Tag: China

Will China leapfrog itself in the next five-year plan?

Posted on By Admin

Editor’s note: Hussein Askary, a special commentator for CGTN, is the Vice-Chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden, and a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Guangdong Institute for International Strategies. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

China’s Premier Li Qiang delivered a government work report (GWR) on Thursday at the fourth session of the 14th National People’s Congress (NPC), in which he outlined what could become history’s largest and most advanced leap in science and technology-driven economic progress and growth in the coming five years.

One of the most extraordinary points Li made, among many interesting ones, is the government’s intention to integrate the best achievements of the past few years in science, technology and innovation with China’s compact industrial system. The government intends to incentivise this process across every sector of the economy to create a consolidated productive force from the many parts of the amazing industrial system China has built so far.

To simplify this transformational process, imagine a football team made of the world’s best goalkeepers, defence players, midfielders and forwards in one team. Then, you train them together in a several-month boot camp to match and integrate their technical qualities with tactical schemes. This is what we may expect to happen to China’s high-quality economic development during the implementation period of the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030).

China has leapfrogged the industrial world in the past decade in many fields of science, technology, engineering and industrial production. Chinese companies, both state-owned and private, have become global top-tier players not only in production capacity and quality but also in innovation. However, while all these sectors might be seen and function as discrete entities acting separately, in the next five years, high-quality development and a new combination of productive forces will make it imperative to integrate them into a single, continuous whole.

This will be the launching pad towards the intermediate goal of “realizing socialist modernization” by 2035 as a stepping stone towards the 2049 Second Centenary Goal of building a “modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful.”

The above is not a guessing game or speculation, but an assessment based on examining the previous five-year plans of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, especially since Chinese President Xi Jinping presented concepts related to high-quality development for years.

What these five-year plans reveal is an incredible level of consistency, unity of long-term vision and ability to deliver even amidst some of the harshest international and domestic ups and downs. The marriage of “high-quality development” with innovation, represented in the concept of “new quality productive forces,” to pursue the long-term vision is what makes the upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan unique.

Workers operating at the track laying construction site of the Wenling-Yuhuan section of Hangzhou-Taizhou high-speed railway in Taizhou, east China’s Zhejiang Province, November 5, 2025. /Xinhua

Premier Li strongly emphasized, in delivering the GWR, that among the major strategic tasks of the government over the next five years, a pivotal one will be “the pursuit of high-quality development,” based on a solid modern industrial system that relies on advanced manufacturing as the backbone for achieving greater self-reliance.

He emphasized that science and technology must deliver advanced innovation and breakthroughs in core technologies. One of the main goals is to nurture new industries and future industries, such as new energy, quantum technology, embodied artificial intelligence (AI), brain-computer interfaces, 6G technology and satellite internet. It’s emphasized that state-owned enterprises must take the lead in technological expansion, especially in the fields of aerospace, aviation, biomedicine, and the low-altitude economy.

However, Li reiterated that these developments would take place within a unified national market and productive chains. In this context, market forces and small- and medium-sized enterprises specializing in sophisticated technologies will be supported by the government to become leaders in future technologies, enabling faster application of technologies such as AI to production processes and services. Even traditional industries and agricultural production will be modernized and upgraded within this consolidated system, with new scientific and technological innovations entering these sectors too.

As Li indicated, the key to this process is to push for full integration between technological and industrial innovation. Efforts will be made to integrate the education system and the public culture of innovation into this technological and industrial unified structure. Talent development centers will be established at the national level, with specialized centers in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hubei region and the Guangdong Greater Bay Area to foster world-class innovation engines. These centers will undertake major national science and technology projects in the coming years.

What we will probably witness is that economic growth and progress will no longer be measured by the gross domestic product, but rather by the number of scientific and technological breakthroughs achieved and incorporated into the productive processes of the economy to make them bankable.

China’s success in planning and implementing such a vision is great news not only for the Chinese people but for the world, where the 15th Five-Year Plan dedicates a special place to the integration of the concept of high-quality development into the Belt and Road Initiative and how common prosperity and joint development can lead to a brighter shared future for mankind. This is extremely important at a time when many nations and regions in the world are gazing down a huge precipice of fear and uncertainty.

 

Two Sessions 2026: 14th National People’s Congress holds press conference

Posted on By Admin

 

The 14th National People’s Congress has held a news conference, briefing the public on key concerns and policy signals that may ripple across the globe. Our reporter Feng Yilei has the latest.

14th National People’s Congress is ready for its fourth session starting Thursday.

Deliberation on China’s social and economic plan for the next half-decade sits high on the agenda.

It’s not just about numbers or growth targets, but about growth quality – as China doubles down on future industries and a 1.4 billion-strong market.

LOU QINJIAN Spokesperson, Fourth Session of the 14th NPC “This year, we will expand domestic demand and boost consumption to build a strong domestic market. We will upgrade consumption, improve the international environment, and host the ‘Buy in China’ campaign, while linking people’s wellbeing with consumption.”

The top legislature is positioning its legislative agenda as a guarantee.

National legislators will review the National Development Planning Law to cement long-term strategic goals during the two sessions.

New legislation in healthcare, childcare is also on the table throughout the year, with the aim to turn social security into a catalyst for consumption.

Meanwhile, China remains wide open for foreign businesses and investors and vows to expand institutional opening-up and defend multilateral trade, and deepen Belt and Road cooperation in the next five years, to grow the global pie and sharing opportunities guaranteed by a more transparent legal framework.

LOU QINJIAN Spokesperson, Fourth Session of the 14th NPC “China stands ready to strengthen communication with the US at all levels to expand bilateral cooperation, while firmly safeguarding its sovereignty, security, and development interests.

We will work with Europe to uphold our partnership, properly handle economic and trade differences, expand cooperation, and jointly address global challenges.

Guided by the Central Conference on Work Related to Neighboring Countries, we will build a community with a shared future with neighboring countries, following the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit, and inclusiveness, to jointly create a peaceful, prosperous, and friendly home.”

Despite external headwinds, China has reaffirmed its stance to immediate halt to military action, and called for a return to dialogue to prevent further escalation in safeguarding the Middle East’s stability.

LOU QINJIAN Spokesperson, Fourth Session of the 14th NPC “No country has the right to control international affairs, dictate the fate of others, or monopolize development advantages – still less to act as it pleases on the world stage.

As a major country and permanent member of the UN Security Council, China stands ready to work with all nations to firmly safeguard the authority and standing of the United Nations, uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and practice true multilateralism, contributing further to reforming and improving global governance and building a community with a shared future for humanity.”

FENG YILEI Beijing “Against a backdrop of escalating regional flashpoints and a volatile global trade environment, observers here appear to be eager to see one thing above all else from the sessions over the coming week–certainty. China is trying to prove that its roadmap is not merely to solidify its foundation for socialist modernization by 2035; but also intended to be a reliable engine for the globe through the geopolitical storm. Feng Yilei, CGTN, Beijing.”

Source CGTN

China’s FDI Pivot is Uganda’s Road to Real Growth

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative has defined Africa’s relationship with China for over a decade. Within this time the average Ugandan’s interaction with China was largely limited to the importation of “cheap” Chinese goods and the Entebbe Expressway. The latter has always been an infamous scapegoat in conversations of the fictitious “Debt trap diplomacy” while the former also triggered misgivings with a belief that lower prices construe a compromise on quality.

Fortunately, these narratives have greatly been discredited with the Entebbe Express still standing as one of Ugandas most ambitious infrastructure projects (the detractors of this development always conveniently forget that Mandela National Stadium was also constructed in the early 2000s with a Chinese loan but the debt has never trapped us). Additionally, Chinese imports have switched the moniker of “cheap” for “reliable value for money” and we now have Chinese brands like the Sinotruck that have become synonymous with construction sites in the Kampala metropolitan. This is exactly how Uganda’s relationship with China has been reshaped, with real work, real progress and mutual benefit.

Now China is taking on it’s biggest challenge yet, the shift from infrastructure development to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the Ugandan economy. This does not simply represent a change in policy; it’s restructuring Uganda’s path to development with a focus on building the industrial and processing capacity of the nation.

China’s dialing down on the big loans and ramping up foreign direct investment fast tracks all development because it means Chinese companies are putting their own cash on the line, becoming partners and not just lenders. It’s definitely a pragmatic approach for China; securing resources and markets, but from the Ugandan perspective it’s a breath of fresh air. In the oil and gas sector the China National Oil Company has invested billions of US Dollars into the Kingfisher field, not as a loan but for an equity stake in the project that will define Ugandas economy for at least the next decade.

This is also a large boon for our national GDP because FDI isn’t money that vanishes after a project is wrapped up,  it’s a long term vote in the country’s future. This is evident in the industrial parks being set up, like  Mbale which Chinese investment has turned into a buzzing industrial hub with factories and assembly lines producing clothes, gadgets, cutlery among others. This puts approximately 10,000 Ugandans on payroll, excluding  auxiliary and support industries such as transporters. The slice of manufacturing in our GDP is pushing 27%  and wiyh this strategy we can expect more impressive numbers because we’re not shipping out raw materials anymore but we’re adding value, processing ores, assembling products for the East African market and beyond.

And the best part is this model builds skills that last. In these joint ventures, Ugandans are learning the ropes from high-tech assembly lines to supply chain tricks. It’s helping us adapt to global market turbulence. When coffee prices tank, having a diverse economy with factories humming along is west keeps the lights on. The government only needs to regulate local content policies so that more of the money stays in Uganda.

The reduced debt burden is also not something to complain about, a huge portion of our national budget is already going to debt repayment so China’s new policy could not have come at a better time. This way, China can meet its commitment to invest in renewable energy like solar panel plants and its bamboo research which matters when climate change hits our farmers hard(Uganda is a frontline state in Global Warming effects). With a population as young as ours (over half under 25) this job creation is crucial and foreign direct investment is the most sustainable approach to facilitate this.

As we gear up for talks like FOCAC next year, we need to keep pushing for deals that put us first. China’s shift in strategy to Foreign Direct Investment could be Uganda’s ticket to high-tech sectors, innovation hubs, all fueled by smart partnerships and technology sharing (Rwanda already got a great deal in its e-vehicle manufacturing plant). It matches our drive for self sustainability and solid growth that does not erase what makes us Ugandan.

 

Protect Taiwan Act Escalates Tensions, Interference in China’s Internal Affairs  

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

On February 9th, the House of Representatives in Washington passed bill H.R. 1531 a law which if it comes into force will by far be the most extreme action that the United States government has undertaken in as regards to China-Taiwan affairs in a long while.

Also known as the Protect Taiwan Act (PTA), the legislation that was introduced by Representative Frank Lucas stipulates among other things, that in the event that USA determines that certain activities by Beijing threaten “the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan”, it shall acting through the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission etc. take all measures possible to see to it that the perceived antagonist is cut out of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the Group of Twenty (G20), the Basel Committee on Banking Super-vision, the Bank for International Settlements, the Financial Stability Board, and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. In other words, if successful, such a move would see China become completely isolated by the international monetary system.

That the United States of America opted to further escalate its Taiwan position without provocation is not surprising as it has in recent years shown that it is capable of crossing redlines that even the least hopeful analysts imagined if one goes back a decade or so. In 2025 for instance, the House increased its security support for the Province of China by more than threefold (from $300 million to $1 billion).

What is concerning instead, is that the modality that H.R 1531 takes is so extreme that it is literally the last step to war. Given the stakes involving Taipei when it comes to technology, anyone looking on should be gravely concerned. The island’s involvement with the manufacturing of computer chips employed in the artificial intelligence industry has brought about what has come to be understood as the “Silicone Shield” making Taiwan a national security issue for Washington.

Further important to underscore is that PTA was by all estimations bipartisan (395 representatives voted in its favour as opposed to the 2 that opposed it). It also arrived in a time when the US is doing all that it can to downplay its already existing obligations both under acceptable geopolitical norms but also in international law when it comes to Taiwan. A September 2025 publication by the Congressional Research Service thus sought to portray “one-China policies”― which is what the US is supposedly involved in― as different from the one-China principle.

This is of course, is a clear bending of history. At least if one looks at the three joint communiques (1971, 1979, and 1982) which are understood to be the bedrock of modern diplomatic relations between the United States and China. Respectively, they provide that; “the U.S. acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China”, that “the government of the USA acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, and finally that “(USA) has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan”.

Finally, as long as UN Resolution 2758 adopted in October 1971 still takes precedence over any other claim regarding the subject of our inquiry today, the US may do as it pleases albeit its actions will remain contrary to the general assembly instrument. By recognizing the government of the People’s Republic of China “as the only legitimate representative of China”, the United Nations settled once and for all any questions pertaining to whether Taiwan is a sovereign state or not. And because of this, her leadership lost their seat in New York and they have never regained it to date.

To pretend otherwise would be to undermine declarations such as the one on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (1981) which have reinstated the fact post World War II, when it comes to inter-state relations, the international dispensation is governed by mutual respect.

The US then has two options; either it proceeds to ignore the law whilst being aware of the violations or it does the right thing and tone down. What it cannot do is eat her cake and have it at the same time.

The writer is a reserch fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

On China’s Two Systems Policy

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The first time that the concept of “One Country, Two Systems” was formally presented was during a meeting between Deng Xiaoping and the president of the Chinese American Association of the United States, Yao-Tzu Li, in January 1982. From the start, Deng was clear and elaborate that this systematic policy would apply not only to Taiwan, but also to Hong Kong and Macau.

This concept was and remains one of the world’s most realistic/pragmatic, tolerant, and respectful policies ever undertaken by a powerful country, because it honours history and respects the status quo. You may wonder, how?

That begs an explanation for what the concept entails. The “One Country, Two Systems” implies that in pursuit of the reunification of China and maintenance of the One China Principle, mainland China would not impose its socialist system on the regions of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, and that those regions would be free to implement the capitalist system and that their people would keep their way of life.

The architect of this concept, Deng Xiaoping, had the foresight to discern that given China’s colonial past which had culminated into the colonisation of Hong Kong by Britain in 1842, the control of Macau by the Portuguese since the 16th century, and the separation of Taiwan from mainland China following the 1949 Chinese Civil War, it would be unrealistic and even destabilising to immediately and forcefully reunify or politically integrate those regions with China.

The success of the policy may seem mindboggling to the rest of the world, but if you think about it, Deng’s proposal was aligned well with traditional Chinese philosophy, since Confucianism holds harmony and peaceful coexistence in the utmost regard, and despises confrontation and sameness. China also has concepts like Junzi to describe the honour of a person who seeks harmony, in contrast to Xiaoren, which connotes a person who seeks conformity.

In his signature pragmatism, which he had earlier applied to opening up China, Deng proposed that these territories should be under Chinese sovereignty but must not be compelled to abandon their capitalist economies to adopt China’s socialism. He suggested that they should be left to run their existing systems for at least fifty years after reunification. He was a very strategic, patient man, that Deng. He even propounded that if reunification could not be achieved in 100 years, it would eventually be achieved, maybe in 1000 years!

As such, the concept was conceived by a man who was awake to China’s realities. It was clear to Deng, based on his writings and speeches on this issue, that neither China’s socialism nor the “Three People’s Principles,” the foundational political philosophy of Taiwan, would be allowed to swallow up the other. It was also obvious that using force would benefit neither side. Most importantly, reunification would be most tenable if it were aspired to by the whole nation.

Few governments in the world, let alone any Western country, have solved an international question with the generous pragmatism with which China approached Hong Kong and even Taiwan. The historical pattern is that lost territories are recovered through violence. China defied that in Hong Kong and Macau, and has continued to defy the use of military means to take back Taiwan, despite unbearable provocations from the United States and its Western allies.

This concept, with its flexibility, accepts the realities in the economy, politics, and culture in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan to the greatest extent possible, with full respect for their history and culture as well as the interests and concerns of the local people. With the passage of time, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan will find more common ground with the mainland as a result of more frequent and extensive exchanges between them.

China has demonstrated a knack for betting successfully on time and investing into future when the greed of the present tempts most big powers. This is the lens through which we should understand its flexibility in dealing with Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, by accepting the realities in their economic, political and cultural lives. After a long time of interacting economically and socially, it will be easy to reunify politically. How can they not? These are siblings. They have the same roots, share a common history, and have shared culture and traditions in the past. The modern image of China is something all Chinese people will want to associate with, and with the steady decline of the West, it is plausible that Taiwan will soon find its future in mainland China rather than the West. With the One Country, Two Systems, China challenged the world to reimagine political integration like never before. Let us give their experiment a chance.

The writer is a research fellow, Development Watch Center.

China is Building a Community With a Shared Future for Mankind: Is the West Joining?

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

When President Donald Trump of the United States withdrew the invitation of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to his “Board of Peace” on January 22nd 2026, in a Truth Social post, the incident continued a pattern of spiraling tensions between the two North American states that might well produce more moments of antagonism in the near future. By no means though is this a one-off situation. The current administration in Washington has placed its boot on the necks of almost every one of their traditional allies so much so that many are being forced to rethink their stance on China.

No recent occasion has brought this reality to light more vividly than this year’s World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Convening at a time that the US had not yet recalled its decision to takeover Greenland, the leaders there minced no words on the matter or Trump’s other unpopular foreign policy tropes. The Belgian Premier Bart De Wever for instance, rallied his colleagues to “unite and… say to Donald Trump … ‘You’re crossing red lines here.’” As for the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, she remarked that the shift in times had forced a European consensus to move away from doing business as usual.

China comes in the picture because reduced reliance on the United States of America means that the EU, Australia, England etc. have to hedge themselves against the cost that comes with losing access to what has been their biggest market destination going back decades. Indeed, the Asian economic household has been host to back-to-back high level delegations from countries like Ireland, Finland, South Korea, France, and most recently the United Kingdom. It is the case too that more are expected to follow including Germany.

Importantly, these countries are not merely making stopovers. Very concrete agreements have been struck between them and Beijing thereby showing the extent to which a new world order is being forged. Inside the Great Hall of the People thus, the British renown pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca committed to an investment of $15bn into China in the coming four years. This was during Keir Starmer’s Beijing mission. Octopus Energy Chief Executive Officer Greg Jackson also announced a partnership with China’s Pacific Century Group marking the company’s first entry in Beijing. Other resolutions revolved around visa free travel for short visits and tariffs reduction for commodities already being exported between the two nations.

Interestingly, this new approach fits well with Xi Jinping’s longstanding proposal for inter-state affairs dubbed Building a Community With a Shared Future for Humanity (BCWSFH). Working with countries from all corners of the world through fora such as the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, BRICS, China-Arab States Summit et.al, the statesman has sought to forge a new way of thinking on the international scene rooted in the notion that because the planet is our shared home, if push comes to shove, the problems ailing one state will at least inadvertently derail her neighbors too. Furthermore, BCWSFH has been adopted in multiple General Assembly resolutions at the United Nations.

When the British PM told journalists that framing his China state visit as a move to abandon Washington for Beijing was a false dichotomy thus, he was (knowingly or otherwise) espousing one of the core tenets of BCWSFH i.e. that because the future of the human race is the same no matter where one lives, our fundamental interests are similar and that therefore, we should not seek to divide ourselves in camps. Of course, some (like the members of the press that Sir Kir Stamer was addressing) still view things in an us vs. them lens but things do not have to stay that way.

BCWSFH’s emphasis on multilateralism equally acts to counterbalance the winds presently blowing from Washington. Rather than place the bargain of sovereignty at the mercy of the strongest among nations as USA has decided, this agenda flips things making it a “special responsibility” for the said countries to encourage cooperation among all peoples of the world as well as maintaining global stability. In insisting that Europe was not going to bend to the laws of the jungle during his Davos address hence, President Emmanuel Macron of France was keeping with the stipulation that he together with President Xi spelled out when they met at the end of last year. Therein, the world leaders affirmed that to be on the right side of history, they each had to spearhead dialogue and openness among members of the global community.

Countries in the West thus stand at unique point in time. Should they keep up with the present trajectory of joining with the forces that are reimaging the future, the project’s success could force the US to equally revise its misguided course down the road.

Joshua Kingdom is a Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

China’s Trade Surplus: A Signal of Economic Resilience and Engineering Stable Global Systems

Posted on By Musiime George

Last year, China registered a $ 1.2 trillion trade surplus the largest in the history of any economy; a scenario that would have made president Trump right in using the favorite phrase “Like nothing anyone has seen before.” Surprisingly, the record surplus came at a time of unprecedented uncertainty and policy hostility that appeared destined to break global supply chains and the global economy. Indeed, last year was the pinnacle of Newman and Farrell’s hypothesis on the “Age of weaponized interdependence.”

With an administration acting more like a rogue state in Washington, Trump II showed no restraint in using control over critical nodes in global economic systems to hold the world at ransom. Meanwhile, despite criticism of China’s surplus as a vulnerability linked to overreliance on Chinese production, there’s more to it than can be heard in mainstream sources. For instance, China’s focus on climate conscious technology; EVs, clean energy, AI products and high tech production systems which are the technologies of the future. In addition, for the global south, the resulting reshoring, and technological leakages mean diversified production sources, an increased role in the global economy and eventually paving the way for a more stable economic system.

The tiny but significant blemish with the argument that China’s trade surplus is a result of over-subsidizing exports to fix slowing domestic consumption is that it overlooks the country’s growing manufacturing capacity over decades. China’s manufacturing sector has not only been transitioning from a low cost, labor intensive model to a more sophisticated one, specializing in new technology and high-end products. In terms of volume for example, China’s manufacturing output had by 2023 reached $4.6 trillion surpassing the next three largest manufacturing economies namely, the US, Japan and Germany. The massive surplus is thus more about the expanding manufacturing capacity than it is about slowing domestic consumption. And whereas global consumption is not about to slow down, shifts towards new technology, and hi-tech production systems are strategies to counter pitfalls on the cost to the consumer side of the equation.

Moreover, the narrative of returning manufacturing jobs to some places also falls flat on its face when examined against China’s current trajectory. A case in point is the pivot from climate conscious technology and energy sources back towards fossil fuels – ‘beautiful coal’ which might as well have cleared the way for the surplus given a substantial portion of it came from Electric Vehicles, batteries and solar panels. Conversely, a focus on high tech production systems means jobs being lost to Chinese people is a thing of the past. Any jobs being lost today will be to technology and the benefit of efficient production systems.

Therefore, what is been framed as salient vulnerability associated with a ‘less visible but still central role’ of China could as well be the beginning of a new dynamic. What we noticed in 2025 was the moving of production processes to new countries in the global south, in a bid to route around the mounting geopolitical pressure. While this has been faulted for its reliance on Chinese intermediate inputs, technology and sometimes expertise, it also means diffusion of jobs, technology and skills to the new economies. Ultimately, this reinforces the production capacity of destination economies in the global south, and provides cushioning against similar shocks in the future. Resilience might be a result of systems stability however; such stability must be engineered by evenly distributing risk across multiple nodes as a safeguard against cascading failure starting in a single dominant node.

The events of the past year and the fallout from a global surge in economic nationalism and protectionism were a warning sign against the implications of concentrating risk in a single dominant hub. The tariff wars by Washington indeed highlighted how vulnerable global supply chains were under the old West-dominated configuration.  Additionally, in the event of the kind of shocks as instigated by the geopolitical strife seen through the tariff wars, the developing parts of the world risked taking the biggest blow. This is why China’s reshoring, and diversification albeit not breaking global dependence on Chinese manufacturing immediately, breaks ground for more stable supply chains in the long run.

However, with globalization on the raise and a more interconnected global system, a strong multilateral foundation becomes ever more important for its emphasis on mutual cooperation. Otherwise, unilateral action towards geostrategic outcomes that chokes a single critical node could jeopardize or even crash the entire system. Obviously, China’s surplus is not a sign of a win in the geopolitical standoff primarily because we are only in the very initial stages of system readjustment.

Moreover, as bellicosity becomes internationalized, targeting gray-area nodes in the supply systems could eliminate the second country of origin option unless any tethering to the parent corporations is severed. We saw this last year with threats of 50% tariffs on nations allied with China and BRICS and more recently a 100% tariff on Canada over trade with China.

In the ultimate end, China’s Trade surplus may not be a direct win in the geo-economic contest but it signals the initial stages of readjustments in the global system. As corporations move operations to other economies, the diffusion of technology, skills, and risk is dispersion that follow provide cushioning against failures of the kind the world was threatened with during the peak of last year’s tariff war. Reshoring and routing against pressure might have produced resilience that resulted into China’s surplus, but in the long term the same could reduce reliance on a single dominant hub enhancing economic stability.

 

George Musiime is a Research Fellow, Development Watch Center.

Inside the China-Canada Trade Deal

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, is currently one of my favorite leaders in the West. His speech at the recently concluded World Economic Forum was a breath of fresh air, rarely breathed from a Western leader. The essence of his message was that “middle powers” should unite against economic coercion by great powers. Profound! Without mincing words, he called out American hegemony, denounced the weaponization of economic integration, and the exploitation of the vulnerabilities of supply chains. Whereas these ideas were not new, they were unanticipated coming from a Western leader. Carney had just visited China between January 13th -17th where he met Chinese leaders including President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang, and Chairman Zhao Leji of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. The last time a Canadian Prime Minister had been to Beijing was nine years ago in 2017.

Carney took opportunity of the visit to commend the exemplary leadership of Xi, noting that the partnership between their two countries “sets us up well for the new world order.” His proposition to the Chinese leader had a list of key items for strategic partnership. Carney sought to partner with China on energy, finance, agriculture, security, and multilateralism.

China is a major trade partner of Canada. It consumes $30 billion worth of Canadian exports annually. This translates into 400,000 jobs for Canadians. The relations between the two countries had been strained in the past. The former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had brushed China the wrong way on a number of occasions, including such incidents as the arrest of the Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, in 2018. These are the scratches that Carney now meant to mend.

Prime Minister Carney has a clear understanding of the world his country finds itself in today. Unlike most Western leaders, he seems undeluded by prejudices about China which are centered on the ideological disparities between the East and West. His narrative has been consistent about highlighting the fact that the world has changed, and China is now a key partner in setting up Canada for the new world order.

Unlike the USA, China has a stable political leadership under the Chinese Communist Party, which has been in power since 1949 and is consistent about its principles, both domestically and abroad. Carney understands, and notes that China offers a more predictable relationship with Canada as opposed to Donald Trump’s America. With China, what you see is what you get.

Canada has not had an easy time with its historical partner, USA, ever since Trump started his second term. Upon coming to office, Trump imposed tariffs on Canada’s key sectors like metals and automotives. He then moved to arbitrarily end a longstanding North American free trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico.

While Trump is rendering America’s trade agreements with Canada irrelevant and their future uncertain, China is moving to drastically reduce tariffs on Canadian goods, such as canola seed from 84% to around 15% by the beginning of March. It is also removing tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas. On the other hand, Canada is also removing tariffs from Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) from 100% to 6.1% for the first 49,000 vehicles imported each year. Carney also promised that this quota could rise up to 70,000 in half a decade. This is a significant step for China, which is the world’s largest producer of EVs, accounting for 70% of global production.

It is obvious what these developments spell for the US, politically and economically. Whereas Trump had initially been indifferent towards the recalibration of the Canada-China relationship by Carney, in the wake of signing these trade deals, he has stood up and threatened to hit Canada with 100% levies on all goods and products going to the USA. This only confirms the case Carney has been making about the weaponization of economic integration by the US and the need for middle powers to rise up against the hegemonic coercion they suffer from big powers. But it is latently clear to Carney that in order to build a stronger Canadian economy, he needs to diversify his trade partnerships throughout the world, and escape the hostage of Trump’s America.

With America threatening a trade war against multiple allies, Carney is spot on about the risks involved in relying highly on USA a s a trade and security partner. Renewing and improving the China-Canada relationship is therefore important in guarding against unforeseen reactions from an unhinged Trump administration.

Carney understands well that largely due to American hegemony, the rules-based world order is fading and the era of great power rivalry is here. The rules-based order was celebrated for its principles and predictability, neither of which can be spoken about today. It is a fiction that lost its power of collective faith, and now the world comes to a rupture from that order, instead of a transition.

The writer is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Center.

 

On Keir Starmer’s Visit to China

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

It had been almost eight years since a British Prime Minister had last set foot in Beijing. Keir Starmer’s January 28 visit to China is therefore a pivotal moment that signals a recalibration of UK-China relations, in particular, and British foreign policy generally, especially given the current paradigm shifts Western nations are making in the face of an increasingly fragmented global order. It has now become obvious to middle powers that, in the post-Cold War era, their economic and security concerns may not be permanently and reliably abdicated to the American leadership.

To understand the objective of Starmer’s trip, let’s look at the composition of his delegation to Beijing. Among his nearly 60-member entourage were cultural representatives and business executives from some of Britain’s major corporations, such as HSBC (a British universal bank and financial services group), AstraZeneca (a British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company), and Airbus (a European aerospace corporation). Both the entourage and the timing of the visit speak to economic engagement as Starmer’s primary objective at a time when the Labour government he leads is struggling at home to deliver on its economic growth promises. Whereas there is a trade deficit between the UK’s trade with China – the UK, having long-ceased to be the world’s workshop – in the services sector, the UK enjoys a surplus. This implies that there is a demand in the Chinese market for British services if Britain could leverage its expertise in finance, consulting, and professional services.

However, it is not just economic interests at the table for this visit. The past few years and even months have been frosty in the bilateral relations of the two nations. In the past, there were concerns in the UK over allegations of Chinese espionage. The UK also raised queries on claims that China was supporting Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. And of course, in typical Western fashion, the UK has always contested the way China governs in Hong Kong, claiming there is a crackdown on civil liberties. Two months before Keir Starmer’s visit, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, had also been a subject of conflict between the two states following his conviction under Hong Kong’s national security law. As such, whereas Starmer may pragmatically focus on prioritising economic opportunities for Britain, the issue of human rights will linger in the background.

In order to show a spirit of good faith, which is key in improving relations, Starmer also approved the construction of a mega Chinese embassy in London ahead of his trip, which is one of the trade-offs taken to reset diplomatic relations between the two countries. This is a good move since, in any negotiation, each party needs to make concessions to build trust.

Keir Starmer’s government has articulated its approach to UK-China relations as characterised by a comprehensive and consistent strategy. This strategy is defined by the compartmentalisation of various aspects of the two countries’ relations in order to separate economic cooperation from the often sticky, contentious political concerns. Nevertheless, it is plausibly expected that there will be domestic opposition in the UK over the traditional points of suspicion and accusations regarding human rights violations, espionage, and related concerns, which other political parties in the UK will exploit to undermine the achievements Starmer’s Labour party is trying to realise.

If we take a broader vantage point of the developments in the global geopolitical arena, we find that Starmer’s context is shared by multiple Western leaders who have recently sought to improve relations with China and proactively reconfigure their ties with Beijing. Among the recent guests in the red dragon’s courtyard were French President Emmanuel Macron, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Clearly, middle powers have established a pattern of hedging their bets with China in the midst of increasing unpredictability and uncertainty about the next move from Trump’s America. China is a much more “what you see is what you get”, stable, reliable trade partner that any country can aspire to have now. There is no need to pay the cost of navigating America’s tariff-punctuated, transactional economic terrain.

The American-dominated world order has been rapidly turning into a system of unilateralism and protection. It is China that has lit the way in championing multilateralism. With World leaders such as Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, and Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo successively paying homage to China since this year began, China has demonstrated its indispensability as a resourceful global economic stability partner. It was therefore not surprising that this would spike tensions with the United States.

With Starmer’s visit, the UK has made a profound diplomatic statement in Beijing. Every country now has to engage China. Isolation would be costly. China is not to be ignored or contained but partnered with. Starmer has acknowledged without stammering that “like it or not, China matters for the UK!” This reflects a pragmatic appreciation of the dynamics of economic interdependence as constituting both vulnerabilities and opportunities that must be carefully negotiated.

Nnanda is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Center.

Making Sense of China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi’s 2026 tour of Africa

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

As the world was being sent back into barbarism by President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, China was being consistent on the diplomatic front on the African continent. For 36 consecutive years the Chinese foreign ministry has made Africa it’s first stop of the year. It’s now a tradition in global diplomacy that the Chinese foreign minister makes his first formal appearance on the African continent as the year starts. In 2026 foreign minister Wang Yi was to visit Somalia, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Lesotho, but a few last minute changes happened as we shall note in this write up.

2026 marks a seven (7) decade diplomatic milestone between China and Africa relationship. Foreign Minister (FM) Wang Yi started his tour with a visit to Ethiopia one of Beijing’s biggest brain Child on the continent and also Africa’s political capital since it hosts the HQ of the African Union. Ethiopia is one of those African countries that value it’s relationship with China to an extent that, it was the first African country to waiver tarrifs on Chinese electronic vehicles (EVs). Ethiopia in the bid to modernize it’s economy is the second biggest holder of Chinese debt behind Angola on the African continent.

For FM Wang to make Addis Ababa one of his main stop centers on the customary African tour was a geopolitical strategy. Over time there has been a pragmatic mutual relationship between the two countries. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali  and FM Wang Yi held discussions on infrastructure, energy and economic cooperation between the two countries. The Ethiopian head of state stressed the need for cooperation on what he referred to as new energy and AI given the global outlook on technology driving development at the moment. He referred to China as a historical trustworthy strategic partner to Ethiopia. FM Wang Yi said China expects Ethiopia to play a major role in regional and global affairs especially now that it is member of the BRICS.

While in Ethiopia FM Wang Yi officially launched the 2026 China-Africa Year of People-to-People exchange and during the opening ceremony he conveyed the contents of a letter from President Xi Jinping that had the message that emphasized the importance of cultural dialogue and mutual learning to strengthen friendship and advance modernization. President Xi called for closer ties between China and Africa’s 2.8 billion people, promoting Global South solidarity and building a shared future for humanity.

From his meeting with the Chairperson of the African Union (AU) H.E Mahmoud Youssouf, FM Wang Yi issued a joint call to uphold international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity given what had just happened in Venezuela and what is going on with Greenland.  FM Wang Yi emphasized the idea of African solutions to African problems and China would play a predictable supportive long term partner of the journey through its Global Security Initiative and Global Governance Initiative to blaster the AU agenda 2063 and African Union silencing the guns initiative by 2030. For China a peaceful Africa is very important for regional and global trade if prosperity for all is to be archived.

China has tried to put peace at the forefront of it’s agenda in the greater East African region since 2022 actively, when it put in place a special envoy for the Horn of Africa whose objective and task is to resolve conflicts through integration of infrastructure projects like ports and railways rather than political meddling.

Wang Yi trip to Somalia was called off at the last moment for reasons not yet clear but possibly security, but the fact that Mogadishu was on the list was a big statement just after Tel viv tried to compromise the territorial integrity of the country by recognizing Somaliland as an independent state. It was more than a diplomatic gesture because China can relate especially with its situation with Taiwan.

2026 marks the 50 years of the Tanzania-Zambia railway the famous TAZARA that makes Tanzania a very huge strategic piece for China not just in East Africa but on the continent. TAZARA connects the Indian Ocean supply chain to the Zambia and DRC mineral deposits and a huge rival to the US song of the Lobito Corridor that connects Zambia to the Atlantic, but Tanzania for China is more that a supply chain piece. The Chinese leadership School on the African continent is also set up in the country that is supposed to link various African parties to the CCP. FM Wang Yi’s visit to Tanzania would also go a long way to support new Administration that started off on rocky grounds as it was tested from its core a few weeks back.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s last stop was in the South of the continent to the tiny nation of Lesotho, a country that is fully surrounded by South Africa. Lesotho as been at the receiving end of President Trump’s Mafia diplomacy of late, first it was severely affected by Mr. Trump’s tarrifs when he slapped a 50% that has since been reduced to 15% which is still huge for the small nation. Lesotho has also been serious affected by the halting of AGOA that was very critical to its textile industry and they did negotiate with China for alternatives for their products especially now that through FOCAC Africa has Zero tarrifs access to the Chinese market.

At the end of the day FM Wang Yi’s 2026 tour of Africa will go down as a strategic attempt to reinforce Beijing’s role as an alternative geopolitical and geoeconomic pole that offers the global South in general a special avenue of engagement centered on sovereignty, development and institutional partnerships.

The writer is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.