Group 1 - The core argument emphasizes that maintaining national interests should not equate to selfishness or a zero-sum game, as this leads to detrimental outcomes for all parties involved [2][3] - The concept of "hegemonic paradox" suggests that attempts to maintain unilateral dominance through exploitation will ultimately weaken the hegemon's foundation, leading to a reconfiguration of international power dynamics [3] - The resilience of global supply chains can counteract attempts at technological blockade, as evidenced by the negative impact of U.S. chip restrictions on its own semiconductor companies [3] Group 2 - The interdependence of national interests and global common interests is highlighted, with a call for strategic cooperation to expand these interests sustainably [4] - The International Monetary Fund projects that by 2025, global investment will account for 26.4% of GDP, indicating the dynamic nature of national interests [4] - The cumulative operation of the China-Europe Railway Express has surpassed 110,000 trains, sending goods worth over $450 billion, demonstrating the potential for exponential growth through open cooperation [4] Group 3 - The need for inclusive growth and cooperation among nations is underscored, with a focus on shared development opportunities and technological advancements [5] - The United Nations Development Programme indicates that inclusive globalization could enhance global GDP growth by 1.2 percentage points and reduce poverty by 100 million people [5] - The call for a new paradigm of international relations emphasizes dialogue and collaboration over competition, aiming to build a community with a shared future for humanity [5]