Is it wiser for middle powers ‘not to take sides’ in face of US-China rivalry?
At a forum in Beijing on Friday, experts at Tsinghua University's World Peace Forum suggested that middle powers should avoid choosing sides in the US-China rivalry. Speakers, including Peking University professor Jia Qingguo, argued that taking sides would restrict diplomatic options and the ability to protect national interests.

Briefing Summary
AI-generatedAt a forum in Beijing on Friday, experts at Tsinghua University's World Peace Forum suggested that middle powers should avoid choosing sides in the US-China rivalry. Speakers, including Peking University professor Jia Qingguo, argued that taking sides would restrict diplomatic options and the ability to protect national interests. Instead, they advocated for a strategy of "hedging," which involves diversifying partnerships. Jonathan Fried, chairman of the Canadian National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation, supported this view, likening hedging to developing an insurance policy. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations was cited as an example of this strategy, as its members maintain strong ties with both China and the US, benefiting from trade and investment from each.
Article analysis
Model · rule-basedKey claims
5 extractedHedging means developing an insurance policy.
Taking sides in the US-China rivalry would limit middle powers' diplomatic space and capability to preserve their interests.
Middle powers would be better off hedging their bets rather than picking sides between the US or China.
ASEAN countries are deeply invested in preserving good relations with both Beijing and Washington.
Middle powers should band together to seek more diversified partnerships.