What role is China playing in global geopolitical transformations? | Politics News

Amid rapidly accelerating international shifts, China’s foreign policy has become a complex equation. From the Middle East to Latin America, from the Asia Pacific to the Arctic Circle, Beijing is moving across a global stage with cautious pragmatism but also with an ambition to reshape centres of global influence. Intense strategic rivalry with the United States and expansionary ambitions amid renewed regional crises continue to influence its policies.

So what does this mean for the world?

The US: From rivalry to managing relations

China’s official discourse centres on the idea of “peaceful rise”, the “commitment to non-interference in internal affairs”, respect for “sovereignty and territorial integrity”, and economic partnerships based on mutual benefit. Beijing insists that relations with Washington should not slide into conflict, calling for a system of global governance built on cooperation rather than confrontation. 

Yet the geopolitical landscape reveals a wide gap between this discourse and reality. Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought back rhetorical escalation and increased geopolitical pressure. Recent US moves — such as the military intervention in Venezuela and the threat to take over Greenland — have drawn sharp condemnation from China, which saw them as a reflection of a hegemonic impulse that violates international laws and conventions.

Against this tense backdrop, China’s strategy reflects meticulous calculations that go beyond official rhetoric. In practical terms, it seeks to exploit international conditions, especially transatlantic tensions, to undermine traditional alliances.

Beijing sees the Trump administration’s erratic behaviour as an opportunity to weaken trust between Europe and the US. By presenting itself as a stable economic power that can be relied upon, China seeks to encourage European partners to question their traditional security dependence on Washington. It aims to bolster the concept of European “strategic autonomy”, diminishing transatlantic security linkage and thus weakening transatlantic solidarity in the face of Chinese long-term policies.

Iran and Syria in China’s calculations

China’s policy towards regional crises such as those in Iran and Syria is characterised by a careful blend of economic interest and geopolitical considerations. Beijing does not view its cooperation with Tehran as merely a commercial partnership; rather, it is a pillar of its broader strategy to secure energy security and diversify global trade routes under the umbrella of the Belt and Road Initiative.

China places particular emphasis on developing overland corridors through Iran towards Eurasia, which constitute a strategic land-based alternative aimed at reducing reliance on sensitive maritime routes exposed to geopolitical risks such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca, and the Suez Canal.

In Syria, China’s stance focuses on a political solution to the crisis and reconstruction rather than direct intervention. This aligns with the official principle repeatedly stated by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs: support for a “political solution by the Syrians themselves” and opposition to foreign interference.

By investing in infrastructure and providing aid, China is building political and economic influence in this vital region without entering costly military conflicts.

This pragmatic approach is also evident in China’s growing relations with Africa and Latin America, where Beijing presents itself as an alternative development partner focused on trade, infrastructure investment, diplomacy, and culture, in contrast to the Western approach that often relies on a security presence or political pressure.

Although these partnerships generate mutual economic growth, Beijing’s strategy is heightening concern in Washington and other Western capitals, which see it as an attempt to build long-term geopolitical influence that could reshape the traditional international order.

Despite the Chinese official narrative of a “peaceful rise”, Beijing’s practices in international cooperation are often viewed as a concealed platform for geopolitical competition. The Belt and Road Initiative, alongside the systematic expansion within international financial and governance institutions, reflects a clear ambition to lead an alternative global order that gradually challenges US-led rules and frameworks.

Critics argue that massive Chinese investments — even under the banner of “shared development” — create patterns of long-term strategic dependency and lay foundations for geopolitical influence in key regions.

From Africa to Central Asia and Southeast Asia, Beijing has succeeded in offering an alternative development model to the Western one, presenting itself as a partner that does not demand political reforms. In this way, it is able to gradually shape regional dynamics.

That said, China’s direct influence remains limited in peripheral areas with high geopolitical sensitivity, such as the Arctic. While some Western narratives exaggerate China’s expansionist ambitions towards Greenland, the Chinese presence there is still modest and largely exploratory. It also runs into political constraints from local powers and traditional competitors such as the US, limiting Beijing’s ability to turn economic investments into decisive strategic influence in this new arena.

Chinese foreign policy in a multipolar world

In 2026, Chinese foreign policy appears governed by a strategic paradox: it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests while avoiding direct confrontation; it aspires to shape the rules of global governance without appearing as an expansionist power; and it tends to use its soft economic tools as an alternative to hard power whenever possible.

But this delicate balance faces a difficult test in the current global context, where the US is increasingly adopting reactive policies under Trump’s leadership and where crises are escalating from Venezuela to the Middle East, and regions such as the Arctic are becoming arenas of strategic competition.

In this climate, Chinese choices — from energy partnerships to international monetary diplomacy — are widely read not as isolated measures but as purposeful moves within a broader strategy to challenge the Western order by redrawing networks of influence and economic dependence.

As international alliances continue to fluctuate and power balances shift, Chinese diplomacy will continue to be a topic of hot debate. The pivotal question is: Is Beijing’s rise paving the way for a more pluralistic and cooperative global order, or is it fuelling sharper competitive dynamics, or creating an entirely new geopolitical model? It is still too early to tell.