At the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, Chinese Vice‑Premier He Lifeng presented Beijing as a steady, pragmatic partner for trade and investment, arguing that China will defend multilateralism and champion free trade. His remarks—promising Chinese “solutions” to global challenges and urging dialogue, mutual respect and managed competition—formed a deliberate contrast with the Trump delegation’s combative rhetoric and tariff threats.
The contrast was stark on the ground. While President Trump amplified tensions with allies and renewed threats of tariffs and territorial controls, China sought to project steadiness and reassurance to investors and policymakers. European commentators — notably in Germany — cast the contest as one over who can check U.S. unilateralism, and suggested that a hesitant and distracted EU risks ceding influence to a more assertive China.
This matters because narratives at Davos shape investor confidence and diplomatic alignments. After years of uncertainty from Washington’s trade policy, many capitals and corporate leaders are receptive to an alternative that promises predictability and market access. China’s pitch is not only economic: it is strategic, seeking to normalise deeper engagement under Chinese rules and norms while portraying Beijing as a constructive stakeholder in global governance.
But the reception is qualified. European and transatlantic audiences may welcome short‑term stability and business opportunities, yet remain wary of political strings attached to deeper economic ties—whether in infrastructure, industrial policy or technology standards. The effectiveness of China’s message will therefore depend on follow‑through: clearer commitments on market access, transparency and reciprocal rules that reassure liberal democracies.
In the short term, Beijing’s Davos performance bolsters its soft‑power case and may tip some commercial and diplomatic calculations in its favour. In the long run, however, sustained influence requires structural change: predictable regulatory behaviour, credible dispute‑resolution mechanisms and an ability to allay security and sovereignty concerns in partner countries. Absent that, China’s calm rhetoric risks being read as public relations rather than a durable alternative to Western governance models.