Read more

At the 16th Party Congress, in 2002, the Chinese leadership identified that it had ‘a period of strategic opportunity’ 战略机遇期. Though the official language didn’t explicitly link this window of opportunity to the war on terror, it was spelled out elsewhere. ‘The longer the United States makes counterterrorism the central task of its strategy, the longer China’s period of international strategic opportunity will last’, Wang Jisi, an influential foreign-policy scholar at both Peking University and the Communist Party’s Central Party School, had written in 2008.

In my latest column, I look at the way the fates of America and China diverged after 9/11. China joined the WTO exactly three months later, and focused on getting rich and embedding itself into the world economy. Meanwhile, America was mired down in seemingly endless wars. Between 9/11 and the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan under Joe Biden, China’s economy grew by 13 times in nominal terms, overtaking France, Britain, Germany, and Japan.

We will never know whether Washington would have scrutinised and challenged China’s rise earlier, had the Middle East not taken up so much bandwidth.

Read the column

In the column I mainly focus on the lessons for Chinese foreign policy from the war on terror: don’t over-extend in expensive foreign wars, make friends but commit to no one, and avoid ideological blindspots. As Wang wrote:

在世界其他大国都没有确定主要敌手的新世纪，美国却把战略目标指向一个无法消灭（甚至无法明确界定）的敌人。

In a new century when no other major world power had identified a principal enemy, America somehow directed its strategic focus towards an enemy that could not be eliminated – or even clearly defined.

One thing that I didn’t have much space for in the column, but which I would have liked to include, is China’s response to 9/11 and its aftermath. Jiang Zemin was actually one of the first to call George W. Bush to offer his condolences. And in the months following the war, US-China relations improved (despite America’s support for China joining the WTO, Bush had sounded decidedly more critical of China than Bill Clinton on the 2001 campaign trail).

China had its own interests in promoting a counter-terror narrative, of course. Throughout the 1990s tensions had risen in Xinjiang. Growing dissent against Chinese rule had manifested into both peaceful and violent protests against Chinese authorities, including bombings and assassinations. Beijing cracked down hard (literally) in the ‘Strike Hard’ campaign of 1996.

But 9/11 gave Beijing the language of counter-terrorism, and it accused Uighur separatists of being Islamic extremists. No doubt some of them really were – Uighur fighters had been among those captured by US forces. But the war on terror also made it easier for China to bundle wider Uighur dissent into the label of ‘Islamic extremism’.

In 2002, Washington designated the East Turkistan Islamic Movement under a terrorism executive order, and joined China in seeking its inclusion on the UN sanctions list. And decades later, when the US would spotlight China’s mass detention of Uighurs, Beijing would use America’s own transgressions during the war on terror against them. For example, ‘The US itself is an old hand at arbitrary detention’, the Foreign Ministry said in 2022.

On the ground, though, the Chinese reaction was more mixed. There was much more schadenfreude at the attacks from nationalist corners of Chinese society. It was only earlier that year when a Chinese pilot had died after colliding with a US spy plane over Hainan province, and only two years previously when Nato forces had bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (supposedly accidentally). A common refrain at the time: ‘the US is the world's biggest terrorist’.

Share

Today, China has replaced Islamic extremism as America’s principal rival (notwithstanding Donald Trump’s latest misadventures in the Middle East…). That’s not just because the war on terror has run its course (again, notwithstanding Iran…) but also because China has changed. Instead of a measly eighth of the US economy, it is now almost two thirds (again using nominal figures here). It dominates a number of critical technologies – even if not their frontier research, then more likely their industrial supply chains (as I wrote recently in the context of AI).

So I was struck by how the world looked to Wang Jisi in 2008. In an essay called ‘The Historical Lessons of the US–Soviet Struggle for Supremacy and the Path of China’s Rise’, or ‘苏美争霸的历史教训和中国的崛起道路’, he wrote:

将今日的中国同当年的苏联相对照，可以肯定出现中美争霸局面的可能性很小。在主观上，中国没有同美国争夺世界霸权的愿望。邓小平等中国领导人多次重申中国“决不当头”。在客观上，中国也不具备在东亚地区（更不用说在全球）称霸的力量、条件和环境。中国不构成对美国的主要战略威胁，美国也没有像对待当年的苏联那样，视中国为它的主要战略威胁。即使美国企图像当年遏制苏联那样遏制中国，也不可能成功构筑一个反华国际联盟。

Comparing China today with the Soviet Union of the past, we can say with confidence that there is little likelihood of a situation emerging in which China and the United States contend for supremacy. Subjectively, China has no desire to compete with the United States for global hegemony. Deng Xiaoping and other Chinese leaders repeatedly stressed that China would “never seek to take the lead”. Objectively, China also lacks the power, conditions and circumstances necessary to establish hegemony in East Asia, let alone globally. China does not constitute the principal strategic threat to the United States, nor does the United States regard China as its principal strategic threat in the way that it once regarded the Soviet Union. Even if the United States were to attempt to contain China as it once contained the Soviet Union, it would not be able successfully to construct an international anti-China alliance.

…

经过20多年的经验积累，当代中国的领导人、企业家和知识精英已经对经济全球化做出了比较清醒的利弊分析。加入世界贸易组织，参与并促进亚太地区的贸易自由化和经济合作，是中国自愿做出的正确选择。没有理由相信，中国会在进入经济全球化进程并取得如此成就之后，还会重蹈计划经济的覆辙，同市场经济一争高下。经济全球化的趋势和中国对经济发展模式的选择，是不会出现中美争霸的另一个重要原因。

After accumulating more than twenty years of experience, China’s contemporary leaders, entrepreneurs and intellectual elites have developed a relatively clear-eyed assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of economic globalisation. Joining the World Trade Organisation, and participating in and promoting trade liberalisation and economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, were deliberate choices that China made and rightly so. There is no reason to believe that, having entered the process of economic globalisation and achieved so much through it, China would retrace its steps towards a planned economy and attempt to compete with the market economy. The trend towards economic globalisation, and China’s choice of economic development model, constitute another important reason why a struggle for supremacy between China and the United States is unlikely to emerge.

He did not foresee the rise of a leader like Xi Jinping, who does not deny the merits of a market economy, but has nevertheless taken steps to place the Party much more front and centre of it for political reasons. And while perhaps Deng did not seek to take the lead, it is getting harder and harder to say that Xi doesn’t seek to do that, with every time he utters the words ‘changes unseen in a century’.

Leave a comment

What I’ve been reading:

• Patients Are Flying to China for the Latest Cancer Treatment – Jonathan Cheng for the Wall Street Journal. A report on the rise of health tourism in China, this time looking at a cutting-edge cancer therapy that is multitudes cheaper in Shanghai than in the US. The biotech story will only become a bigger faultline in the US-China rivalry, I think. It reminds me of that incredible moment in a recent podcast when Leland Miller, CEO of the China Beige Book who sits on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said the following:

  Leland Miller:A potential nightmare scenario is China breaking quantum cryptography, achieving AGI, or making some other enormous breakthrough in AI first. Imagine they cure cancer. A shock would go through the system as we’ve never seen — our approach would have failed.

  Jordan Schneider: I don’t know, if they cure cancer, hats off to them.

  Leland Miller: We want someone to cure cancer, but we don’t want China to control the pipeline for that cure. If China has enormous success in AI, quantum, and biotech, it shows we are failing on the national security side.

• China’s actors written out of dramas as AI doubles ready to take their roles – Joe Leahy for the Financial Times. It was only a matter of time!

• What the American Tin Can Reveals About Trump’s Volatile Tariff Policy – Shawn Donnan for Bloomberg. Not China, but an interesting assessment, from the perspective of one industry on the ground, of how the trade war is going.

Catch me in London:

I’ll be moderating a panel and leading a workshop at a breakfast event that is hosting in central London next week. We’ll be chatting China’s demographic change and its implications for its economy, healthcare and education, and there will also be a session on China and AI. Come join the conversation!

Get tickets

Read more

It brings to a close the sorry Evergrande saga since Beijing’s new rules on leverage for property developers, the so-called ‘Three Red Lines’. Introduced in 2020, they stipulated how much debt developers could hold. Evergrande was one of the biggest beasts to fall, the last few years a Sisyphean struggle to refinance itself.

But in my column for The Times this week, I also reflect on how it brings to an end the era of bombastic, debt-fuelled growth that had been unleashed during ‘reform and opening’. This feels particularly true when you consider the death, earlier this month, of former premier Zhu Rongji, who had built the world in which Xu thrived. And yet, as I argue in the column, Xi Jinping’s new economic model, of high-tech manufacturing and exports, is riddled with its own problems. It is not necessarily more egalitarian.

Read the column

The court found Xu guilty of having inflated the company’s revenues, improperly raised funds from clients and partners, bribed financial institutions, and embezzled company funds via generous dividends. But this isn’t just the story of a particularly crooked mogul. The former businessman turned critic of the CCP, Shum, put it well on X:

For more than twenty years, Chinese property moved overwhelmingly in one direction: up. There were downturns and tightening cycles, but they were repeatedly followed by powerful recoveries.

Every recovery made the cautious developer look foolish. The aggressive developer who borrowed more, bought more land and expanded faster became richer and bigger.

The lesson was simple:

If you were not fully leveraged, you had missed the opportunity.

After twenty-plus years, excessive leverage stopped feeling excessive. It became normal—almost necessary.

Many developers of that generation were not highly educated. They learned business through experience and became exceptionally good at execution, guanxi, raising money and getting projects done.

…

Putting Xu in prison does not explain why developers across China became so indebted, why supposedly supervised pre-sale funds could disappear, why state-controlled banks kept lending, or why local governments became dependent on ever-rising land prices.

Most importantly, it does not explain why China produced not one Xu Jiayin, but an entire generation of them.

That was not an accident.

The system created the incentives, rewarded the behaviour and profited from the boom.

Developers like Xu were never truly masters of the feast. They were operators inside a much larger machine built and controlled by the state.

The full post is longer, and is worth reading.

In fact, Desmond was already on my mind when thinking about the Xu Jiayin case, even before he’d commented on it. Listeners of Chinese Whispers 1.0 may remember the episode I did with him, having read and enjoyed his memoir, Red Roulette.

One of the deepest impressions that book left on me was the image of extreme wealth in China in the early 2000s. Growing up in that period, I of course remember the massive and rapid boost in living standards. But it wasn’t until I read Desmond’s book before I realised just how rich some of the top nouveau riches were. One of the most grotesque episodes Desmond recounts was about Xu Jiayin. As I summarise in my column:

That heady time is recounted in gory detail in the memoir of businessman-turned-critic of the Chinese Communist Party, Desmond Shum, who now lives in the UK. Shum tells of one trip he and his wife organised to Europe with three other powerful couples.

Their group included the daughter and son-in-law of a member of the Politburo Standing Committee, and Xu and his wife. The eight crazy rich Asians took three private jets (two flew empty, just in case they might be needed), and one evening spent over $100,000 on wine at dinner in Paris.

There’s plenty more details like that in the book, which I’d highly recommend for that insider’s view.

The corruption and economic inequality was becoming a legitimacy issue for the CCP, not least because so often it was high-ranking politicians caught up in scandals (Google the death of Ling Gu). But the growth model that Zhu Rongji had created was also heavily built on debt. As set out by Desmond above, maxxing out your borrowing was the norm, and businessmen approached their opportunities with the risk appetite of gamblers.

Share

As you may know, China’s property market also worked by selling properties before they’d fully been constructed (most properties sold were newly built and sold on plans, rather than already-built second-hand properties, as in more established economies). This allowed developers to take the revenues from selling a complex and put it into new projects, instead of finishing the projects that had already sold. The Chinese call these unfinished constructions lanwei lou, 烂尾楼, ‘rotten tail building’. In 2022, Evergrande had an estimated 1.2 million unfinished homes, but had nevertheless branched into football clubs, a bottled water brand, and a $1.3 billion mega-resort in Hainan.

Below, an unfinished Evergrande project in Guizhou, which would have been a retail complex spanning 5.3 square kilometres.

@imwilli.go贵州最壮观的烂尾楼盘，贵阳“恒大文化旅游城”，占地面积达8000多亩，如今荒废无人问津，真是太可惜了！#神秘 #烂尾楼 #城市建设 #荒废 #恒大

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Fearing a financial crisis akin to 2008, as soon as the debts were called in, Xi and the Party began talking about how ‘houses were for living in, not for speculating’, as early as 2016. But it wasn’t until 2020 when the Three Red Lines were brought in.

Many economists would agree that something had to be done to deflate the housing bubble before it burst on its own, and potentially taking down the entire Chinese economy. But my column also looks at Xi’s promise, then, of ‘common prosperity’ – sharing out the newly created wealth more equitably. In 2015, the top 1 per cent of Chinese owned 30 per cent of national wealth, whereas the bottom 50 per cent owned only 6 per cent.

Read the column

Today’s economic model is more tech-driven, with Huawei’s Ren Zhengfei and BYD’s Wang Chuanfu more favoured than property moguls like Xu Jiayin. That has been incredible for China becoming an industrial and high-tech powerhouse, and indeed it is the stuff of nightmares for other countries and companies worldwide.

Yet, unlike property, the high-tech industry requires minimal human hands. At its height, the real estate industry accounted for up to a quarter of Chinese GDP, in all the correlating business it spurred in areas like construction, steel and cement, home appliances, and professional services. If you take into account the infrastructure needed to serve new neighbourhoods, then that goes up to a third of GDP. But the economic opportunities in the tech industry are more concentrated – they are white-collar engineers, some blue-collar workers but who are increasingly automated, and, as I mention, this new elite of tycoons.

So in the aftermath of the property market deflation, what we’ve seen is more of a ‘K-shaped’ development for the Chinese economy: where high-tech sectors are booming, but consumer-based, domestic-serving, and other retail sectors are languishing. Not least because the majority of Chinese household wealth had been tied up in housing, which makes the fall in house prices hit their confidence to spend, too.

So is China any more equal today than it was in the world of Zhu and Xu? The World Inequality Database finds that the distribution of wealth is exactly the same in 2024 was it was in 2015: 30 per cent owned by the top 1 per cent, 6 per cent owned by the bottom 50.

The world of Xu was never going to last, but it’s not clear that the economy Xi has built is much better for the little person. If anything, the buccaneering era of Zhu and Xu at least held more hope.

Share

What I’ve been reading:

• China poised to lift travel ban on Manus founders – Zijing Wu for the Financial Times. (Gift link). Related to the discussion of a high-tech economy, interesting news from Beijing that executives of the AI company Manus will soon be able to leave China, with their acquisition by Meta set to be unwound.

• China Maps Out Oil and Gas Buildout Through 2030 to Strengthen Energy Security – Luo Guoping for Caixin Global. (Gift link). As the headline says. Interesting for the fact that China has thus-far been coal-heavy, and even with its build-up of renewable energy, Beijing is still seeing domestic oil and gas as a part of the energy mix.

• A World out of Words – Yangyang Cheng for ChinaFile. On the closure and reopening in Washington of a Shanghai-based bookshop. A long read (really) but worth it.

Picture of the week:

, formerly of Beijing to Britain, shared these beautiful, retro photos of Hong Kong by photographer Keith MacGregor.

On this episode we discuss a new trend that Andrew has been following – the rise of C…

Read more

In my column for The Times today, I write on a similar theme of Covid’s impact on mental health and other facets of life – but for British teens. In the UK, there are currently more than a million 16-24 year olds who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs). There’s an image of this generation as being fragile, unprepared for adulthood, and perhaps even lazy. The blame has been variously laid at smartphones, therapy culture, the welfare state.

But I point out that this is also the generation who had at least two years of their adolescence disrupted by Covid. Schools were cancelled and socialisation moved to almost entirely online. The usual ways in which schools in England had prepared its students for the future – in particular the work experience that most schools encouraged in the 90s and 2000s – were cancelled in the height of lockdown. The usual ways in which teens grow up, find themselves and learn how to socialise were also disrupted. Is it any wonder that the kids aren’t quite alright?

Read the column

If you are interested, you can read the column by clicking the button above. But for readers of this Substack, I thought it would be a good chance to compare the life chances and experiences of this same generation in China. Do they fare any better?

First, a reminder of the context. China’s lockdowns were both more severe and less consistent than the UK’s, making it harder to generalise about experiences. In other words, whereas some cities locked down hard and for long periods of time, other cities and towns were generally able to avoid that experience and enjoyed vast lengths of relative freedom. The exception is perhaps 2022, when the Omicron variant really pushed the zero Covid regime to the brink in much of the country. That is the year that most Chinese recollect as being the hardest of the pandemic.

So, no wonder that protests broke out in November 2022 across multiple cities (again something that Ed and I talked about). Notwithstanding the variation in Covid experiences, there was a prevalent narrative among young people: ‘青春才几年，疫情占三年’, or roughly translated ‘youth is short enough as it is, Covid stole three years’. As in the UK and other countries, young people knew that they were making sacrifices to protect other generations. East China Normal University’s Professor Xu Jilin talks more about this discourse in his (Chinese-language) podcast.

And now, the jobs landscape is every bit as harsh as it is in the UK, and probably more so. Youth unemployment in June was 14.9 per cent. It’s a 12 month low, but still three times the overall urban unemployment rate. In the UK, the unemployment rate for the same age group is 16 per cent, but that statistic counts students who are looking for work, which the Chinese measure no longer includes. Meanwhile, the supply of graduates rises year by year. This year, an estimated 12.7 million new graduates enter the job market, two million more than in 2022.

This leads to a familiar set of vocabulary, at its core the twin phenomena of tangping, lying flat, and neijuan, involution. You know all about that already. I guess one difference with the UK here is that I don’t see much involution. As grim as the jobs market is, British kids are simply more likely to doss around (and here is where the welfare state does play a part), whereas Chinese kids, not least egged on by anxious parents from a more cutthroat age, mostly can’t rest.

A 2024 graduate survey from Zhaopin, a Chinese recruitment agency, found that more than three quarters of graduates had done at least one internship; and almost a third had two or more. I haven’t found a source that asks the same question of university-age students in the UK, but for my column I found that the proportion of secondary schools in which a majority of students had done work experience dropped by a third between 2019 and 2021, to only two in five schools systematically encouraging work experience.

Share

To set themselves apart and delay employment, more and more young Chinese are staying in education. In the decade to 2024, the annual enrolment in postgraduate studies more than doubled from 645,000 to 1.36 million. With five million graduating from an academic bachelor’s degree each year (as opposed to a vocational degree), that’s about one in four academic graduates continuing their university education.

But it could be delaying the inevitable, and increasingly, there’s a sense that reality is not matching the expectations of what education can win you. This gives way to the meme of Kong Yiji, the protagonist of a short story of the same name by Lu Xun. Kong is a traditional Confucian scholar who refuses to adapt to a new, post-Confucian China. His tattered scholar’s robe is a emblem of his over-education and unsuitability for a new era. As I wrote in Foreign Policy previously:

You don’t need a master’s degree to roll tobacco, so when China Tobacco Henan announced that almost a third of its new factory-floor hires had postgraduate degrees, it triggered a national debate in China. Weren’t these highly educated young people wasted on the assembly line? Or did they in fact make the sensible decision, given the job security and competitive pay—roughly 8,300 yuan (around $1,200) a month, compared with a graduate average of 5,800 yuan ($835) a month—at the state-owned tobacco factory?

…

Online, the unemployed compare themselves to Kong Yiji, the eponymous protagonist of a 1919 short story by Lu Xun, China’s most lauded novelist of the last century. In the story, Kong is a relic, and his half-baked classical education (symbolized by his ratty scholar’s gown) hindered rather than helped him adapt to the changing times. He is a laughing stock to the uneducated townspeople and an object of contempt to the well-connected and successful officials from whom he tries to steal books.

A century later, the joke is now on China’s Generation Z, who self-deprecatingly meme themselves as modern-day Kong Yijis, lamenting that their education has hobbled their ability to adapt to a China with fewer prospects. They dub the trend “Kong Yiji literature” and have spun it off into a song and a cartoon strip.

In this uncertain landscape, more and more young people are looking for iron rice bowls: specifically in the civil service. They call it shang’an, 上岸 ‘reaching the shore’, in contrast to the trend in the height of reform and opening of xiahai, 下海 ‘going down to sea’. If xiahai was leaving the warm but rigid embrace of the state sector to make your own way in a booming private sector, the children of those who dived into the sea are now looking for precisely that groundedness on land. To maximise their chances, some graduates do xunkao, 巡考, which is registering for civil service exams in multiple regions to maximise their chances of success.

If all that sounds stressful, then you will not be surprised to see the mental health statistics for this generation. According to the Institute of Psychology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, almost one in four 18 to 24 year olds are at risk of depression, which is more than double the rate for adults in general.

So the kids, in China, are not alright either, and young adulthood is almost certainly more stressful in China than it is in the UK. The factors go beyond just a few years’ of lockdown: China’s cultural emphasis on education, the intensity of competition, the thin welfare state all contribute to an even harsher landscape for the young.

But there are reasons for hope. Some of this discourse gains salience partly because young people are better at talking about their feelings and setting their boundaries. By sheer measures of harshness, there is no comparison to their parents, who lived through a newly opening economy, or their grandparents who lived through the civil war, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

And yet this generation are unwilling to be the chattel, or workhorses, that their elders were (they literally use the term 牛马, ‘oxes and horses’, to describe how much workers could be exploited). Instead, young Chinese today are said to be ‘fixing the workplace’, ‘00后整顿职场’. When a boss asks for a meeting at 6pm, they might ask if there’s overtime pay, or when HR asks for an emergency contact, they might simply refuse in order to protect their private lives. The sentiment of boundary setting is familiar to us in the West. Older generations can think this is entitlement or laziness, but younger generations simply say: it is their due.

Leave a comment

What I’ve been reading:

1. The following guest post from Zichen Wang’s excellent Substack, Pekingnology, on the state of women’s rights in China today.

Pekingnology

Yao Yang: Hong Wang's groundbreaking achievement and Chinese women's retreating ground

On 23 July 2026, Hong Wang became one of four recipients of the prestigious 2026 Fields Medal, awarded every four years to mathematicians under 40 for outstanding achievement and future promise. Born in Guangxi and educated at Peking University before continuing her studies in France and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the 35-year-old is t…

Read more

a month ago · 12 likes · 1 comment · Yuxuan JIA and Yixin Guo

2. China’s Elderly Population Tops 323 Million as Aging Pressures Mount – Xu Wen for Caixin. Latest figures show that almost one in four Chinese are now over the age of 60.

3. Expats Flock Back to Hong Kong Seeking Low Taxes, Better Jobs – Denise Wee et al for Bloomberg. Interesting long read on the expats going back to Hong Kong now.

Read more

This week I want to get in a bit deeper on the background of one of these themes: how China is competing on AI when it is American companies that are pushing the frontier. A number of Silicon Valley start-ups and companies in the global south are opting for Chinese AI instead of American. It turns out that there’s more than one way to win the AI arms race.

Read more

You can listen for yourself here, from two hours 20 minutes in.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the BBC struck a wrong or sycophantic tone with its coverage (though I do think the expert they had on to discuss Xi’s speech was perhaps a little too rosy in her assessment of China’s AI landscape). But the juxtaposition between the segments, one after another, struck me as something that you wouldn’t always hear in terms of coverage of China as a country, or the United States as a country, on a weathervane programme for Britain’s mainstream establishment opinion.

Subscribe now

It’s just a small part of what has been quite a good week for China. As Trump continues to, well, be Trump, and the United States sunk further into the Iran quagmire over the last week, Beijing has had one of those times where it looks a bit more like the responsible power for the 21st century.

AI was a big part of that. First there was Xi’s speech, which he gave at the World AI Conference held in Shanghai:

At present, changes unseen in a century are accelerating across the world, while a new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is making faster breakthroughs. Global innovation in AI technology has entered an unprecedentedly active period. Intelligent technologies featuring ubiquitous connectivity, human-machine collaboration, cross-sector integration, and co-creation and sharing are releasing enormous energy in combination. They contain tremendous opportunities, but they also present governance challenges. Humanity has no choice but to confront the questions of our time directly: when machines begin to think, how should humans coexist with them? When algorithms take part in decision-making, how can security be ensured? When technology challenges ethics, how can governance keep pace? When gaps continue to widen, how can inclusiveness be achieved? These are questions the international community must think deeply about and answer together.

China believes that all countries should uphold a people-centered philosophy and the principle of developing AI for good, so that artificial intelligence can become an important source of momentum for shared prosperity and common security, and work together to build a just and reasonable global AI governance system. In this regard, I would like to offer four proposals.

The four proposals he offers are: openness in developing AI, increased awareness of AI risks, pluralism in global AI development according to ‘the unique cultures of individual countries’, and global cooperation in AI regulation. He then goes on to list China’s record on this, such as its set of AI regulations. On this, Beijing has a lot to say, because it has in fact put in more regulations than other countries, despite the prevailing idea in the West that China is out to push the frontiers of AI in another arms race with the US. The story is more complicated than that (and I highly recommend ’s newsletter to keep abreast of developments).

All of this sounds pretty good to those concerned about AI but realistic that it cannot be put back into the bottle. And that’s what the Today programme was saying too. Of course, as China watchers, we may doubt if Xi really means what he’s saying, knowing that Chinese speeches are almost always saying the right things, but that the reality doesn’t always match up.

But on AI, another part of China’s good week has been the release of Kimi K3 on Thursday. This is the newest large language model from the Beijing-based start-up Moonshot, which claims to approach the capability of American frontier labs like Anthropic. I haven’t tried it much yet but you can for yourself on kimi.com.

Subscribe now

As well as China closing the eight to 12 months gap that many American industry insiders estimate lies between American and Chinese AI, the release of Kimi is also instructive for two other reasons. One, it is a sign, as with DeepSeek’s r2 release last year, of what Chinese labs can do even with American export controls on the most advanced chips. Two, it is yet another open-source, cheaper-to-run and modifiable Chinese model that is competing for market share against the closed-source American rivals. Companies and countries are already turning to Chinese models for cheaper AI infrastructure. These models may not be as cutting edge as Anthropic or OpenAI’s offerings, but for large-scale usage, good enough is good enough.

And then, the final boon for Beijing came with the new survey from the Pew Research Center. It comes at this time of year most years, and the latest shows that, for the first year, international respondents (across 20 countries) view China more favourably than America.

This is mostly a result of a continued worsening of America’s reputation, a trend I wrote about this time last year. Pew’s survey isn’t able to show the cause of why that decline has continued in the last 12 months, though we can take a not-wild guess: Trump’s threats against Greenland, against Canada; his real actions in Venezuela and then in Iran, which has held the entire world economy and fuel supplies as hostage, etc etc. The graph below shows the relative esteem in which people of different countries hold China versus the US.

All countries and leaders have good and bad weeks, and by Trump’s metric, last week probably wasn’t even bad. But in terms of global public opinion, I think it is worth noting how last week neatly juxtaposed China’s improvement in reputation with America’s mess. I don’t say this with glee – the usual caveats about China’s economy, tech development, civil liberties, etc apply – but it is always worth tracking public and establishment opinion.

I think the big question now is how much this American reputation decline is limited to the Trump presidency, and whether a successor (even if they come from the Maga camp) can mend ties with other western nations and developing nations. That is still unanswered as of now.

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• Commentary: China’s Rocket Recovery May Mark a Space Industry Inflection Point – Yang Qinghong for Caixin. On the issue of a tech arms race, this analysis in Caixin was really interesting on why the return of the Chinese rocket booster is worth noting: not because the development in and of itself is a milestone, but because of what it signifies for the economic viability of the space industry in China.

• Expelled from China – Vivian Wang for the New York Times. Wang writes about being kicked out of China earlier this year after she interviewed Taiwanese president Lai Ching-te. It’s a massive shame as her journalism was often about the human stories that you can only get on the ground, and which humanise China. I have to say, this is a scenario I often think about in my own context – that one day I might not be able to return to China – and Wang’s experience is just another reminder that it is a possibility to come to terms with.

• U.S.-China Relations Are More Volatile Than Ever – Andrew Scobell and for Foreign Policy. A compare-and-contrast of the hollowing out of institutions in their respective countries by Trump and Xi, and what it means for bilateral relations.

Set in the modern day and amply aided by flashbacks, the film traces the origins of these letters. They came from Iap’s husband, who left his wife and three children in 1945 to eke out a living in south-east Asia, for years sending back money and other gifts to sustain the family back home. He never returned home, and in the present day we join Iap’s grandson who goes to Thailand to find his grandfather, in the process unveiling a decades-long secret about what really happened to him.

I won’t give you any spoilers here, because chances are you haven’t seen it. It was always meant to be an indie film – costing only 14 million yuan to make (£1.5 million or $2 million) and with a cast of primarily non-professional actors. But the booming success it has had since premiere is testament to the bittersweet charm of the story, its characters, and the nostalgia of the setting of late 20th century southern China and Bangkok, even if the viewer hasn’t lived through those times.

Read more

So I feel like the Chinese often turn to him as the role model of when dissidence is done right – thoughtful, principled, constructive opposition. Most importantly, he managed his goal – the establishment of a new China after the fall of the Qing.

Subscribe now

In conversation with a Hong Kong exile recently, we lamented the lack of a Sun Yat-sen in today’s overseas dissident movement. Regime change is far from the goal of most realistic dissidents, but even more widely in the movement, there seems to be a paucity of ideas and energy.

I take a look at this phenomenon in my latest column, inspired by last week’s sentencing of Guo Wengui. Guo has been one of America’s most enigmatic figures in the last decade, a Shandong-born billionaire who fled China in 2014 and became a vocal critic of the Party and a darling of Maga. When Steve Bannon was arrested in 2020, he was arrested aboard Guo’s yacht. But his connections go beyond the American right: when he bought his New York penthouse, Guo was aided by a recommendation letter from none other than former British prime minister Tony Blair.

So how did a tycoon like him get sentenced to 30 years by a Manhattan jury? The story itself is well worth your time, with this 2023 long read by particularly fascinating. In short, he turned out numerous anti-CCP ventures, convincing masses of followers that he is their Sun Yat-sen. In reality, he took their money (over a billion dollars) and spent it on yachts, sports cars and a $26 million New Jersey mansion.

Read the column

So Sun he is not, and he well deserves his downfall. But in my column, I write that he is merely the most high profile and salacious of a dissident movement that has, since the age of social media, been too willing to peddle falsities about China in the name of bashing Beijing. I write:

A popular genre for dissident creators on YouTube is baseless and racy gossip about Chinese elite politics, which frequently speculates about Xi Jinping’s downfall.

Trump’s rhetoric bashing “Chy-na” won him many dissident fans, but being hitched to the Maga bandwagon has since led some activists to defend his claims that the 2020 election was “stolen” and peddle conspiracies about January 6.

Meanwhile, the pandemic gave rise to all sorts of crazy claims, such as the dissident newspaper Epoch Times reporting that 400 million Chinese had died in the pandemic (which would be more than a quarter of the population).

In each case, truth was just an inconvenient afterthought in the quest to bash the CCP. This is the kind of febrile and truth-light environment that Guo Wengui thrived in, the media network he founded with Bannon’s support also promoting QAnon and anti-vax conspiracies. In 2020, Twitter took down his account with half a million followers.

I also consider the size of the challenge today (the CCP is far more powerful than the Qing dynasty in its later years) and why the Tiananmen Square generation were unable to make something more substantive out of their exile and the world’s sympathy. Do give it a read.

Read the column

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• The Beginning of the End – Ian Buruma for ChinaFile. A 1995 piece that is still fascinating today, all about the personal disputes between the student leaders of Tiananmen Square, who were far from monolithic or united on the how and the what of what they were trying to achieve.

• 中国人的流亡和离散 – 不明白播客. Sorry to recommend a Chinese source but this episode of the Bumingbai Podcast is excellent and very on theme. They discuss what it is like to be a Chinese ‘in exile’, what that does to your identity, and what generations of Chinese exiles can teach each other. A truly thoughtful discussion that is well worth your time if you feel your Mandarin might carry through.

• How a Free Lunch Helps With a Quiet Crisis in Aging Rural China – Zheng Haipeng for Caixin Global. A lovely long read on a free lunch club that has opened up in a Shandong village for over 80s. The initiative tackles the problems of elderly loneliness, malnutrition and the fact that provisions for the young are no longer as needed, in many villages, than provisions for the old.

Subscribe now

And remember, Chinese Whispers is now back as a podcast. I will be releasing at least one new episode each month. For the price of less than a coffee a month ($60 a year), you can listen to the episodes in full by becoming a paid subscriber. I will also release 10 minute previews of each episode so you get a sense of what you’re getting!

The last episode is available for everyone here – it’s all about regional stereotypes that the Chinese have for each other:

Well, I’ve had a year off, but it’s time... So many of you asked me when and if it would ever come back, I figured: why not?

Chinese Whispers is officially back.

I’m going to try to keep to the winning formula of Whispers 1.0, which is (I think) a mix of high and low when it comes to topics, a light but informative tone and, when the occasion calls, bringing my own experience of these issues into the recording (much to the chagrin of my poor mother). But on Substack there has never been an easier way to let me know your thoughts, feedback, and suggestions for future topics, so please do get in touch!

Apart from the music, the main difference is that Whispers 2.0 will now be hosted on Substack as my own creation. I think that means two things. First, without the podcast platform of The Spectator, it might be harder to grow – so please, if you know others who loved the podcast, do tell them about its return.

Subscribe now

The second difference is that the show will no longer be free. Because it takes resources (both time and money) to keep a podcast going on my own steam, full episodes will only be available to paid subscribers of the Chinese Whispers Substack.

The Substack has been free so far, but from now on I will be adding a paid tier which includes weekly posts and at least monthly episodes. Free subscribers will still get fortnightly updates, but I hope you understand and will consider supporting the show!

But to celebrate the reboot and to help you share it widely with other fans, this episode will be free to listen to.

Ep 1. Regional Stereotypes

In a country as big as China, you will not be surprised to hear that the Chinese people hold many assumptions, prejudices and stereotypes about people from other parts of the country, from other socioeconomic or educational backgrounds, about genders and professions. It’s a topic I’ve wanted to cover for a long time, because it is such an authentically Chinese conversation.

So I was delighted when of the Substack covered exactly this earlier this year. Yaling identified six major stereotypes that the Chinese have about each other, from the Beijing Uncle to the Shanghai Socialite or the Shenzhen Drifter.

As ever with these cultural labels, they say so much about China, bringing in so much of its history of economic development, the cultural heritage of various regions, gender relations, etc etc. I hope you enjoy listening to it as much as we enjoyed recording it.

Over the last few weeks, videos of a youngish Chongqing man beating his puppy went viral – neighbours had heard the dog screaming and the videos show them confronting him as a limp and bloody puppy hung from his hand. It’s horrible stuff, so click through at your own peril.

It turns out this guy has form – it wasn’t long before it transpired that he was a serial adopter of puppies, under pretence of being an animal lover, only to torture them to death when they get home. One puppy rescued from the corridors outside of his flat was found to have broken bones in multiple places, its tail chopped off and its teeth filed flat.

Subscribe now

These horrific details are why the case has caused widespread contempt and disgust for the man, who is clearly mentally unwell. Because when these videos went viral, social media users quickly identified him as a man who’d previously gained Internet infamy.

A couple of years ago, he was filmed arguing with staff at Sam’s Club, a Walmart subsidiary membership-based shop that has found success in China, because he was eating endless free samples and had even taken a tupperware box to the shop to take the samples home (hence the title of 打包哥, ‘Takeaway Guy’). As I say, he is clearly mentally unwell.

These cases of animal abuse are, sadly, not unusual in China, but perhaps few are as emotive and graphic as this particular case. Whatever the reason, this was the moment that catalysed real public anger. First dozens, then hundreds, of people camped out in his residential compound: animal rights activists, millennial women with their beloved pooches and members of the Chongqing public. They camped out for days, demanding the police arrest him and rescue the puppies still in his flat.

In fact, China is one of the few countries in the world to not have a nationwide, anti-cruelty law. The only thing that comes close is its Wildlife Protection Act, but that only protects wild animals from extinction, not from farming. There are even less protections for domestic or farm animals, which are generally considered property. So technically the Takeaway Guy hasn’t done anything illegal, the police told protestors.

Subscribe now

On Wednesday last week, officers forcibly dispersed the protests, ending in clashes with the crowd where protestors were beaten up and detained. The sit-in had the hallmarks of an organised movement that could quickly become political. Social media has been largely scrubbed clean of the videos but they are still visible on Hong Kong media and on X (thanks to 李老师, Teacher Li).

To appease the protestors, the police also announced that they had detained the Takeaway Guy, though it was unclear on what legal grounds.

All of this feels like a milestone, though my natural pessimism tells me that law change won’t come anytime soon. In my latest column, I reflect on how animal welfare is similar to environmentalism – both causes requiring humanity to understand that it isn’t just humans that matter in this world, that the natural world or the animals around us aren’t just tools and resources. But in order to get to that stage, Chinese people had to get to a higher standard of living, which wasn’t just about survival. In other words, these are luxury causes that people only come to with a bit more breathing space in their material wellbeing – but we seem to be getting there now.

Do give it a read – not least for a darkly funny story about my mum’s childhood dog, who they named American Imperialism (美帝) for his size. Sadly, American Imperialism didn’t meet a happy end…

Read the column

Further reading on the issue of animal welfare:

• China’s pet economy being driven by elderly, singles dreaming of having cats and dogs – He Huifeng for SCMP

• The Animal Protection Index report on China, from World Animal Protection

• 买来的宠物犬为何没活过一周？记者调查“星期宠”售卖乱象 ‘Why did my new puppy die within a week? Inside the murky trade in 'week-long pets' – Report from Chinese outlet Legal Daily on unscrupulous puppy breeding

• 《反虐待动物法》迎关键窗口期！司法部正式启动《2026年度立法项目建议征集》 ‘The Anti-Animal-Cruelty Law approaches a critical window! The Ministry of Justice officially launches its 'Solicitation of Proposals for the 2026 Annual Legislative Plan’

No doubt turning down so much money and gigawatts is a painful decision to make. I am no climate change denier – I know that humanity needs to become more green. Nor do I wring my hands about the success of Chinese renewables – it is a remarkable story, and on a personal level I am even proud of the ingenuity and hard work that my compatriots display. But I believe British national interest is best served by a world in which like-minded middle powers still have some sway.

Subscribe now

Though the British government said little to explain their decision on Ming Yang, with the exception of citing ‘national security’, I thought they had come to the same conclusion. Yet something going through Parliament now has caught my eye, for seeming to be a direct contradiction to the Ming Yang decision.

Last week, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband put forward the government’s proposals to adopt the pathway set out by the Climate Change Committee, an independent public body that advises the government on how to reach their goal of net zero emissions by 2050. The plan, the ‘Seventh Carbon Budget’, requires an 87 per cent drop in carbon emissions on 1990 levels by 2040, which I’ve worked out is around a three quarters reduction from today’s levels. To get there, Britain must increase its offshore wind by six-fold, double its onshore, nearly quadruple its solar power, and increase the share of electric cars and vans on British roads to 75 per cent, among other changes.

To say that this is ambitious is an understatement, not least as political mainstream opinion in the UK is fracturing on net zero, where previously there was consensus. But more importantly, these ambitious goals are only achievable by buying more Chinese.

Subscribe now

This is the topic of my column for the Times this week: just how much more we would be building a dependency on China into our energy infrastructure of the future, if this carbon budget is passed (as it is mooted to do later this month). In a time when it is hard to balance climate concerns with security worries, is setting yourself a legal mandate to rush through decarbonisation really the best way forward? The answer is clear to me, though it doesn’t seem to be clear to the government.

In the column you will also find a bit more of my thinking on where the risks of Chinese renewable tech really comes from: not so much the idea that people in China might be able to switch off millions of BYDs or Chinese-made solar panels; but I think in the weaponisation of supply chains, of a sort we saw with the rare earths play last year. I hope you find it interesting.

Read the column

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• As China’s economy slows, some young people are snapping up cheap apartments to ‘retire’ early – Albee Zhang in AP. I’m quite late to this article from three months ago, but it is worth catching up with it if you also missed it at the time. The story is as the headline suggests: the upside to the real estate crisis and a wholesome way to lie flat. The lives of these twentysomethings feel like a good premise for an indie film.

• Look Only at the Ugly Sides, and You Won’t See China – Manya Koetse in Eye on Digital China. A brilliant, courageous piece by the Dutch sinologist Manya Koetse in her Substack, who has been accused of being an apologist for China. (You may know her work previously as the ‘What’s On Weibo’ blog).

  Anyone who wants to understand China seriously must be willing to confront reality as it is, not as it best fits an ideological narrative.

  You can acknowledge that Chinese cities have become safer without endorsing censorship. You can appreciate the quality of infrastructure without defending state control. And you can believe that more should be done to improve women’s safety on Dutch public transportation without being dismissed as an admirer of an authoritarian regime.

  I couldn’t agree with it more.

• China Mine Blast Exposes Illegal Labor, Untaxed Coal Trade – Fan Ruohong in Caixin Global. A great investigation by Caixin into the dark world of illegal mining, after the recent mine collapse that killed at least 82 people. The report details the practice of secret production, so that mines can produce above officially compliant output. Mines use unregistered workers, who work without mandatory tracking devices or gas sensors. To evade regulator inspections, the mines in question sometimes ‘seal off illegal sections’. To maximise yield, these operations also leave ‘smaller safety pillars – the columns of coal left in place to support the mine and reduce the risk of collapse’. A terrible practice.

  Thanks for reading Chinese Whispers! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

It was the first conference of this kind, designed to target the ‘next generation’ of thinkers, analysts, advisors, etc etc, who would work in the defence and geopolitical world. The organisers made sure that at least 50 per cent of the attendees were ‘young people’ (I don’t know how they defined the cut-off – and suspect I don’t want to know either). The speakers included the Netherlands’s 39-year-old prime minister, Rob Jetten, who is three months in the job.

With its history of hosting multilateral organisations and contributing to the development of the rules-based-order in the last century, the Hague felt like an incredibly apt location to be reflecting on the potential death of this order in the world today.

The conference was held under Chatham House rules, so I’m unable to share discussions in detail. But it left me with some general reflections and thoughts.

In panel after panel, China was the shadow that loomed, sometimes unnamed (and curiously, there was no China-specific panel). Its growing economic power underpinned the discussions on Europe’s industrial future and on the longevity, or not, of a multilateral order.

But more than China, I was struck by the discussions on America. On the day before I arrived the Dutch government had just decided to block the takeover of a Dutch IT supplier by an American company – Solvinity provides the app by which Dutch citizens verify their identity to access a range of public services. This comes as the EU more broadly is thinking about ‘tech sovereignty’ and promoting European alternatives to American tech companies. Europe is increasingly talking about America like the UK talks about China.

Subscribe now

The Dutch government’s move is popular (indeed one diplomatic grandee I spoke to suggested that its decision was basically forced by a majority of parliamentarians), though it has, of course, met with fury from the United States behind the scenes. The same grandee also told me that the Netherlands would probably not have made this decision if it was not Trump in the White House.

Later, this sentiment was echoed by another retired diplomat (this time American), who suggested that Europe might have allowed the United States to use its air bases to launch attacks on Iran if it had been under a previous presidency.

There was a general sense of disappointment, antagonism, or I might even say anger, at the United States. One Dutch academic questioned why America arm-twisted the Dutch government to block ASML, the Dutch company producing cutting-edge lithographic printers, from exporting its best products to China when the American company Nvidia is able to export far more advanced end-product chips to China.

Subscribe now

Aside from tech, on defence, European speakers spoke about America (and its unreliability/hostility) in terms that I might expect them to speak about China instead.

I’m not sure Americans fully appreciate the extent of the European backlash against Washington. It’s certainly not a feeling that London policymakers seem to hold in the same way, probably due to the very understandable factors of a) Brexit and b) a closer transatlantic cultural/political/military tie (I guess whatever people mean by the ‘special relationship’).

There was a fair amount of reflection inspired by Mark Carney’s words at the World Economic Forum, where he called on middle powers to come together. The prevailing sense seemed to be that Europe cannot – and should not – aim for self-sufficiency in the name of security, but one speaker put it nicely as ‘network sovereignty’. I understood that to mean: whatever collection of countries, companies, researchers, or markets you might use, make sure that that ecosystem is a network in which you have sovereignty. (Though I felt suitably chastened when one speaker from a non-European, non-white background pointed out that Carney’s points were hardly original, that non-western ‘middle powers’ have talked about them for years, and yet it took a Carney at Davos for the West to truly pay attention).

Subscribe now

So there was a lot of smart thinking, a fair amount of realistic thinking, and certainly an undeniable feel of a world irrevocably changed, that the same old ways to do things won’t work anymore. Yet the problem for Europe, as ever, is down to coordination. I heard how, whether it’s on an integrated capital market that would boost European entrepreneurship or the right kind of foreign investment screening to implement, it takes the EU years to come to a conclusion that all its member states are happy with, if that point is even ever reached.

Some attendees were optimistic that, in an emergency, like the eurozone crisis or the pandemic, Europe can and has come together, and this great power rivalry certainly feels urgent. I find myself not altogether reassured. After all, the challenge posed by China (or a changing America) isn’t one brutal catalyst, but a long, sustained change in international power dynamics. That feels to me to require much more consistent and united thinking than the EU has so far been able to muster.

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• The Middle Power Delusion: Not Choosing Is Not An Option – Michael Beckley in Foreign Affairs. Very relevant to this post, actually, is this thought-provoking retort to the Carney argument, arguing that middle powers have historically survived by bandwagoning with great powers rather than banding against them and staying independent:

  The path forward, then, is not endless coalition shopping to route around Washington and Beijing. It is alignment: choosing the great-power system that offers the best shelter from a country’s gravest threat, building national strength, and using that strength to bargain for influence inside the coalition.

  Middle power coalitions are indeed very in vogue to discuss, but Beckley raises the real considerations and shortfalls of this approach (not least whether it’s really viable), which I find worth considering. He suggests that the United States is the better superpower to bandwagon with. I suspect that a lot of the people I spoke to last week at the Hague would agree, if it weren’t for the Trump administration’s repeated moves to antagonise Europe.

• How the US is Trying to Challenge China’s Critical Mineral Dominance – The China in Africa Podcast. Not the first time I’ve recommended the podcast from . This episode does what it says on the tin, and raises questions about how much you (or specifically the US) can really diversify the critical minerals supply chain.

But it was ‘for research’, I told myself; and that was also why I had to binge all 62 episodes of a stupid period plot about a jilted wife who takes revenge on her husband and his new concubine. Because the micro-drama is one of the richest hunting grounds for a Chinese cultural phenomenon that I’ve been fascinated with for years: that of the xiaoxianrou, ‘little fresh meat’ (小鲜肉).

Subscribe now

This is the name that the Chinese give to the pinnacle of male beauty in the eyes of many young (and older) Chinese women today. The clue is in the name: these men are delicate, pale, pretty, their handsomeness a boyish teenage twinkish sort. And yet they have become such popular ideals of masculinity that they dominate the Chinese entertainment output, whether it’s in micro-dramas or longer form TV, film, or music. The photo above is of the 28 year old actor Zhang Linghe, who is the protagonist for this year’s hottest C-drama, Pursuit of Jade (I’m also quite a few episodes into that for, uh, research).

It’s always been curious to me that this is the kind of masculinity that so many women yearn for – not broad, tanned alphas who might protect you, but men who are genteel, soft, ‘girly’. In fact, in Pursuit of Jade and other shows, this allows, or leaves, the female protagonist to take the lead in the pursuit of their romance.

Anyway, the phenomenon is hardly new – any fans of Japanese manga and K-pop will know that this aesthetic has been popular for years. But almost as long-lasting has been the Chinese state’s disapproval of this androgynous type of masculinity. As early as 2018, Xinhua blasted the ‘sissy men’, niangpao 娘炮.

Subscribe now

Since then, every year or so something will happen to confirm the state’s continued disapproval. Lately, it was the People’s Daily that hit out at a fresh-faced young actor in a touristy historical village in Jiangxi province, ‘Little Yellow Fish’ Xiao Huangyu，小黄鱼, who took his fresh meat aesthetics one step further – his gimmick was flirting with tourists, feeding them lollipops with his mouth. ‘Crass’ and ‘lacking in cultural value’, the People’s Daily said.

So this is the central question of my latest Times column: why, despite the state’s anxieties about its young people not sticking to gender norms, are the xiaoxianrou still everywhere to be seen?

Read the column

In the column I explore reasons such as how this softer ideal of masculinity is less threatening to women, especially those who already live in a patriarchal society (as much of East Asia still is). Also grateful to have given Leta Hong Fincher, the authority on Chinese feminism, a call about it all.

I hope you enjoy the piece. I certainly enjoyed the ‘research’.

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• Will Taiwanese accept Xi Jinping’s version of ‘One China’? Lev Nachman and Wei-Ting Yen for Brookings. Interesting analysis featuring new polling data on Taiwanese public opinion about the 1992 consensus and the idea of Beijing ruling Taiwan via ‘one country, two systems’. Particularly standout to me was that ‘almost half of Taiwanese voters (47%) say they are unclear about the meaning of the 1992 Consensus’.

• 从小粉红到普利策获奖记者，一位美国记者在中国的经历 – 不明白播客. For Mandarin speaking readers, if you haven’t come across Bumingbai Podcast 不明白播客 then you’re missing out. It is the best Mandarin-language political podcast out there, hosted by New York Times’s Li Yuan. On this episode she interviews Associated Press’s Dake Kang, whose team has just won a Pulitzer prize for their reporting on Chinese surveillance.

Picture of the Stack:

I don’t always have good photos to share with you, but this one was a no-brainer. It’s a photo of Jiang Zemin in a sombrero. Enough said. (And if you click through to the X post and follow the quoted tweets, you will see more pictures of Jiang in different hats).

That was Donald Trump’s retort to Fox News’s Bret Baier when Baier asked him whether the US would help defend Taiwan in the event of war. It didn’t sound exactly supportive of Taipei.

The entire interview is worth a watch. This conversation, along with some other remarks made on Air Force One upon leaving China, has led to alarm bells ringing in Washington and Taipei. Has Trump been so charmed by his ‘old friend’, Xi Jinping, that he has imbibed the CCP leader’s worldview when it comes to the status of Taiwan?

I write on this in my latest column:

It would be well within character for him to treat Taiwan as he has Ukraine, where it is Putin the strongman he favours and Zelensky the victim he disdains.

Read the column

I was grateful to speak to the China historian Julian Gewirtz (), who served under the Biden administration, and the insightful Bonnie Glaser, head of the Indo-Pacific Programme at the German Marshall Fund, for the piece. Both were deeply concerned that Trump does not understand the full scale of Taiwan’s importance to American security/power in the region (there are echoes here of Trump’s disregard of Nato).

But I also issue a word of cautious optimism:

We only have a few short post-summit interviews to parse, like reading a precious few tea leaves. Remember too that this is the president who followed his 2017 visit by triggering a trade war with China, even after Xi had cleared the Forbidden Palace for him. It is too soon to know what Trump will do next.

There is also a point here that ‘strategic ambiguity’, the attitude that has informed the US’s Taiwan policy since the 1970s of neither confirming nor denying US support for Taiwan in the event of war, cuts both ways. It is both intended as a warning to Beijing not to risk American retaliation, and as a warning to Taipei to not do anything stupid out of overconfidence that America will definitely be on hand to help (like declaring independence).

Subscribe now

On this issue, President Lai Ching-te has been much more provocative than his predecessors, even the last DPP President Tsai Ing-wen, in his rhetoric. He has referred to China as a ‘hostile foreign force’ 境外敵對勢力 and likes to drop the ‘Republic of China’ from his references to Taiwan. These may seem like obvious and rather anodyne descriptions, but to the hypersensitive ears of Beijing, they are treading dangerously close to declaring Taiwan as independent.

Joe Biden’s repeated confirmations that he would indeed support Taiwan in war, together with Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, took the strait closer to crisis than at any point in the previous 26 years. So when Trump refuses to answer the question of whether he’d come to Taiwan’s defence, it is worth remembering that he is actually sticking closer to the tried-and-tested policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’. As blundering as Trump can be, on this refusal to answer the question, he is actually sticking to the script:

The real test is not some comments he gives to interviewers, but what he does in real action to support Taiwan. Because if he doesn’t want to go to war on the other side of the world, then deterrence is the best defence. This administration has already signed off on $11 billion worth of arms sales to Taiwan, more than under Biden. There is another $14 billion deal sat on Trump’s desk, which he should now approve.

Read the column

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• Why China Waits – Amanda Hsiao and Bonnie Glaser in Foreign Affairs. Relevant to this discussion, this is a fascinating long read on Beijing’s latest calculations when it comes to Taiwan, and why it might wait. Much has been made of a supposed 2027 deadline. I was always sceptical of that (and no surprise that US intelligence has now walked it back), because these dynamics against war were always at play. The most remarkable revelation in this article is that support for Taiwanese independence has fallen among young Taiwanese. That overturns a long trend, and puts into perspective what I’ve previously written on pro-China, Gen-Z influencers in Taiwan.

• China’s first use of Blocking Rules against U.S. sanctions on Chinese refineries – Stephenson Harwood. I don’t tend to link to (or read) blogs by law firms, but this analysis was incredibly illuminating on an underreported and relatively technical story of recent weeks. Before the summit, China’s Ministry of Commerce triggered anti-sanctions rules for the first time in reaction to the US sanctioning five Chinese refineries using Iranian oil. The upshot is that this is a pivotal moment in China’s response to being sanctioned. Rather than just taking it, Mofcom’s new rules allow Chinese entities to pursue third party companies (for example, insurers in the UK or banks in Singapore) in Chinese courts for following US sanctions.

• China cover-up after pilot killed 132 by flying plane into mountain – Charles Bremner in The Times. This is a terribly sad story that we now have evidence that the passenger plane which crashed in Guangxi in 2022 was a murder-suicide by the pilot. It is totally predictable that Beijing would cover this up, as they have been repeatedly threatened by the spate of ‘revenge on society’ attacks of recent years. The former CCTV journalist Wang Zhi’an 王志安 did a good explainer on YouTube about this tragedy.

You might also enjoy my recent appearance on Channel 4’s podcast, The Fourcast, discussing the Trump-Xi summit as things were on Thursday last week.

Half a million Chinese students is still a massive number, but this decline had me wondering about the reasons why.

Subscribe now

It’s no accident that 2019 was the high point – the pandemic the next year disrupted university students everywhere, especially those Chinese students enrolled overseas. No doubt the higher inflation in the West and the slower economic growth in China since then has restricted people’s spending habits too, which will include foreign study.

But I think there’s a deeper question here, because once upon a time a British or American education was seen as vital for any middle-class family who could afford it. Whereas now, the conversations I am having with Chinese relatives is about whether a western education is worth it, even when they have the sufficient financial wherewithal.

In my latest Times column I pinpoint the reason as being the decline of the West’s soft power in China:

The China I left in the 2000s put the West on a pedestal. From beauty and architecture to music and food, whatever was western was whatever was popular. Even McDonald’s managed to reinvent itself in China as the place to be for middle-class kids’ birthday parties.

Chinese tour groups became as ubiquitous at European landmarks as gelato stands, while Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, recreated these landmarks in the company’s Disney-esque main campus (truly a mind-boggling place). British exports held outsized sway: Burberry, Harry Potter, Downton Abbey, Teletubbies and, of course, the royal family.

Read more

But that is no longer the case. The rise of guofeng, 国风, which you might roughly translate as ‘Chinese style’, has been happening for a while, from the popularity of hanfu, 汉服, being worn by Gen Z girls on the streets to revived traditional Chinese architecture. In China, domestic brands are no longer seen as lower status than western brands.

Besides, with more exposure to the West, the fantasy has been punctured by the reality of democratic politics and crime levels, just to give two examples.

The scrutiny on Chinese students in the West in recent years has been one of my bugbears, because I’ve always found it a cruel and reductive way to talk about what are essentially teenagers and twentysomethings with their own desires and ambitions. The handful of cases of spying or theft are hardly representative of the millions of Chinese who have studied abroad since 1978 (almost 10 million, according to Caixin). People will believe all sorts of things about how much Beijing can control these students.

But as much as I’ve disagreed with the discourse, I’ve been impressed by the pragmatism and stoicism of the students I’ve talked to – they are largely unfazed by the hawkish discourse, though it might make them seek solidarity within their own community on foreign campuses even more.

And yet the irony in this latest development is that we may very well have reached peak Chinese students in the West. Those who found their presence a source of angst will breathe a sigh of relief. But is it really a good thing to lose soft power? I can’t help but feel Brits too easily take this rare and much-coveted power for granted, just like how (I imagine) a fish doesn’t know it’s in water. This is the kind of invisible influence that governments like China’s work hard and struggle to recreate; and yet, at the heart of the cultural empire, we are blind to its appeal and instead question the motives of those who do come.

In my research for the column I found some other interesting bits and bobs that I couldn’t fit in, so will share with you here:

• Mainland Chinese student numbers in Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong are rising. Hong Kong is now the second most popular destination.

• 87 per cent of those who left for studying since 1978 have returned to China. As you may know, they are dubbed haigui, 海归, ‘overseas returnee’, but which is a play on word of 海龟, ‘sea turtle’.

• Return numbers were up 29 per cent last year compared to 2023.

• But the salary premium they once commanded has collapsed. The average annual salary for a returning graduate fell from 268,200 yuan in 2020 to 204,500 yuan by mid-2023.

• While the average study-abroad budget has hit a 12-year high – 605,000 yuan, over £60,000.

Subscribe now

What I’ve been reading/listening to:

• Why 3 African States Said No to Taiwan – The China in Africa Podcast: I’ve added ‘listening to’ in this section this time, mainly because of this brilliant podcast. The series is fantastic in any case and I highly recommend it to any listener who wants to find out more about, well, China in Africa. But this particular episode was illuminating for its going against the grain of the usual reporting on Lai Ching-te’s botched visit to Eswatini. The received wisdom is that China used economic coercion to force Mauritius, the Seychelles and Madagascar to withdraw approval for Lai’s plane. This episode explains why that is not quite right.

• Academics demand apology for scientist investigated for China ties but never charged – Nature: The harrowing story of Jane Ying Wu, a professor of neuroscience at Illinois’s Northwestern University, who committed suicide after being pursued by the China Initiative. This is the second such case I’ve read about this month, after the death of Michigan’s Danhao Wang, a postdoc researcher, who was also questioned by investigators.

• Computing Shortage Forces Chinese AI Firms to Ration Services – Caixin Global: A very important and interesting, but underreported story in Caixin. The paper reports that ‘A severe shortage of computing power is forcing major Chinese artificial intelligence model developers and cloud service providers to throttle services, ration access and hike prices as demand outstrips chip supply.’ All of this, of course, is right at the crux of the question over the AI race between China and the US right now: does denying China compute, via export bans on semiconductors, help or hinder China? This suggests limiting compute is a worthwhile pursuit. (Incidentally, let me recommend another podcast: Dwarkesh Patel’s April interview with Nvidia’s Jensen Huang. There’s a lot of heavy tech chat at the beginning, but the debate over Nvidia’s exports to China is genuinely interesting (and a little uncomfortable to listen to at times!))

Subscribe now

Image of the Stack is this oil painting of Emperor Qianlong by none other than Giuseppe Castiglione, an Italian Jesuit missionary of legendary fame in China (and better known there as Lang Shining 郎世宁). I saw this on X.

But what struck me about these conversations was how little people were concerned for the impact of war on their own lives; their interest in it was mainly academic. By comparison, on my western news apps, I could see discussions of jet fuel shortages, petrol price hikes, household heating bills rising in the UK and elsewhere. The war was being discussed as a political issue for the British government itself, at a time when it has already battling for its survival. At one point there was even fear that Iranian missiles might even be able to strike London.

This relative nonchalance jarred with a narrative I was also seeing on X and elsewhere: that the war was ‘all about China’. The theory, and I paraphrase, seemed to go something like this: China buys over 80 per cent of Iran’s oil. By taking out Iran, President Trump’s war is a masterstroke in denying Beijing crucial energy supplies, and especially coming after Venezuela (three quarters of whose oil went to China last year). And in any case, everybody knows that Iran and China are allies, and this war tries to take out a cornerstone of the anti-American ‘axis’ that Beijing is building (also consisting of Russia and North Korea).

This theory is what the kids call ‘cope’ – some desperate grasp at rationalising an obviously undesirable situation. The truth is we now know, from reporting in the New York Times and elsewhere, that China featured little in the pre-war discussions (which were more about Jerusalem than Beijing). And the way the last seven weeks have turned out show that China has been one of the lesser victims of the war.

I take a look at the impact of the war on China in a long read for the latest Sunday Times, and how the Chinese government’s long obsession with energy security has prepared it well for this kind of external shock:

About 85 per cent of the energy consumed in China comes from within its own borders, insulated from external shocks (compared with the UK’s 57 per cent or, say, Japan’s 15 per cent). China has the world’s largest crude stockpile, which could last up to four or five months. Prices at the pump have risen, from about seven yuan per litre (76p) before the war to more than nine yuan per litre now (£1), but household energy largely comes from coal-fired plants and other domestic sources, so bills have not been hit.

…

While Beijing is the main buyer of Iranian oil, of China’s total energy consumed, only 15 per cent comes from overseas, with most of the country’s energy fed by domestically produced fossil fuels (mainly coal), nuclear and renewables — and Iranian oil is a tenth of that 15 per cent. So Iran accounts for less than 2 per cent of China’s total energy consumption. Taking out the regime would have been uncomfortable for China, but hardly existential.

Diversification as a strategy means diversifying the sources of imports, as well as diversifying the sources of energy in general so as to rely less on imports altogether. As I’ve written before, this drive for security is what explains China’s seemingly paradoxical pursuit of renewables while continuing to burn coal, and one of the reasons Beijing keeps Moscow sweet even as that friendship drives a wedge in its relationship with Europe.

I also spoke to Professor Jonathan Fulton, a China-Middle East expert affiliated with the Atlantic Council and based in Abu Dhabi. He is the author of , which has been following events closely. One massive problem with the axis narrative is that Beijing’s economic interests in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are actually ‘on a much broader scale than anything that China does with Iran’, he tells me.

More on all of this in the essay, including the depletion of America’s arms stockpiles (over 850 Tomahawk missiles used on Iran already) and what that means for Taiwan. I hope you have a chance to read it.

Read the essay here

Or if audio is more your thing (true Chinese Whispers fans!) I also joined the Times’s The Story podcast on precisely this topic too, where I also mythbust the famous Zhou Enlai quote about the French Revolution…

Listen to The Story

Read the column

But seeing as this is a Chinese-focused Substack, I’ll use today as a chance to share some nice photos and reflections from my latest China trip.

I spent most of March there. This time I took myself off the typical Tier-1 city route and lived in a village in Anhui. Over the course of the week, I met local retirees, business owners, and historians – a remarkable handful of people deeply fascinated by their own past. I got a sense of what successful rural revitalisation, something Xi Jinping has been talking about since 2017, could actually look like in practice.

Bishan (碧山) sits in Yixian county in Anhui province, in the foothills of the Yellow Mountain. It’s a village of around 3,000 people, transformed from the early 2000s, when – like so many other Chinese villages – it was home almost exclusively to the very old and the very young, the working-age population long since gone to the cities.

Its revitalisation began in 2014, with the opening of the Bishan Book Bureau (碧山书局), the first rural outpost of the Nanjing-based bookshop chain Librairie Avant-Garde (先锋书局). Its owner, Qian Xiaohua, is a true believer in bringing life back to the countryside. ‘Some people said I was an idealistic madman,’ he said.

Today, Bishan is home to dozens of artisan shops, cafes, and guest lodges. On weekends, it fills with well-heeled visitors from nearby cities, arriving in shiny SUVs.

But revitalisation has its limits. The Chinese urban-rural divide – where average urban incomes remain more than double those in the countryside – is still very real, even here. I couldn’t understand much of what one friendly octogenarian said to me; standardised Mandarin, the version of spoken Chinese rolled out under later Communist-era education, and he could only speak the local dialect. But his dress and his home were like relics from a previous era.

Elsewhere, more reminders of the twentieth century. On one doorway, the slogan ‘Long Live Chairman Mao’ was still just visible beneath the Chinese New Year decorations.

I have a piece for The Times that I hope will come out soon, more about Bishan and the project of rural revitalisation in general.

Subscribe now

I ended the trip in Shenzhen – very much a culture clash. But then again, a clash that hundreds of millions of Chinese villagers who left home to become urban workers have felt for decades. Many of their ‘villages in the city’ (城中村), or what we might call urban slums, have been tidied up now, but there are still neighbourhoods that carry the memory of an older factory era.

For a couple of days, I volunteered at a feminist migrant NGO, helping make tote bags out of waste denim donated by local factories. I’m not entirely sure the women I worked with knew quite how radical the message on those bags was.

Subscribe now

I also visited a mosque. It was quiet the day after Eid, and I found some of the kitchen staff resting after a busy month of serving the community. One of them had only been in Shenzhen a few months but was already plotting his return home. The congregation, from what I could gather, is largely made up of Hui Muslims and foreign visitors – traders from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia among them. One local Muslim mentioned that the dome had been covered up last year. You can just about make it out behind the barrier on the roof.

To round off the trip: a visit to Shenzhen’s Reform and Opening Exhibition, first opened in 2018 to mark forty years of reform in the city where it all began. The early rooms were essentially a shrine to Deng Xiaoping and Xi Zhongxun, who served as provincial party secretary at the time. Later rooms were dedicated to his son, Xi Jinping, with the emphasis shifting from free markets to China’s technological prowess.

And among the photographs on display: a young Xi, shadowing his father at work.