Opinion | For many states, partnership with China makes more sense than rivalry
It’s a calculated choice to keep growth, infrastructure momentum and policy space alive in a world that punishes the economically exposed
The moment captures what many smaller states are doing in today’s fractured world: choosing workable partnership over performative rivalry.
These states are naive about Beijing. Many see asymmetries, debt risks and the possibility of overdependence. But their officials also face a blunt arithmetic: distancing from China does not automatically produce replacement finance, markets or technology. When budgets are tight and infrastructure gaps are visible, burning one of the few available bridges can become a self-inflicted constraint.
For many governments, the key question is simple: who will build, at what cost, on what timeline and with which conditions?
Electricity grids, ports, logistics corridors, industrial estates and broadband are the foundations of jobs and revenue. They are also the quickest way citizens measure state performance. So partnership with China, negotiated carefully, often looks more rational than joining a vague “containment” campaign.