watching closely, and the initial fascination with China’s rise is giving way to more critical scrutiny. Beijing must now demonstrate that its promises of development, partnership, and stability are not just rhetorical flourishes but translate into tangible realities: transparent governance that respects the rule of law, sustainable economic cooperation that benefits all parties rather than creating debt traps, and responsible international leadership that upholds global norms rather than challenging them unilaterally.
Ultimately, the defining geopolitical contest of the coming decades may not be won by the country with the largest military budget or the fastest-growing economy. It will be won by the nation that can command trust—not through coercion or propaganda, but through consistent, credible, and principled behavior on the world stage. As perceptions solidify into convictions, the battle for global influence will be decided not in the halls of power alone, but in the minds of billions who will ultimately choose whose vision of the future they believe in.
It will be won by the country that convinces the world it is the most trustworthy steward of an increasingly uncertain international order.
