Gao Xiaosheng, Du Yaning: Global Development Initiative from the Perspective of World China Studies: Motivations, Impact, and Prospects
The current pace of global economic recovery remains sluggish, facing an increase in factors of instability and insecurity that have caused widespread shocks to the global economic system. These factors have seriously eroded the developmental achievements of many years, further widened the gap in the imbalance between North and South, and exacerbated the global development deficit. At the same time, the implementation process of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has been obstructed, the process of global poverty reduction has suffered a reversal, and developing countries face immense pressure in the field of poverty alleviation. Global issues such as food security, climate change, and infectious disease response have become developmental tasks requiring urgent solution by all of humanity. Against this backdrop, on September 21, 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping first proposed the Global Development Initiative (GDI) while attending the general debate of the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. He advocated that all countries in the world persist in prioritizing development, putting people at the center, maintaining benefits for all and inclusiveness, staying innovation-driven, persisting in harmony between man and nature, and remaining action-oriented. Once proposed, the GDI received an enthusiastic response in the international community, triggering extensive attention from state leaders, think tanks, media, and scholars worldwide.
In domestic academic circles, the GDI is also one of the current "hot topics" of research. Viewed overall, existing research primarily focuses on China’s own perspective, interpreting the GDI based on the disciplinary backgrounds and research emphases of different scholars; research and analysis of perceptions of the GDI from an overseas perspective appear relatively insufficient. There are only a small number of domestic articles reviewing international responses and perceptions of the GDI, yet there remains room for improvement in the use of primary source materials and the depth of research. It can be said that research on the GDI still needs further expansion, deepening, and breakthroughs in terms of perspective and discursive scope (论域), particularly as research on the overall trend of international community response and communication in the three-plus years since the GDI was proposed remains inadequate. In view of this, this article intends to use the lens of World China Studies (世界中国学) [1] to analyze the "mirror image of the other" (他者镜像) [2] regarding the GDI, based on studying the international community’s views on the motivations, impacts, and prospects of China’s proposal. This aims to provide theoretical support for promoting the further implementation of the GDI and constructing a more inclusive system for external discourse communication.
I. Adaptation and Shaping: The International Community’s Judgment on the Motivations for Implementing the GDI
Why New Era China proposed the GDI is the primary issue considered by various sectors of the international community when responding to the initiative. According to the materials available to the author, the international community mainly analyzes the motivations for implementing the GDI from economic, political, diplomatic, and geopolitical perspectives, forming three basic judgments.
(1) Responding to International and Domestic Development Challenges
Against the backdrop of increasingly severe global development challenges, the GDI is generally seen by the international community as a strategic measure taken by China in the context of dual internal and external development challenges. China intends to achieve two goals through the initiative.
First, to resolve its own developmental contradictions and inject a "shot in the arm" (强心剂) for achieving strategic transformation. Anthea Mulakala, a senior director at The Asia Foundation, an international non-profit development organization, pointed out in her research that the GDI provides a framework for China's existing and new development cooperation, aiming to achieve the coordinated resolution of China's internal problems through overall coordination. Hoang Thi Ha of the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore believes that the GDI is a strategic move by China to address the current imbalance between supply and demand in its economic transformation. By matching its own supply of finance, technology, and human resources with the economic and developmental needs of recipient countries, and simultaneously exporting its surplus capacity in infrastructure construction, China hopes to resolve developmental contradictions such as overcapacity.
Second, to address current global development issues and provide "timely rain" (及时雨) [3] for win-win cooperation. Overseas figures believe that multiple current global challenges pose a serious threat to the development of all countries; however, the international community lacks effective international cooperation and multilateralist mechanisms. Therefore, the proposal of the GDI is an important attempt to resolve this problem. Rebecca Ivey, Chief Representative of the World Economic Forum in Greater China, stated that "the Global Development Initiative is a Chinese proposal and initiative to solve global development problems, and a timely call to counter those factors that may hinder the progress of the UN Sustainable Development Goals." Pakistani scholar Shakeel Ahmad Ramay wrote that the GDI emerged just as the world urgently needs a more fair and just framework for cooperation and development to solve global problems, and it will contribute to overcoming world challenges.
(2) Expanding its International Influence
Beyond responding to internal and external challenges, the international community believes that planning diplomatic layout is also an important reason for China proposing the GDI, aiming to achieve three major goals.
First, to enhance China’s discourse power (话语权) [4] within the United Nations. A study by the "AidData" laboratory at the College of William & Mary in the United States on the relationship between the voting behavior of member states of the "Group of Friends of the GDI" in the UN General Assembly and their debt to China showed a positive correlation between the increase in Chinese loans to these members and their support for China in UN votes. Based on this, they believe the GDI is one of the means by which China expands its influence in the UN. Courtney Fung of the Lowy Institute in Australia further pointed out that the GDI enables China to establish closer relations with recipient countries and reinforce its own policy propositions within the UN framework, ensuring that China's voice receives broader recognition on multilateral platforms.
Second, to increase China’s influence among countries of the Global South. Some overseas figures believe the GDI reflects China’s strategic intentions regarding global governance—that is, the initiative is a tool for serving Chinese interests and a method for promoting its own rules and practices. A study by the Atlantic Council stated that "through the GDI, New Era China intends not only to expand its scope of activities in the Global South but is also supporting the Chinese government’s pursuit of broader influence in a strategic way, because the development approach China provides represents an alternative to the Western model."
Third, a tactic to counter the China strategy of the United States and its allies. British scholar James Kynge argues that the GDI is a cornerstone of China's blueprint for building an alternative world order, conveying dissatisfaction with the world order dominated by Western countries led by the United States. Hoang Thi Ha also believes that China is using this initiative to express a dissenting opinion against the US approach of emphasizing security issues while neglecting development. Through a pragmatic approach to development cooperation, China is actively responding to the needs and concerns of developing countries, countering the hegemony of the US and its Western allies in global governance structures to gain broader recognition on the global stage.
(3) Leading the Reshaping of the International Order
With the rise of more Global South countries, the clamor to change existing international rules and seek the construction of a more fair and reasonable international order has grown increasingly loud. Consequently, more and more views in the international community hold that the GDI is an important measure by which China leads the transformation of the international order, forming three types of perspectives and cognitions.
One view holds that the GDI is intended to elevate the status of developing countries in the international community. Joseph Lemoine and others from the Atlantic Council stated that by leading dialogues on global governance, the GDI not only makes China a leader in promoting world multipolarity but also gives small countries a greater voice. Pakistani scholar Siham Javid believes that "the GDI represents a reshaping of the existing world order centered on US hegemony." It is thus evident that the international community generally believes that, driven by the GDI, the discourse power and international participation of developing countries will be further enhanced, occupying a more important position in the global landscape and thereby promoting world multipolarity and the innovation of the international order.
Another view asserts that China proposed the GDI out of strategic considerations for geopolitical competition. A considerable number of actors, represented by the United States and the European Union, believe based on their own interests that China intends to use the GDI to engage in competition with them. The U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa report stated that the United States has defined China's activities in Sub-Saharan Africa as "order-disrupting activities" and views China as a competitor. A research report released by the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs believes that China and the EU are showing an increasing competitive posture on the global stage, reflected not only in interactions within the framework of international organizations like the UN but also in the discourse regarding the choice of modernization pathways. These views from American and European political and academic circles deserve China's vigilance.
Furthermore, some foreign scholars believe the GDI is intended to promote the just and reasonable development of the international order. Professor Jean Claude Maswana of Ritsumeikan University in Japan stated that by integrating the GDI with the Sustainable Development Goals under the UN framework, China is not only gradually building a new international order system through a gradual "project-linkage" model but is also avoiding direct confrontation with major world powers in a peaceful manner. Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim of the University of Abuja in Nigeria believes that China is using multilateral cooperation mechanisms to enhance the discourse power of emerging economies in global governance, pushing the process of economic globalization toward a more just and inclusive direction.
II. Transcendence and Leadership: The International Community’s Assessment of the GDI's International Impact
As the solution proposed by New Era China to address global development challenges, the GDI has received high attention and continuous discussion from the international community. Various sectors of the international community have conducted a relatively comprehensive analysis and assessment of the initiative's impact from three levels—national, regional, and global—and three dimensions: world development, experience sharing, and breaking monopolies.
(1) Promoting the Resolution of Global Development Issues
Faced with an increasingly prominent global development deficit, the proposal of the GDI has brought new solutions. Therefore, various sectors of the international community, including foreign dignitaries and scholars, believe that the current role of the initiative in promoting global development cannot be ignored, as specifically reflected in two aspects.
First, it is conducive to promoting the realization of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Looking at the eight priority areas of the GDI, they are highly consistent with the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the practical needs of countries worldwide. Carlos Watson, the Representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN in China, spoke highly of the practical significance generated by the GDI in global development, considering it an accelerator for achieving the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development and the first initiative with the primary goal of accelerating the realization of sustainable development goals. Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Chairman of the Kuhn Foundation, pointed out that the GDI is highly aligned with the UN’s sustainable development goals, and solving these problems can be described as "an achievement in the present age that yields benefits for a thousand autumns" (功在当代，利在千秋) [5].
Second, the GDI provides an unprecedented opportunity and platform for uniting all countries to solve development problems. Suos Yara, a member of the Central Committee of the Cambodian People's Party, stated that the GDI will become an important cooperation platform for China and developing countries to advance fundamental and core interests. Saudi Arabian scholar Fahd Almenei also believes that "the GDI is a re-mobilization of world development cooperation and a reaffirmation of the people-centered concept." Wilmot Reeves, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of Liberia, similarly believes the GDI provides a strong policy framework for countries to achieve their development goals.
(2) Providing Chinese Experience and Chinese Solutions for World Development
One reason the GDI was discussed heatedly upon its proposal is that it provides countries with a new alternative to modernization, different from that of existing Western developed countries.
First, the GDI provides developmental experiences and paths that other countries can draw upon. Selçuk Çolakoğlu, Director of the Turkish Center for Asia-Pacific Studies...
Selcuk Colakoglu stated that China has achieved immense success in economic development and accumulated rich experience in national development; the Global Development Initiative (GDI) is a reflection of China's successful experiences and methods, and the Chinese government is eager to share China's practices with other economies, particularly countries in the Global South. Benjamin Norton, founder of the American Geopolitical Economy Report, also believes that the GDI is a way for China to share its experience with other developing countries. Based on the concepts of win-win cooperation and mutually beneficial development, China achieves development through cooperation and peace, which serves as an important model for other countries to emulate.
Second, the GDI provides stable and reliable dynamic support for late-developing countries. Public projects from the International Labour Organization (ILO) show that under the framework of the GDI, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China is gradually strengthening South-South cooperation with ASEAN regarding employment. The focus lies in promoting knowledge sharing, experience exchange, and capacity building through South-South and triangular cooperation, helping Southeast Asian countries resolve economic growth stagnation caused by employment deficits and the lack of capacity for sustainable and inclusive development. Robert Lawrence Kuhn has also pointed out that China, by virtue of its professional knowledge and practical experience, provides long-term support to key development sectors in developing countries—such as healthcare, educational facilities, and industrial infrastructure—enabling late-developing countries to benefit significantly from the GDI. The supportive role of the GDI is particularly prominent in helping African countries establish comprehensive industrial systems.
(3) Breaking the Western Narrative Monopoly on Development
For a long time, the development models, economic theories, and political systems of Western countries have held discourse hegemony on a global scale. A series of policy measures based on Western experience, such as the "Washington Consensus," have been widely applied to guide the economic transformation and developmental practices of developing countries, forming the so-called "Western development model" discourse system. The GDI is built upon China's independent exploration of its own path of development. The historic achievements [6] in China's development and construction during the New Era have also become the best "gold-lettered signboard" [7] for the GDI, providing a new perspective for countries around the world with diverse developmental stages and specific national conditions. It has broken through the "monolithic modernization model" that holds a monopoly in the Western-centric "monolithic discourse world."
First, through its transcendence, the GDI exposes the "discourse failure" of Western countries on development issues. Paul Haenle and Nathaniel Sher of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote that, unlike the "Washington Consensus"—which historically sought to promote trade, financial liberalization, and free-market capitalism to achieve economic development—China emphasizes the centrality of state intervention, social stability, and security for economic development. Zenel Garcia of the U.S. Army War College believes that the "Three Global Initiatives" [8] represent China's critique of Western liberal "universal values" and their role in the international order; they aim to provide discourse space for pluralistic choices in global development by recognizing that all countries have a variety of different political and economic developmental trajectories.
Second, through its innovativeness, the GDI leads a new paradigm for global development. Jean Paul Vargas of the University of Costa Rica pointed out that the GDI is an important global public good provided by China to the international community. Based on shared values such as respect, tolerance, dialogue, and harmony, the initiative provides countries—especially those in the Global South—with a choice of perspective different from Western development models and paths. It opens up the possibility of exploring a new type of decolonial international cooperation under a multipolar world structure, marking a trailblazing attempt in the field of global governance. Pakistani scholar Siham Javed’s research suggests that the GDI is a new solution and reference for humanity to achieve modernization. China is providing a development paradigm based on common prosperity, peaceful development, and cooperation that is distinct from the West, and which has been welcomed by countries across various regions including South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Pacific Island nations.
III. Cooperation and Competition: The International Community’s Prospects for the Global Development Initiative
Since it was proposed in September 2021, the GDI has received active responses from over 100 countries and international organizations, earning praise from numerous internationally renowned figures and major media outlets, and is becoming an international consensus with global influence. Consequently, various sectors of the international community generally maintain a relatively optimistic attitude toward the future prospects of the GDI, looking ahead to its development based on both the internal and external challenges it faces and its developmental potential.
(1) How China resolves the challenges and problems faced in the implementation of the GDI will directly affect the initiative's future development
The GDI provides new ideas for responding to current uncertainties in world economic development and reducing the global development deficit. The results achieved in the three-plus years since the initiative’s launch are evident, yet in the view of various sectors of the international community, there remain challenges and problems to be addressed in its future implementation.
First, the specific content and operational mechanisms of the GDI are not yet sufficiently clear. For instance, Mary Gallagher of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame believes that although the GDI advocates for inclusive growth, it lacks a detailed plan on how to achieve this goal. Scholars such as Fikayo Akeredolu in the U.S. have also pointed out that the GDI remains somewhat broad and idealized, lacking clear fiscal targets, priority countries or regions, and sectoral themes; it still needs to further transform "vision" into action.
Second, domestic developmental pressures in China may create certain resistance to the implementation of the GDI. Mary Gallagher pointed out that uncertainty in current world economic development has increased, and China's economic development consequently faces certain pressures. Combined with problems such as the wealth gap and structural imbalances—which are being addressed but are not yet resolved—this may, to some extent, constrain the execution of the GDI and the manifestation of its international influence.
Third, the relationship between the GDI and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) needs further clarification. Since the GDI was proposed, the international community has compared it with the BRI in terms of connotation, objectives, and nature, forming basic assessments such as the "parallel theory," "replacement theory," and "supplementary theory." Zoe Johnson, a senior policy lead at a global development strategy consultancy, and others have pointed out that the status of the GDI and BRI in China’s foreign relations during the New Era, as well as their relationship to one another, remain insufficiently clear, which will impact the GDI’s ability to play its role to a certain extent. This shows that there is still ambiguity in the international community's understanding of the relationship between the GDI and the BRI, requiring us to provide a more detailed elucidation of the relationship between the two.
(2) The external environment and international situation create certain resistance and adverse effects on the effectiveness of the GDI
In the view of the international community, amid the shifting clouds of the world today, four factors regarding the future development of the GDI cannot be ignored.
First, the uncertainty of global economic recovery. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economy has faced a massive crisis. Research by Australian scholar Mercedes Page states that the pandemic caused years of accumulated global development achievements to suffer a heavy blow, leading to the first reversal in the elimination of extreme poverty since the 21st century. Jorge Heine of Boston University pointed out that in the post-pandemic era, the intensification of extreme poverty and resource shortages—intertwined with geopolitical conflicts—presents a significant challenge to the advancement and implementation of the GDI. Yunnan Chen of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in the UK pointed out that with the rise of global interest rates, it is difficult for capital flows to return to original levels in the short term, further exacerbating financing pressures for various projects under the GDI. Thus, in the post-pandemic era, the GDI still faces considerable pressure in responding to the global economic crisis and promoting global economic recovery, which in turn will affect the "landing" of the GDI’s specific agenda.
Second, foreign public opinion and geopolitical factors cause certain countries to still harbor doubts and concerns regarding the GDI. For example, taking Indonesia as an instance: while Indonesia has formally joined the "Group of Friends of the GDI," its actual degree of participation and depth of cooperation remain insufficient. Meanwhile, influenced by the U.S. promotion of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" and South China Sea disputes, Indonesia has expressed certain concerns regarding the GDI’s sustainability and debt issues. S.D. Pradhan, former Chairman of India’s Joint Intelligence Committee, believes that the emergence of the concepts of the GDI and the Global Security Initiative may be a response to U.S.-led security alliances, including the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue); therefore, India must prudently evaluate the potential impact of the initiative on India’s future security and interests. These doubts and concerns regarding the GDI require China to respond and resolve them in a timely manner.
Third, the potential competition between the development plans of other countries/international organizations and the GDI. Some Western countries and blocs believe that the GDI will pose a threat to their own interests in the future. For example, Yunnan Chen stated that the GDI might compete for development aid funds from traditional EU donors such as the UK and Sweden, leading the latter to cut aid to some extent, thereby harming their influence and credibility among partners in the South. Sarah F. Cliffe and others at New York University, after comparing the developmental trajectories of G7-related initiatives and the GDI, pointed out that the G7 has already viewed China’s proposal of the GDI as a geopolitical challenge and will continually respond by proposing alternative international cooperation frameworks.
(3) The developmental potential inherent in the GDI will allow it to gain more international support and global influence
The international community generally believes that although the GDI was only proposed three years ago, it has already demonstrated developmental potential that cannot be ignored.
First, from the perspective of its developmental philosophy, the GDI effectively meets the needs of world development. President Sadyr Japarov of Kyrgyzstan pointed out that the GDI aligns with the development trends of the current era and the general expectations of the people for peace, cooperation, and development. Muhammadjon Obidov, Chairman of the Fergana Regional Branch of the Creative Union of Journalists of Uzbekistan, believes that the core objectives of the GDI lie in poverty reduction, ensuring food security, and promoting sustainable development; it will lead the construction of a future-oriented global community of development.
Second, from the perspective of its cooperation model, the GDI deepens exchange and mutual learning between countries. African countries generally believe that China's GDI, by providing necessary support and resources, helps Africa overcome future development bottlenecks while providing the international community with new cooperation models and governance concepts, which will further promote South-South cooperation and the realization of UN Sustainable Development Goals in the future.
Third, from the perspective of its future value, the GDI further promotes the realization of the common interests of the international community. Currently, except for actors with vastly different political stances and ideologies who often interpret it through "colored glasses" [9], the international community basically agrees that the GDI is of great significance for maintaining world peace and stability, promoting economic and social progress, and driving the reform of the global governance system. It will play an active role in safeguarding the shared interests of all humanity in the future.
IV. Conclusion and Evaluation: Reflections on the International Community's Perception of the Global Development Initiative
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the GDI is one of the hot topics of concern for the international community, which has conducted in-depth explorations and provided active responses regarding the initiative’s underlying motivations, global impact, and future prospects. At the same time, evaluations from the international community also display certain misreadings and cognitive biases. Overall, the responses and perceptions of various sectors of the international community exhibit three major characteristics.
First, the perspectives from which the international community analyzes and evaluates the GDI are comprehensive and diverse. Wu Lunting, a researcher at the University of Lisbon...
Lunting Wu (Wu Lunting) writes that the Global Development Initiative (GDI) integrates issues such as the economic situation, geopolitics, international relations, food security, and pandemics, consolidating China’s considerations based on various international and domestic factors. In fact, this view is largely consistent with the international community's basic perception of the GDI: namely, that the GDI is a comprehensive initiative that transcends the scope of a single economic development category and covers multiple issues. Consequently, various sectors of the international community have interpreted the GDI from multiple perspectives based on factors such as different regional interests, disciplinary characteristics, research preferences, cognitive stances, and public opinion environments. This diversified research trend has made the international community's understanding of the GDI more comprehensive, reflecting the expectations and attention of overseas circles toward China’s initiatives for seeking common development and win-win cooperation during a period of turbulent change. This provides a useful reference for domestic academic circles in researching and explaining the GDI.
Second, the international community's research on the GDI has a distinct practical orientation. While the perception of the GDI covers a wide range, the international community’s focus is generally concentrated on outcome-oriented projects such as implementation paths, development agendas, and actual results, showing a clear pragmatic tendency. This is specifically reflected in: first, the heated discussion on the GDI’s "commitment to action-oriented efforts." Based on the literature currently available to the authors, more than half of the sources involve an analysis of "action-oriented" efforts, revealing the level of attention paid to the GDI’s practical effectiveness. At the same time, compared to other specific proposals such as "staying committed to development as a priority" and "staying committed to a people-centered approach," the concrete implementation areas of "action-oriented" efforts clearly constitute the primary concern of the international community. Related research has also increased alongside the GDI’s specific implementation. For instance, many researchers express appreciation for the explicit mechanisms within the GDI and its focus on practical actions such as promoting infrastructure construction, believing this will help change the status quo. Second, from the perspective of the starting point and ultimate goal of the research, various sectors of the international community focus on assessing and analyzing the potential value and challenges the GDI may bring to themselves, using this as a reference for policy evaluation and relevant decision-making for their own countries or blocs. Currently, most international research on the GDI originates from an analysis of motivations, impacts, and development trends, then shifts focus to the intersection and divergence between the GDI and their own national interests, finally settling on their own responses and the resolution of practical problems. For example, a research report released by the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs suggests that the GDI's characteristics of high targeting, intensification, and strong financial investment pose a major challenge to Europe's value-based development model and should trigger high vigilance within the EU.
Third, the international community's perception of the GDI is generally positive, but a certain degree of misreading remains. The international community’s understanding of the GDI’s motivations and significance aligns with its original intention and vision: to build the broadest possible consensus in the international community on development issues, promote common development, and interface with and accelerate the implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, some overseas scholars, influenced by political stances, class perspectives, and Cold War thinking, are unable to evaluate the GDI objectively. This is mainly manifested in: first, the tendency to politicize development issues. For example, Joseph Lemoine and others believe that the West must take immediate action to reduce China's use of the GDI for ideological dissemination in developing countries. Second, some scholars wrongly interpret China’s motivation for proposing the GDI as a hegemonic move to expand its international discourse status or as a tool to win over developing countries to counter the United States. A small number of scholars, represented by Lunting Wu and others, argue that the GDI was specifically launched by China in response to the US-led "Indo-Pacific Strategy" against the backdrop of intensified major-power competition.
Conclusion
Since it was proposed, the GDI has driven the international community to refocus on development issues and recommit to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on a global scale, achieving very considerable progress and results in addressing the challenges posed by the global "four deficits" [10]. According to the Global Development Initiative Progress Report 2023 released by the Center for International Knowledge on Development (CIKD), half of the 32 pragmatic measures of the GDI released by China in 2022 have been completed or have achieved early results. The total number of pragmatic cooperation projects in the project pool has exceeded 100, benefiting nearly 40 developing countries. This is the fundamental reason for the international community’s enthusiastic response and sustained attention to the GDI. Currently, the GDI has moved from conceptual construction to a stage of deep practical cultivation. Its implementation effectiveness depends not only on China’s own efforts and promotion but also requires the recognition and support of the international community. Overall, different countries and regions have formed diverse interpretations of the GDI due to differences in regional backgrounds, political stances, and practical interests. Therefore, in the future advancement of the GDI, we should view the various international interpretations of the initiative in a cautious and dialectical manner. We should take multiple measures to guide the international community toward forming a more objective and accurate cognitive judgment of the GDI, win more international support for its further implementation, and thereby create a more favorable international atmosphere for building a more inclusive Chinese discourse system and shaping a more responsible major-power image for China in the New Era.
Source: World Socialism Studies, No. 7, 2025.