Over half of Australians believe China will be most powerful country by 2035: poll

 

Photo: screenshot from the Lowy Institute Poll

A new Australian poll has found that more than half of Australians (56%) believe China will be the most powerful country in ten years, while only about a quarter (27%) say the same of the US, noting "attitudes toward China improved incrementally, but caution remains." 

Similarly, more believe China (58%) will lead technologically in ten years compared to the US (12%), according to Lowy Institute Poll 2025 Report published on Monday

This reflected a positive shift on Australian perceptions of China with growing number of Australians gaining firsthand exposure to China's realities, a Chinese expert commented on Monday. The expert hopes in developing bilateral ties, Canberra would not be hijacked by external forces, stressing "the common ground far outweighs differences, and bilateral relations must be defined by cooperation, not divisions."

Attitudes towards China improved incrementally, but caution remains, the Australian institute said in the summary of the poll. The poll reports the results of a nationally representative survey of 2117 adult Australian residents, conducted between 3 and 16 March. 

For the first time since 2020, Australians were just as likely to see China as an economic partner than as a security threat - though a clear majority (69%) continue to think it likely China will become a "military threat" to Australia in the next 20 years, according to the poll.

About half think Australia should cooperate more with China on climate change (49%). Views on economic engagement are mixed — a plurality (43%) say Australia should be trading at about the same level as now, whereas about half (49%) say Australia should be attracting less investment from China, shows the poll.

Regarding Australia's relationships with the superpowers, a bare majority continue to say the US is more important to Australia (52%), while a lower proportion prioritize China (43%), the poll shows.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (45%) enjoyed a 20-point lead over Peter Dutton (25%) in Australians' confidence in him to manage the relationship with China, according to the poll.

"There's slightly more trust, slightly less threat perceptions, [but] it's still a pretty bleak picture for how Australians look at China," The Guardian quoted Ryan Neelam, the poll author and a director at the Lowy Institute, as saying.

Since the 2024 survey, the gap between Australians' trust in the US compared with China has more than halved, as perceptions of China continued to improve from their nadir in 2022, The Guardian reported, quoting Neelam.

Commenting over the poll results, Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center at East China Normal University, told the Global Times on Monday that in previous years, under the influence of the then-ruling party's political maneuvers and the deliberate smear campaigns by certain anti-China forces in Australia's media landscape, public perceptions of China had been distorted and mired in so-called "China threat" narratives. This led to notably negative attitudes in polls, such as the Lowy Institute Poll 2022 Report.

However, facts speak louder than rhetoric, Chen continued. Recent years have seen growing number of Australians gaining firsthand exposure to China's realities, particularly after China's visa-waiver policy for Australians, Chen said.

"For instance, we've recently hosted multiple delegations from Australia and New Zealand, with more set to visit," Chen said, sharing his experience. "The latest poll reflects a more objective shift in public sentiment," Chen noted.

Yet while Australians increasingly recognize these truths, the persistence of a majority (69%) viewing China as a future "military threat" reveals the lingering impact of fabricated "China threat" narratives, Chen remarked. 

In addition, according the Australian poll, just over one in three Australians (36%) trusted the US to act responsibly in the world, a 20-point drop since last year and the lowest level on record since the Lowy Institute began polling in 2005.

Despite the sharp drop in trust towards the US, more than six in ten (63%) continue to think that the US would come to Australia's defense if it were attacked, and more Australians say the country should remain close to the US (57%) than those who think Australia should distance itself from its major ally (40%), said the poll.

Nevertheless, most Australians (68%) are pessimistic about the current US administration. Australians are evenly split on Washington's demand for US allies to spend more on defense, according to the poll.

Since the 2024 survey, the gap between Australians' trust in the US compared with China has more than halved, as perceptions of China continued to improve from their nadir in 2022, The Guardian reported, quoting Neelam.

According to The Guardian, Neelam said "That's quite remarkable for Australia's key security ally to have such a low level of trust." "The weight of expectation is that China will be more powerful and more predominant in the global system," he said.

Support for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal remained steady, with two-thirds of Australians (67%) in favor—roughly unchanged from 2022 (70%), shortly after AUKUS was announced.

As the US consistently prioritizes its own interests and national security, even at the expense of allies, a stance that has fueled growing public disillusionment in Australia, Chen pointed out.

But the expert, citing the poll showing 63% of Australians still believe the US would defend Australia if attacked, said this exposes a lingering, unrealistic idealization of American commitments.

Source link

ASEAN-China-GCC Summit in Malaysia sets an example for global cross-regional cooperation

 Chinese Premier Li Qiang gives his opening remarks during the ASEAN-GCC-China Summit at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Center in Malaysia on 27 May, 2025. Photo: AFP

The successful convening of the ASEAN-China-GCC Summit in Malaysia has been widely recognized as a "landmark" event of major significance. The Joint Statement of the ASEAN-China-GCC Summit adopted at the summit marks the transition of cooperation among the parties from concept to reality. This summit not only showcased the surging momentum of Global South solidarity but also expanded the horizon of cross-regional cooperation and inter-civilizational integration. The three parties view their differences as opportunities for cooperation and promote development through unity, which not only responds to the common aspirations of Global South countries but also provides a new model of cooperation for the world.

The fruitful outcomes of the first trilateral summit are clearly reflected in the Joint Statement of the ASEAN-China-GCC Summit. In the economic area, the three sides agreed to leverage their complementarities to strengthen collaboration in the fields such as trade, investment and finance, promote economic integration, and enhance industrial and supply chain resilience. In promoting the de-escalation of regional tensions, the three parties jointly called on all sides involved in Middle East conflicts to refrain from targeting civilians and to uphold international humanitarian law, thereby laying a cornerstone for regional peace and stability. The three sides will also deepen cooperation in cultural exchanges, energy security and sustainability, as well as digital transformation and innovation. In addition, to further facilitate the movement of people between China and other countries, China has decided to expand its visa-free policy, now covering all GCC member states. With the implementation of the aforementioned outcomes, trilateral cooperation will surely advance to a higher level, broader areas, and deeper dimensions.

Beyond bringing certainty to the region and the world, the trilateral cooperation holds a deeper and more unique significance. 

It transcends the once-popular notion of a so-called "clash of civilizations" by transforming differences in cultural traditions and stages of development into powerful drivers of complementary collaboration. This, in turn, unveils a new chapter of mutual learning among human civilizations.

If viewed through the lens of bloc confrontation, the trilateral cooperation would be seen as friction among different religions and as a geopolitical tug-of-war forcing countries to take sides. However, from the perspective of a "shared future," what emerges is something entirely different: the GCC with its vast energy reserves and multi-trillion-dollar sovereign wealth funds; ASEAN's manufacturing strength and its emerging consumer market of nearly 700 million people; and China's formidable industrial capacity, technological innovation, and infrastructure-building expertise. Together, these elements signal enormous development potential and ample room for win-win cooperation. As one Qatari economic expert observed, "Everyone will benefit from this historic summit."

China, ASEAN, and GCC countries together account for roughly a quarter of the world's population and global economic output. The groundbreaking cooperation among the three parties sends a clear message to the world: Unity and joint development are not distant dreams but a tangible path already unfolding. This cooperation is not a "victory" for any one side, but an epitome of peace and development, cooperation and mutual benefit. In the face of the increasingly severe realities of global deficits in peace, development, and trust, the trilateral summit has injected new vitality into the maintenance and practice of multilateralism. 

In the future, countries in the Global South, such as those in Africa, Latin America, and beyond, can certainly envision a richer imagination in building a comprehensive cross-regional cooperation network and achieving open and inclusive development.

In this "big triangle," China is both a participant and a supporter, injecting new momentum into tripartite cooperation through its own high-quality development. Whether from China's economic data or the global capital rush to invest in China, it is evident that the Chinese economy, having weathered storms, has become deeper, richer, and more inclusive. This stability, certainty, and inclusiveness provide a solid foundation for the international community, including ASEAN and GCC countries, to trust and invest in China. 

The recent announcement of the completion of the negotiations on the Version 3.0 China-ASEAN Free Trade Area has fostered more positive expectations regarding China's completion of free trade agreement negotiations with the GCC. It is believed that with the enhancement of trilateral trade levels, China, ASEAN, and GCC countries will all further benefit from open cooperation.

Just as President Xi Jinping said, "For us to break through the mist and embrace a bright future, the biggest strength comes from cooperation and the most effective way is through solidarity." This "1+1+1" cooperation model among China, ASEAN, and the GCC is a concentrated embodiment of this spirit. It not only benefits each individual party but also contributes to a greater overall increment for Asia and the world as a whole. 

It is believed that the three parties will unite to generate tremendous strength, bringing a more prosperous and stable development outlook for the region and the world, injecting continuous positive energy into the cause of world peace and development, and providing lasting momentum for the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. -Global Times

Rrlated posts:

How Asean can ease the birth pains of the multipolar world

 

How Asean can ease the birth pains of the multipolar world

 

Power shift: Asean has a big opportunity this week to help usher in the new world order. — Bernama

ON April 2, US President Donald Trump smashed the World Trade Organisation’s system of multilateral trade by announcing the imposition of tariffs, starting at midnight on April 9, on imports from “cheater” countries that were engaging in unfair trade practice. To Trump, a cheater is one that exports more goods to the United States than it imports.

This is nonsensical reasoning. A bilateral trade deficit is not evidence of being “cheated” because the payment to my barber does not mean that I have been cheated and my salary does not imply that my employer has been bamboozled. This nonsense shows that the tariff war is only marginally related to unfair trade practices. The two key reasons for the tariffs are to increase wages by bringing manufacturing jobs back to America and to cement US primacy in the global order with a show of force.

Tragically, the tariffs will neither revive manufacturing nor preserve US primacy. Tariffs will temporarily expand employment in a few sunset industries, but wages will remain stagnant because productivity growth potential in those sectors is nonexistent.

The immediate response to Trump’s show of force were precipitous collapses in the prices of US stocks and bonds, and the value of the US dollar. Investors recognised that this Great Wall of Tariffs had isolated the US economy, inevitably impoverishing it. Hence, 13 hours after the tariffs came into force, Trump suspended them for every trading partner except China. This climbdown made clear that the real target is China, which the US perceives to be an unfriendly power (eg, being friendly to Iran) that is engaging in unfair trading practices (eg piracy of US technologies).

The economist Adam Smith had anticipated this kind of clash in 1776. He observed that the three centuries of globalisation that began with the discovery of the Americas in 1492 and the discovery of the sea route from Europe to India in 1498 had overwhelmingly benefited Europe because its much greater military might enabled it to pillage instead of trade.

Smith, however, foresaw a reversal: the diffusion of technology through trade would eventually narrow the gap between the two groups. The economic rise of Japan, South Korea, China, and India is ushering in today’s messy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar order.

Asean should be guided by two understandings in navigating this transition.

The first is that the current US-China confrontation stems from their shared recognition that the prevention of war would require an eventual agreement on their respective spheres of influence. We are witnessing a defensive race between them to expand their spheres of influence, which is why the US has asserted its rights over Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza; and China’s nine-dash line in the South China Sea has brought its maritime border to the doorstep of several Asean nations.

States that lock themselves into Washington’s orbit will be under strong pressure to decouple from Chinese technology and to shrink commercial ties with the world’s largest trader – sacrificing not only today’s access to the Chinese market (prospectively, tomorrow’s access to India) and compromising their sovereignty.

The second understanding is that this transition has created systemic dangers that require institutional responses. These new dangers include the Thucydides Trap which is the risk of war between rising and established powers; the Kindleberger Trap where inadequate international cooperation leads to ineffective handling of global disasters like climate change; and the Tragedy of the Commons which identifies the coming collapse of the food chain.

The Cold War 2.0 is causing growing collateral damage to Asean. A viable alternative to membership by Asean states in one of the spheres of influence is for Asean to cooperate with other middle power countries to form a nonpartisan club that functions as a buffer zone between the spheres of influence.

It is crucial for this club to achieve critical mass quickly – being big enough in population and GDP to earn begrudging acceptance by Washington, Beijing, and Moscow for its right to remain a neutral force. To achieve critical mass quickly, the founding group of countries must be kept to a manageable number to ease negotiations.

Asean must avoid instinctively shaping a Global South response like convening a new Bandung Conference (which brought together 29 newly independent Asian and African countries in 1955). The goal is not to accentuate class warfare at the international level but to maintain economic globalisation, world peace, and environmental sustainability.

To achieve critical mass quickly, this club must also bridge the Global South and the Global North. After establishing deep cooperation among Asean, Japan and South Korea (thereby setting the tone of North-South cooperation), this Asian grouping should propose to the European Union and United Kingdom the formation of the Atlantic-Pacific Sustainability Partnership (APSP).

The APSP would serve three core functions: (a) defend economic globalisation with a free trade area based on open regionalism; (b) defend global peace and environmental sustainability with a sustainability caucus to reduce tensions among major powers and coordinate actions on common challenges like pandemics; and (c) defend mutual aid with a development assistance agency guided by the 17 United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to counterbalance the use of development aid by major powers as a means of political influence.

Given the accelerated growth of Asean under this new system, the economic weight of the APSP would be more than twice that of China or the US by 2045, making it necessary for US and China to join the APSP to avoid defeat through self-marginalisation.

When this happens, the APSP would have crowded out Cold War 2.0 with cooperative multilateralism.- by  Prof Datuk Dr Woo Wing Thye

Renowned economist Prof Datuk Dr Woo Wing Thye is a visiting professor at Universiti Malaya and research professor at Sunway University. He is also Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of California, Davis; University Chair Professor at Liaoning University; and Distinguished Fellow at the Penang Institute. 

The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

Source link

Related posts:

Appreciating Asean

Connected by mountains and waters

China rejects zero-sum game ahead of FM's E. Asia meetings

May the Ship of China-Malaysia Friendship Sail Toward an Even Brighter Future

The new Cold War heats up

RCEP shows Asia can act independently of US

AI Action Summit kicks off in Paris with aim of harnessing potential while improving governance

A man looks at his mobile phone as he walks past flags during Artificial Intelligence Action Summit at the Grand Palais in Paris on February 10, 2025. Photo: VCG

As the 2025 AI Action Summit begins in Paris, discussions surrounding AI are set against a backdrop of geopolitical tensions and high stakes for the future of global AI governance.

With the aim of addressing how to harness artificial intelligence's (AI) potential while enhancing AI governance, political and industry leaders from more than 100 countries gathered at the Grand Palais in Paris, France for the two-day AI Action Summit, which kicked off on Monday. 

The summit focuses on five major themes: Public Interest AI, Future of Work, Innovation and Culture, Trust in AI, and Global AI Governance. 

Chinese Vice Premier of the State Council Zhang Guoqing, US Vice President JD Vance, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are among dignitaries attending the summit.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday left for France to co-chair the AI Action Summit on Tuesday, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, India TV reported on Monday.

On the first day of the Summit, workshops and panels on a wide range of topics are scheduled, including "harnessing AI for the future of work", "privacy, cybersecurity and information integrity," "towards safe and trustworthy AI," and "reinforcing efficient, effective and inclusive global AI governance," according to the organizer's official website.

The Summit of Heads of State and Government will take place on Tuesday with a plenary session to be held at the Grand Palais with international participants to discuss the key common actions to take on AI. 

The first and second editions of the summit were held in UK in 2023 and South Korea in 2024, and were both named AI Safety Summit. Compared with previous editions of the summit, the title of the third edition has evolved beyond focusing merely on safety and on a more comprehensive action sphere, so that more attention has and should be given to the global development of AI, Zhu Rongsheng, an assistant researcher at the Center for Strategic and Security Studies, Tsinghua University, told the Global Times on Monday.

As US President Donald Trump tears up his predecessor's AI guardrails to promote US competitiveness, pressure has built on the European Union to pursue a lighter-touch approach to AI to help keep European firms in the tech race, Reuters reported on Monday. Some EU leaders including the summit's host, French President Macron, also hope flexibility will be applied to the bloc's new AI Act to help homegrown startups, said the report.


DeepSeek buzz

An article published on Monday by Associated Press titled "Trump's AI ambition and China's DeepSeek overshadow an AI summit in Paris," which claimed that geopolitics of AI would be in focus in the summit. 

Addressing concerns over China's DeepSeek, Macron said in a televised interview on public television channel France 2 that France has no plan to ban it at the moment. "I do not think that it's appropriate to ban a technology because of its country of origin," Macron said, adding that France does not share the US approach of restricting technologies due to its nationality while accepting others.

Indian media platform Policy Circle wrote on Monday that the AI Action Summit is particularly important for India, given recent developments in China. India cannot afford to lag behind and must take lessons from China's AI advancements, particularly in cost-effective model training, it said.    

China is embracing the AI transformation and is working hard to advance AI, said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun on Monday, in response to extensive attention and heated discussion in the world over DeepSeek, noting that we have helped developing countries enhance capacity building, advocating that AI technologies should be open sourced and there should be greater accessibility to AI services so that the benefits of AI can be shared by all countries. 

However, Guo emphasized that we are against drawing lines along ideological difference, overstretching the concept of national security, or politicizing trade and tech issues. 


Different approach

The AP report said that "organizers are working on getting countries to sign a joint political declaration gathering commitments for more ethical, democratic and environmentally sustainable AI," adding that it is unclear whether the US would agree to such a measure. 

The US position might undermine any joint communique, said Nick Reiners, senior geotechnology analyst at the Eurasia Group. "Trump is against the very idea of global governance," Reiners said, per AP report.

French President Macron rejected an outright ban on Chinese AI, emphasizing careful evaluation based on sovereignty rather than origin. France will closely examine non-European technologies, ensuring they do not compromise security or sovereignty in critical sectors, Macron was quoted by Indian news outlet FirstPost as saying. Macron's stance reflects a desire to avoid isolationist policies like those seen in the US, promoting a more nuanced view of global technology, the report said. 

China's and Europe's starting points are to limit the disruptive impact of AI on human rules, while the US is focused on limiting challenges from China, which is a different approach, Wang Yiwei, a professor at the School of International Relations at Renmin University of China, told the Global Times on Monday. 

Zhu Rongsheng said that fierce competition between powers could undermine global cooperation, and as the US continues its zero-sum mentality in its pursuit of a bigger share of the market, cooperation would be very challenging in global efforts to jointly develop AI.

DeepSeek provides an opportunity to a broader range of countries and regions and advanced AI can be obtained with relatively low cost, and the model of open-source AI, with proper safeguards, is a practical approach on AI capacity building for good and for all, Zeng Yi, Professor of AI at Chinese Academy of Sciences and member of the United Nations AI Advisory Body, told the Global Times.

The world is big and inclusive enough to have more countries contributing fundamental and pioneering research, as well as industrial applications of AI for global public good, Zeng said.  

The integration of AI with industries can unleash tremendous productivity, providing the foundational support and effective empowerment necessary for the liberation of productive forces. In an ideal scenario, this would drive a global effort toward this direction. Otherwise, it could exacerbate the wealth gap, lead to AI exploitation, create new technological oligarchs and power elites, and undermine the general safety and development of countries, widening the gap between countries and between different groups within a country, leading to a new intelligence divide, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University, told the Global Times. 

Source link

RELATED ARTICLES

World leaders seek common ground at Paris AI summit

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit, which has brought together global leaders, technology industry executives and top researchers in Paris, ...

China eyes global cooperation at AI summit in Paris: expert

Chinese President Xi Jinping's special representative, Member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) ...

Xi calls for multi-polar world, inclusive globalization ahead of G20 Summit

Upon arriving in Rio de Janeiro for the 19th G20 Summit on Sunday, Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed ...

R ELATED POSTS:

Diving into DeepSeek and AI for education; OpenAI targets higher education in the U.S. with ChatGPT rollout at California State University

Diving into DeepSeek and AI for education; OpenAI targets higher education in the U.S. with ChatGPT rollout at California State University

Appreciating Asean

 

Regional togetherness: Asean’s first summits were irregular and distantly spaced. Now two summits are held regularly every year. — Bernama

Asean is a realities-grounded institution with certain strengths, which are hidden only to those who fail to appreciate them.

AS regional summits go, Asean’s has been growing by leaps and bounds. Not that this positive attribute is universally acknowledged, as is typical with Asean attributes.

Asean’s first summits were irregular and distantly spaced, and at one point even 12 years apart. Now two summits are held regularly every year, either together or spaced apart by months, with related Asean-led meetings in series.

Between summits, several hundred meetings of Asean officials are held each year to implement, oversee, and calibrate policies. The numerous meetings have prompted a misperception that Asean is merely a talkshop. 

Asean’s irregular summits proved that Asean leaders meet only when needed, as circumstances require, and not for the sake of meeting. Asean has never prioritised form over function, or ceremony over substance.

Asean is popular and successful for the common familiarity and shared comfort level leaders feel when they meet. These come only with frequent meetings forming a seamless web of mutual and reciprocal goodwill.

Critics cite the failure of the 2012 Asean Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Cambodia to issue a joint communiqué at its conclusion as a sign of weakness and inefficacy. But it takes decisiveness to opt not to issue a statement rather than produce a bland and meaningless one just for the sake of doing so.

Formal meetings are judged by how or whether they serve their purpose while in session, not by the feel good diplomatic summaries issued afterwards. As a process, Asean proceedings have seldom if ever been “full glasses”, but the uninitiated would see the “glasses” only as half-empty.

Asean’s core purpose has always been the quality of membership relations. How others see it is up to them, but this is no more than a concern for Asean’s public relations department if there is one.

Laos’ Asean chairmanship this year and its hosting of the 44th and 45th Summit over the week have predictably been scrutinised critically. A typical complaint is the seeming absence of any definitive resolution on the Myanmar impasse or the South China Sea disputes.

No annual summit is like a task force producing fail-safe solutions for outstanding issues. A small and underdeveloped Laos is already doing its best tackling the mammoth logistical and financial demands of hosting a series of international conferences at the highest official levels.

Any other country chairing Asean this year would face the same challenges. Asean makes no judgment about the economic status of members while helping less endowed members fulfil their financial obligations.

Asean is better at avoiding upheavals like Myanmar’s or war-torn Cambodia’s before its 1999 membership, than in conclusively resolving conflict that has occurred. It’s still not perfect, of course.

Asean’s record still compares favourably with the European Union’s, which failed to prevent the Kosovo and Ukraine wars. Nato (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) as a military alliance may mitigate these conflicts but has instead instigated and amplified the Ukraine war.

The EU and Asean were once described as the world’s most successful regional organisations, in that order, but that was before Brexit, when Britain exited the EU in 2020. No Asean country has sought to leave despite some challenges, while several countries not eligible to join have nonetheless tried.

The next and final member of Asean is Timor-Leste, the former Portuguese territory and Indo-nesian province of East Timor. It is the only sovereign nation in South-East Asia still to join Asean.

Others, from Sri Lanka and Papua New Guinea to Mongolia and Turkey, have reportedly sought Asean membership, but were never seriously considered. Timor-Leste is different not least because it is in South-East Asia, although its Asean journey has been long and challenging.

In 2006 Timor-Leste submitted a “soft application” to join, and the following year Asean signalled a “willingness in principle” to consider it. Most Asean member states endorsed its application, but not all.

Meanwhile Dili worked hard to fulfil membership requirements by acceding to Asean norms and conventions, including the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South-East Asia. It even introduced Asean Studies in schools, unlike most Asean countries.

Dili formally applied to join Asean in 2011, and Asean responded in 2022 with an “agreement in principle” to admit it. Membership remains a work in progress, with the Laos Summit during the week a part of that journey.

The state of the South China Sea’s multiple disputes has also been taken as a measure of Asean’s competence. Any catastrophe resulting from the disputes would be of concern to Asean as it would be to anyone else.

However, the disputes are between individual sovereign nations as neighbours and involves less than half the Asean membership. Asean is quietly confident that they can be resolved or are resolvable with time, provided there is no ulterior motive or foreign agenda at play.

Asean understands that the region has managed challenges before and wants that to continue. Anything less will not be Asean, nor will the region be sovereign.

Bunn Nagara is director and senior fellow at the BRI Caucus for Asia-Pacific, and an honorary fellow at the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely his own.

Related posts:

Connected by mountains and waters

China rejects zero-sum game ahead of FM's E. Asia meetings

China Daily: Asean should beware US hijacking its agenda

Malaysia poised to lead Asean in 2025, driving regional ...

Malaysian PM Anwar to lead Asean through critical ...

PM calls for more space for Asean MPs to share views

What failure of 'Asian NATO' idea at ASEAN indicates: Global Times editorial

We hope that this year's leaders' meetings on East Asia cooperation serve as a reminder to all external countries: the region welcomes partners in peaceful development, but not those that create trouble and conflict.

Regional countries firmly reject Japan's daydream of an 'Asian NATO'

Japan's push for an “Asian NATO” threatens to disrupt decades of prosperity and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

By Global Times | 2024/10/8 0:26:05

China's 'moment' at ASEAN Summit a wake-up call for US sincerity

Western media have appeared to function under a consistent principle – whenever international affairs are at play, they are framed as a stage for major power rivalry. Unsurprisingly, the just-concluded ASEAN Summit was once again interpreted through the lens of US-China competition. This time, however, what was revealed was not US' diplomatic advantage, but rather its increasingly visible diplomatic predicament.