Great-power competition has been a recurrent theme in history since its emergence in the late 4th millennium BC. The current prevailing competition involves an ongoing push-pull among the US, China and Russia for global strength and dominance. It is far more convoluted than a military or economic problem. Despite growing apprehensions about an armed conflict over South China Sea, neither the US nor China posture a genuine military threat to the other’s sovereignty or independence. The two states are simply too large, too populous, too restrained and too far away for each other to contemplate a direct military intervention or even to impose their intent on the other decisively. China is not to become a multiparty democracy, and the US would not become a one-party state capitalist regime. Neither country pursues to convert the other to its preferred political ideology and thus, both have to coexist with each other for a long time. If that is the case, what are they trying to compete or contest for? A major part of the competition will be “coercive and domineering” as each country seeks to defend and promote the rules or customs of the political system it believes the global order should be based on. The most important conclusion is that while GPC is a historical norm, relative decline and violent clash among rivals are not predestined in any way. China’s preferred world order is territorial sovereignty, noninterference and safety for autocracy. Therein, universalists claim that individual rights do not jeopardise the authority of the Chinese Communist Party or inspire criticism of its internal policies. The US, by contrast, has long promoted a world order where so-called liberal values are preferred; promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction. Of course, neither the US nor China lives up to these standard declarations. Yet, the normative preferences displayed by the US and China are not just empty rhetoric. The US has, at times, used its power to expand the sphere of democratic rule and pressurise or cold-shouldered states that rejected these ideals. China’s live-and-let-live rhetoric is quite reassuring to nations that do not share its autocratic character Americans may be accustomed to thinking the arc of history bends toward justice, and ideals of freedom are destined to triumph even if takes many decades before they are fully realised. But it would be wise not to assume it because China’s preferred set of rules is likely to prove attractive in many places. Nondemocratic leaders of the world may prefer a world order that gives each state the right to determine its own system of government. China’s willingness to provide development assistance without conditioning it on domestic reforms has proven to be appealing. Therefore, China’s defence of noninterference and rejection of liberal norms are going to win support from a lot of autocrats. China’s live-and-let-live rhetoric is quite reassuring to nations that do not share its autocratic character. China’s position is less vulnerable to the charge of duplicity or hypocrisy, asserting that all states should be permitted to develop as they see it fit to do business with democracies, military dictatorships, and monarchies. Some countries might find this stance more attractive than the US perception that all governments ought to become democracies eventually. The US looks two-faced, when it proclaims liberal principles, but continues to support close allies that routinely violate these ideals. Given all this, one might think China’s live-and-let-live approach to world order would eventually displace the US’ liberal ideals, and the normative foundation. I think that conclusion is premature because China’s rational position is not without its specific liabilities. The past two decades have been a rough patch for many of the world’s democracies, despite the favorable position they enjoyed as the 20th century came to a close. The US stumbled into several costly wars, triggered a global financial crisis, and is presently facing a level of dysfunction and partisan division unseen since its Civil War. Japan has been treading waters economically. Europe has faced recurring economic crises and parochial challenges. It is a mistake to believe conspiracy theories, but it is also a mistake to assume that they bear no relation to reality. The world’s major democracies have performed poorly as of late and West is in a condition of terminal and self-inflicted decline. A geo-economic power shift has occurred. Historically, Pakistan has maintained robust relationships with both the US and China based on security, political, and economic interests. Current pillars of Pakistan’s relationship with the US include Pakistan’s ongoing cooperation in Afghanistan—required well past the US military drawdown. Conversely, China has initiated unprecedented economic cooperation via CPEC. Pakistani strategists also count on China for consistent support to contend with asymmetrical rival India and moral support in helping internationalise the core issue of Kashmir. Pakistan has to constantly walk a tightrope in the existing great powers competition. The writer is a retired Pakistan Army officer and can be reached at nawazish30@hotmail.com