China and U.S. National Security Strategies: Perspectives from Vietnam

China and U.S. National Security Strategies: Perspectives from Vietnam

NGUYỄN ÁI VIỆT, Viện IGNITE

I. China’s National Security Strategy (2025)

1. Preface: National Security as a Historical Mission

The White Paper titled China’s National Security in the New Era, published in May 2025, opens by positioning the issue of national security within the historical context of the Chinese nation. From the invasions China endured in the 19th century and the disintegration of the traditional order to the process of achieving independence, unification, and national rejuvenation in the 20th century, national security is regarded as the fundamental condition for the existence of contemporary China.

The Communist Party of China is identified as the entity entrusted by history with the mission of governance to bind together national independence, political stability, and economic development. The White Paper asserts that all contemporary thinking regarding China’s national security in the new era must stem from the Party’s leadership role and its historical legitimacy.

The White Paper was released amidst intensifying global competition and an increasingly complex security environment. Nevertheless, it emphasizes a systems thinking approach toward national security strategy.

2. China: A Factor of Stability in a Volatile World

China is facing a global situation entering a phase of "profound changes unseen in a century," characterized by an escalation in regional conflicts, hegemonism, power politics, the resurgence of Cold War mentality, and emerging risks from biotechnology, cyberspace, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The Asia-Pacific region is considered the epicenter of both opportunities and instability. The White Paper highlights that this region is undergoing increasing militarization, the emergence of closed alliance blocs, and the deployment of strategic deterrent weaponry. China is concerned that these movements are eroding trust, increasing the risk of conflict, and running counter to the long-term interests of nations within the region.

China positions itself as a stabilizing force, a constructive factor, and a development partner. The White Paper constructs an image of China as a responsible power that opposes hegemony and bloc politics, while advocating for the resolution of disputes through dialogue and cooperation. This marks the initial step of a normative framework in which China stands in moral opposition to destabilizing behaviors within the international order.

3. The Holistic National Security Outlook: The Central Conceptual Framework

The "Holistic National Security Outlook" is regarded as the guiding principle for security strategy in the new era. This perspective asserts that national security cannot be narrowed down to military or foreign affairs; instead, it must be understood as an overarching entity encompassing the entirety of political, economic, and social life.

People’s security is the ultimate goal, political security is the fundamental bedrock, and national interests are the final criteria. Consequently, the stability of the political system is the prerequisite for protecting the people's welfare and pursuing national interests.

The Holistic National Security Outlook expands the scope of security into a series of non-traditional domains such as economics, finance, technology, data, biology, space, the deep sea, and the polar regions. The White Paper affirms that China’s security thinking does not stifle development; rather, it serves to manage risk.

4. Security in Service of Chinese-style Modernization

The White Paper perceives national security and Chinese-style modernization as inseparable. Security is the instrument that protects the developmental path, which includes high-quality development, technological innovation, and the improvement of the people's livelihood.

The White Paper emphasizes that issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly Taiwan and maritime rights, are identified as core interests that cannot be compromised.

The White Paper devotes significant attention to technological sectors such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), biotechnology, and data, viewing these as both drivers of development and spaces for future security competition. China’s security thinking has shifted decisively toward protecting long-term developmental capacity rather than merely reacting to immediate threats.

5. The Dialectical Balance between Development and Security

China regards development and security as two inseparable facets of the national modernization process. Development serves as the material foundation and the impetus for national security, while security is the prerequisite for continuous and sustainable development.

The White Paper criticizes thinking that neglects security—where opening up, growth, and integration lack risk management, leading to economic, social, and political vulnerabilities. Conversely, the White Paper opposes excessive securitization, which turns security into a pretext for stifling reform, closing the economy, or suffocating developmental drivers.

As China transitions from rapid growth to high-quality development, this balance becomes particularly critical. The White Paper emphasizes that risks arising from the developmental process must be managed through increasingly sophisticated institutional capacities, rather than by abandoning development itself.

6. The Global Security Initiative: National Security and Global Security

The Global Security Initiative (GSI) extends the logic of domestic security into the global arena. China maintains that current security challenges—ranging from armed conflicts, terrorism, and climate change to technological risks—cannot be resolved through confrontational thinking or bloc politics.

The Global Security Initiative is based on a set of normative principles: common security cannot be achieved at the expense of another country’s security; security must be comprehensive, covering all domains; security must be based on cooperation, dialogue, and the building of trust; and finally, security must be sustainable, linked to long-term development rather than short-term, coercive solutions.

The GSI opposes security models based on hegemony, unilateral sanctions, and exclusive alliances. This initiative reshapes the understanding of international security, particularly from the perspective of developing nations.

The White Paper demonstrates China’s ambition not only to protect national security in a narrow sense but also to participate proactively in restructuring the global security order toward a multipolar, multilateral, and non-confrontational direction.

7. Modernizing the National Security System and Capacity

In this section, the White Paper discusses the modernization of the national security system and capacity through the strengthening of centralized and unified leadership, regarding this as the key condition for implementing security policy.

The White Paper considers the perfection of national security institutions and legislation as the instrument to transform strategic thinking into concrete governance capacity. Security laws reflect a strong trend toward the "rule of law" (juridification) within the security sector.

The White Paper also emphasizes enhancing implementation capacity, including coordination between agencies, the integration of traditional and non-traditional security, and the nexus between civil and military sectors. The objective is to build a security system capable of forecasting and adjusting policies in accordance with changes in both the domestic and international environments.

8. Conclusion: Security as the Condition for National Rejuvenation

The White Paper presents a systemic conception of security that is inextricably linked to the path of Chinese-style modernization, aimed at protecting political stability, economic development, and the country’s international standing.

National security is placed at the heart of the national rejuvenation project; it serves both as the existential condition for the modern state and as the foundation for participating in the shaping of the international order within a profoundly changing world.

II.Summary of the United States National Security Strategy (2025)

1. Introduction: A Break from Post-Cold War Security Strategies

The U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) establishes a new starting point, contending that the United States has lost its strategic direction for decades by pursuing ambiguous goals that exceeded both its capabilities and its core interests.

Previous administrations did not lack power, but they utilized that power for distant conflicts and undertook burdens that yielded no direct benefit to America. Therefore, the 2025 NSS emphasizes strategy as the rigorous alignment between what the United States seeks to protect and its actual capacity to protect them.

This marks a clear break from liberal internationalism, which viewed the United States as the guarantor of the global order. Instead, the 2025 NSS asserts that the United States must, first and foremost, be a sovereign nation, engaging only in international commitments that directly serve national security and prosperity.

2. The Ultimate Goal: Protecting the Sovereign Republic

The objective of the 2025 NSS is to safeguard the existence of the United States as a sovereign, independent, and self-determining republic. National security, therefore, is inextricably linked to the lives of American citizens, territorial integrity, and the values that constitute American society.

Border control and ending the era of mass migration are placed at the highest priority. Migration is identified as a security challenge capable of eroding social cohesion, straining national resources, and undermining the state’s capacity for self-governance. The protection of citizens against military, economic, technological, and cultural threats is presented as a unified and inseparable mission.

The 2025 NSS expands the concept of security into cultural, spiritual, and familial domains, regarding these as the social foundations of national strength. A society disoriented in its values, weakened in spirit, and divided in identity will be unable to maintain long-term security, regardless of possessing superior military power.

3. National Resources: Existing Strength and the Requirement for Reorganization

The 2025 NSS contends that the United States still possesses resources superior to those of any adversary, including economic, financial, technological, military, and energy power, as well as geographical advantages and an extensive network of allies.

The 2025 NSS argues that the fragmentation and inefficient utilization of resources, allowing strategic supply chains to depend on foreign nations, the decline of industrial manufacturing capacity, and internal barriers within the governance system are factors that erode national strength from within.

Consequently, the NSS calls for a comprehensive reorganization of national resources, ranging from unleashing energy capacity and restoring industrial production to directing investment in science and technology. The objective is to consolidate the internal foundation of power so that the United States can act proactively and selectively on the international stage.

4. Strategic Principles: The "America First" Doctrine

The 2025 NSS establishes the "America First" strategic doctrine, which places national interests above all else; every foreign commitment must serve those interests.

The principle of "Peace through Strength" is reaffirmed as the foundation of deterrence policy. Accordingly, peace is not the result of unilateral compromise but the consequence of maintaining overwhelming military and economic superiority, sufficient to deter adversaries from the outset. The 2025 NSS regards the use of force abroad as an exception.

The strategy maintains that the nation-state is the supreme political unit. Alliances and partnerships are instruments, and they only hold significance based on the principles of fairness and mutual respect.

5. Economic Security and Re-industrialization

The 2025 NSS asserts that in the 21st century, national power is inseparable from manufacturing capacity, control over supply chains, and technological standing.

Tariffs are regarded as a strategic tool to protect domestic manufacturing, adjust international economic relations, and reduce dependence on supply chains from adversarial nations. Re-industrialization is directly linked to national defense security, aiming to build an industrial base strong enough to support both the civilian and military economies.

The 2025 NSS mandates the achievement of energy independence, viewing energy as both an economic resource and a geopolitical lever. Unleashing domestic energy capacity is a prerequisite for the United States to maintain strategic autonomy and international influence.

6. Regional Priorities and a Fair International Order

The 2025 NSS is based on a firm U.S. approach toward the world. The Western Hemisphere is considered a direct security space, where the United States is determined to prevent the influence of any adversary. In Asia, the focus is on preventing any nation from achieving a dominant position through military deterrence and economic rebalancing.

Regarding Europe, the 2025 NSS requires allies to share the defense burden as a condition for maintaining a sustainable alliance. In the Middle East and Africa, the strategy is to avoid becoming bogged down in protracted conflicts and to focus on core interests.

The international order envisioned by the 2025 NSS is not based on universal moral commitments, but rather an order of sovereign nations interacting with one another on the basis of interests and the balance of power.

7. Conclusion: Security as the Reaffirmation of National Sovereignty

The 2025 NSS reflects the security thinking of a great power seeking to reaffirm its sovereignty and preeminence in a fiercely competitive world. Security is understood, first and foremost, as the protection of the republic, its citizens, and the American way of life through deterrent power, re-industrialization, and fair-minded international relations.

The 2025 NSS chooses a path of narrowing commitments while strengthening leverage, prioritizing concrete national interests over idealized goals. This is a highly realist strategy, reflecting a profound adjustment in how the United States perceives its role in the contemporary world order.

III. Two Opposing Security Doctrines and Vietnam’s Strategic Space

1. Two Fundamental Conceptions of National Security

The National Security Strategies of China and the United States reveal how each nation conceptualizes "security" according to its own perspective and interests.

For China, security is inextricably linked to internal political stability, the Party’s leadership, and the capacity to maintain the long-term modernization process. Security is preventative and risk-governance-oriented, constructed as an institutional architecture encompassing all sectors of national life. China does not decouple security from development, viewing it as the existential condition for the national rejuvenation project.

In contrast, the United States approaches security as a problem of sovereignty and power. Security is understood as the capacity to protect the republic, its citizens, borders, and the American way of life against external impacts and internal erosion. Consequently, security is selective, transactional, and deterrent-based. The United States focuses on ensuring that no force can directly harm its core interests.

This distinction creates two opposing doctrines: one sees security as an architecture of stability, while the other sees security as a tool to protect sovereignty and preeminence.

2. Two Conceptions of the International Order

China proposes a security order based on normativity: opposing hegemony, resisting bloc politics, and promoting common, cooperative, and sustainable security. The Global Security Initiative specifically targets developing nations, asserting that moral legitimacy plays a role as vital as material capacity.

The United States, conversely, demonstrates clear skepticism toward multilateral frameworks if they do not yield direct benefits. The international order is viewed through the lens of the balance of power and fair-minded interests. Alliances are meaningful only when accompanied by burden-sharing; commitments are maintained only when they serve the interests of the United States.

While one side seeks to shape the order, the other seeks to optimize its position within the order. This divergence creates a strategic environment of competition and overlap, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

3. The Regionalization of Security and Pressure on Middle Powers

In the context of these two major security doctrines operating in parallel, middle and small powers, including Vietnam, inevitably face multi-dimensional impacts.

China regards its neighborhood as a direct security space where political stability and economic development must go hand in hand. The United States views the Indo-Pacific as a critical space for strategic competition, where the dominance of any single power must be prevented. These two approaches generate continuous strategic pressure, especially at points where interests intersect, such as the South China Sea, supply chains, technology, and infrastructure.

For nations like Vietnam, the greatest risk is being drawn into the confrontational logic of great powers, which narrows the space for strategic autonomy.

4. Vietnam’s Unique Position: Between Stability and Sovereignty

As a neighboring country to China, Vietnam shares the need for stability, development, and the avoidance of conflict. At the same time, Vietnam cannot accept any security structure that diminishes its right to self-determination.

Unlike the United States, Vietnam does not pursue security based on power preponderance. Unlike China, Vietnam does not construct security based on the ability to project normative influence outward. Therefore, Vietnam's security strategy is one of balance—a combination of stability and autonomy, and of cooperation and precaution.

Following this logic, Vietnam can learn from China’s approach to security as linked to long-term development, risk governance, and institutional capacity building. Concurrently, Vietnam can also adopt from the United States the emphasis on sovereignty, resilience, and the principle of not trading away core interests for ambiguous commitments.

5. Vietnam’s Strategic Space: Not Choosing Sides, but Choosing Capacity

The pivotal point for Vietnam is not "choosing sides," but rather choosing capacity. In an environment where great powers increasingly securitize the economy, technology, and supply chains, Vietnam’s true strategic space lies in enhancing its internal capacities: institutional capacity, economic capacity, technological capacity, and strategic forecasting capacity.

Vietnam can engage in deep and wide-ranging cooperation with both China and the United States, provided that such cooperation does not erode its strategic autonomy. Diversifying relations, avoiding unilateral dependence, and upholding the principles of independence and self-reliance are the conditions for Vietnam to survive and thrive in a competitive order.

As these two major security doctrines continue to clash and adjust to one another, Vietnam stands in a proactive position to forge its own strategic space, based on long-term national interests.

6. Conclusion: Vietnam as a Vigilant Strategic Actor

The National Security Strategies of China and the United States demonstrate that today’s world operates simultaneously under two different logics: the logic of systemic stability and the logic of sovereignty-power. Neither logic can absolutely encompass or impose itself in a multipolar world.

In this context, Vietnam cannot replicate the doctrine of any great power but can draw a core lesson: national security is inseparable from development, yet development cannot be traded for sovereignty; cooperation is necessary, but strategic autonomy is an existential condition.

It is through this vigilance that Vietnam must maintain its position as an independent, stable nation with a voice in a restructuring regional and global order.

IV.Science and Technology as the Pillar of Vietnam’s National Security in the New Competitive Order

1. From Traditional Security to National Capacity Security

In the era of high technology and comprehensive strategic competition, national security can no longer be understood primarily through military power, territorial control, or political alliances. Practice has shown that only the nation that masters science and technology as a systemic capacity possesses the ability to protect its sovereignty, maintain stability, and sustain long-term development.

As a nation that does not pursue hegemony, Vietnam’s security must be built upon the capacity to survive, adapt, and develop in an increasingly fierce techno-geopolitical competitive environment.

Therefore, science and technology are no longer merely specialized policy sectors but have become the foundation of modern national security.

2. Science and Technology in the New Security Architecture: Lessons from Two Great Powers

The commonality between both the United States and China is that science and technology have become security assets, no less significant than territory or the military.

Vietnam cannot and does not need to choose one of these two extreme approaches. However, Vietnam must draw a core conclusion: the loss of science and technology capacity is a loss of security, regardless of whether a military conflict occurs.

3. Technological Security and Vietnam’s Strategic Autonomy

Vietnam’s strategic autonomy in the 21st century depends on whether the nation can master the essential technological systems required to operate the economy, society, and the state.

A nation that is entirely dependent on external technology, digital platforms, supply chains, or data will always remain in a state of vulnerability, even in the absence of armed conflict. Conversely, a nation with sufficiently deep technological capacity—even if it does not lead the world in military power—can still maintain a broad space for self-determination.

For Vietnam, technological security does not mean "doing everything itself"; rather, it means mastering key stages: system architecture, standards, data, cybersecurity, and the ability to integrate and operate technology under various conditions.

4. Science and Technology as Long-term Preventative Strength

Security based on science and technology is defensive in nature. Investing in technological capacity creates long-term resistance against external shocks: supply chain disruptions, energy crises, cyberattacks, information warfare, or technological sanctions.

For Vietnam, building national science and technology capacity can be viewed as a form of "soft deterrence." A nation with a secure digital system, resilient supply chains, and reliable manufacturing and technological integration capacities will be less vulnerable to geopolitical pressures.

Thus, science and technology do not only serve economic development but directly reduce the probability of security crises.

5. Positioning Vietnam within the Regional Techno-Security Order

Technological competition between great powers is restructuring global value chains. This process creates gaps for nations with moderate capacity that are stable, reliable, and highly capable of integration.

Vietnam can position itself not as a hub for cutting-edge technological invention, but as a regional center for the secure deployment, manufacturing, and operation of technology. This is a position of strategic value, as it is directly linked to supply chain security, data security, and systemic security.

Within this space, Vietnam can simultaneously engage in deep cooperation with China regarding manufacturing, applications, and infrastructure, while expanding collaboration with the United States and other partners on standards, security, training, and dual-use technologies, all without compromising the principles of independence and autonomy.

6. Science-Technology and Resolution 57: From Objectives to Capacity

Resolution 57 of the Politburo placed science, technology, innovation, and digital transformation at the forefront of national developmental breakthroughs. However, for science and technology to truly become a pillar of national security, it is crucial to transform these elements into the operational capacity of the national system.

This requires a paradigm shift: from viewing science and technology as a sector that "supports development" to regarding it as the nation's soft security infrastructure. When perceived this way, every decision regarding data, digital platforms, technological supply chains, standards, and human resources carries strategic security significance.

7. Conclusion: Building National Security through Intellectual Capacity

In a world transitioning from territorial competition to capacity competition, science and technology become the space where security and development converge. The two major security doctrines of China and the United States, despite differences in values and methodologies, both affirm one thing: a nation that does not master science and technology will not be able to master its own future.

For Vietnam, the path forward does not lie in an arms race, but in building a science and technology capacity deep enough to ensure autonomy, flexible enough for cooperation, and resilient enough to withstand shocks. This capacity will serve as the firmest foundation for Vietnam’s national security for decades to come.

Vietnam needs to rely on soft power to support the development of its science and technology capacity.