The big question for the 2020s

On August 16, 1953, Dwight Eisenhower walked into Washington's Statler Hotel to give his first formal speech as president, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. He used that address, which he titled "Chance for Peace," to make the case to both Soviet leaders and the American people that a US-Soviet Cold War was a bad idea—and not inevitable.

In it, he detailed how many schools, hospitals, and power plants could be built for the cost of a single bomber plane. He warned that "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired" represented a "theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed," and warned that a life spent arming for potential conflict was "not a way of life at all, in any true sense... it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

It's worth remembering Eisenhower's warning as we close one decade and open another, because, whatever interim trade agreement Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping may sign in coming days, US and Chinese leaders look to be locking themselves into an expanding geopolitical conflict: in trade, in security, and particularly in development of the technologies that will shape our lives and define the global balance of power in coming decades.

The next war is more likely to be waged with cyber-weapons and trade tools than with conventional weapons, but the costs are no less prohibitive.

Some will blame Trump for this path toward confrontation, but growing US suspicion of China long predates his presidency. And while Democrats criticize Trump for a thousand things, most share his fears of China's growing economic and technological power. Others will point at Xi and the "new era" he has proclaimed for a more internationally assertive Beijing. But China has been growing and expanding its influence for 40 years.

A US-China rivalry is inevitable, but a conflict is not. Limiting the rivalry to "managed competition" would allow the US and China to devote more resources toward meeting the expanding needs of the American and Chinese people – not to mention challenges like climate change, which not even a superpower can solve alone. Constructive competition would also spare other governments the need to choose sides in ways that stunt the growth of their countries too.

Where will the current and future US and Chinese leaderships steer this most important of all international relationships? This is the biggest question now facing the United States, China, and the world as we open a new decade.

More from GZERO Media

- YouTube

Yes, this is real. Puppet Regime Ministry of Merchandise is now OPEN. Head to www.shop.puppetregime.tv to show everyone on the bloc that you support The Regime VERY STRONGLY. #PUPPETREGIME

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi attend the world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on October 13, 2025.

Egyptian Presidency/Handout via REUTERS

At first glance, it might seem odd that Tony Blair is leading the Western proposal for the future of Gaza.

- YouTube

As a landmark Gaza ceasefire reshapes Middle East stability, what does it mean for Egypt’s growth outlook? Egypt’s Minister of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation, Rania Al-Mashat tells GZERO’s Tony Maciulis the deal is “a monumental moment” and durable.

- YouTube

As the global economy faces uncertainty, Axel van Trotsenburg, Senior Managing Director of the World Bank, warns that “a wait-and-see attitude” is holding back investment and growth, especially in developing countries. Speaking with GZERO Media’s Tony Maciulis on the sidelines of the 2025 World Bank-IMF Annual Meetings, van Trotsenburg highlights human capital and infrastructure as key priorities, with a growing urgency to bridge both the digital and AI divides.

Chart of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of 2025.
Eileen Zhang

The 2025 Supreme Court term began this month, ushering in a slate of cases that could reshape American governance. No one will be watching more closely than President Donald Trump, whose efforts to expand executive power and limit independent oversight will be under the judicial microscope.