Chinese Ambassador to Ireland Zhao Xiyuan’s Remarks at “China’s development Model, the Green Transition and the Changing Global Order”

Distinguished Professors, scholars, students, and friends,

It is a great honour to join you today at Trinity College Dublin and I thank the Trinity Centre for Asian Studies for organizing this discussion. For centuries, this university has brought generations of thinkers into thoughtful conversations.

Our topics today bring together three closely connected questions: How can countries sustain development in an era of economic uncertainty? How can we make the green transition both ambitious and affordable? And as relations between major economies become more complex, how can we preserve cooperation? 

We meet at a challenging moment. Conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue to bring human suffering and economic disruption. Global growth is uncertain, energy security remains a big concern, and some major economies are turning inward.

On these challenges, Europe and China will not always agree, nor should we pretend that our interests are identical. Yet we share one planet and face problems that no country can solve alone. The question is not whether differences exist, but whether we can manage them constructively.

It is from this perspective that I would like to share some reflections on China’s experience.

China’s development is often described as an economic miracle, much like Ireland’s Celtic Tiger years. Since Reform and Opening Up in 1978, China has combined market mechanisms with a strategic role for the state in infrastructure, education, and investment. Under this socialist market economy, the market plays a decisive role in setting prices and allocating resources, while the government provides long-term strategic direction and stability. 

The results have been remarkable: more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty, while China’s GDP has grown 344-fold, reaching approximately USD 19.3 trillion by 2025.

But China’s development has never been smooth sailing. Instead, it has evolved continuously in response to new challenges.

Two moments illustrate this experience. The first was China’s accession to the WTO in 2001.

The negotiations lasted 15 years. In the 1990s, China faced limited foreign-exchange reserves, heavy bank bad debts, uncertainty in international trade relations, and many technologically lagging industries.

Against this backdrop, China committed to substantial tariff reductions, opened more than 100 service sectors to foreign investment, and accepted “WTO-plus” obligations.

The risks were widely recognized. Domestic industries feared they could not withstand foreign competition; banks worried about losing their best customers; and farmers were concerned about rising agricultural imports.

Yet China chose reform over retreat and deeper integration over isolation. Domestic industries restructured, upgraded their technology and improved efficiency. Foreign competition became a catalyst for transformation and modernization.

The second example is the global financial crisis in 2008. Rather than casting blame on others, China recognized that a downturn in global consumption would inevitably impact everyone. In response, China launched a four-trillion-yuan stimulus package to sustain domestic demand, investing heavily in infrastructure, rural development, environmental protection and high-tech industries, while supporting households and businesses.

The impact went beyond short-term crisis management. High-speed rail is a good example. Before 2008, China had almost no high-speed rail network. Today, it operates more than 50,000 kilometers, accounting for more than 70% of the world’s total. What began partly as a response to crisis helped create infrastructure that continues to connect regions and support growth.

These facts counter the narratives of the so-called “China collapse theory” and “China threat theory”, which often reflect a zero-sum mindset: if one country becomes stronger, another must become weaker. In reality, China has continued to develop by confronting successive challenges, while contributing around 30% of global economic growth for many years.

Today, China is shifting toward higher-quality and greener development, pursuing modernization centred on its huge population, common prosperity for all, material and cultural-ethical advancement, harmony between humanity and nature, and peaceful development.

These priorities are reflected in China’s energy transition. Total installed solar and wind power capacity has surpassed 1.8 billion kilowatts. Major investment in batteries, electric mobility, and grid infrastructure is creating industrial foundations for a more sustainable future.

In Europe, concerns are sometimes raised about Chinese industrial capacity and trade surpluses. It is sometimes argued that the influx of Chinese goods has squeezed the space available to European industries. Yet headline trade figures do not always show where value is actually created.

Consider the iPhone. China’s annual export of 150 million iPhones creates a nominal 60 billion USD trade surplus on paper. But China retains only a small fraction of the gross profit, while over 60% flows back to Apple in the United States.

A similar pattern can be seen in European industries. BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen generate more than 30% of their global sales in China, while European products in sectors such as chemicals and aerospace account for more than 30% of China’s total imports. Nearly 40% of exports by European companies operating in China are sold to Europe.

Modern supply chains are deeply integrated, goods may be manufactured in one country, designed in another and generate profits in a third. The Draghi Report underscores that Europe’s declining industrial competitiveness is primarily driven by slowing productivity growth, demographic shifts, high energy costs, and insufficient investment in the green and digital transitions.

These examples show why trade should not be viewed simply as a contest of surpluses and deficits and also point a concern for China: some European criticisms of do not always appear to take the full picture into account. 

Nevertheless, China takes Europe’s concerns seriously and remains committed to engaging in constructive discussions regarding trade and industrial policy. In its 15th Five-Year Plan, China has committed to strengthening monitoring and early-warning mechanisms for production capacity, while using planning guidance, price regulation, and industry self-regulation to curb excessive competition.

At the same time, China remains the world’s second-largest consumer and import market. In 2025, its imports reached nearly 2.6 trillion USD, while trade in services recorded a deficit of more than 120 billion USD. And China’s commitment to opening up to the outside world remains unchanged. Next week, China will host the 26th China International Fair for Investment and Trade, with Finland and Saudi Arabia as the Countries of Honor. Delegations from 123 countries and regions have registered, with 60 setting up exhibition booths. More than 140 leading financial institutions and listed companies will participate.

Trust must run both ways. Just as foreign investors expect stability when entering China, Chinese enterprises abroad need predictable, transparent, and non-discriminatory treatment. 

Consider Nexperia in the Netherlands and British Steel in the UK. In both cases, Chinese investment provided capital at difficult moments, supporting operations, technology, and employment. Yet both cases have subsequently become subject to strong political intervention in the name of national security. If foreign investment is welcomed when economies are under pressure but becomes politically contested when circumstances improve, investor confidence inevitably suffers.

A stable international economic system requires clear, predictable rules applied consistently. The same principle is also essential to international relations and to the stability of the wider global order.

Many of the scholars here will be familiar with China’s vision of building a “community with a shared future for humanity.” This is not simply rhetoric. China has sought to translate this vision into action.

Five years ago, President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Development Initiative. Last year, he proposed the Global Governance Initiative, built around five core principles: adhering to sovereign equality, abiding by international rule of law, practicing multilateralism, advocating the people-centered approach, and focusing on taking real actions.

And there are tangible results. More than 23 billion USD has been mobilized under Global Development Initiative. These resources have supported more than 1800 livelihood projects and provided professional training to more than 200,000 people. Similar efforts can also be seen in the Belt and Road Initiative and international development cooperation. China has sought to shoulder responsibilities commensurate with its abilities, including in areas where other major powers have sometimes been less willing to do so.

Those efforts have been recognized by many people around the world. A Pew Research Center survey conducted last July among more than 40,000 people across more than 30 countries found that, in 25 countries, views of China were more favourable than views of the United States. In 22 countries, respondents also expressed greater confidence in China’s leadership than in American leadership.

We do not take these findings as a matter of pride or competition. The world today stands at a critical historical juncture. The choices before us are not only between war and peace, but between openness and protectionism; between upholding free trade and undermining it; between continuing globalization and allowing the world to drift towards division.

Recent geological disasters along the China-Nepal border are a heartbreaking reminder that climate change respects no borders. China and Europe have demonstrated leadership in addressing this shared challenge before, and we should continue to do so.

Common challenges require common responsibilities. China does not claim to have all the answers, but we are willing to listen, learn, and cooperate. Rather than viewing every global change through the lens of competition, we can learn from one other’s experiences.

China and Europe have advanced technologies, vast markets, and enormous potential for cooperation. By choosing pragmatic cooperation over protectionism and constructive dialogue over blame, we can turn mutual interdependence into greater stability, shared prosperity, and new economic opportunities.

Universities such as Trinity College Dublin play a vital role by providing space for rigorous and independent debate. The scholars joining us today bring invaluable expertise and unique perspectives to these critical issues, which will undoubtedly enrich our collective understanding in the discussions ahead. As we begin this event, I look forward to your active engagement and constructive contributions, and hope that the exchanges throughout the day will foster deeper mutual understanding and enduring collaboration.

Thank you.

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.