1. There are fields in which complex interdependence will likely continue, while there are also fields in which a highly normative, geopolitical contest is underway that potentially undermines interdependence. 2. In international finance, a shared risk approach was demonstrated by the emergence of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In this case, China has contributed a new institution, challenging US leadership of global finance yet seeking reform rather than revolution to address the needs of the developing world. More transparency about bilateral Chinese lending would help reassure concerns about debt sustainability. The growth of green finance may in time provide an opportunity for greater accountabilities in resource planning, transparency of lending and tracking of project deliverables. 3. In communications technology, a shared, multi-stakeholder risk approach was demonstrated to be the optimal risk reduction approach, in the face of very real and multiple-sourced cyber-risks. Yet geopolitical contest and spiralling distrust (for example, the case of Huawei) is undermining international cooperation in constructing new institutions, norms and rules to protect the integrity of systems that are expected to transform economies, societies and assist the shift to sustainability. There may yet be some room for compromise in particular if brokered by the EU. 4. In infrastructure connectivity, China’s different risk approach was demonstrated, underlining a confidence in the Asian development model, although this approach has generated claims of debt risks, opaque decision making, corruption and other problems, often at the country or project level in high-risk operating environments. The risks in the Kyaukphyu, Myanmar, case are high and diverse. This points to the need for China to pay closer attention to local and regional sustainable development outcomes. 5. A new theoretical framework for sustainable internationalism is needed to understand the new, emerging conditions in a multipolar world order, to ...
