East And West’s Different Historical Views

History helps us understand and learn from the past. Most people agree that it is important, but the way Eastern and Western countries record history can be very different. These differences can cause confusion, disagreements, or even disputes over what really happened.

With the rise of digital media, how countries tell the story of WWII can be very different. China’s role in the war is described in various ways, showing how the media can sometimes twist history with propaganda or misinformation. We hope to cite examples of how the role of China in WWII has been documented differently, in order to detail the importance of the media’s role in twisting historical events through propaganda and disinformation.

First, China and Western countries record history differently. In the West, historical documents are stored in archives, and writers can usually record events freely. In contrast, historical China relied on a chain of official historians who copied records left earlier dynasties to write about the past dynasty. These recording historians couldn’t openly record events that will criticize the then emperors (such as iron fist rulership), as doing so could put them and their families in danger or even get exterminated.

Of course, Western history isn’t perfect either. From an outsider’s point of view, people often see the same events differently, even on how a country is invaded. For example, any elderly Chinese might strongly defend China’s actions in the Sino-Japanese wars, while western scholars may consider many factors like land disputes, political conflicts, and ideology when explaining about the war.

Western countries often value knowledge and individual thinking for everyone. China, on the other hand, has a long history of centralized control over information. Even before printing technology was established, China had a unified written language and centralized monitored historians, to allow government control on how history was recorded. Japan had a central government too, but regional differences in culture and record-keeping still existed. Smaller countries like Laos relied more on local communities and oral traditions to preserve historical records. These examples show that whether a society values individualism or collectivism can greatly affect how history is written and remembered.

Because of this difference, history can easily be twisted when personal or political interests are involved. Today, traditional historians are fading into the sunset, slowly being replaced by 24/7 news media. If countries continuously presenting biased or incomplete versions of events, the public’s understanding becomes confused and biased. Governments or storytellers may ignore events that don’t fit their desired narrative, leaving important truths hidden.

China’s current education on the Sino-Japanese Wars

For example, Chinese textbooks often present the CCP as the main force leading the fighting against the Japanese, but that’s not entirely accurate. The Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek actually led the early efforts, reluctantly joining forces with the CCP after the Xi’an Coup. In fact, Japan’s invasion of China began earlier than the 1937 Lugou Bridge / Marco Polo Bridge Incident.

The CCP often blames Manchukuo for allowing the Japanese army in invading Manchuria, but this reflects only part of the truth. While the Manchurians had some influence over that area, Manchuria was controlled by warlords, not the central Chinese government, that was Republic of China at that time. Puyi, the puppet leader, was influenced by advisors to took money from Japan and became a puppet. Looking at events from different perspectives shows how interpretations can be distorted. For example, one could ask: what if Chiang Kai-shek delayed action to avoid alerting the enemy? Even small changes like this can shape how we view the invasion’s seriousness.

The CCP also emphasizes that Chinese soldiers fought bravely while Western countries refused to help. Their narrative suggests that foreigners only cared about land and resources of China, but that’s only partly true. Britain did pressure the Qing dynasty to give up Hong Kong, but European countries and the USA avoided sending troops mainly for diplomatic reasons. Before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, sending forces to China could have risked a more extensive war with Japan. Instead, the West provided weapons and supplies to the Nationalist government at that time. In hindsight, this situation is somewhat similar to the recent, three year-long Russian-Ukraine war.

The Tale of Australian William Donald

CCP influence has affected global perceptions, leading some Western countries to avoid independent research. Many Australians, for example, are unaware that some of their citizens had played key roles in the War in China with Japan. One notable figure is the Australian journalist William Henry Donald, who was deeply involved.

Donald started as a journalist and foreign correspondent before becoming an advisor of the Nationalist government in China. During the 1911 Revolution, he helped Dr Sun Yat-sen’s short-lived government negotiate with foreign powers, moving beyond reporting to active mediation. Initially, Donald admired Japan and even received a Japanese honour for his coverage of the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05). By 1915, however, he criticized Japanese imperialism and warned the West about its expansionist actions.

Donald played a crucial role during the Xi’an Coup, mediating between major Chinese leaders. His efforts helped secure Chiang Kai-shek’s release and the formation of a reluctant alliance with the CCP. Later, he disagreed with Chiang in 1940 over policy toward Germany. During the Pacific War, Donald was captured in Manila in 1942 but was freed in 1945. Afterward, his influence gradually declined.

Despite his decades-long involvement, historians have largely overlooked Donald’s contributions, whether advising Chiang, mediating coups, or supporting Dr Sun Yat-sen. His role is complex and less dramatic than headlines like “Chiang vs. Mao” or “Japan Invades”, so it is often ignored. In Australia, documentation about him is limited, with primary sources stored in China or specialized archives. Because Australian history education focuses more on colonial and ANZAC history, Donald’s contributions have faded from public awareness.

Chinese authorities rarely highlight Donald either. He was not a combat hero, and his advisory role could be politically inconvenient. The CCP tends to downplay internal compromises or foreign contributions, focusing instead on its own post-war achievements. Even in normal broadcasting, the media celebrating China’s journey post-war isn’t too different.

How CCP Centralization Affects Historical Documentation

Unlike many Western countries, which value history for education and heritage, China often emphasizes national pride over strict accuracy. This approach leaves younger generations unaware or unwilling to question historical events. The CCP has used systematic omission and withdrawal of all related records— sometimes called ‘amnesia therapy’ (失憶治療法) by scholars — to hide uncomfortable truths, like the Tiananmen Square Massacre. By controlling school curricula, the party successfully shapes collective memory, erasing or reframing events to suit its narrative.

In contrast, Western countries often debate controversial history publicly, offering multiple perspectives for critical analysis. The CCP also shapes views of other nations, like Japan, portraying it as a continued threat even though imperialism has ended. These examples show that history is rarely objective; it can be twisted to serve political goals. Recognizing these distortions is vital for developing critical thinking in future generations.

The CCP’s indoctrination is well-known but not unique in Asia. Postwar Japan focused on pacifism and democracy in textbooks, downplaying imperial aggression. South Korea and Taiwan have alternated between nationalist and democratic interpretations. Smaller countries like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia relied on oral histories and local records, allowing communities to shape memory. These examples show that centralized versus decentralized record-keeping strongly affects how generations perceive the past, emphasizing that control over history shapes national identity.

Australia’s Involvement in the Second Sino-Japanese War

The CCP’s influence on history goes beyond China. Cultural programs like Confucius Institutes promote party-aligned narratives internationally, shaping textbooks, museum exhibits, and media coverage abroad. Ignoring other perspectives, like those from Australia or Japan, can create a skewed understanding of WWII. This shows that controlling historical narratives isn’t just domestic indoctrination; it’s also a form of soft power.

Australia has made its own mistakes in recording history. While it doesn’t claim any credit as the CCP, it has largely hidden its involvement in China through the little-known Mission 204. In 1942, around 250 Commonwealth troops, including 48 Australians from the 8th Division, were sent to aid Chiang Kai-shek. Despite logistical difficulties and tense relations with Chinese commanders, these troops carried out successful operations, including ambushes and a notable raid on Japanese barges near Poyang Lake.

Mission 204, however, was withdrawn in November 1942 due to internal politics and health issues in the unit. Later, the Chinese Nationalist Party was forced to retreat to Taiwan by the CCP. For decades, Australia largely ignored or hid this history, only resurfacing clues in 2023. While avoiding CCP politics is understandable, it’s unfair to deny the public knowledge of Australia’s wartime actions, which effectively allows the CCP to dominate the narrative.

These examples show that celebrations of China surviving the Sino-Japanese War and WWII are often shaped by political agendas and media control. This leaves the public with incomplete, biased, or deliberately obscured views. Without critical analysis or access to multiple sources, key figures, like William Henry Donald, and events can be forgotten or misrepresented.

Viewing History Through A Critical Lens

Furthermore, whether in textbooks or news reports, the same historical events can be portrayed very differently depending on who tells the story. Motivations such as national pride, political advantage, or control over public narrative all highlight the need for careful comparative study. Governments exploit each new, impressionable generation by spreading half-truths or even outright lies under the guise of patriotism and unity. When in reality, it’s about framing themselves as ‘heroes’. The longer this continues, the fewer people will question the fabricated histories imposed by those in power.

When reading history, we shouldn’t take it at face value. What gets celebrated is rarely the full story, as many crucial voices stay buried under mainstream narratives. To avoid being misled by half-truths or polished myths, readers must take proactive steps to seek balance and truth.

For example, readers can compare news sources from different cultural backgrounds. Take the case of war survival anniversaries: a Chinese state outlet might glorify its own soldiers, while a Western outlet could focus on diplomatic strategy, such as why Western powers, despite ties with the invaded nation, chose not to intervene militarily. These contrasts reveal how bias shapes every narrative.

Another approach is to encourage counterfactual thinking, which is by exploring ‘what if’ scenarios to engage with history critically. Asking questions like “What if Chiang Kai-shek had acted sooner?” or”How might events differ if textbooks included multiple perspectives?” pushes readers to think beyond surface facts. By presenting alternative viewpoints side by side, educators and media can remind younger generations that history is layered, contested, and never entirely fixed.

News Media’s Historical Responsibilities

Additionally, should news outlets depend less on governmental sources, in order to report historical events to newer generations? For instance, the CCP often promotes itself as the sole hero in the Sino-Japanese war, overlooking many other factors that contributed to Japan’s defeat. To provide a fuller picture, journalists should consult academic historians from diverse backgrounds and archives. If local reporters are unable to do so, international media should avoid over-reliance on Chinese outlets, helping to diversify perspectives. Even when governments provide data, reporters must cross-check multiple sources: comparing war casualty numbers, dates, and accounts from different national archives.

To combat biased or incomplete narratives, media organizations must embrace investigative journalism. Rather than relying solely on press releases or government celebrations, journalists should explore archives, personal accounts, and lesser-known sources. This approach can uncover overlooked contributors, hidden controversies, or forgotten stories, such as the decades-long influence of William Henry Donald in China. Without such diligence, these stories risk being lost to history.

Other than Official Historical Narratives

Historical events are rarely one-dimensional. To ensure accuracy, news outlets should present both domestic and foreign perspectives. For instance, reporting on the Sino-Japanese War should not rely solely on CCP or Chinese Nationalist sources; Japanese accounts, Western observers, and even oral histories from survivors’ descendants can provide valuable insight. By comparing these perspectives, readers gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of events and can see where bias, pride, or self-interest has shaped narratives.

History is often told through the lens of nations, prominent leaders, or major battles, leaving countless contributors invisible. Unsung figures – nurses on the frontlines, translators bridging cultural and linguistic gaps, local militias defending communities, and ordinary civilians navigating war — have all shaped outcomes without formal recognition. Grassroots organizers and community leaders often mitigated famine, displacement, or political oppression, yet their stories rarely appear in mainstream textbooks. Highlighting these individuals challenges simplified nationalist accounts and invites readers to critically examine history from multiple angles. By including personal stories, letters, diaries, and oral histories, historians and educators can provide a richer, more nuanced understanding, showing that history is not only the story of leaders but also of ordinary people whose everyday decisions ripple across generations.

Importance of Multifaceted Historical Narrations

Historical narratives are not confined to academic debate; they actively shape contemporary geopolitics and international relations. The CCP’s control over historical interpretation has profoundly affected public perception of Taiwan, the South China Sea, Hong Kong, and Japan, often framing policies as defensive or restorative to fit a particular national narrative. Textbooks emphasizing the ‘century of humiliation’ or heroic struggles against foreign powers can reinforce domestic support for assertive policies abroad.

Understanding these manipulations shows how governments leverage history to justify policy, cultivate national sentiment, and shape international perception. Media, educational programs, and cultural diplomacy can extend this influence globally, subtly guiding how other countries interpret events involving China. Recognizing these dynamics is crucial for analysts, educators, and citizens, highlighting that history is not merely a record of the past but also a tool actively deployed to influence present-day politics and international relationships.

Digital Era’s Challenges Towards History

The landscape of historical narrative has further shifted in the digital age. Social media platforms are not just spaces for connection but arenas for ideological competition. TikTok, WeChat, YouTube, and Twitter/X have become battlegrounds for competing interpretations of history. Viral clips, memes, and algorithmically promoted content often shape perceptions more strongly than formal education. Algorithms tend to favor content that evokes strong emotions – national pride, outrage, or sensationalism – reinforcing particular viewpoints while suppressing others. Unlike these fast-moving but potentially biased feeds, traditional textbooks, though limited in perspective, are curated and vetted to ensure factual consistency.

For younger generations growing up online, cultivating media literacy, critical thinking, and the ability to cross-reference multiple sources is essential. This is not only to resist propaganda but also to engage with history in its full complexity. Encouraging discussions about the origins and credibility of online content empowers students to recognize how narrative manipulation occurs in real time. It prepares them to approach information critically throughout their daily lives.

Finally, historical reporting should be more understandable to younger generations. The media can leverage multimedia tools – short videos, infographics, timelines, and interactive articles – to break down complex events. Clear, engaging formats, using layman language and visuals, can prevent oversimplification and reduce the risk that a single, potentially biased narrative dominates public understanding.

In an age of propaganda, selective memory, and curated narratives, readers must approach history critically. By seeking multiple sources, questioning official accounts, and embracing diverse perspectives, we can resist half-truths and uncover the full story. History is not just a record of the past; it is a tool for understanding the present and shaping a more informed future. If media, educators, and citizens take these steps seriously, hidden figures like William Henry Donald and many others who shaped history behind the scenes can finally receive the recognition they deserve.

Editorial : Raymond Chow, Jenny Lun

Photo: Internet

Published in Sameway Magazine on 24 October, 2025

On October 16, Cohealth—one of Australia’s largest community health organizations and a non-profit medical institution—announced it would close three of its clinics. The news immediately sparked widespread public debate and criticism. The affected clinics are located in Collingwood, Fitzroy, and Kensington. The Fitzroy and Kensington clinics will cease general practitioner (GP) and consultation services this December, though they will continue providing specialized support for alcohol, drug, and domestic violence issues. The Collingwood centre is scheduled for full closure next June.

The closures will directly impact approximately 12,500 patients, resulting in 20 doctors losing their jobs and 44 nurses facing reassignment or redundancy. These clinics have long provided vital primary healthcare services to low-income individuals, the homeless, refugees, domestic violence survivors, and those with chronic illnesses, serving as an indispensable health support network within the community. However, due to insufficient funding, rising costs, and operational pressures, these services are now being forced to cease.

Nicole Bartholomeusz, CEO of Cohealth, stated that the cessation of services reflects “multiple and complex pressures, including decades of underinvestment, aging infrastructure, and funding models that don’t match actual needs or the type of care required.” She noted: “The funding we receive is only sufficient to provide standard care, but we actually serve high-need patients who often require extended appointments and comprehensive case management tailored to each individual.”

Cohealth’s current Medicare subsidy only covers physician salaries, failing to account for nurses, receptionists, and other operational costs. As wages and supply costs rise, the annual gap between clinic operating expenses and Medicare funding continues to widen.

Reforms Too Late, Support Too Little

In truth, Cohealth’s predicament did not emerge suddenly but resulted from years of accumulated challenges. Although the federal Labor government has pushed Medicare reforms in recent years to enhance the sustainability of the universal healthcare system—such as the upcoming Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program (BBPIP) launching November 1st, which will expand Medicare coverage, encourage clinics to maintain bulk billing, and provide additional funding for facility upgrades and team expansion— This initiative aims to improve access and affordability of healthcare services, with approximately 4,800 clinics expected to benefit.

However, for Cohealth, this reform appears to have come too late. The root problem lies not solely at the federal level, but in the Victorian government’s long-standing neglect of the actual health needs within grassroots communities. The poverty, homelessness, addiction, and trauma issues plaguing local communities have long exceeded the capacity of standard clinics. Yet the Victorian government has failed to provide additional support or establish stable funding mechanisms to sustain non-for-profit healthcare providers.

Cohealth identifies two primary causes for the current crisis: First, insufficient Medicare funding from the federal government for managing complex patients; Second, the Victorian government has failed to fund upgrades for the aging facilities at the Collingwood clinic.

Cohealth has repeatedly called for government support over the years. As early as 2022, Cohealth issued a statement noting that while they supported the government’s health-focused budget, the community health model—which played a critical role during the pandemic—was once again being overlooked. At that time, Cohealth emphasized the need for comprehensive investment across the entire healthcare sector to strengthen the health system as a whole.

The clinic’s facilities have long been outdated, with roof leaks forcing appointment cancellations. Despite multiple funding applications to authorities over the years, no substantive response has been received. Infrastructure Victoria’s report highlights that government funding for community services is fragmented and inadequate. The federal government has yet to establish dedicated funding for community health infrastructure. Even though the Australian government allocated $117 billion to health and medical services for 2024-25, community health organizations received only 0.3% of Victoria’s annual health infrastructure expenditure of approximately $2 billion.

Amid chronic funding shortages and sluggish government reforms, the state government’s disregard for community needs and inaction ultimately sealed the fate of these clinics. This underscores the state government’s core responsibility in ensuring the continuity of primary healthcare services.

Who is accountable for healthcare quality and service delivery?

In fact, community healthcare systems did not originate from government initiatives but from charitable and faith-based traditions. Early hospitals were often founded by churches or charitable organizations with a simple mission: to provide basic care to the poor and vulnerable through empathy and compassion. Healthcare then embodied social conscience rather than being a product of policy or systems.

As society modernized and public health concepts emerged, governments gradually assumed responsibility, incorporating health into the realm of “public duty.” The original intent behind this shift was noble—to ensure equal access to healthcare for all. Yet the process of institutionalization and bureaucratization introduced new challenges: the original “people-centred” care became diluted by layers of administrative procedures and economic logic. Healthcare services increasingly emphasized efficiency and output, gradually losing its human warmth.

Non-profit medical institutions like Cohealth represent a continuation of this historical trajectory. They uphold the founding spirit of charitable healthcare—serving vulnerable communities while upholding the belief that everyone deserves the right to health and equal access to medical care. Yet in reality, these organizations rely on government subsidies and unstable funding sources to sustain their operations.

The contradiction lies in the fact that as societies grow wealthier, public healthcare systems should be better equipped to protect the vulnerable. Yet the opposite occurs: medical costs rise relentlessly, resource distribution grows increasingly unequal, and healthcare services become ever more commoditized. In this environment, doctors are forced to complete consultations within “six-minute appointments,” nurses and receptionists operate at breaking point, and patients slip through the cracks of the system, overlooked.

Yet when reflecting on responsibility, the question may extend beyond “Who is to blame?” to “Where should healthcare be headed?”

Should we pursue the endless quest to “cure every disease”? Or should we return to healthcare’s fundamental purpose—ensuring everyone accesses basic health protection?

When the wealthy pay more for faster, better care while the poor endure long queues, has the ideal of equality already been swallowed by market logic?

Take Hong Kong, for instance. As a low-tax society, its citizens enjoy public healthcare at minimal cost—subsidized for life simply by holding a Hong Kong ID card. However, with an aging population and healthcare staff shortages, the public system has been chronically overburdened, leading to months-long waits for emergency rooms and specialist appointments. Consequently, the affluent middle and upper classes turn to private clinics, trading money for efficiency. This creates a healthcare system that appears equitable on the surface but is fundamentally stratified: the government guarantees access to services but not equal speed or quality. In other words, everyone has the right to medical care, but whether you can get better quickly and where you receive treatment depends on how much money you have.

Canada’s public healthcare system, meanwhile, is more idealistic. All residents can access free public healthcare with a health card, free from concerns about high costs. However, long waiting times and uneven resource distribution transform “free” into another form of “cost.” When demand far exceeds supply, fairness and accessibility inevitably clash.

Moreover, should healthcare prioritize “universal access” or ‘quality’? Should governments provide “basic care” or “comprehensive coverage”?

Comparisons with China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan

From an international perspective, Australia’s public healthcare system (Medicare) differs significantly from those in mainland China and Taiwan, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Mainland China’s system, dominated by public hospitals, subsidizes basic care through social medical insurance (urban employee/resident insurance). However, due to its massive population and concentration of medical resources in major cities, primary community clinics often struggle to handle high-demand patients—particularly low-income groups and those with chronic conditions. This mirrors Cohealth’s current situation: “resource concentration leading to overflowing demand.”

Taiwan adopted a National Health Insurance (NHI) model emphasizing “one health insurance card, nationwide healthcare coverage,” ensuring basic medical services for all regardless of urban/rural location or income level. NHI strengthens primary care clinics through subsidies and incentives, stabilizing the family doctor system. Nevertheless, disparities in healthcare resource distribution between urban and rural areas persist, and wait times for specialist care can remain excessively long.

In contrast, Australia’s Medicare system pursues fairness and accessibility in theory. Yet in practice, non-profit primary care institutions face chronic funding shortages and aging facilities. While serving predominantly vulnerable populations, these clinics often shoulder service volumes exceeding subsidy coverage. This structural contradiction creates a significant gap between the system’s ideals and its actual service capacity, highlighting a common challenge faced by vulnerable groups under different systems: even with “systemic safeguards,” they may still be marginalized due to inadequate resource allocation.

Australia’s Core Healthcare Contradiction

Returning to Australia itself, the core issue of its healthcare system isn’t a lack of total funding, but rather structural contradictions arising from resource allocation, institutional design, and policy priorities. Medicare is primarily designed for “standard medical services” such as general consultations, basic tests, and medications. However, it does not provide corresponding subsidies for the time, labour costs, and interdisciplinary integrated care required for high-need or complex patients. This leaves vulnerable groups unable to access truly comprehensive healthcare under the existing system.

Non-profit community clinics like Cohealth exist precisely to fill this gap. They offer extended consultations, case management, mental health counselling, addiction and domestic violence support, and even multidisciplinary integrated programs—services standard GP clinics struggle to provide. However, these intensive services are not fully subsidized by Medicare. Combined with limited state investment in primary care infrastructure, clinics face chronic financial strain, ultimately forcing service reductions or partial closures.

Cohealth’s partial closures reflect a deep-seated contradiction within Australia’s healthcare system: equity and accessibility do not equate to substantive care guarantees for high-need populations. While everyone ostensibly has the right to medical care, those requiring prolonged attention and individualized management often survive only by navigating systemic gaps. The institutional design itself thus creates an “invisible inequity” for high-need patients.

Australia’s healthcare also grapples with the dilemma of balancing universal coverage and quality. On one hand, the system must ensure everyone receives at least basic treatment; on the other, complex patients require sufficient time, specialized support, and case management. In reality, however, insufficient government funding and a narrow subsidy structure make achieving both goals difficult. Doctors are forced to rush through consultations, nurses and receptionists operate at capacity, while vulnerable patients languish on waiting lists. Non-profit clinics like Cohealth strive to fill these gaps, but persistent financial pressures and policy constraints render “humanized healthcare” a luxury in practice.

In other words, the core issue with Australia’s public healthcare system isn’t merely about assigning responsibility, but whether the system can return to its founding principle: ensuring everyone accesses basic healthcare while providing high-need patients with adequate resources and compassionate support when required. Cohealth’s predicament serves as a stark warning: without structural adjustments to resource allocation by government and society, the ideal of fairness remains unattainable, and vulnerable groups will continue to be marginalized by the system.

The Victorian Government’s Indisputable Responsibility

While medical policy is set by the federal government, state governments bear responsibility for implementing it according to local realities. Cohealth’s inner-city service area has a population receiving government living subsidies that exceeds the Australian average by more than double, indicating many residents cannot afford private services. The Victorian Government’s refusal to provide financial support to institutions like Cohealth demonstrates a disregard for vulnerable communities.

A similar situation exists in elder care for multicultural communities. While federal funding supports aged care services, research indicates that non-English-speaking seniors benefit most from living in facilities that accommodate their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Yet, emerging senior communities like the Chinese diaspora receive minimal Victorian government assistance to build suitable aged care facilities. Since 2014, Labor leader Andrews has repeatedly proposed policies to purchase four plots of land for the Chinese and Indian communities to build elderly care facilities. Yet to this day, the Victorian Department of Health continues to leave these sites vacant, failing to hand them over to community organizations to develop services. This demonstrates a dereliction of duty by government officials. This situation bears striking similarities to Cohealth Community Health Services ceasing operations today due to neglect. Should the Victorian Government conduct a thorough review of the Department of Health’s operations?

Editorial : Liz Li, Jenny Lun

Photo: Internet

Published in Sameway Magazine  24 October 2025

The U.S. and U.N. Part Ways on AI Regulation
The United States and the United Nations are diverging in their approach to AI governance. Recently, at the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. government explicitly rejected proposals to establish a global framework for artificial intelligence governance, highlighting a major disagreement with the international community on AI regulation. Michael Kratsios, the U.S. AI policy chief, emphasized at a U.N. Security Council meeting that the U.S. “completely rejects” any attempts by international organizations to exert “centralized control and global governance” over AI, insisting that the future of AI “lies not in bureaucratic management but in national independence and sovereignty.” Meanwhile, among the 193 U.N. member states—including China—the majority support establishing a framework for international cooperation. This reflects a growing global divide in technology governance, entering a new stage of fragmentation.

Rising Intensity of AI Competition
In recent years, China has rapidly emerged in the AI field, putting pressure on the traditional technological powerhouse, the U.S. China is leveraging its massive data resources to accelerate domestic innovation and promote algorithms abroad. Tech giants like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei are driving cutting-edge innovations, developing advanced facial recognition systems, language-processing tools, and other technologies. At the recently held World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, Chinese Premier Li Qiang proposed establishing a global AI cooperation organization to promote multilateral, open-source collaboration—signaling Beijing’s ambition to expand China’s influence in global geopolitics.

Recent data shows China leads the U.S. in AI patent applications by nearly tenfold, and China’s AI research output has surpassed the combined total of the U.S., the 27 EU countries, and the U.K. Facing this reality, the U.S. insists on maintaining its technological advantage through sovereign control, while China calls for strengthened international cooperation. The European Union, meanwhile, is pursuing a “third way” via its AI Act, formally released in July 2024, hailed as “the world’s first comprehensive AI law.” This multipolar governance model reflects a global AI landscape trending toward regionalization and fragmentation rather than unified international standards. Establishing an international AI organization is “one of the most critical issues of our time,” but achieving this goal requires direct negotiation and cooperation between the U.S. and China—a prospect that currently looks bleak.

In the West, concerns are growing that China’s dominance could shape global technology standards and governance, potentially exporting its ideology and weakening the influence of democratic nations in global tech governance. China has actively increased its participation in international standard-setting, particularly in developing countries, promoting AI systems like facial recognition with low cost and high efficiency. The most representative case is TikTok, which faced scrutiny over national security and data privacy while expanding abroad. The Trump administration restricted its use on government devices and demanded its sale to U.S. companies. With 170 million users in the U.S., over half the population, TikTok’s expansion prompted the White House to launch an “Action Plan” to enhance domestic technology and counter China’s influence. “Just as we won the space race, the U.S. and its allies must win this AI race,” the White House stated in the Action Plan.

Diverging Trends in 2025
This divide has become even clearer in 2025. According to Stanford HAI’s 2025 AI Index report, U.S. private AI investment reached $109.1 billion—almost 12 times China’s $9.3 billion—highlighting an innovation model dominated by Western capital markets. The U.S. produced 40 top-tier AI models, leading globally. However, China is rapidly closing the performance gap; a RAND report predicts that Chinese AI models will match U.S. capabilities by 2025. China focuses on “AI+” vertical applications, such as agricultural AI advisors and medical diagnostic systems.

The divergence stems from systemic differences: the West relies on market competition and open innovation, rejecting the U.N.’s global governance framework and emphasizing sovereign control to preserve its technological advantage. China, on the other hand, supports open-source models like DeepSeek through national funds (around ¥60 billion) and local government initiatives, emphasizing low-cost, scalable deployment. Discussions on X suggest that China’s “embodied AI” (robots) could dominate global value creation by 2030. The U.S. pursuit of AGI is disruptive, likened to an atomic bomb, whereas China’s application-driven approach is pragmatic—addressing export bans and achieving 70% domestic chip production. The result is a “dual-track” global AI ecosystem: Western high-end innovation and Chinese industrial empowerment, with China trailing only 6–12 months behind in model development.

Different Visions, Different Paths
Although competition between the U.S. and China in AI is intensifying, their development paths are increasingly distinct. The U.S. is investing hundreds of billions of dollars, consuming thousands of megawatts of energy, and racing to surpass China in the next AI evolutionary leap. Some view this leap as powerful enough to rival an atomic bomb in its impact on the global order. Since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT nearly three years ago, Silicon Valley has poured vast resources into pursuing the “holy grail” of AI—Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) capable of rivaling or exceeding human thought.

China, by contrast, is running a different race. Amid growing concerns about an AI bubble, China has said little about AGI and is instead pushing its tech industry to “focus firmly on applied fields”—developing practical, low-cost tools that boost productivity and are easy to commercialize, countering Silicon Valley’s pursuit of superintelligent AI.

Currently, U.S. tech companies are developing pragmatic AI applications. For instance, Google connects its Pixel smartphones to the internet for real-time translation; U.S. consulting firms use AI agents to create presentations and summarize interviews; other companies improve drug development and food delivery. Unlike the largely laissez-faire approach in the U.S., China is actively supporting its vision. In January, China established a National AI Fund totaling ¥60.06 billion, focusing on startups, followed by local government and state-owned bank initiatives, along with city-level AI development plans under the “AI+” program.

While Chinese companies are releasing their best models openly, U.S. companies prefer to keep “shiny new products” proprietary. Meta, Google, and OpenAI compete heavily to secure talent, data centers, and energy. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) even recommended a “Manhattan Project”-style initiative to fund AGI development and ensure U.S. leadership. However, given uncertain returns on large-scale investment, the U.S. path may not be wiser. Ultimately, like the internet’s bubble and years of development, AI competition could take decades to determine winners.

This divergence affects not only technology but also the global economy, military balance, and societal change. AI is expected to contribute $15.7 trillion to global GDP by 2030. Western innovation drives high-value industries like cloud services and pharmaceuticals, but 95% of companies see no ROI, raising bubble concerns. China’s application model accelerates manufacturing transformation, reduces software costs, and affects U.S. software market valuation by $1 trillion. Supply chain fragmentation increases global costs by 2–3%, forcing developing countries to choose sides: U.S. security vs. China’s affordability.

The IMF warns that AI may widen the wealth gap, affecting 40% of jobs globally, benefiting Western white-collar workers while low- and medium-skill labor faces unemployment risks. The path leads to a multipolar economy, with China exporting AI systems to developing countries, weakening Western influence.

In military terms, AI divergence changes the global landscape. The U.S., through the AUKUS alliance, maintains air superiority and nuclear stability, but China’s hypersonic missiles and AI drone swarms threaten the Taiwan Strait. RAND simulations suggest U.S. missile stockpiles could be depleted in 72 hours, while Chinese AI electronic warfare disrupts radar systems. Chinese military AI investments escalate U.S.-China competition, and the U.S. Action Plan treats AI as a space-race-like challenge.

Global conflict is transforming. AI lowers attack costs, as seen in cyber and drone warfare in Ukraine. NATO faces Russia-China alliances; AI weaponization heightens South China Sea tensions, yet interdependence prevents full-scale war. GIS reports predict AI will reshape geopolitics by 2030, and the West must win the AI race to maintain advantage.

Societal change is also impacted. The West emphasizes transparency and ethics (e.g., EU AI Act), while China strengthens surveillance and efficiency. AI replaces routine work, with Western high-wage jobs benefiting from augmentative AI; China’s application model accelerates social control (e.g., police AI dispatch). Ethical divergence arises as the West worries about China exporting ideology, while China promotes digital collectivism. Paths lead to social polarization, a widening digital divide in developing countries, and fragmented AI ethics standards. Discussions on X suggest the AI “cold war” is forming new blocs, requiring policy buffers for employment transitions.

The Oligopoly Era Arrives
The AI industry’s competitive landscape is fundamentally changing. In the AI chatbot market, ChatGPT still holds a 60.6% share, Google Gemini 13.4%, Microsoft Copilot 14.1%, and other competitors under 7%. This concentration allows resource-rich tech giants to continually expand their lead. The global AI market is expected to grow from $391.7 billion in 2025 to $1.81 trillion by 2030, with a 35.9% CAGR—surpassing the cloud computing boom of the 2010s. Microsoft, IBM, AWS, Google, and NVIDIA collectively hold 42–48% of the market.

Notably, the AI industry is seeing a divergence in technological approaches. Google’s vertically integrated AI ecosystem—from TPU chips to application services—challenges NVIDIA’s dominance in AI chips. Microsoft recently announced it would use both Anthropic and OpenAI technologies in Office 365, ending its exclusive reliance on OpenAI—a “don’t put all eggs in one basket” strategy that reduces technical risk and improves user experience. This multi-vendor approach is emerging as a trend among major tech firms.

In response, OpenAI seeks independence, planning to mass-produce its own AI chips with Broadcom by 2026, reducing reliance on Microsoft Azure. OpenAI also launched a job platform challenging LinkedIn. Anthropic, through its Microsoft partnership, gains access to 430 million Office 365 users. Its Claude Sonnet 4 model already surpasses GPT-5 in some tasks, providing a differentiated advantage in enterprise markets.

In 2025, AI investment reached $364 billion, dominated by U.S. giants, though China is catching up. U.S. moves: Microsoft invests $80 billion in AI infrastructure and ends exclusive OpenAI reliance, adopting multi-vendor strategies (e.g., Anthropic); Google TPU integration challenges NVIDIA, raising market value 800%; OpenAI pursues independence and self-produced chips by 2026. Export controls maintain U.S. advantage, but Chinese open-source alternatives undercut profits.

China plans $98 billion in AI investments, including Huawei’s Ascend chip mass production, Baidu and Alibaba AI cloud deployment, and DeepSeek open-source models potentially disrupting Western profits. These efforts aim to circumvent U.S. localization bans, export low-cost hardware, and enhance domestic party-controlled applications.

Looking back, history repeats itself. The current AI competition resembles the cloud computing battles of the past—an oligopoly is forming. Few giants, with strong capital and computing power, will define the market, and the “winner-takes-all” principle will likely reappear. True winners often emerge over two to three generations; for example, Google is the third generation of search, Facebook the third of social networks. Who will ultimately dominate in brand building, independence, and market share remains uncertain.

Future Outlook
The diverging paths of the AI race suggest long-term uncertainty: Western innovation vs. Chinese applications. Globally, risks must be balanced. In 2025, a bubble may burst, but as with the internet, winners may only emerge after decades. Cooperation may be key; otherwise, fragmentation could exacerbate geopolitical tensions.