China is accelerating the development of robotaxi technology and hopes to replicate the success of its electric vehicle (EV) industry, becoming a major competitor in the global autonomous driving market.

In Beijing’s Yizhuang district, self-driving taxis have entered commercial testing. Companies including Baidu, WeRide, and Pony.ai are providing robotaxi services in designated areas. Passengers can simply book a ride through a mobile app, and the vehicles can navigate city roads without a human driver.

China’s advantage in autonomous driving partly comes from its mature EV supply chain. Self-driving vehicles rely on key components such as batteries, sensors, chips, and onboard computers. The industrial network built during China’s EV expansion has allowed related companies to develop technologies faster and at lower costs.

In addition, several Chinese cities have opened public roads for autonomous driving trials. The country’s complex traffic environments also provide large amounts of real-world data, helping artificial intelligence systems improve their driving capabilities.

However, expanding robotaxis globally still faces challenges. Different regions have varying climates, road conditions, and regulatory requirements, while safety concerns continue to affect public trust. Earlier this year, Baidu’s Apollo Gorobotaxi service experienced a software failure that caused around 100 autonomous vehicles in Wuhan to stop operating, raising concerns over reliability.

The Chinese government views artificial intelligence and robotics as key areas of “new quality productive forces”, and companies continue to pursue overseas expansion. Whether robotaxis can become another successful Chinese technology export will depend on technological reliability, safety, and global acceptance.

Commentary:

China’s push into robotaxis represents not only a breakthrough in transportation technology but also the expansion of US-China competition into artificial intelligence and advanced technology sectors. However, robotaxis face higher barriers than electric vehicles. Autonomous driving involves large amounts of road data, mapping information, and user data, raising national security and data regulation concerns in overseas markets.

Meanwhile, US companies such as Waymo have accumulated years of experience in autonomous driving and hold advantages in safety testing and user experience. While Chinese firms can rapidly deploy services at lower costs, they still need to prove reliability and build international trust.

As a result, robotaxis may become the next major battleground in US-China technological competition. China’s strengths lie in industrial scale and rapid commercialisation, while the US maintains advantages in technology standards, brand trust, and global influence. The future competition will not only depend on who can produce more vehicles, but who can build a globally accepted autonomous driving ecosystem.

The two-day NATO summit concluded in Ankara, Turkey, on July 8. Although US President Donald Trump once again criticised some allies for insufficient defence spending and expressed frustration over their lack of support for US military action against Iran, the summit ultimately sent a message of unity, with a more positive stance emerging on Ukraine.

During the summit, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and announced that the US would allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missiles, while providing technical guidance. Ukraine has repeatedly warned of shortages in air defence systems, while intensified Russian airstrikes have increased pressure on Kyiv’s defence capabilities.

Beyond granting production approval, Trump also adopted a more supportive tone towards Ukraine, praising Zelenskyy’s performance during the war and saying that the two leaders had developed a good relationship. NATO members also pledged to provide Ukraine with around €70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training in 2026, while maintaining similar levels of support in 2027.

The summit also reaffirmed NATO’s Article 5 collective defence commitment and announced more than US$50 billion in new military procurement plans to strengthen defence production capacity. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also highlighted that European allies and Canada had significantly increased defence spending in recent years.

Meanwhile, US-Iran military tensions escalated again during the summit. Trump ordered retaliatory action against Iran in response to an alleged Iranian attack on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Rutte said NATO had not ruled out playing a role in future Middle East developments but would assess the situation as it evolves.

Commentary:

Trump’s more positive signals towards Ukraine at the NATO summit mark a noticeable shift from his previous criticism of Zelenskyy and scepticism towards continued aid for Kyiv. Allowing Ukraine to produce Patriot missiles not only addresses Ukraine’s long-standing shortage of air defence systems but also demonstrates that Washington still seeks to maintain strategic influence over the conflict.

However, it remains unclear whether this represents a long-term change in US policy towards Ukraine. Trump has consistently pressured European allies to increase defence spending and argued that the US has carried too much of the security burden. NATO’s latest commitments on military spending and aid also align with his demand for greater burden-sharing among allies.

While the summit provided Ukraine with additional support and temporarily demonstrated NATO unity, the key challenge for Kyiv remains securing long-term, stable and reliable international backing.

Australian Opposition Leader Angus Taylor and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson have recently clashed over policy differences and the possibility of electoral cooperation. Taylor criticised One Nation’s policies as “incoherent”, describing the party as “a column of smoke” that would fail to address Australia’s challenges.

In a speech at the Sydney Institute, Taylor argued that One Nation lacked governing experience and warned that some of its economic policies could significantly increase government spending. He claimed that adopting parts of One Nation’s policy agenda could cost the budget around A$1 trillion over a decade, potentially driving up inflation and interest rates. Taylor warned that a One Nation government could leave Australia facing long-term economic difficulties.

Hanson responded by expressing disappointment over Taylor’s criticism and urged him to stop attacking One Nation. “Angus, I’m not your enemy,” she said. Hanson argued that the Opposition should listen to Australians calling for change and work with One Nation.

Amid speculation over whether the Liberal Party could reach a preference deal with One Nation at the next election, Taylor said such arrangements would be considered closer to the election. He stressed that he was willing to work with any group that could help defeat the Labor government, but maintained that One Nation had yet to provide effective solutions.

One Nation’s support surged in recent months, at one point surpassing major parties in opinion polls, although its support declined after Hanson promoted the idea of Australia becoming a “monoculture”. Meanwhile, since Taylor became Opposition Leader in February, the Coalition’s support has fallen to historic lows, placing pressure on the party to rebuild its position and reconnect with voters.

Commentary:

Although Taylor has strongly criticised One Nation, he has not completely ruled out future cooperation, reflecting the Liberal Party’s political dilemma. On one hand, Taylor needs to demonstrate clear policy differences from One Nation to reassure traditional Liberal supporters and avoid appearing to move towards more radical positions. On the other hand, the party cannot ignore One Nation’s growing voter base, particularly as some traditional Coalition supporters have shifted their support.

However, the Liberal Party itself continues to face questions over its policy direction. Internal divisions in recent years have made it difficult for voters to understand the party’s long-term vision. One Nation’s ability to attract some Coalition voters reflects broader dissatisfaction over issues such as cost of living pressures, immigration and government performance.

If mainstream parties focus only on criticising emerging political movements without offering clear and practical solutions, public distrust towards traditional politics may continue to grow, further strengthening the appeal of alternative parties.