China’s new national security, White paper reveals paranoia

HONG KONG: On May 12, China’s State Council Information Office released a Chinese-language white paper discussing the nation’s security direction. In this National Security in the New Era document, Beijing describes the current geopolitical scene as “volatile and stable”. However, reading between the lines, what it cares about most is the stability and longevity of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Although this document must have been in the making for months, its release coincides with heightened regional and global uncertainty due to the unpredictability of US President Donald Trump. However, the State Council’s assertion that the paper “represents a major theoretical contribution from contemporary China to the global community” is best seen as a hubristic exaggeration.

Nonetheless, the white paper is important since it is China’s first such national security document. As the State Council explained, “The move aims to provide a comprehensive explanation of the innovative concepts, practices and achievements in China’s national security efforts, and enhance the international community’s understanding of China’s national security.”

New White Paper: “#China’s #NationalSecurity in the New [#Xi] Era”

China’s State Council Information Office (SCIO) just posted a white paper titled “China’s National Security in the New Era.” The English notification is below; the link to the full Chinese-language text is at the… pic.twitter.com/Mm9BJTt7NW

— Andrew Erickson 艾立信 (@AndrewSErickson) May 12, 2025

However, if the white paper was designed to reassure, then it failed. Beijing is attempting to paint itself as a source of stability in Asia-Pacific, but the white paper’s sections on sovereignty, systemic risk management and ideological resilience show that China’s national security is more about the survival of the CCP and its ideology. Its concept of holistic security encompasses diverse domains like politics, the economy, military, science and technology, and societal domains, all of which fall under the direct authority of the CCP. The concept also spans nontraditional threats such as cyberspace, artificial intelligence, biosecurity and public health.

Interestingly, it claims the “people’s security” is the ultimate goal. Yet the People’s Republic of China has never been about the people,instead, it exists to glorify and solidify the preeminence of the CCP. This is confirmed when the document states political security is “the fundamental task”. Furthermore, the CCP organ said national security “firmly fulfills the major responsibilities entrusted by the party and the people, upholds the party’s position as the governing party and the socialist system, improves the people’s sense of fulfillment, happiness and security…”

The document has a preface, six sections and a conclusion. Giving an idea of the contents, the six chapters cover the following topics: China injecting certainty and stability into the world of change and disorder; the holistic approach to national security guiding national security efforts in the new era; providing solid support for the steady and continued progress of Chinese modernization; reinforcing security in development and pursuing development in security; implementing the Global Security Initiative and promoting the common security of the world; and advancing the modernization of the national security system and capacity through deepening reforms.

It is unclear how national security “supports further expansion of high-level opening up,” for China is now more closed under Xi, nor how it “operates under the rule of law,” as asserted in the white paper. Yes, China has recently introduced new laws covering cybersecurity, data protection and counterterrorism, for example, but China uses laws to assert control over the population. This is rule “by” the law, not the rule “of” law.

Mathieu Duchatel, Resident Senior Fellow and Director of International Studies of the French-based Institut Montaigne think-tank, highlighted four key concepts contained within the National Security in the New Era White Paper. The first is the centrality of Chairman Xi Jinping’s comprehensive national security concept, which he first aired in April 2014.

Its sweeping scope covers politics, military, territory, economy, finance, culture, society, science and technology, cyberspace, food, ecology, resources, nuclear issues, overseas interests, outer space, deep sea, polar regions, biology, AI and data. A second concept is the elevation of political security as the lifeline of national security in the new era. In other words, the CCP system must be preserved at all costs.

Thirdly, Duchatel highlights the framing of national security policy as support for Chinese-style modernization. For instance, it lists a homicide rate of 0.44 per 100,000, which suggests China is the third-safest nation in the world. Although China trumpets its crime rate and social harmony as evidence of effective governance, it better reflects the tight controls implemented in an Orwellian police state where dissent is strictly outlawed.

The fourth concept, according to Duchatel, is the search for balance between national security goals and development. If higher-level development of the nation is to occur, greater national security is required, or so the CCP’s argument goes. It thus sees high-quality development and high-level security as two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other, and so economic resilience is integral to national stability. China is also prioritizing technological self-reliance to protect itself and minimize exposure to foreign sanctions or disruptions to global supply chains.

The white paper harks back to China’s 5,000-year history, which endowed the “Chinese nation with a profound and rich strategic culture on national security”. This is supposed to legitimize Xi’s comprehensive national security concept, and to suggest his continuity as though he is building on past foundations. In fact, much of this white paper is the CCP asserting the moral high ground. As Trump turns his back on longstanding American and human principles, Duchatel stated, “In this context, China can be expected to achieve some soft-power gains, even though its actual behavior does not always align with its policy statements, and sometimes contradicts them.” China majors on its responsible position in world affairs in this report.

Its Global Security Initiative (GSI), proposed by Xi in 2022, imagines “building a community with a shared future for humanity, and brings a global outlook to the holistic approach to national security”. The GSI trumpets shared security and multilateralism, whilst opposing bloc confrontations. In other words, the GSI seeks to set up China as the lead security partner as an alternative to Western blocs. From this position, China can dominate others.

The white paper stated, “China ensures both its own security and common security, advocates strengthening global security governance, practices the global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, upholds true multilateralism, and works to make global security governance system fairer and more equitable.” However, Chinese national security will always be at odds with the security of other nations, and the GSI does not provide solutions to this conundrum for an authoritarian regime, despite the flowery words. Experience has proven that China prefers coercive actions when it feels threatened.

China declares its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and development interests are non-negotiable, especially when it comes to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and maritime rights. The paper asserts the CCP’s “sincerity” in pursuing peaceful unification of Taiwan, and Duchatel commented that the paper’s tone “clearly favors United Front tactics over military coercion. There is no indication that Beijing is losing patience.”

The fear is that China’s “national security” efforts will simply tighten controls over home territory, as well as expanding its power and influence overseas. After all, whenever China exerts its power over others, it can claim it is simply exercising reasonable national security. As another example of the paradoxes contained in this white paper, the document promotes a political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, despite China steadfastly supporting Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

Duchatel noted, “While China has acted as a critical enabler of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the document portrays a posture of benevolent neutrality, repeating, for instance, the line that ‘the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected’. The disconnect between narrative and policy remains a major weakness of China’s foreign policy, even though many countries are blind to it, for different reasons, such as anti-American ideology, whataboutism or lack of expertise on China.” The same paradox could be applied to China’s treatment of India and Pakistan.

Although it paid lip service by condemning the Pahalgam terrorist attack, it arms and supports Pakistan, with its weapons being used in a short but sharp cross-border clash. Ryan Hass, an American foreign policy analyst who serves as director of the Brookings Institution’s John L. Thornton China Center, recently spent ten days traveling in China. Some of his observations reinforced what the white paper implies. Hass noted: “I feel China’s plan for the US-China trade war is coming into focus around three central planks: maintain composure and resolve; avoid being isolated; hit America where it hurts.”

Concerning the first point of maintaining composure, he elaborated that the Chinese leadership is presenting itself as calm and confident, yet also conditioning the Chinese public for economic turbulence. This involves diverting the populace’s frustration towards the USA as the source of their problems, and stoking nationalism by invoking China’s history of holding firm against external bullying.Beijing is working hard to avoid being isolated, including finding common causes with Asian and other nations. As Hass concluded, “PRC leaders don’t expect near-term resolution to the trade war. They view it as a symptom of a broader US strategy to suppress China’s rise. They believe PRC concessions now would only invite further US pressure. They’re treating the moment as strategic challenge, not an economic crisis.”

Hass claimed, “Rightly or not, Beijing believes its political system is more unified, hardened and disciplined than the US government to withstand trade war pressure. They’re signaling they will hold firm and wait for Trump to shift course.” This is the same kind of message that this national security white paper was trying to make – China is presenting a facade of confidence, and turning whole-of-society issues into matters of national security. (ANI)