It's bullshit polemic.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3124752/chinas-officials-play-rise-east-decline-westMore exactly, it's an example of ethical reasoning reliant on artificial polarization, a made up yin-yang.
To actually achieve an "ought" statement, you need "ought" axioms. That is, you derive obligation, or statements of what should be, from obligations, or statements of what should be. You need some naturallistic set of poles. Yes/No, Right/Wrong, Black/White. Stuff you can has sides, one of which is wrong.
In the case of reasoning in China, the world is asserted to be in constant change, but change that appears in cycles. Morality lies in accepting change, but seeking balance.
More or Less.
And so, East, West.
It's not empirical, it's didactic. And it amounts to wishing us ill.