Boao Forum report: What's driving Asia's steady economic growth?
52:46 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying. Coming up, a Boao Forum report projects Asian economic growth at 4.5% in 2025, whilst driving this steady growth amid global uncertainties.

China unveils regulation on implementing anti-foreign sanctions law. What message does it send out? Greenland's leaders have called U.S. officials' visit highly aggressive. What are the Trump administration's real motives behind such a controversial move? A report projects Asian economic growth at 4.5% in 2025, up from 4.4% in 2024.

The Asian Economic Outlook and Integration Progress Annual Report, released by the Boao Forum on Tuesday, suggests the ratio of Asia's GDP among the global total measured by purchasing power parity is expected to rise from 48.1% in 2024 to 48.6% this year.

The report notes that the global reliance on Asian economies for foreign investment has reached around 60% in recent years, with China and ASEAN being the most attractive destinations. The annual Boao Forum for Asia is underway in Hadam Province. With the theme Asia in the Changing World Towards a Shared Future, participants are discussing hot issues around globalization amid political and economic uncertainties.

For more, we are now joined by Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University. The Boao report projects Asia's economic growth at 4.5% in 2025, up slightly from 4.4% in 2024. What factors do you think are driving this steady upward trend amid global economic uncertainties?

Yes, the Asian area is one of the most rapidly growing regions in the world, not only at the present time but also for the last two decades or even three decades, partly due to China and India, where the economic growth has been significantly above the global average.

The global average is something like between 3 to 3.5%. But Asia, led by China, India, Vietnam and also the other populous countries where they have a huge population, but economic growth is above the global average.

This is why Asia is 4.5% which is significantly higher than the global average. This implies that the share accumulated by the Asian economy at the global level is increasing steadily over the last few decades. And why this is such a driving force, I think there are a number of factors

The first factor is the population base. The second factor is that Asia, especially India and China, the average per capita income is still significantly lower than the most advanced economies such as Europe, the United States.

So there is a cutting-up process between India and China with the advanced industrialized economy. So there's a huge potential for these two most populous nations in the world.

The other factor is technological progress, particularly the AI, big data, digital economy, blockchains and new energy industries.

which are emerging as the most populous industries in the world. And China, India, they are able to utilize this new industrial, especially the newly emerging industrial development to boost their economic development.

In the case of India, where they have a huge population base, particularly the young people, in China, it's not only the large population, but also the gradually improved technological innovations.

Some of the technological innovation have been catching up with the advanced country and even becoming the most frontier runner of technological innovations. So this is another

factor in globalization, the globalization and the regional multilateral cooperation, particularly RCEP and also the Asian Pacific Economic Corporations, the Shanghai Conference and so on. There is a multilateral government effort

to mitigate the kinds of international trade frictions and reduce the cross-border investment and trade costs. So these are another important factors.

Despite the kinds of global conflicts between the advanced nations such as the United States, but Asia is a economic bloc where there is a huge population and there is a huge potential.

Well, also, according to this report, Asia's share of the global economy is expected to reach 48.6% in 2025, if measured by a purchasing power parity. So are we witnessing a fundamental shift in global economic power towards Asia? And what might be the implications for the rest of the world?

Yes, of course. I mean, you know, you go back about a quarter century ago and China's share in the global GDP is negligible. And nowadays China's share in the global GDP, if you measure in PPP term, is the biggest in the world, which is, you know, more than 25% in India.

although in the nominal term it's low, but in PPP term, it accounts for about 13% of the global share. These two countries together plus the traditional industrialized Asian economies such as Japan, South Korea, and also the Southeast Asian nations, the 10 member states,

They are probably the fastest growing country in the world over the last two decades. But the report notes that global reliance on Asian economies for foreign investment has reached about 60% in recent years. What makes Asia, and especially China and ASEAN, so attractive to global investors? This question is intertwined with the previous question about the global economic share.

In terms of the global economy share, it's almost half, but investment share is 60%. This means that in the longer and medium term, Asian economy is going to becoming more influential and bigger at the global level. This is why investment is 60%, which is higher than the share of the economy GDP.

Now, why is this a very attractive place for foreign investors to come to Asia? As I just mentioned before, Asia is the most populous continent in the world. The population is large and there are still lots of development gaps, particularly infrastructure,

energy, transportation, and also many other areas like high-end manufacturing, artificial, digital economy, lots of new emerging industries where it could be highly beneficial for profitable investment by foreign multinational companies.

And this is why Asia is a magnet in terms of attracting foreign capitals. Another reason is that China is emerging to become a major foreign investor itself. So China can invest to foreign countries, and I think the country who benefit from the foreign investment directed from China is the neighbouring countries, ASEAN.

Asian countries, Asian Pacific regions. These are the so-called integration of the Asian economy in particular. So integration within Asia and also into connection with America, Africa, Latin America, and also Africa. So these are the kinds of integration at the global level.

cross-border investment become a part of globalization, not only international trade but also investment. So the money actually goes to where you can generate more profit. And in order to generate more profit, I think Asia presented a very good opportunity for those multinational companies.

Yeah, you mentioned integration. Actually, the report also highlights the steepening regional economic integration through agreements like RCEP and CPTPP. But how are Asian countries sustaining their own model of economic integration in a phase of rising unilateralism and protectionism worldwide?

Unilateralism and Protestantism is more or less utilized by the most advanced economy in order to maintain the hegemony or the so-called monopolistic power in international trade, technological development and also investment.

Now, this is basically driven by America because America is the number one superpower or probably the only superpower in the world at the moment. And being a superpower, it has to do everything possible in order to protect the existing interest. And in order to protect the existing interest, the WTO framework

it may not be totally suitable for the so-called American first policies. So Americans, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, decided to decouple from China, from Asia, and even from the close allies in Europe, to my surprise.

And Europe itself is not a fairly uniform economy identity, because it consists of 27 member states in the Eurozone. And also, you know, the Brexit, you know, the UK and some other countries, it's not a unified economy identity. And in order to protect their interests, sometimes their policy could be highly anti-globalization.

Now, China and the rest of Asia also have different approach. China has benefited from the integration to the global economy and from the globalization process. And China is an emerging economy. I think it's particularly important for China to continue to be open

not only to penetrate into the rest of the world, but also to learn from the advanced technology countries and also to increase the resilience of external shock.

This is because China has a huge market and China still has potential for it. Likewise, India, of course, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, to name it. These countries I just mentioned, they have large populations and they need to catch up with the advanced economy.

So these countries are more open-minded because they need to cooperate with the rest of the world. So there are confessions between the advanced economy and the emerging or the developing economies because they have different objectives. And these different objectives present very conflicting pictures for us.

The first point is that, yes, you see some sorts of protectionism and unitarianism by some countries, but you also have people who are very eager to be integrated through RCEP or CCP, TT. This kind of cooperation is very important.

is required for the second group of countries. So it is a dynamic, competitive process. It's not a single-sided trajectory. It actually is a very complicated trajectory faced by different countries with different conditions and with different objectives in their mind. Thank you, Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kung Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang has signed a State Council decree to unveil the anti-foreign sanctions law. China will enhance its countermeasures and their enforcement. The regulation stipulates that organizations and individuals subject to countermeasures may request suspension, modification or cancellation of the imposed measures if they rectify their actions and mitigate the consequences.

For more, we are joined by Professor Qu Qian, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzu University of China. Professor Qu, thanks for joining us. Thank you. So we know this anti-foreign sanctions law was passed in 2021. Then why is China releasing these detailed rules on its implementation at this particular time?

Oh, actually, we have been passing this law in 2021. And also you'll be seeing more details coming up in this year. I think basically it's because international situations have been changing. Very, very turbulent and very, very messy. So I think recently America probably and also some other Western countries frequently have been posing unilateral sanctions towards China, including a very wide range of spectrum, for example, like trade, like technology, like finance.

And I think they have been accusing Chinese enterprises as well as individuals for foul reasons and have been infringing our legal benefit and also has been breaking down the very normal orders for international relations as well as for trade.

So China has been in a very fast development phase in the technology and economy and trade. So I think it is time for China to get more mature legal system, rule of law to protect its own sovereign security as well as for the benefit. So I think that's the reason why we've been doing so. And also I have to

say more is uh besides american and western countries also some developing nations they think well china's probably their hands has been tied have been busy doing all kinds of these legal arguments with the united states or other western countries so some emerging markets are also trying to you know hijack china among this moment so i think that this law is actually not only towards certain western countries but also towards every country who is going to be illegally

infringe China's benefit. Okay, so if you look at these very detailed regulations, what are the major takeaways and what message is China sending to those foreign governments and businesses? Well, I think the major takeaway is that China has been very, very dedicated and resolute to protect its own benefit in a legal way, in a transparent way, and based on a very fair footstanding. Look, we're not going to hijack

We're not going to rob other countries. We're going to not weaponize this legal policy towards some other countries for our own gain. But what we're doing this is to anti or counterfeiting some other countries, robbery behavior, some other countries' illegal and foul actions. Their impertinence will not be indulged.

so I think this is showing a very strong message we're gonna you know fight against all kinds of the hegemony and powerful politics no matter what kind of alibi or excuses you have you want to interfere with China's domestic you know policy or just simply to hijack China or rock China in the economic game I don't think it will work in the future so China absolutely will use a lot of the detail the policies was very targeted manner you know to make sure

that the other people trying to you know use their loss to uh put china in a very negative situation will deserve their own damage or losses so i think this is loud and clear and i don't think this is a bad thing because with a large china a large country an economy like china stands out representing all the global south nations to fight against those hegemony in the trade and economy eventually they will help help the whole world

to maintain a rather balanced and equal and a fair play global trade system, to make things on equal footing with equality, transparency. So it's been protecting everybody's benefit, not only China.

Okay, and we noted that the law allows individuals or organizations that are subject to countermeasures to request suspension or modification if they correct their behavior. But how will China evaluate such requests and how transparent will this process be?

Well, as you're probably going through all the details in the law, you'll find out in the law and in the clause, it's been very clearly stipulated that once any organization, corporation or individuals corrected or canceled what they're doing and also erected the negative result, they can also apply for the Chinese authority to suspend or change or even cancel our counterfeiting measures towards them. And I think it

the reason why we clearly and also very, very importantly put forward this clause is because we want everybody to understand that this is towards the behavior itself. We're not going after any different culture, different race, different, you know,

institution or ideology. No, this is not what we're doing. We're not trying to use our long arm of jurisdiction to use the excuse for trade and economic cooperation to weaponize our hatred or to retaliate on people who is different from us. What we're doing is the only problem that you're going to infer in this benefit in economy, in trade, and also trying to harm our individuals in a

corporation and that's it. So if you can change, if you can correct what you're doing, you definitely deserve another chance and we wouldn't go after some other reason. Yeah, but how might these regulations impact foreign investment in China? Could they inadvertently deter businesses that are wary of heightened risks from engaging with China? Oh, of course, this is going to be a due result.

As it already happened in America, right? Just take a look at how many times in the past five or six years when American authorities try to weaponize all their policies in the long-arm jurisdictions. You see the special name list and also all kinds of 301 investigations.

they're not only hurting the other trading partners outside of America, but also some innocent trading partners or corporations try to handle the trade in between the two nations, in America and other nations. They are afraid to get into the trouble, so they quit at the U.S. market. So I think this

actually has been making great trouble towards American trade and also what American trade should actually earn. You see the huge trade deficit. On one hand, it's about economic structure, but also on the other hand, there's a kind of indulging of

these foul policies. So this scared people away. Those people, you know, the honest and fair players in a trade and economy, sometimes they want to get trouble, so they quit. And also they made the whole price, you know, like imported services and good in America, even more expensive. So I think a similar situation is going to happen in China as well. But also they're going to create some what we call the innocent

third-party growing up effect what does that even mean it means there are some other third-party country they will take over those businesses a left of I you know the sensitive players and also because they think okay we're from the third party we have nothing to do with all these

There's kind of a sanction. So we're clean. So they will deserve more opportunities and earn more money. And also we have been seeing similar situation happening as well. So people come and also other people will go. Yeah, okay. But in a scenario where China and the U.S. engage in escalating sanctions and countersections, what would be the global economic fallout?

Well, the economic fallout will be something we need to adapt to and also try to get used to. For example, international technology corporation, international supply chain, and also international economy itself, like the demand and the supply, will all be affected. I'm trying to be very honest because this kind of policy is also like tariffs.

And all this kind of punishment policies will be like a wedge. You smashed it into the global trade. People are getting afraid whether I will go wrong or not. What I'm doing is sensitive or not. So in order to play very, very safe, they're going to stay very far away from the bottom line. They will not touch the red line, not even just getting closer to it. They will just stay very, very far away from it. That will mean, you know, some cooperation, which should be OK for people.

just to get afraid to do so is gone. And also some trade should be okay, but people just get afraid of it. They're gone. And also international supply chain because of the people or investment are getting afraid of it. So people would rather to build their own share of the supply chain of their own country or safe region. So make every supply chain, every part to be redundant and

over supply, rather to share supply chain in a more efficient way. So they're going to cause over supply, redundancy investment, slower cooperation and research on technology, and more instability in the supply chain. That is some consequences we're going to face. But I think China have considered that. That's the reason why we're managing towards our friendly nations.

we're going to have more cooperation with them, for example, among the RCEP partners, for example, among the ASEAN nations. We're going to have a better and more improved cooperation with lower threshold, lower tariff, lower investigations, which can allow better, faster, efficient cooperations in research and technology and supply chain to grow up, to compensate what has

been lost, what could be lost among China and those nations who is going to be sensitive and become the target of the retaliation. Okay, thank you, Professor Qu Qiang, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzu University of China. You're listening to World Today. Stay with us.

You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. In the United States, a coalition of nearly 300 business groups is calling on the Trump administration to drop a proposal to charge a fee of up to $1.5 million on Chinese-made ships visiting U.S. ports. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative's Office, the National Retail Federation and other groups warned that the proposed actions will directly hurt American businesses and consumers.

The office on Monday held a public hearing on the proposal and will convene another hearing on Wednesday. The U.S. government began drafting the proposal last month with an aim to boost domestic ship manufacturing. For more, my colleague Ding Hong spoke with Professor Zhang Gong from University of International Business and Economics.

Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Gong. The argument of the U.S. government is that China's subsidies to its shipbuilding sector harm American businesses by limiting competition and investment opportunities while also posing economic or national security risks by creating dependencies that they believe China could weaponize in a potential conflict.

Is this a legitimate concern on the part of the US government? Well, I think the subsidy argument needs to be taken into the broader consideration against the history of China's development. I mean, I think whether this is legitimate or not, whether it's up to the standard of WTO is all very debatable.

If you really dig into this, the industrial policy association with some central government subsidy, local government subsidies is actually in the gray area in my view.

I give you one example, United States and European Union being engaged in litigation at WHO for decades regarding respective government subsidies to Boeing program, to the Airbus program. So I think, first of all, I would like to say that the subsidy issue is debatable, okay? And if there is an issue

the US government can take the case to the WTO Appellate Court and seek a verdict on this, right? Nevertheless, it's taking unilateral actions against China. The second thing is that the issue about the so-called national security risks by creating dependencies that China could potentially weaponize this. And this is a very typical American thinking, I would say.

This is very typical Washington thinking. It thinks this way because it has done that before. In the past, the US has weaponized a lot of things in its toolbox. And it's basically thinking the same way that China would do the same thing.

But this is actually another hypothetical issue in my view that doesn't hold much water in any case. So I think from these two perspectives, I think the answer to your question is whether this is a legitimate concern or not. Well, I guess from the perspective of the loose-based international order, I don't think it's a legitimate. But from Washington's perspective,

certainly understand what it's coming from. Because according to their logic, according to their historic thinking, you know, that's the way it is. But it's sort of unfortunate, I guess. Now, some business groups from American Maritime, Expo, and agricultural sectors are warning that if the proposed fees became real, then the impact on U.S. businesses would

will be even more damaging and even more disruptive than the global tariffs imposed by Donald Trump and administration. What is your take on this?

Well, we have to take these words, statements very seriously. I've seen some reports that some people are going to be affected by this, raising serious concerns. According to them, it's going to cause a profound impact on the US economy because if you look at the entire international, the global freight capacity,

Some people said that more than 50%, some people say 60% of the entire global cargo on global level is transported by either Chinese freight liners or other countries' freight liners that are using ships built in China. So in both cases, they are being affected by the proposal of these fees.

And you're talking about a lot of money for each shipment of cargoes. The United States imports a lot of things from the world. That basically will, same as tariff, even more severe than a tariff, raising the cost for the downstream users of these products.

and certainly will contribute to inflation. I'm pretty sure that's going to happen if this thing indeed goes through. So frankly speaking, can the United States boost or revitalize its domestic shipbuilding industry simply by imposing very expensive and high fees against Chinese-made ships visiting American ports?

I don't think so. I think it's a much, much more complicated issue than just a simple cost comparison. I mean, first of all, where's the labor going to come from? I don't know if you have been to a shipbuilding yard. I've been there a couple of times. It's actually a quite labor-intensive process.

You have these welders essentially working under the sun. I mean, this stuff cannot be done indoor because these are huge pieces welding under the sun and it's a labor intensive process. Where are these workers coming from in the US? Who are willing to take on jobs like this, right? And there's also the issue of the entire supply chain surrounding the shipbuilding industry.

um it's actually a quite fairly deep value chain there's hundreds of companies you know working this very chain being suppliers to the shipbuilding industry but the eventual you know shipbuilding and venture assembly of the ships um

there are many more companies involved in this building various types of products being used on a ship all of this is missing on in the u.s right now and you're talking about reconstruction the entire value chain we're talking about um employing you know those very labor intensive hard-working jobs it's going to be very difficult it's more than just the you know the cost issue i think if anything what's going to happen is basically directing

you know this ship building orders to other countries in like Japan and South Korea but the problem is that both countries are running out of capacity um it is reported that the backlog at shipyards in South Korea is is getting to the 2028 you know if you want to build a new ship the earliest time from a Korean builder would be sometime in 2028 and I don't think

Free companies can wait for that, right? So, you know, it's not going to make a huge difference in the domestic shipping industry in the United States in any case. So it is reported that the proposal to levy fees has actually gained widespread bipartisan political support in the United States. But if we are to think about the kind of backlash against this proposal from the U.S. business communities,

Do you think it is fair to say that the US politicians are largely out of touch with the business reality?

I mean, a lot of US politicians are totally out of touch with what's going on. They think that this is a great idea, everybody jump on the bandwagon to do something about China. But in reality, the proposals they made in their offices and in their chambers just cannot be implemented. Or if indeed implemented, it would just cause disastrous effect on the US industry and business communities in the United States.

And in the end, American consumers are going to pay for this. So it's very unfortunate that they have no idea about what's going on, what's the real situation. But I think this hearing process, this open public hearing process is very good in the sense that it's actually, you know, give them a reality check, essentially.

letting them know that there's a real impact, there's real consequences if something like this indeed happens. So I think there's going to be some pushback, people coming out, business coming out against this thing. And we'll have to see whether these politicians will ever listen to what the American people speak out.

That is Professor Zhang Yong from University of International Business and Economics speaking to my colleague Jing Heng. This is World Today. Stay with us. You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. The U.S. Federal Reserve has cut its growth forecast for the U.S. economy as President Trump's trade policies weigh on the outlook.

The Vets Open Market Committee expects growth of 1.7% this year, down from the 2.1% it predicted in December. The U.S. stock market has seen volatility recently as trade tensions threatened U.S. economic expansion. Meanwhile, this year, the U.S. dollar has lost 4% against a basket of currencies. For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, professor of economics at Willamette University.

So, Yan, the Federal Reserve has cut its growth forecast for the U.S. economy to 1.7% this year. It also expects the economy to be weaker and inflation could be higher. So why is that and what are the main reasons contributing to it?

Well, I think the main reason has to do with Donald Trump's economic policies that have really imposed a lot of uncertainty and also a lot of precarity in the market. So we know that the U.S., the so-called hard data, when you look at job creations back in February, and also when you look at inflation number, the U.S. economy seemed to be still holding up quite well.

But if you're looking at some of the indicators that are dependent on business sentiment or consumer sentiment, that have shown really pronounced weakness. So when you look at, for example, the Michigan State Consumer Sentiment Survey and also look at the conference board, it overwhelmingly shows the consumers feel uncertain about economy. And they also rank in their spending when you look at their first survey.

When you look at the data in February, the consumer spending in the real sense, discounted by inflation, has gone down by 2.5%. So I think this just shows that the sentiment is getting weak because of a lot of this policy announcements, be it tariff,

or the doge cuts of the government programs. All of this, I think, weigh on the economy when it comes to the confidence. And you mentioned Trump's economic policy. So how could Trump's tariff and trade policies impact the U.S. economy? And which sectors will be mostly hurt?

Well, I think Donald Trump's tariff policy at this point is quite widespread. We know that he has already imposed additional 20% on Chinese imports, but he was also on and off and on and off on the tariffs on Mexico and Canada. He also slashed 25% tariff rate on imported steel and aluminum, regardless of where they are from. And we know that the next big

sort of announcement is expected on April the 2nd, where he's going to announce the so-called reciprocal tariff on a wide range of economies. And he actually backed down a little bit these days and said that, you know, he might give some more exemptions to some countries and so on and so forth. But still, I think if the tariff is so across the board, it's going to affect many,

economic sectors. And so that would range from consumer products to industrial products as well. So I think, again, the market is really holding the breath at this point and really waiting for this April 2nd announcements. Other policies, as I just mentioned, you know, the Doge and the Trump's directives have really slashed the federal employees and in a way cut a lot of

government programs and departments. As a matter of fact, some of these cuts are really skeptically unconstitutional. So I think all of these in a way slash the business confidence and really have a real negative impound economy because

because we know the US government has been running expansionary fiscal policy to about 6% of the deficit to GDP ratio. And that has really been driving the economy. So now with all these cuts and more to come, I think this is going to affect the economy in a really significant and negative way.

And for the Federal Reserve, although the window of interest rate cuts this year hasn't closed completely, it has narrowed. And Trump himself has responded, urging the Federal Reserve to cut the interest rate as a kind of backstop to his tariff agenda. So what do you make of it? And would that work?

Well, I think at this point it's quite dubious. This political pressure is going to have any impact on the Fed's decision. Remember, the Fed's policy has to be more sort of data-driven, and I think that it's what Jerome Powell has been emphasizing all the time. And so I think...

At this point, there is so much uncertainty in the economy, and it really depends on whether or not the economy is going to be experiencing more inflation because of the tariff policies, or it is going to see more recession, possibly, because of all these

federal government program cuts and all these impacts on the economic and business sentiment. So when you look at the numbers in February, the U.S. economy added about 151,000 jobs, which is lower than the 12-month average.

of 168,000. So, and then the unemployment rate has ticked up to 4.1% in February from 4% in January. So it is possible that the economy is going to slow down. The labor market is going to, you know, decelerate when it comes to job creations.

So that's one of the reasons I think when you look at, for example, Atlanta Fed, they have projected the first quarter of the U.S. economy is going to contract by 2.4 percent. So, you know, if the economy does slow down, this will justify some rate cuts.

On the other hand, inflation number has came in quite healthy in February, reached a 2.8 percent, down from 3 percent back in January. So again, the inflation number shows that the Fed has more room to cut rates. But that said, again, if Donald Trump really imposes cross-the-board tariff rate, this could very easily

create higher inflation in the economy. So I think that it's really watching the data and they need to be really careful when it comes to what's the next policy move. Because if they don't do things properly, it could, I think, create a sort of stagflation scenario in the US economy.

And the US stock market has seen volatility and losses this year. Goldman Sachs says such large and persistent falls in Wall Street stocks and the currency are unusual. So what do you make of the sell-off in the US dollar and the equities?

Well, I think that is exactly the manifestation of the uncertainty that the economy is sort of suffering from. We know the greenback has lost 4% against a basket of six currencies so far this year. And the blue chip S&P 500 has also tumbled significantly.

about 4% so far this year. So we know that the stock market and the currency market are the ones that are really affected by confidence, sentiment, and so on. And so they're really the sort of forward-looking indications of how people feel about the economy. So with all these policy uncertainties, I think it's very clear that this kind of idea of U.S. exceptionalism is under increasing doubt.

And so I think that is one of the reasons why you're seeing the stock market is giving away after a very strong rally in the past two years. And the greenback, it's the same scenario, right? This idea that if the U.S. economy is not doing well, then this is going to depress its currency value. Now, there are also other, I would say, external factors that affected the U.S. stock market. For example, the Chinese economy.

The deep-seek launch has really, I think, attracted a lot of investors' attention to the Chinese stock market. And now with Germany has a new plan to increase military and infrastructure spending, defying their long-term ultra-conservative fiscal stance.

I think that also attracted more investors to look into European markets. So I think those are also the reasons why you're seeing a decline in the U.S. stock market as well as the currency value. And forecasters have raised the possibility of a recession. What do you make of it? And even some say there may be stagflation looming ahead. How do you view it?

Well, I think at this point, it's still hard to tell, right? Because there are still so many moving pieces. I think for Trump, it really depends on how his tariff policy is going to look like, how his mass deportation policy and his federal government deficit cut, all of these, I think, would weigh on the economy. So tariff could really inflate the economy, but the federal spending cuts could weigh down on the economy. So I think, you know, there are just so many moving pieces, but sophisticated

to say, with all these policy uncertainties, they're not going to be good for the economy. That is Yan Le, professor of economics at Wollongong University, speaking with Zhao Yang. This is World Today. We'll be back.

You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Greenland's prime minister has called a planned visit of U.S. officials to the island highly aggressive in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to take over the island. U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Walz and Second Lady Usha Vance are scheduled to arrive at the autonomous Danish territory this week,

Trump insists the visit is about friendliness, not provocation, and claims the U.S. team was invited. However, Greenland's government says it has not extended any invitations for any visits, neither private nor official. Danish foreign minister also said the visits are particularly untimely as there have just been elections in Greenland and there's no regional government.

For more, we are joined by Dr. Cui Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University. Dr. Cui, thanks for joining us. Hi. So what do you think are the real motives behind sending such high profile figures to Greenland? And how does that fit into Trump's longstanding fixation on the island?

As we know, since the Trump administration issued the message that the United States is trying to take over Greenland, I think now it's time for the so-called second lady and also some senior officials from this government to visit this island. I think it's just trying to shield

the style of the Trump administration to keep its promise and of course to impose some more pressure in the form of a soft or hard to the people living in the island. I think it's a very, very, indeed, an important message from the United States towards Greenland and also Denmark.

But of course, as we know, the background is also important. As we know, the election in Greenland just finished and now some are really

related parties. They are talking about an impossibility or format to have a new government. I think it's a very, very important time for the Trump administration to try to exaggerate its influence and also its pressure against Ireland.

Yeah, as you said, this is a post-election period while Greenland's parties are still negotiating over forming the island's next administration. So how might this time amplify the perception of U.S. interference in Greenland's political transition? And also, why do you think the Trump administration choose this moment for high-profile visits? Is it strategic miscalculation or a deliberate provocation?

Indeed, as we know, it's a very critical time for Greenland, especially after the election. As we know now, this time, the Democratic Party won the election. But even this party has a very, very clear attitude to get independence from Denmark.

but as you know this party also has a very clear attitude towards any solution in the future to be part of the united states so but of course now uh is there some uh it is there's some chance for the united states to have some political influence on the greenland as we know the second

winner for this election, another central right party, comparing with the Democratic Party, this party has some more prefer attitude towards the relations closely with the United States. But even

There are some differences among the major parties in Greenland, but if we look at the survey, it showed that nearly 85% of people living in Greenland have no interest.

interest in to be part of the United States. I think certainly this time this kind of political intervention from the Trump administration is a very very clear strategic miscalculation about the situation.

Yeah, you mentioned this survey, which I believe is very interesting because the election were won by this party that wants a slow and gradual independence from Denmark. But given the overwhelming opposition to U.S. annexation among Greenlanders, could the U.S. approach inadvertently strengthen the bonds between Greenland and Denmark?

Yes, undoubtedly. I think now a very clear approach from the Trump administration to deal with this Greenland issue is trying to have some influence on its domestic politics. And even as we know, they are not just so clear and also solidarity, I mean, on this issue among all of the parties in Greenland. But I think that

Even now the Trump administration had a very clear mistake about the logic that even there are more people in Greenland who want to have an independent status with Denmark, but it doesn't mean that they will want to be part of the United States. Of course, American governments are trying to find some joint

between those two logic, which means that okay, once Greenland will leave from Denmark, certainly it could take the United States as a better choice. But so far, we don't find any

I mean, we have no proof about that. Well, Trump hinted at leveraging NATO to support a takeover of Greenland. And also in the meantime, we see Vice President JD Vance slamming the Danish government by accusing it of not doing its job and not being a good ally by limiting U.S. access. How might this affect U.S.-Denmark relations within the alliance and also the U.S. relationship with NATO partners?

I think besides this approach to have some influence into the domestic politics in Greenland, another approach for United States is to impose some pressure against the Danish government, even to criticize the government and even to put the relations between two countries in tension.

But indeed, I think that it looks like the American government is taking a bigger and bigger risk to deal with the issue by taking use of the bilateral relations. As we know, even so far, Denmark and the US, they are still allies. So I'm wondering how could it take the price as the United States tried to

take Greenland over from the Danish government? At the same time, how could it deal with any damage for the bilateral relations? Yeah, very good questions. Thank you, Dr. Choe Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University. And that's all the time for this edition of World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Thank you so much for listening. See you next time. Music

you