China’s 2025 White Paper on National Security, released on May 12, 2025, has come as a significant departure from earlier strategic documents. No longer limited to traditional military defense, the white paper casts an expansive net, framing national security through a multidimensional lens that includes political, economic, technological, cultural, ecological, cyber, and even extraterrestrial domains. It reflects an ideological and structural change in the security paradigm, linking closely with President Xi Jinping’s overarching goal of national rejuvenation by 2049. But the question remains – does this broadened notion of security enhance China’s flexibility, or does it conceal a more assertive strategy of internal consolidation and global assertion?
This redefinition of security coincides with the concept of ‘hyper-securitization,’ a term used by scholars to describe the process by which nearly every aspect of governance is rendered a matter of survival. By putting security into all policy domains, the White Paper transforms what might once have been developmental or regulatory issues into strategic threats. Health systems, food supply, education, AI, and even cultural narratives are now folded into this expansive logic of state security. While the document echoes global trends such as the UNDP’s human security model and the Copenhagen School’s focus on non-traditional threats, China’s use of these frameworks is selective and statist. The language may be ‘people-centric,’ but the thrust remains regime-centric.
The white paper attempts a rhetorical balance between state control and international cooperation. Terms like “shared security,” “development-based peace,” and “inclusive governance” appear throughout, suggesting configuration with global norms. However, these terms are claimed to have rooted within the ideological framework of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the absolute leadership of the Communist Party. Rather than abandoning traditional doctrines, China has repurposed them, giving old ideologies new functions in domains like cyberspace law, AI ethics, and environmental governance. The inclusion of the polar regions, outer space, and quantum computing shows Beijing’s long-term strategic intent – a vision of global reach and future-centric competition.
Domestically, the 2025 White Paper responds to intensifying structural challenges. China’s GDP growth fell below 5% in 2024, the lowest in decades, amid property market defaults and ballooning local government debt. These vulnerabilities are now recast as security concerns. Financial stability, grain security (notably, 700 million tons harvested in 2024), tech self-reliance, and strategic resource reserves are listed as core pillars of security. The state pledges to secure supply chains, cut external dependencies, and invest in semiconductors, AI, and quantum technologies as instruments of both economic rejuvenation and strategic autonomy.
Public welfare and environmental protection also receive unusual prominence. The White Paper cites improved public health outcomes (life expectancy up to 79 years, low homicide rates), a 36% reduction in PM2.5 pollution since 2015, and a 25% national forest cover as evidence that China’s security approach enhances citizen wellbeing. Yet, this alignment of development and security can also serve to legitimize expanded state surveillance and censorship, as the line between governance and control continues to blur.
China’s military capabilities provide the hard edge to this broad security vision. The 2025 White Paper indirectly references U.S. tariffs and the resurgence of Cold War-style rivalries. China’s response has been a sharp uptick in military modernization. The country now possesses the world’s largest navy with over 370 ships and submarines, backed by a shipbuilding industry 230 times more productive than that of the U.S. Its nuclear arsenal surpassed 600 warheads in mid-2024 and is projected to cross 1,000 by 2030. Technologically, the PLA is transitioning toward “intelligentized warfare,” deploying AI-powered drones, hypersonic missiles, and space surveillance capabilities like the Yaogan-41 satellite.
These developments indicate a fundamental tension between China’s proclaimed holistic security paradigm and its rapidly expanding military footprint. While the White Paper frames security as “people-centred” and “development-oriented,” the concrete trajectory of China’s defence sector tells a different story. The sustained rise in defence spending (7.2% in 2024) despite economic slowdown, the prioritization of power projection capabilities, and the construction of dual-use platforms such as cruise ships capable of transporting troops all signal an overt militarization beneath the rhetoric of inclusivity. The disparity suggests that holistic security may function less as a departure from militarism than as a strategic veneer to justify and normalize it.
China’s internal military reforms, including the creation of the Information Support Force (ISF) in 2024, highlight the strategic importance it places on cyber and electronic warfare. The ISF replaced the Strategic Support Force, consolidating command over digital infrastructure, communications, and electronic surveillance. This shift reveals a growing emphasis on network-centric operations and information dominance. Moreover, PLA joint operations are now increasingly tested far beyond China’s immediate periphery, indicating readiness for conflict scenarios rather than just deterrence.
The White Paper’s geopolitical orientation is also significant. It asserts claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea as core internal matters, rebukes Western interference, and positions China as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific. Without naming Pakistan, it addresses the need to secure overseas Chinese investments and personnel, clearly referencing BRI-linked regions like Balochistan. These provisions suggest that China’s security strategy is not merely domestic; it is transnational, including project safety, maritime control, and diaspora surveillance.
While the document borrows liberally from global norms, its execution diverges sharply. Where the UNDP’s model seeks to secure individuals from fear and want, China’s model secures the state from dissent and disruption. Securitizing culture, ideology, and online discourse transforms civil society into a monitored space. In effect, China is not just participating in the international debate on comprehensive security – it is attempting to redefine it, turning development into discipline and cooperation into leverage.
The implications of this shift are profound. On one hand, China’s expansive view of security is not without merit in a world where cyberattacks, pandemics, and ecological collapse are real threats. On the other, the application of this view may entrench authoritarianism under the guise of resilience. It permits pre-emptive state action, normalizes the surveillance of digital and cultural life, and sidelines dissent in the name of harmony.
In sum, the 2025 White Paper is both an offbeat and ambitious document. It marks China’s intent to remake security thinking in its image, a fusion of tradition and innovation, control and flexibility, ideology and pragmatism. Yet, beneath the language of inclusivity and cooperation lies a strategic bid to enhance state authority and project global power. The stakes, therefore, are high. If China succeeds, it may inspire alternative models of governance worldwide. If it overreaches, it risks deepening the divide between sovereignty and freedom, between development and democracy. The world should watch carefully not just what China says, but what it securitizes next.
[Photo by Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
K.M. Seethi, Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension, is the Academic Advisor of the International Centre for Polar Studies at Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He also served as ICSSR Senior Fellow, Senior Professor and Dean of International Relations at MGU.
