Can US make it in pressuring other countries to restrict trade with China?
53:16 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I am Ding Han in Beijing. Coming up: China is calling on countries not to appease the United States in trade deals. JD Vance is in India for talks with PM Narendra Modi on the US tariff shadow.

Tehran says Iran and the United States are tasking experts to design framework for a nuclear deal. And in China, robots have competed with humans in the world's first-ever humanoid half marathon. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.

China has warned against appeasing the United States in trade talks over President Donald Trump's tariffs. The Chinese Commerce Ministry made a comment on Monday in response to reports that somehow Washington is planning to put pressure on other countries to restrict trade with China in exchange for exemption to U.S. tariffs.

The ministry said appeasement cannot bring peace and compromise cannot earn you respect, adding that all parties should stand on the side of fairness to defend the rules of a multilateral trading system. After steep levies on dozens of America's trading partners kicked in earlier this month, President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on those tariffs to all countries except China.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

Thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Zhongming. What do you make of the most recent media reports suggesting that the U.S. is planning to use tariff negotiations to try to pressure dozens of countries into imposing new barriers on their own trade with China? Is it in effect

pushing countries, pushing those countries to pick a side between the US and China in economic sense. Well, I think that if the media is right, it's a very bad thing. Especially when the United States is trying to do that because they are the number one economy in the world. They have already made a lot of protectionism based on their own unilateralism.

So if they are trying to force other countries or trade members to do that, it's really a bad thing because we know that multilateral systems are based on the common understanding that we should be trying to treat other countries or trading partners equally. So if they are trying to require us to ask

I need other countries to do that. I think that is directly violating the multilateral principles of the most favored nation, the MFN, and also are forcing other countries to think about what they can do. Actually, to pick one side is...

are really bad choice and I don't think that message will be heard by the people, by the businesses because they are really depending on the internet connections with other countries including China which is a number one trading countries for the trade volume like for the trading goods there really are quite so many diversified connections with so many other trading partners in the world.

So more about that. We know China today represents the largest trading partner for more than 120 economies across the world today. So realistically speaking, do you think

Countries are going to set up new barriers on trade with China simply because they can be somehow exempted from Trump's tariffs or simply because they can continue to trade with the United States.

I don't think that will be the case because you are looking at trade patterns. China and the United States, we are definitely two different countries. So the trades between those trading partners with China are quite different from those with United States. There's no some kind of substitute from one country to the other. So if the countries want to benefit from the international cooperation, like for many of them are depending on the machineries, electronic machineries,

with China and they also exporting so many things to China like agriculture products to China. But if you're looking at the United States market, although it is a very huge one, but I don't think that they really want to import those agricultural products

no matter with, you know, kind of supplies to them. So I don't think that it's a good choice for them to do that because they will lose so many opportunities. Like the barriers are not just the represent the cost, but also are in a larger extent. It is the violating the multilateral systems principles, which is the basis for the global trade nowadays.

Now, let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where, say, many countries or some countries targeted by the Trump administration decided to curb their economic ties with China to appease the Donald Trump administration. In a scenario like that, what will be the ultimate outcome for these countries that choose to do so?

Yeah, I think that if they are doing that, first of all, it has violated the multilateral systems. So according to the principles and commitments by all of us to WTO, all the other members can try to sue them in the WTO platform. It means that WTO will make some panels and ask the expert to look at the dispute and try to find out.

whether they have done something right or violating the basic principles. So the MFN principle is the basic thing for WTO. Maybe United States, they don't want to abide by those principles, but I don't think that other countries will do that because they are having such a large cost of violating that.

We know nowadays the multilateral systems has came into force for 30 years. And in the past 30 years, every one of us benefited from that. So if we're violating the basic principle, I think that global trading system will be, you know, are in a very big challenge and we cannot trust each other.

Well, the second I would say it is also are some kind of attempts to challenge China's law because in our law of the trade, we have made it very clear. We should try to protect our benefits by our own enterprises and people. So if there are some people or some countries want to challenge that,

I think that Chinese government also have the reason to do something to change the patterns of the corporation. Well, I'm not just trying to give some message of the threat. I will say that is some of the laws and the regulations that gave me the government

some priorities or also ration to do that. So it's our obligation to protect Chinese civic holders. But the third one, I think that is also a way of the better thing for those trading partners with others in the world. We see that so many countries are trying to establish a stable and sustainable global supply chain and the cooperation without trust. How can we believe that other

countries will not do that to the other countries. So if everybody is going to with the principle of the jungles, I think that world will be so chaos and we cannot believe in each other's and it cannot happen any kind of the international trade and the investment relations.

So in a bigger picture sense, how would you evaluate the degree to which China today is integrated into the international supply chain system? And what could be the consequences if somebody or some country attempts to kick China out of the international supply chains?

Well, I don't think it's possible even to just take China out of this global system of the supply chain because we are so huge. We have so many connections with different parts of the world.

And if they are trying to do that, first of all, they will not have enough markets to sell their products. I think that many countries are depending on that for some of this income. Like if they want to sell to United States, I don't think that they really want it or they don't want to pay them with the right prices.

as what happened in the crude oil for so many decades. Well, second, I would say that for the global supply chains are not just to meet the consumers at the end, but also to provide so many intermediate products to different countries, like for United States, one example, two thirds of its imports are just a product

composed of its manufacturing domestically. So without those inputs, I mean, those companies, factories cannot even start to work and to operate. How can they export to other countries? So the global supply chain are so well connected based on the market principles and the competition. And China is definitely one of the very big and important basis for those corporation and the complicated relations in this world.

Going forward, are you optimistic that enough countries will work with China or strengthen cooperation between themselves to try to join to defend the rules of a multilateral trading system?

I understand that there are a lot of pressures from those governments because the United States is still very strong and has a lot of tools to threat others. But according to the demands and also the

the willingness of enterprises and the consumers, I don't believe that they will choose to leave the multilateral system. So maybe in some time that the governments are trying to look at a short term, you know, the impacts for them, administrations, and try not to, you know, to violating

United States, but I believe that in their heart in their common understanding, they will still follow the principle of the mutually respect and the most favored nations because without that the trade will not even happen. So it's just a point about you know, the choice between the short term or the middle and the longer term, but I believe that for the better connections for the better market

conceptions, I mean development and meets the two ends. China is also trying to give another choices. Our conception, our domestic market are increasing. We are already the number two countries for the international consumption and demand. Maybe in the future we can still be even greater and bigger. So we can provide so many possibilities. And another

choices is, you know, as you mentioned, the cooperation among those partners. I think that is definitely one of the suggestions and willingness for us to undertake the Belt and Road Initiative cooperation. And it's really a huge one because we have the experiences.

The final question before we let you go, and briefly, so in your opinion, what is fundamentally mistaken or fundamentally misguided about this idea that somehow between trading with the US and trading with China, you can only choose one? I think that idea is that the United States can replace China. I think that is the biggest mistake.

The United States believes that they have the power. They can just try to force China out of this game, but I think that is the biggest mistake. They cannot just try to say that the United States is the same or even better than China plays because we are not only the big market, but also have a very firm commitment of the openness, and that is definitely very valuable in such an uncertain world.

Thank you very much for joining us today. That was Dr. Joe Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. Coming up, JD Vance is in India for talks with Modi on the U.S. tariff shadow. This is World Today. Stay tuned. Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski Teixeira. I'm a professor of public policy management at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

I am a great listener of The World Today. In my opinion, The World Today is one of the best China radio programs. In The World Today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world. So please come to join us. You are listening to World Today. I'm Ding Han in Beijing.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance is currently in India for a four-day visit. The two sides are expected to review progress made on the bilateral agenda outlined in February this year when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Modi was actually one of the first world leaders to meet Trump after the U.S. president took office.

New Delhi is currently trying to rush to avoid Steve American tariffs with an early trade deal and boost ties with the Trump administration. So joining us now on the line is Gao Xirui, political science PhD candidate with the University of Hong Kong. Thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you. So let's talk about trade first, Gaoxi Rui. We know Donald Trump has called India as a tariff abuser, quote-unquote, and also tariff king, quote-unquote.

According to some recent media reports, Modi's government is open or seems to be open to cutting tariffs on more than half of India's existing imports from the United States as part of a broader trade deal with the Trump administration. If that occurred, what will be the consequences for India in economic sense?

so thank you so if this would really happen meaning that india really agrees to reduce tariffs um over more than half of imports from the us the immediate economic impact would be like twofold so for the first on the consumer benefits of course a lower tariff would reduce price for u.s goods

when they import like electronics, machinery and especially agricultural products, if they really, India would open up on that, benefiting India domestic market because the tariff has been lowered. But actually there would be a more profound and negative impact for India is that there will be a trade deficit shift.

While India currently enjoys a trade surplus with the US, tariff cuts would narrow the gap and even make reverse the deficit. So New Delhi might seek concessions in services or defense exports to offset losses. And long term,

India will risk becoming more dependent on US imports, and in mind it's making India self-reliance goals in certain sectors. And it would mean really bad news for some sectors, for the domestic industry of India, especially sectors in agriculture, dairy and automobiles.

and they will face more serious competition, especially international competition, when they no longer enjoy the protection of high tariff. Some of these industries like gems and jewelry in India are highly labor intensive. This will increase the unemployment due to the lower tariff and international competition.

So, in terms of the two-way trade between the U.S. and India, earlier you mentioned about this trade surplus for the Indian side or has been enjoyed by the Indian side so far. From a third-party observer's perspective, Shirey, do you see the so-called trade imbalance here as a problem?

from a third observer's perspective according to definition of economics i don't think the trade balance here is a problem but the trade balance here is shaped by the comparative advantage of india and the us so it's a natural made through international trade the problem narrative here actually bakes into the personal preference of donald trump because the u.s only

only tolerates deficits with its allies for geopolitical gains, for example. But now Donald Trump dislikes deficits with anyone, even if the countries are the US allies. So that's why they view it as a problem.

And the surplus for India is less a problem than a reflection of a structural complementary. Actually, with the trade, India will import the more energy parts, also including nuclear energy from the US, and the US will import pharmaceuticals from India. Actually, they fit quite well.

So when the U.S. really shifted surplus, actually when they gained a surplus, trade surplus to India, they will find a real problem. It's that they will find they have earned a lot of rubies that they don't know how to spend. They could only use importing more goods from India or investing in India. When they reach there, they will find a real problem.

Now, in addition to the trade issues, we know J.D. Vance's trip this time around is also seen as laying the ground for Donald Trump's visit to India later this year for a summit of the leader of the Quad grouping.

We know in the case of Marco Rubio, the first international meeting he had as the top American diplomat was actually a quiet foreign ministers meeting held in Washington, D.C. immediately after the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump, possibly signaling the Trump administration's

interest in this platform to advance its agenda in the so-called Indo-Pacific region. But on the Indian side, what do you think New Delhi is viewing Quad at the moment? So India seeks Quad as a flexible non-military and non-security platform to counterbalance China, but avoids over anti-China posturing or further provoking China.

I think it has a twofold meaning. First is the strategic hedging. While participating in quote initiatives, India is actually quite

weary and be careful of joining the regular military patrols in certain areas or drills that would be perceived as provocative in Beijing. It indicates that India is prone to free ride instead of really contributing on security. So India wants to take advantage of the quote instead of really being perceived by a threat by Beijing. And

There's a multi-polarity focus, so New Delhi uses the quote to leverage technology sharing and investment, but resisting formalizing into a NATO-like security alliance.

So that is New Delhi's view. Use the quote identity to boost the Western investment and cooperation with India, but to keep the distance in terms of security and military. Now, some people say there is personal chemistry between Modi and Trump. Do you see it that way? And do you think this perceived personal chemistry will do anything good to the broader India-US relations?

I think the personal chemistry between Modi and Trump to some extent makes sense because by many scholars and definition, they view Modi and Trump both as right-wing nationalist leaders or they have some charisma to their own voting banks. So that's why maybe people compare them and think there are personal chemistries.

but i don't think the personal chemistry will really um influence the relations because usually the chemistry between political leaders will not really impact the very detailed policies that's enacted by the institutions and bureaucracies and that's why um they are more symbolic

Okay, I take your point. So the final question before we let you go, we know India is sometimes also positioning itself as a leader of the global south. So from this perspective, do you think India will in some cases stand out against Donald Trump's unilateralism on trade or other international affairs, which we know will surely cause damage and injustice to the global south?

I think by and large, India is unlikely to, um, accuse Trump or say it's very explicitly to confront us in terms of trade. The India band actually benefits from the identity of leader of global South. And, uh, it will only guards its, um, benefits, especially on the issues like climate change. When Trump quits treaties, um,

India will stand with the global south because they were benefiting from the they are in different interests with the United States but I think on the other side I don't think they will do it because

Within the Indian government, many people are seeing this as an opportunity because they think that Trump's negotiation on tariffs will help India to get rid of these high tariffs that these neoliberal economists have been long

want it because they think India has already put too much high tariff and subsidies for their own companies. And if they can remove it, it will be better for them to

cultivating their own companies by introducing international competition. So they view them as an opportunity. Your point is well taken. But thank you very much for joining us. Gao Xirui joining us from the University of Hong Kong. You're listening to World Today. I'm Ding He Lin, Beijing. We'll be back.

Welcome, I'm Elav Elad, economics professor and member of the Data Science and AI Center at New York University, Shanghai. On the World Today program, you can find in-depth and impartial insight, as well as critical commentary on key trends in the Chinese economy, financial technology, business and blockchain. To prepare for the world tomorrow, join me on World Today.

Welcome back. You are back with World Today. I am Ding Han in Beijing. Russia and Ukraine are blaming each other for breaking an Easter ceasefire.

Both sides accused the other of hundreds of attacks. Russia says Ukraine broke the truce more than 1,000 times. Ukraine, on the other hand, has reported nearly 3,000 violations by the Russian side. The 30-hour ceasefire, which was announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, aims to mark this particular religious day or holiday.

So joining us now in the studio is my colleague Ge'Anna. Thank you very much for joining us, Anna. Thanks for having me. So how was this temporary ceasefire deal ultimately reached by the two sides? What do you think were some of the key factors that really led both sides to agree, I mean, at least to some extent, agree to this brief pause in terms of their fighting?

The temporary 30-hour pause in hostilities was announced by Putin ahead of the Orthodox Easter holiday from 6 p.m. Moscow time on April 19 to midnight on April 21. He called on Ukraine to follow suit, but at the same time accused Kiev of repeatedly breaking past promises and violating previous agreements,

ordering Russian troops to remain on high alert. The same day, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by saying that if Russia agreed to a full unconditional ceasefire, Ukraine would reciprocate. He also proposed extending the ceasefire to 30 days, but unfortunately,

As we were talking about this today, both of them blamed each other for breaking the ceasefire, and there are no intentions from both sides to expand the truce. And for the questions, why did both Russia and Ukraine agree even then?

if only partially, to this pause in fighting, well, I think this wasn't exactly the result of some grand diplomatic breakthrough. It was more of a symbolic gesture, you know, tied to the Orthodox Easter. For Ukraine, it was a chance to regroup and attend to the wounded in the hard-hit areas. For Russia, militarily, Russian forces had just made a series of battlefield gains,

So announcing a 30-hour ceasefire at this point actually provided a tactical breather, a window to evacuate the wounded, restock supplies, etc. And from a diplomatic perspective, analysis including the New York Times suggested that this move would also be aimed at the Trump administration. You know, a gesture meant to show that Moscow remains open to the idea of peace talk.

you know, keeping the door open for dialogue with Washington on the Ukraine problem. I see. So now it appears that neither Ukraine nor Russia has shown a willingness to extend the ceasefire because both sides are basically accusing each other of violating the terms. So can you walk us through how each side has responded to all those acquisitions? Yeah.

Yeah, you're right. According to reports from Russian Today and Bloomberg, Russia's 30-hour ceasefire officially expired at midnight on April 21st local time, marking the end of the orthodox Easter truth. So while Ukraine had repeatedly called for the ceasefire to be extended through the end of April, Russia made it clear they're

would be no extension. About five hours before the truce expired, Kremlin confirmed that the ceasefire would conclude as scheduled at midnight. And almost immediately after the ceasefire began, both sides were pointing fingers. Zelensky said the fighting never truly stopped. Airstrikes continued, artillery fire echoed across parts of the front, and Moscow, in his words, wasn't holding up its end temporarily.

of the deal. On the other hand, Russia claimed it was Ukraine who broke faith, launching drone and artillery attacks even as I quote, "Milins were praying for peace."

But by the time the juice had officially ended, the accusations had reached a fever pitch. Zelensky's team counted nearly 3,000 Russian violations in a single day. Russia's defense ministry responded with its own tally over 1,300 Ukrainian attacks within 24 hours. But

But here's the thing I think worth noting is that beneath all these blasters, reports from both sides confirmed that for nearly one day the battlefield was quiet. Soldiers from both armies reportedly raised white flags and stepped into no man's land to recover the bodies of fallen commemorates. So was the ceasefire respected?

I think technically no but was it meaningless not entirely I think this brief truth still served as a small fragile reminder that even amid deep hostility there's still a yearning for moments of you know reprieve yeah so

So we understand US President Donald Trump has been rather quick in terms of providing his own comment on the ceasefire via his own social media platform. So what is your takeaway from what exactly he said?

Yes, on Sunday, President Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, expressing hope that Russia and Ukraine could reach a peace deal this week. He also promised that if a ceasefire agreement is signed, the U.S. would pursue prosperous trade relations with the parties involved.

As expected, Trump's statement immediately drew widespread attention. But if we take a closer look at recent U.S. responses to the problem, it feels like a roller coaster full of ups and downs.

In early 2025, Trump expressed optimism about achieving a swift resolution to the war as he promised during the election campaign. He engaged directly with both Putin and Zelensky. As negotiations progressed, Trump's stance became more conditional. He warned that the U.S. might withdraw from peace efforts if either party appeared to, you know, obstruct progress.

stating that if for some reason one of the two parties makes it very difficult, the United States just going to say, you are foolish, you are fools, you are horrible people, and the United States going to take a path. But later Trump said he wasn't walking away from the talks. In fact, he is still very confident about the conflict would be brought to an end.

So in summary, Trump's handling of the peace progress, as always, has been characterized by a series of abrupt shifts and controversial statements. But about his comment on, you know, resolving this problem within this week, I don't think a peace deal can be reached that easily. This conflict has dragged on for more than three years, and deep-rooted mistrust, unresolved territorial disputes,

and complex geopolitical stakes on both sides,

can be resolved with a single round of negotiations or any political pressure or gestures. So to sum up, I think after more than three years of confrontation, even a brief 30-hour truce proved extremely difficult to uphold. So reaching a comprehensive peace agreement is far more complicated and unlikely to be achieved in the short term, despite Trump's promises. Hmm.

Thank you very much, Aina, for joining us and for putting everything or newly development into perspective. That was my colleague Ge'ana joining us in our Beijing studio. Coming up, Cheh Haren says Iran and the United States are tasking experts to design framework for a new deal. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back.

Hello, I am Dr. Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies. World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics, economics, business, technology and society. World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies. I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.

You are listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Iran has called its latest attacks with the United States regarding a potential nuclear deal useful. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi says the negotiations were held in a "constructive atmosphere" and are moving forward. The two sides have agreed to task experts to start drawing up a framework for a possible agreement.

The talks were held in Italy's Rome on Saturday, with many officials shuffling messages between Iran's foreign minister and American Middle Eastern envoy Steve Whitakoff. It was their second indirect meeting in a week. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhang Zhuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies with Fudan University. Thank you very much for joining us.

So, before the latest diplomacy between Washington and the Tehran, there had been several weeks on end when we saw the two sides basically trading private letters and trading public threats as well. It appeared at the time that the atmosphere was ripe for escalation rather than for diplomacy. So, what do you make of this recent diplomacy?

Well, I think the shift to diplomacy, despite this very tense backdrop, as you mentioned, actually suggests a pragmatic calculation on both sides to de-escalate.

Because the United States actually it doesn't want to see a real conflict between Israel and Iran, and it doesn't want to see a surge of oil price. As for Iran, its leadership faces domestic economic strain due to sanctions. So these are very important contexts of the recent diplomacy.

Also, I would say the two sides' acceptance of indirect talks actually shows their flexibility to keep the process alive. And this indicates that both sides want to leave some room at least for negotiation in order to avoid collapse of the negotiation.

And while so far mediated by Oman, it seems that the talks have been constructive to a certain extent, which focuses on reaching a nuclear deal framework. But I would say while the agreement to continue talks signals cautious optimism and very deep mistrust and regional pressures make a lasting deal uncertain.

So do you think Saturday's talks in Rome marked a significant diplomatic win for Donald Trump?

Well, I think the talks, which are actually the first high level US Iran engagement in years, they are actually a notable step, especially given the prior escalation of threats and Trump's maximum pressure campaign. So at the moment, we can see that Trump and his team tries to portray his ability to bring Iran to the table as a sort of success in shifting from confrontation to dialogue.

However, I think calling it a significant win may overstate the case at the moment, because we see the talks are still indirect. Also, they are highly limited to nuclear issues and also they face significant hurdles at the moment.

And so far, no concrete agreement has been reached. And also the meeting is more about setting a framework than really achieving a breakthrough. So currently, I think the negotiations still face a lot of challenges, including, for instance, deep trust, pressure from Israel, etc. Hmm.

So talking about Israel, we know Israel has been a strong opponent of U.S. engagement with Iran. That has been the case since the early 1990s. So do you think the latest development here somehow tells us that somehow Donald Trump is actually not exactly following Israel's lead on Iran? Why or why not?

Okay, well, the latest United States-Iran talks, I think it suggests that Trump is not fully following Israel's lead on Iran. So first of all, I think we should be very clear that actually at the moment, Israel needs the United States more than the other way around. And also, I would say Trump's administration's current pursuit of diplomacy diverges from Israel's preference.

for a hardline stance against engagement. Actually, Netanyahu has consistently opposed Washington's negotiations with Iran. Also, he advocates instead for military strikes

But I think Trump's decision to engage indirectly through Oman, despite all these objections from Netanyahu, actually it shows a willingness of Trump to prioritize the United States' strategic interests. And also his aim is to avoid a costly regional war and secure diplomatic wings.

But still, I think we should note that there are some common interests between Trump and Netanyahu, given that they both advocate hardline positions. Also, I think currently a tactic adopted by Trump is to use Netanyahu's tough style to threaten Iran and force it to negotiate with him. So like you suggested earlier, currently or in the near future,

It is still quite difficult, let's put it this way, for Iran and the Trump administration to reach a deal on nuclear program. So if that will be the case, what do you make of the meaning of the two sides keeping or maintaining this sort of indirect diplomacy or contact?

I think currently there are still a lot of uncertainties, but I think there is possibility for the two sides to reach a sort of interim deal on Iran's nuclear program that is still possible. Iran's pragmatic shift under President Pesachian and Trump's flexibility in softening demands for direct tools create a narrow window.

But we should note that significant obstacles remain because Iran's red lines actually clash with United States and Israelis demands, for instance, for stringent limits and robust verification. Also, there are a lot of technical complexities.

So personally, I think a deal is still possible if both sides compromise on some sort of interim measures, like limited enrichment for partial sanctions relief. But I would say so far from what we already know, I think achieving a comprehensive agreement requires navigating irreconcilable positions, and which is still very hard at the moment. Okay.

Thank you very much for joining us. That was Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies with Fudan University. Coming up, in China, robots have competed with humans in the world's first ever humanoid half marathon. This is World Today, stay tuned. Hi, I'm Einer Tangen, a political and economic analyst and senior fellow at the independent Taiher Institute.

World Today is news without the hype and business commentary that is informed and up to date, presenting the facts and asking incisive questions. So join us if you are someone who needs to know what is happening in China as it is happening.

You are listening to World Today. The Chinese capital city of Beijing has hosted the world's first humanoid robot half marathon. For the first time ever, robots and humans raced on the same course though on different and separate tracks. There were 21 humanoid robots participating in this particular race. The Tiankong robot claimed the championship by finishing the marathon in 2 hours and 40 minutes.

So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Lian Liang, professor of economics with William Mett University. So, Yan, this is a very exciting or interesting marathon. It is the world's first humanoid half marathon race. So how significant is this for China and also for the robotic industry?

I think it's a very significant event in the sense that there are more than 20 two-legged robots competed in this really the first humanoid half marathon in the world. And what it shows is really the technological development in the humanoid robots. So I know in the past we have seen robots performing, you know, bike rides. They're doing all kinds of roundhouse kicks and side flips.

But I think this is really the first time that we're witnessing these 20 plus robots are able to run 21 kilometers and they're able to make it to the end, right? At least 30% of these robots were able to make it, you know, despite all the challenges. So I think really this is a way for China to showcase

the really sort of the human roids technologies. And at the same time, I think it's also an experiment to reveal maybe some of the shortcomings and some of the areas for improvements. And so I think this is a very significant event as far as the human roids robotics technological development is concerned.

And how difficult is it for a robot to finish a race like this? We're not just talking about the battery life on the robots, but also many, many other technical difficulties. The robots need to deal with the decision-making in different complex environments. So their operation accuracy, their automatic controls, all are tested, right? Yes, you're absolutely right. So

These robots of a human being standard size, so the Tiangong, which is the robot that won the first prize for the human rights robots competition, it is with a height of 1.8 meters. So it's really like an adult man's height with 55 kilograms.

So to run this 21 kilometers journey, it requires approximately 250,000 precision joint movements. So you can imagine, you know, all these joints need to move in exactly the way that is expected to, to be able to support this kinds of running. Not to mention, as you talk about, this is really a test.

for the joy accuracy, as we just mentioned, but also thermal management and also power supply system. So each one of these robots require three to four times of changing batteries, just like human beings need the water supply and other supply. So this is a test about whether or not you can do hot battery swaps in a very short amount of time, three, four minutes.

And as we also mentioned, it's a test for the control algorithm with different surface, with different, you know, the temperature, with different humidities. Also, you know, it's a test for communication interference and many other issues as well. So this is really, I think, a...

a big sort of showcase how these robots can perform well outside of the laboratory kind of atmosphere, right, to the real world test. So I think this is really a technological coming of age kind of ceremony for these kinds of robots to showcase their capabilities in a real world scenario.

And China is now the fastest growing robot market in the world. More than half of the industrial robots installed worldwide were in China. So what do you think are the main factors for the rapid development of industrial robots in China?

Well, I think first of all, there is a very large demand for the industrial robots. In 2024, China's industrial robot market was valued at the $6.31 billion. So with a volume of over 304,000 units. So with a very large market demand to support industrialization and automation, I think this really galvanized the industrial development and growth.

And second is that there's always this important supply capacity that China possesses. So we know China has really large amount of, you know, supply chain, large amount of factories that are able to really grow the domestic robot manufacturing sector.

So that is another, I think, important factor to be able to support the robotics industry. And last but not least, we also know that China's technological development has been very organic and has been really forming a great ecosystem from the research institutes

to the startups, to some of the more traditional tech companies. So I think it's a really complete ecosystem to support the research and development of the robotics industry. So you have the demand, you have the production capacity, you have the cutting edge research and development. I think those are the three pillars to really continue to support the industrial robotics industry. Mm.

And now the robots are deeply integrated with the new generation of information technology with AI or artificial intelligence. And so what are some of his main application fields and in which sectors have the use of this kind of robots expanded rapidly?

Well, the industrial robots can be applied in various sectors. Mostly now we're seeing China, including the automotive. So we see the robot hands are making EVs in Xiaomi and other factories. They're also being used in many other advanced manufacturing like electronics.

And I think going forward, we would like to see a lot of these robots also being used in the service industries. You can think of tourism, you can think of deliveries, you can think of even just housekeeping and some other hospitality industries. So when you're checking the hotel, when you need some deliveries, you're seeing human rights robots to deliver things up to your room. So they're really wide open.

range of applications, and those are going to be really helpful to reduce the needs for actual human workers, especially for some of the repetitive or even dangerous kind of work. And on the other hand, they're also helping to boost productivity and efficiency. So I think, you know, as the robotics industry is developing as productive, you know, capacity expanding, this will help to lower the costs of these human robots.

And so very likely we're going to see them to be installed in various factories, but also being used at home to help out with household chores. And what's the current state of the development of the household robots? Can consumers like you and me get a robot to do our washing, cleaning or even child caring quite soon?

Well, I think we're seeing the technology is really being developed in this aspect. I think earlier we have seen some of the videos showing the humanoid robots doing ironing clothes or they're picking clothes into different bins.

Not to mention now you and I, we are using those floor sweeping robots every day. So I think the technological innovations and developments are really maturing very fast. So I think it would not be a surprise that we're very likely to see mass use of these robots at home services. Now, again, the technology

the cost so far is still a issue. But I think, you know, with the mass production, with the technology being more standardized, with these robots are being able to perform in a more sort of predictable and flawless way, I

think it's very likely that we're going to see more and more these robots to replace human labor and work in the home, home care or household care, elderly care, child care, in all these different places, right, with their intelligence, but also with their physical capacity.

And for the development of robotics with AI, so how would you describe the global landscape of it? Does China have any advantages or has China's robotic sectors formed a complete industrial supply chain?

Well, I think China is definitely leading in many ways. So on the one hand, as I just mentioned, China's industrial landscape, it's really vast because of the dominant market share. China has been consistently, you know, become the largest market for industrial robots since 2013. And China also consistently installed the largest number of industrial robots every year since 2022.

China has very large operational stock of these robots, and they're also growing robot density. Right now, China is ranking the third in the world after South Korea and Singapore to have the highest robot density in the world. And this is really a very fast movement and fast improvements over the past few years.

So I think as far as robotics is concerned, China is definitely with the large scale and with all these factors, demand factors, China is going to continue to leapfrog in the industry. Now, in terms of AI, as we also know that China has many breakthroughs with DSEEK and many other technologies.

Dr. Yan Liang, professor of economics with Willamette University, talking to my colleague Zhao Yang.

That's all the time for this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching for World Today. I'm Ding He Lin, Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.