Designed to calm down fears of an ominous US-China trade war, President Xi Jinping’s speech at the Boao Forum, crammed with Chinese metaphors, was the logical extension of his landmark address to Davos early last year – when he established China at the vanguard of globalization 2.0.
At the Boao Forum, Xi stressed a “new phase of opening up” the Chinese economy; blasted a “cold war and zero-sum mentality”; and praised China’s long economic development march – from WTO membership to the foremost trade/connectivity 21st century Eurasia integration project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
For the near future, the Chinese economy would have to follow one of two main vectors. Beijing might choose to open its economy mostly to US multinational corporations; a strategy privileging the West. That would be China’s Plan B. Or, roughly throughout the next seven years, Beijing may stage yet another breakthrough, solidifying itself as a high-tech Mecca. That’s China’s Plan A.
Plan A happens to be totally integrated with the BRI connectivity drive – from Eastern China to Western Europe via Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia and even the Caucasus. China, via BRI, aims to export not only capital and business savvy but also value-added high tech products.
And that brings us to the clash between two roadmaps – which should be read in detail – that are at the heart of a much debated, possible and certainly vicious trade war; China 2030 and Made in China: 2025.
2030 or 2025?
China 2030 was published, significantly, way back in 2013, by the World Bank in conjunction with the Chinese Finance Ministry and State Council. It’s still a product of the Hu Jintao era, calling for all the requisite “market reforms,” with emphasis on the “need” for China’s strategy “to be governed by a few key principles: open markets, fairness and equity, mutually beneficial cooperation, global inclusiveness and sustainable development.”
Xi Jinping, though, had broader ideas. Expanding on a concept initially floated by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, at first named One Belt, One Road (OBOR), were also unveiled in 2013, in Astana and Jakarta. It took a while for the news to sink in that OBOR was nothing less than a full blueprint for pan-Eurasia integration.
Then, in 2015, Beijing unveiled what is the de facto national economic strategy: Made in China: 2025.
This is all about China – once again – stepping on the gas, this time to reduce dependency on foreign technology and the role of assembly line for foreign companies, by increasing investment in research and development; improving automation in Chinese factories; and developing strategic sectors such as robotics.
There’s already a 2020 target; arrive at 70% of production with Chinese-made components. The manner that the success of Huawei ruffled so many feathers in the US – the home of Apple – is just a small illustration of what may lie ahead.
Yet Made in China: 2025 is way more ambitious, aiming to propel the Middle Kingdom to the Top Three of global high-tech industry leaders before 2049 – when the People’s Republic turns 100. That’s how China plans to beat the middle-income trap.
So Beijing has drawn its own, indigenous roadmap towards becoming a state of the art high-tech “manufacturing superpower” exporting made in China high-speed rail, aircraft, electric vehicles, robotics, AI technologies and the 5G standards that will power the Internet of Things.
Previous economic role models certainly include South Korea – whose process of gradual chaebol modernization was state-guided. And crucial inspiration is also drawn from Industrie 4.0, the German national strategic initiative launched in 2011 aiming to consolidate the nation’s technological leadership in mechanical engineering.
Europe is watching
The fact that Beijing won’t accept a subservient role in a US-dominated high-tech economic environment run by a tiny corporate elite spells out what’s unimaginable for this elite; a definitive swing of the world economy by 2025, from the West to the East.
Beijing won’t back down. The whole drive is away from the unilateral moment towards a multipolar world – where the partnership with Russia plays a key role, as they coordinate their efforts on everything from the yuan and the ruble backed by gold to an alternative to the SWIFT payment mechanism, culminating with the most far-reaching project in world history in terms of economic connectivity across more than 60 nations and cultures; BRI – which is bound to be integrated with the Eurasia Economic Union (EEU) – happens to be, essentially, a concerted, state-guided industrial policy.
As this Global Times editorial stressed, a US-China trade war won’t solve anything, much less the clash between China 2030 and Made in China: 2025. US industrialists are in a very delicate position – as they have massively invested in China; transferred technology to China; and even use Chinese technology themselves – as supply lines are global. If a tech wall would ever be erected between American and Chinese companies, Europeans would gladly replace the Americans.
Meanwhile, Beijing will play the appeaser – for instance, by opening up its financial sector to foreign investment, including the removal of foreign ownership caps for banks.
Bottom of Form
Yi Gang, the newly appointed governor of the People’s Bank of China, promised at the Boao Forum that Beijing will allow foreign investors to take a maximum 51% equity stake in brokerage firms, futures companies and fund management firms, and will remove foreign equity ceilings in all these sectors by 2021.
With formidable diplomacy, Yi stated, “I would say with financial and service industries opening up, the US in the future would have more comparative advantage in service trade. So that when we have goods trade and services trade, these two would balance out as a result.”
Then there’s always the hard road to “solve” the US trade deficit. In a research note, this is what Goldman Sachs analysts – led by Chief Economist Jan Hatzius – have suggested: “For a deficit country such as the US, it is possible to scale up the trade restrictions sufficiently to achieve even an ambitious deficit reduction target. But this comes at a heavy cost in terms of weaker growth. Put simply, the only surefire way to reduce the deficit sharply under retaliation is a recession.”
Trade war or recession, only one thing is clear; China will do whatever it takes to implement Made in China: 2025 – its roadmap to high-tech preeminence.

Te Pu Win You would have preferred Killary won???
Reducing it all: China quite openly has plans and a planned direction; the USA says nothing about their future–their sad idea is simply that the ship rolls on. Their unplotted course, save for enforcing the moment, is old Britain’s arc of empire redux. China’s arc may be similar but later: state expansionism always lacks universality. Multi-polarity, if genuinely pursued, offers real hope for global stability, The USA’s record of materially coercive relationships is based on uni-polar advantage and inequality. Winning,is one thing, but harmonious relations is the ideal.
The problem with the military all branchs are the gays and faggots and women when they had to lower all standards so they could meet them….
Contrary to hap-hazard American government plans which are invariably aimed at protecting a very small section of the American economic companies, Chinese government plans are well-thought plans involving a large number of Chinese economic actors as well as government officials. The Made-in-China:2025 plan, like the BRI, is one of these plans. China will pursue these two plans despite all the efforts that USA may make in trying to derail them, and there is no doubt that China will succeed in meeting its objectives.
Ever since 2012 or 2013 China has had the DF-21D carrier killers. That means US carriers coming within 1,500 km of China coast are sitting ducks for DF-21D practice. As in the practice of Doctors, you flat-top are now a patient. Well the fullness of time May 2015, China paraded the DF-26, to the surprise of even Jane’s Defense Magazine. D-26 is the big brother of the DF-21D and now it means any carrier should not sail closer to China than 3,500 km. This A2/AD drama now include Guam where the B-52s take off from.
So while the empire soldiers will continue with their big mouths, the carriers sail under the indulgence of the Giant Panda. Sitting ducks may quack. They are still sitting ducks.
Wait a second, there is now another bigger brother, the DF-31A which has a range of 11,599 km and is a mobile ICBM MIRV. This means carriers are not safe from any distance in the world.
The more tinpot admirals shout the more ridiculous,
I used to think Pepe Escobar as an open-minded citizen of the world. But he bought into a Trump fake-news attack campaign and spend immense enegy of his attacking Hillary, therefore contributing to the win by Trump. I have never seen Pepe change course admitting that he owns the Trump Presidency. Imagine a man from Brazil owning the one thug who called all Latinos "rapists".
This article is all supportive of China, using generally available public info within China. It is blind faith, stumbled into correct positon. But notice nowhere in his article does Pepe point out the absolutely brutish
Trump as the main culprit of the much worse imperial stance of the empire in the much uglier Trump form.
The devil is in the details, folks, and Pepe is a door knob, one side not owning up about Trump and yet want to sound as if he is one the same side as the anti-Trump world of a China rolling forward.
Pepe. from now on your are just "someone I used to know." Your opinion will always have the smell of Trumpism in it.
PLEASE PEPE, GET OUT OF ATIMES, AND PLEASE GIVE US ANOTHER LINK WHERE TO FIND YOU; PLEASE !
How did America allow itself to fall? Here’s a great interview on the topic on RT with economist Richard Wolff. Fantastic discussion.
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/422893-richard-wolff-economic-collapse/
As usual Pepe hits the ball out of the park———if HISTORY in the future is written honestly the big question is how did America allow itself to fall off the mountain??? The Chinese out worked,out smarted and out shrewded the USA and while America is sinking with the left and right worrying about what is racism and are we diverse enough the Chinese leadership were pulling 400 million out of poverty. I say there will be no trade war———–Trump is right the Chinese have won———and I say the Chinese will not humiliate the American leadership and elite they will bow and make a deal that soothe the egos of a fallen star.
And bigger balls as well. The US has no reak appetite for risk and China is more carefully calibrating its trajectory of development than the US. Trump should invest in a Chinese retirement village and move his assets out of the US????????????
A more interesting question, than how great its going to be once America is vanquishwes and China becomes a manufacturing/techology mecca, is what may be the future of consimer behavior, consumption and the emergence of retail manufacturing as these inputs are not static over time
The US demand that China stop subsidising its hi-tech sector in recent negotiations is an unrealistic rear-guard action that amounts to telling the Chinese that they must shoot themselves in the foot, pretty please.
Unfettered and invisible market forces sorting things out nicely is a myth. Remember during the 2008 crisis how many American firms were considered too big too fail and bailed out by the government? What’s good for the gooese is good for the gander. Remember also that the internet grew out of a government-funded military program.
In any case, the idea that the economic well-being of a country, and therefore its people, should be left to private enterprises is unrealistic and naive. The profit motive and the greater good are seldom compatible.