Two weeks ago in San Francisco, Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a speech to a gathering of U.S. business leaders that was chock full of his signature ideological ideas, including “Chinese-style modernization.” Why did Xi lecture them about these ideas? And what does Chinese-style modernization mean for U.S.-China relations?
The Solomon Islands has become the focus of a fierce geopolitical rivalry between the allies of the U.S. on one hand, and China on the other, after announcing an extensive security pact with Beijing a year and a half ago. But some are concerned that great power competition is overshadowing national development priorities.
As preparations fall into place for the first in-person summit in four years between EU officials and their Chinese counterparts, hopes for constructive partnership have been displaced by mutual suspicion. Yet in hardening its stance toward Beijing, Brussels is ignoring weaknesses within China that could also generate risks.
While China’s current economic malaise has multiple factors, there is something about President Xi Jinping’s pursuit of utopian policies that increasingly seems to weigh on the country. One manifestation of this despondency is the phenomenon of “lying flat,” a Chinese concept that closely equates to “opting out.”
The city of Shenzhen is looking for ways to adapt to China’s shifting economic landscape. But Shenzhen is not just another city. It was the birthplace and symbol of the Reform and Opening Up era. What future does that leave for Shenzhen, now that the China it once represented no longer exists under President Xi Jinping?
Today’s violent and complex world has drawn many historical analogies, particularly with the 1950s and the start of the Cold War. While the current geopolitical landscape does not feature two blocs in the Cold War sense, we can distinguish two families of countries or “worlds,” geographically, but above all politically and culturally.
EU officials have been careful to avoid framing Global Gateway, an infrastructure development initiative, as a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, but comparisons between the two frameworks are inevitable. It is no surprise, then, that the narratives the EU uses to discuss the Global Gateway contest those surrounding the BRI.