As this book went into production in March 2023, Chinese president Xi Jinping met with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the two leaders “agreed to follow the principles of good-neighborliness, friendship and win-win cooperation,” “to promote global governance in a direction that meets the expectations of the international community” and “to practice true multilateralism, oppose hegemonism and power politics.” Ironically, these are the very values expressed in this book, ones undermined by China and Russia in practice. Are not the invasion of Ukraine and threatened invasion of Taiwan forms of hegemonism?

Unfortunately, China and Russia are not the only two countries undermining “win-win cooperation” and “true multilateralism.” It is something of a trend. Indeed, defenders of multilateralism are commonly seen as idealistic, stuck in the past or wedded to a vague “Western” hegemony. In reality, the liberal principles of a rules-based international system, open economic relations and respect for human rights are universal and comprise the best approach to facilitating broad-based improvement in human welfare.

Also in March 2023, the United Nations issue its “synthesis” climate change report, and the results were described as a “final warning” on the issue, stating that the “pace and scale of climate action are insufficient to tackle climate change.” No amount of further economic nationalism can help address this challenge. It would only exacerbate it. The imperative is for collective, multilateral action, most urgently in the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and implementing carbon pricing.

As of the April 2023 annual IMF/World Bank meetings, more than twenty counties were either in debt default or seeking debt restructuring, with only Chad having been approved for the IMF's Common Framework discussed in Chapter 10. Further, China was refusing to either reduce the face value of debts or to increase payment periods, effectively refusing to seriously take part in the IMF's debt reduction process. The global public good of debt restructuring is proving to be elusive.

The United States continues it bipartisan consensus on techno-nationalism vis-à-vis China, with continued technological restrictions and threat of sanctions extending even to undersea cables, an unprecedented move. The evolution is from protecting legitimate security-related technologies to attempting to undercut China in all “foundational technologies,” including biotechnology. It seems that there is no end to technological realms that can come under the nationalistic umbrella.