Even by the time of Xi Jinping’s rise to power and the launch of ‘China dream,’ there are still misinterpretations as concerns to it. Moreover, the term is said to be vague, aspirational, and open-ended. According to Ferdinand, It offered a new narrative of hope that could supplement the older and by now rather tired ideological rhetoric of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’, and it might particularly inspire younger generations who were most interested in the long-term future. Furthermore, it is said to be important, as quoted by Liu Yunshan, “Many cadres, and especially our young ones, are not willing to watch our news reports, nor to read our theoretical articles, nor to listen to our speeches.” In addition, another quote was stated and according to Kerr, “The notion of the China Dream is a clever negotiation between collective identity and individual aspirations. It is rather like a large body of water—the dream reveals the Chinese people as having a collective will and identity shaped by a difficult history but at the same time if individuals and communities look closely into the dream they should be able to see their own reflection in it.” However, Xi did everything to ensure that it remained …show more content…
During his visit in other countries, he announced the plans on creating an ‘economic belt’ or corridor linking China with Mongolia, Central Asia, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Balkans, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Germany, and Netherlands. In addition, Prime Minister Li Keqiang visited south-east Asia, where he announced plans for a ‘Maritime Silk Road’ linking Southeast China with Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, India, Persian Gulf, Mediterranean, and Germany and Netherlands as well. With the two projects combined, it developed more transportation routes and vehicles. OBOR potentially involves over 60 countries with a combined population of over 4 billion people, whose markets currently account for about one-third of global GDP. Moreover, Wu has suggested a broad distinction between current Asian and European styles of regional integration: Europe focuses upon integration, which reflects European states’ higher level of economic development, while Asia, with its greater diversity, puts a higher priority on connectivity and joint ‘docking’ (duijie) of nation-states still jealous of their sovereignty (Zelin,