The progress of Chinese tech companies across the entire stack is “remarkable,” OpenAI’s Sam Altman told CNBC, pointing to “many fields” including AI.

Altman’s comments come as China races against the U.S. to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) — where AI matches human capabilities — and roll out the technology across society.

Chinese progress is “amazingly fast,” he said. In some areas Chinese tech companies are near the frontier, while in others they lag behind, Altman added.

This is a breaking news story. Please refresh for updates.

Europe is “totally on the sidelines” on the global stage as “wrecking ball” politics has become the norm, the head of the continent’s biggest security forum has said.

Speaking to CNBC’s Annette Weisbach ahead of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), Wolfgang Ischinger, the organization’s chairman, said it was Europe’s “own fault” that its power on the global stage has been diminished.

“Europe has failed to speak with one voice to China and about China, Europe has failed with one voice, to come up with a clear concept about the future of the Middle East, including about how to deal or not to deal with the Iranian nuclear question,” said Ischinger, who is a former German ambassador to the U.S.

Earlier this week, the MSC published its 2026 report, for which Ischinger wrote the foreword. It warned that “the world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics,” where “sweeping destruction … is the order of the day.”

The report said that U.S President Donald Trump was “at the forefront of those who promise to free their countries from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild stronger, more prosperous nations,” arguing he was just one movement “driven by resentment and regret over the liberal trajectory their societies have embarked on.”

Ischinger told CNBC that Europeans were “totally on the sidelines” on negotiations around Gaza and Ukraine.

“We have no role. Things have been decided by others,” he said. “When I look at the war in Ukraine, Europe has no place,” he said, adding the U.S. and Russia were leading discussions.

U.S. delegates have been helming peace talks with officials from Ukraine and Russia since late 2025, with European officials scrambling to maintain a say on how to end the four-year war between the two countries.

“Why the hell do we not have a place at the table? This is our continent. It’s our future,” Ischinger said on Friday. “The answer, of course, is not that Donald Trump is making a mistake. The answer … is that we have failed to speak with one voice.”

Ischinger added that he rejected “the blame game regarding the United States,” but for areas where Europe “clearly failed” to adopt a strategic position.

Delegates from all over the world are gathering for the Munich Security Conference on Friday. The event runs through Sunday.

Ischinger told CNBC that the “wrecking ball” was “being used by many” in addition to Trump, including right-wing extremist parties across Europe and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But he called Trump “the single most prominent example” of someone who “questions existing arrangements and tries to replace them.” “That is for countries like Germany, which have been so dependent on the existing international rules … a worrisome development,” he added.

CNBC reached out to both the White House and the Kremlin for responses to the MSC’s commentary.

Transatlantic trust had also been damaged by Trump’s push for the U.S. to annex Greenland, Ischinger said.

After weeks of rhetoric on bringing the Arctic island — a Danish territory — under Washington’s control, Trump threatened to impose tariffs on European allies who stood in his way, before announcing a “deal” on Greenland had been reached.

Since Trump’s return to the White House, European leaders have been making commitments to drastically increase security spending. Last summer, European members of NATO agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of their individual national GDP — a move Trump had been pushing for for some time.

The spending plans have bolstered European defense primes, some of which have seen their shares more than double in value, while order backlogs have hit record levels.

Ischinger told CNBC Europe needed “to create a more consolidated, a more competitive, a more unified defense industry.”

This report is from this week’s CNBC’s UK Exchange newsletter. Like what you see? You can subscribe here.

The dispatch

Compass is that rare beast —  a British company that is a genuine world leader in its field.

The world’s biggest contract caterer, which annually serves 5.5 billion meals in schools, colleges, workplaces, hospitals and sporting venues in more than 25 countries, is considered a well-run business.

Accordingly, its trading updates tend not to excite, routinely consisting of news on organic sales growth, margin improvements and — with workplace catering operations gradually being outsourced around the world — new business wins.

Last week’s update, though, brought something more eyebrow-raising as Compass announced that, from April 1, it will change the currency in which its shares are traded from sterling to the U.S. dollar.

The company explained that having reported in dollars since October 2023, the measure would align its share price trading currency with its reporting currency, “reducing FX volatility in the share price and simplifying the investment case for global investors.”

Cue hand-wringing over how Compass — which derives around three-quarters of its revenues in dollars — could be the next big U.K. company to abandon London for the New York Stock Exchange.

Protests from Compass that it would continue to pay dividends in sterling, unless shareholders elect to receive them in dollars, fell on deaf ears.

Compass was, in fact, taking advantage of a relatively recent change to the so-called “ground rules” governing membership of indices overseen by FTSE Russell, part of LSEG, the owner of the London Stock Exchange.

Announced in March 2025, and coming into force last September, it allowed for companies whose shares trade in dollars or euros “to be considered for potential inclusion to the FTSE U.K. Index Series.”

In doing so, London has shown considerably more flexibility than some other major financial centers. The New York Stock Exchange, for example, insists that all NYSE-listed shares are quoted, traded and settled exclusively in dollars.

The first company to take advantage of the rule change, in January this year, was InterContinental Hotels Group, the parent of the Holiday Inn and Crowne Plaza hotel brands, which derives some 80% of its revenues and operating profits in dollars. If anything, it is even more British than Compass, dating back 249 years in the country. It is also proud of having registered the U.K.’s first trademark — the famous Bass red triangle — in 1875.

‘The accounts were not acceptable’

In a sense, changing the currency in which a company’s shares are traded is the logical next step in a process that began many years ago.

When companies were allowed to publish their report and accounts in currencies other than sterling, many started to do so. The three biggest companies in the FTSE 100 by market capitalization — HSBC, AstraZeneca and Shell — all now report in dollars. Unilever, the fourth largest, reports in euros. Others in the FTSE’s top 20 reporting in dollars include the miners Rio Tinto, Glencore and Anglo American, the oil major BP and the international bank Standard Chartered.

It is not a recent development. As long ago as 1989, the car rental company Avis Europe began accounting in the old European Currency Unit (ecu), the synthetic currency which later evolved into the euro. 

The move caused some complications for the business at the time. Alun Cathcart, the chairman and chief executive, told the annual Ecu Banking Association meeting at Copenhagen in June 1991 that, when Avis Europe had first submitted its report and accounts for 1990-91, the U.K. authorities refused to accept them.

He recounted: “We were asked to produce coins and notes, and if we couldn’t, the accounts were not acceptable.

“They were prepared to accept a report in Icelandic crowns or Australian dollars, but not in ecu.”

When in April 1997, Avis Europe floated on the stock market, it became the first London-listed company to report in ecus.

At the time, though, Avis Europe was very much an outlier. Other U.K. corporate stalwarts have only made the switch relatively recently. Shell began reporting its results solely in dollars at the beginning of 1998, explicitly doing so to encourage meaningful comparisons with U.S. rivals, with BP following suit a year later.

In the same sector, BG Group, the gas exploration and production company spun out of the old British Gas and acquired by Shell in 2015, began dollar reporting in 2009.

All were beaten by Rio Tinto, which has been listed longer in London than any other of the major global mining companies. It embraced the greenback following the merger in late 1995 of the old London-listed Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) and its 49%-owned Australian associate Conzinc Riotinto of Australia (CRA).

So it is surprising that the announcement from Compass last week caused such pearl-clutching. Perhaps the bigger surprise should be that British multinationals like GSK, British American Tobacco, Rolls-Royce, Diageo, RELX and Reckitt Benckiser, despite making most of their money overseas, remain loyal to the good old pound.

Top TV picks on CNBC

Greg Stafford, Conservative MP, discusses the mounting pressure on U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Jack Meaning, U.K. chief economist at Barclays, discusses the market implications of the political pressure on Starmer, and the economic outlook after the latest Bank of England decision.

Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, discusses the Monetary Policy Committee’s latest decision to hold rates at 3.75% as global uncertainty weighs.

Need to know

UK’s latest political standoff threatens to put a ‘Damocles sword’ over the country’s bond market, Jordan Rochester, head of FICC strategy at Mizuho EMEA, said in a Monday note. The prospect of a leadership challenge could upend the policy path laid down by Starmer and his finance minister, Rachel Reeves, which poses a significant risk to gilt investors.

Jeffrey Epstein has sparked a political crisis threatening the UK government. The release of further Epstein files last week triggered a series of events that left U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer fighting for his political life, despite the fact that he never knew the late financier and sex offender.

China lashes out at the UK’s expansion of a scheme for Hong Kong residents to apply for the British National Overseas, or BNO visa, calling it “despicable” and “reprehensible.” The U.K.’s move comes after a Hong Kong court sentenced pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison under a national security law.

Quote of the week

In the markets

The FTSE 100 has traded lower over the past week, closing Tuesday at 10,353.84, compared to 10,402.34 a week ago. Britain’s blue-chip index finished yesterday’s session down about 0.3% on the day.

The British pound, meanwhile, rose slightly against the dollar this week, trading at $1.3665, up from $1.3650 last Wednesday, as yields on the U.K. government’s benchmark 10-year bonds — also known as gilts — dipped over the same period, finishing Tuesday at 4.495%, compared to 4.552% a week ago.

— Hugh Leask

Coming up

Feb. 12: GDP preliminary estimate for 4Q

Feb. 17: Unemployment data for December

Feb. 18: CPI for January

China’s embassy in London Tuesday criticized the U.K.’s decision to expand a visa program for Hong Kong residents, calling the move an interference in its internal affairs after a court sentenced pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison under a national security law.

The U.K. on Monday expanded the British National Overseas (BNO) visa scheme on Monday to allow children of BNO status holders — who were under 18 at the time of Hong Kong’s handover to mainland China in June 1997 — to apply for the route independently of their parents.

“BNO has misled Hong Kong residents to leave their homes, only to face discrimination and hardship in the U.K., living as second-class citizens,” an embassy spokesperson said in a statement in Chinese translated by CNBC.

The embassy described the scheme expansion as “despicable” and “reprehensible.”

“China has always firmly opposed the UK’s manipulation and interference in China’s internal affairs,” the embassy spokesperson said.

The scheme was launched in 2021 after Beijing imposed the sweeping national security law on Hong Kong. Since then, over 230,000 people have been granted visas, and almost 170,000 have relocated to the U.K.

The diplomatic tensions followed the sentencing of Lai by a Hong Kong court on Monday, in one of the city’s most prominent prosecutions. That was the heaviest penalty ever meted out under the national security law.

The 78-year-old founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily newspaper was a vocal critic of Beijing and was among the first prominent figures arrested in August 2020. He was jailed on charges of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and publishing seditious materials. Lai pleaded not guilty to all counts.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer raised the case with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a visit to Beijing last month, calling for the release of Lai, who is a British citizen. Critics and Lai’s family have argued that the U.K. did not take sufficient and concrete steps to reverse the course.

The sentencing showed how the Beijing-imposed national security law has “criminalised dissent, prompting many to leave the territory,” the British government said in a statement, adding that it will “rapidly engage [with Beijing] further on Mr Lai’s case.”

The expanded visa route came amid what the British government described as a “deterioration of rights and freedoms” in Hong Kong. The government estimated that 26,000 people will arrive in the U.K. over the next 5 years.

Hong Kong’s chief executive John Lee said Tuesday that Lai deserved the harsh sentencing for all the harm that he had done, including “using Apple Daily to poison the minds of citizens” and “colluding with foreign forces to take sanctions and hostile actions against China and Hong Kong.”

Other governments have renewed calls for Lai’s release following the ruling. Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, called the ruling “unjust and tragic” and urged the authorities to grant humanitarian parole for Lai.

A simmering dispute over two container ports at either end of the Panama Canal risks becoming a geopolitical flashpoint between the world’s two largest economies: the U.S. and China.

It follows a contentious decision from Panama’s top court voiding a license of a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison for operating two key terminals on the waterway, through which some 40% of all U.S. container traffic transits every year.

The ruling was seen as a major victory for the U.S., given that the White House has made blocking China’s influence over the global trade artery one of its top priorities.

China has sought to raise the stakes in recent days. In its strongest rebuke yet, Beijing warned on Wednesday that the Central American country “will inevitably pay a heavy price both politically and economically,” unless it changes course.

The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of China’s State Council called the court decision “logically flawed” and “utterly ridiculous.”

In response, Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino dismissed China’s threats, saying on Wednesday that he “firmly rejected” the statement from the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office.

Mulino said on social media that Panama was a “rule-of-law country” that respects decisions from its top court, noting that decisions taken by the judiciary were independent of the central government.

CK Hutchison, for its part, said Wednesday that it had taken Panama to international arbitration, adding it “strongly disagrees with the [court’s] determination.”

Analysts expect the fallout from the ruling to last for quite some time.

With questions lingering over the security risks posed by CK’s management of the ports and whether any mitigation measures are in place, it looks like “a simple contest for dominance in Latin America,” said Scott Kennedy, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The most likely scenario is a drawn-out legal fight in multiple jurisdictions, along with substantial political and economic pressure imposed by both Beijing and Washington,” Kennedy added.

Relations between the two superpowers deteriorated last year as President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on Chinese exports, drawing Beijing to tighten its grip on rare earth exports. Geopolitical tensions including Beijing’s stance on Taiwan, support for Russia war in Ukraine and U.S. military action in Venezuela and Iran have also weighed on relations.

CK Hutchison had negotiated a $23 billion deal with a BlackRock-led consortium in March last year to sell its non-Chinese port subsidiaries. It later drew criticism from Beijing which described the deal as “kowtowing” to American pressure.

Chinese officials have sought to reshape the deal, demanding that it undergo China’s merger review process and have reportedly proposed state-owned shipping group Cosco to join the acquiring consortium.

In a sign of further escalation, China directed state firms to halt talks over new projects in Panama, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, and asked shipping firms to consider rerouting cargo through other ports.

China’s customs authorities also plan to step up inspections on Panamanian imports, including bananas and coffee, according to Bloomberg.

That said, chances of any response from Beijing propelling Panama to reverse course remain low, given Trump’s view of the canal as a strategic chokepoint, said Jack Lee, analyst at China Macro Group.

China’s response will likely be carefully calibrated and largely symbolic aimed at signaling disapproval rather than forcing a policy reversal, Lee said, adding that the Panama episode exposed Beijing’s vulnerability in safeguarding its economic interests in the region when challenged by U.S. pressure.

China has ramped up investment in strategic infrastructure across Latin America, including a major deep-water port in Peru. The Port of Chancay, operated and majority owned by state-owned Cosco, is expected to cut shipping times by about half.

Analysts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, warned that the Chinese government appears to have “the maritime industry in a chokehold.”

FDD’s Elaine K. Dezenski and Susan Soh said in an article published Monday that China controls more than 100 overseas ports on every continent except Antarctica and manufactures more than 95% of shipping containers and 70% of ship-to-shore cranes.

China dominates the world’s shipbuilding orderbooks with nearly two-thirds of global orders flowing to Chinese yards in 2025, according to an industry report, citing data from maritime research firm Clarksons.

Meanwhile, around 40% of U.S. container traffic travels through the Panama Canal every year, which in all, moves roughly $270 billion in cargo annually.

Any expansion of Beijing’s maritime dominance, therefore, could put the U.S. and its allies at risk of the same dependency they face with critical minerals and rare earths, according to the FDD.

United Nations Secretary-António Guterres recently called out the U.S. and China’s power struggle, warning that global problems “will not be resolved by one power calling the shots.”

“We see — and many see in relation to the future — the idea that there are two poles, one centered in the U.S. and one centered in China,” Guterres said at a news conference on Jan. 29.

“If we want a stable world, if we want a world in which peace can be sustained, in which development can be generalized, and in which, in the end, our values will prevail, we need to support multi-polarity,” he added.

The Chinese government has condemned a ruling from Panama’s top court, warning the Central American country “will inevitably pay a heavy price” unless it changes course.

The rebuke comes shortly after Panama’s Supreme Court ruled to void Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison’s license to operate ports at either end of the Panama Canal.

The ruling was seen as a major victory for the Trump administration’s security ambitions in the Western Hemisphere, given that the White House has made blocking China’s influence over the critically important waterway one of its top priorities.

In a commentary posted on Tuesday on its WeChat account, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council said the “logically flawed” and “utterly ridiculous” ruling was opposed by the Chinese government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government.

“The Panamanian authorities should recognize the situation and correct their course,” the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office said, according to a Google translation.

“If they persist in their own way and remain obstinate, they will inevitably pay a heavy price in terms of politics and economics!”

In a brief statement on Jan. 29, Panama’s top court said the terms under which Panama Ports Co., or PPC, a subsidiary of CK Hutchison, runs the Port of Balboa on the Pacific Coast and Cristóbal on the Atlantic side of the Panama Canal violated its constitution.

The ruling came around a year after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to seize control of the Panama Canal, saying the waterway was “vital to our country” and claiming, “it’s being operated by China.”

CK Hutchison, for its part, said Wednesday that it had launched international arbitration proceedings against Panama after the country annulled its licenses to operate two Panama Canal ports.

In a statement, the company said PPC would seek “extensive damages” over the ruling, without specifying the damages sought.

Shares of CK Hutchison closed up more than 2% on Wednesday. The stock has climbed over 23% so far this year.