The idea that some superpowers are malevolent, while others benign, has won favour amongst politicians, academics, broadcasters, and the general public alike. But does this notion hold up to scrutiny? In today's world, China paints itself as a pragmatic partner and ally, seeking mutual benefit with others. Even some observers agree, arguing that China has historically never had territorial ambitions. But China's critics claim this is simply naive. Moreover, rising empires have often portrayed their growing dominance as benevolent. In the 19th century, Britain saw its empire as a "civilising mission". While post-war, the States characterised its global dominance as a defence of freedom and democracy.
Should we reject the idea that separates powers into the malevolent and the benign and instead see them all as good and as bad as each other? Should we always distrust the claims of dominant powers to be acting for higher motives? Or are we right to see some global powers, even if often our own, as largely motivated by the well-being of all?
