Editor's note: Daryl Guppy is an international financial technical analysis expert and a national board member of the Australia China Business Council. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's address at the George Washington University on May 26 was framed in the context of the threat analysis favored by the China hawks and the American security establishment rather than diplomacy and deep understanding.

He took pains to acknowledge China hawk and Republican Senator Mitt Romney as "a leader that I greatly admire … who has been leading on the subject that we're going to talk about today". So it came as no surprise that he wandered down a path well worn with rhetoric from the Trump years. Not surprisingly, he advocated the same solutions based on the same flawed analysis of China, its history and its changing status. This was amply illustrated by his idea that China was seeking an "asymmetric decoupling" from the rest of the world rather than engagement on an equal footing.

China and the U.S. are the world's largest economies, so the idea that this is an asymmetric relationship reflects wishful thinking rather than an acceptance of reality.

He stressed that Joe Biden's administration did not seek a "cold war" with China but the very notion of a cold war environment fails to recognize the differences between the historical Cold War period and today. Russia was never an economic threat, so the Cold War was built around expansionist ideologies. Basing policy decisions on outdated analysis assumptions has the potential to lead to responses that are inappropriate for current conditions.

Today's competition is economic, and although Blinken prefers to frame this as a Cold War ideological contest, there is no evidence that China wishes to export its ideology. In fact, much to the frustration of the Americans and their missionary zeal for democracy, China has a non-interference approach to the political systems chosen by others.

Blinken made it clear that the U.S. has no intention of stepping back from its hegemonic intentions with his call for a vigorous defense of the existing global order. "The actions that we take at home and with countries worldwide will determine whether our shared vision of the future will be realized," he said, failing to acknowledge that his idea of a "shared vision" might not be embraced by others. His speech was made in the long tradition of American triumphalism.

In contradiction to his asymmetrical comments, Blinken went on to say that "China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order – and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do it". He was correct in noting China's intent but failed to appreciate that this intent is to play a greater role in the forums and institutions of global governance and China's commitment to multilateral solutions working with the United Nations.

"Rather than using its power to reinforce and revitalize the laws, the agreements, the principles, the institutions that enabled its success ... Beijing is undermining them," he said, while conveniently ignoring U.S. attempts to block and frustrate China's participation in these forums in a way that is commensurate with its importance.

Although not directly stated, Blinken showed he was clearly of the belief that China has no role to play in shaping regulations around digital protocols and standards, trade processes, the framing of trade relationships and international cooperation with the Global Development Initiative it has proposed for countries’ development and international development cooperation.

There is a dual standard at the core of the American assessment of the global environment and Blinken gave no indication of moving away from this "Do as I say, not as I do" approach to global relations. His bold assertion that "this is not about forcing countries to choose, it's about giving them a choice" was belied both by the content of his speech and the U.S. reaction to the decisions by sovereign countries in the South Pacific to engage with China.

Blinken made it very clear that the concepts of free and open Indo-Pacific and freedom of choice were acceptable only if they complied with the policy objectives of the United States and its friends.

While Blinken said the Biden administration's policy towards China is "invest, align and compete," his subsequent comments confirmed that "invest" means expanding American business access in China, but not Chinese business in America. "Alignment" means compliance with American objectives, policies and decisions. "Competition" means open access to China markets, but limiting China's access to world markets, including delisting Chinese companies from U.S. stock exchanges and banning select Chinese companies from providing competitive products. 

So where does this leave China? It confirms the need for firm preservation of China's interests through the continued use of UN and other global forums to develop inclusive solutions.

Unfortunately, Blinken's comments confirmed the path will not be easy as the United States' China policy has not advanced beyond the simplistic hysterics of the Trump years.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)