China and Russia’s 'no limits' partnership: What it means in the new era of Trump
52:09 Share

China and Russia have reaffirmed their relations as a "no limits" partnership. UN Security Council has adopted a resolution urging a swift end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

And the Chinese city of Hangzhou has emerged as a new tech hub with little dragons like DeepSeek. Welcome to Road Today, the news program with a different perspective. I'm Guiana in Beijing. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today. ♪

China and Russia have reaffirmed their relations as a no-limits partnership. In a phone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping said bilateral relations have enjoyed strong internal driving forces and unique strategic value. He noted that the two countries' development strategies and foreign policies are aimed at the long term.

President Xi also highlighted Beijing's efforts to push for a political solution in Ukraine. President Putin said Russia's decision to develop relations with China is a long-term strategic move, not an expedient measure. He added that the move is not subject to any temporary trend or external interference.

So for more on the China-Russia relations and their broader implications, let's have Zhao Bo, Senior Fellow of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University. Thanks for joining us. Hi.

President Xi Jinping emphasized that the bilateral relations between China and Russia have enjoyed strong internal driving forces and a unique strategic value. How do you understand the remarks? And where specifically can we see this internal drive manifesting? And how will these forces further propel the development of China-Russia relations in the future?

I think the most important thing for us to understand the China-Russian relationship is that they are largest neighbors toward each other. So historically, there are even some unpleasant moments, but that was gone. And both China and the Russian leader realized that as a largest neighbor toward each other, they should have this relationship.

being strengthened. And so therefore, it is in our own interest, I mean, from both sides to strengthen this relationship. So that is why Putin talked about why it is not expediency

The problem of the Western countries is that when they look at this relationship, they want you, they want China to look at this issue through a European prism. Basically, the war in Ukraine. So that is impossible for China, right? Because the war is something happening in the heartland of Europe.

China was not informed. China was not involved. So therefore, this kind of expectation for China is not realistic. And why is that? Because China is rising and China is becoming too important.

So therefore, that to some extent is a price you pay for being a major power. Because nowadays you can hardly argue that this is not my business. Okay, that is my business. For a major power, everything...

will become your business, right? So that is why people have expectations for you. But sometimes these kinds of expectations are just misplaced. So for China and for Russia, we have to examine this relationship on a natural basis. And that is why even in the future, no matter how the leadership might change,

then this relationship will continue and hopefully in a smooth and healthy way.

President Vladimir Putin stated that the developing relations with China is a long-term strategic choice for Russia, not a temporary measures influenced by short-term events or external factors. Recently, we saw the U.S. and Russia hold talks with both sides expressing a desire to repair diplomatic relations and explore potential cooperation in geopolitics and economics.

Many domestic and international media outlets are discussing how a potential thaw in U.S.-Russian relations might impact China-Russian ties. Given the recent leader's call, what's your view on this? I don't think the China-Russian relationship will change at all because nowadays it is a fact that whenever there is a major change in international relations, well,

even some changes brought by a conference like the Munich Secure Conference, which I attended, all the people, including myself, were greatly, greatly surprised and appalled by what J.D. Vance talked, right? And as a follow-up of the fact that American President Trump

i had a talk with president putin so therefore people naturally would consider how this kind of a you know resumption of talks might change a relationship here and there so i don't believe it is a it is a kind of a issue let me just give example yeah oh

Russia might just really turn to become a part of the West after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. At that time, even President Putin offered to join NATO, but he was turned down, right? So if there was a moment that Russia could become really pro-West, that was the time.

Yeah, so even that was doomed. So how could any Russian leaders all of a sudden would become so-so pro the West? Yeah, so this kind of a structural problem

cannot be changed easily. So I think no matter who sits in Kremlin, they would have to consider about this China-Russian relationship, which is already very good. So why would they just change it, right? Then how do you think Russia perceives this strategic shift from Trump administration? Yeah, so you see, I cannot speak on behalf of Russians.

In a big way, Trump seems to be unpredictable, and he likes to play with his unpredictability. He actually talked about this in his own autobiography, so it's not secret. But this kind of being unpredictable would not work.

that much on the peer competitors, be it China or be it Russia, you see, because if you are much stronger than a small country or a middle power, then if you play with this, you threaten them, so that might work, but not really on China and not really on Russia, I would say.

Could you please elaborate more on this? Because almost a month after Trump took office, we've seen a number of economic and geopolitical actions with some analysts suggesting these moves are aimed at clearing hinders to focus on countering China. What are your thoughts on this?

Well, there are some scholars who argue that Trump can actually do in a reverse way, like Richard Nixon, right? Because Richard Nixon has, through his China visit, tremendously changed a relationship between China

China and the United States. So would this kind of talk between Trump and Putin also lead to

you know, a kind of rapprochement between United States and Russia. And they argue that this is beneficial for United States because, after all, America's focus would be on competition with China in the Indo-Pacific. So having better relationship and even rapprochement or even to unite Russia, if it can, then that will serve the American interest.

I think as I argued before, this is simply a kind of pipe dream. Yeah, because I don't believe Russia would just behave like that. So I don't think so. Then what do you think will be the trajectory of relations among these three countries, China, US and Russia in the short term?

In the short term, China and Russia will just reaffirm their friendship or rapprochement as seen in the telephone call between President Xi and President Putin. And I think they have selected even purposefully the date for such a conversation, right? Yeah, on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.

And even President Putin, according to Russian ambassador to China, has invited the Chinese president to go to Moscow to celebrate the commemoration of Soviet victory against Nazi Germany. So China officially has not responded, but this is what Russian ambassador to China said.

has said. So I definitely believe that, or not envision, even in long term, that this relationship will change. You see, even in the post Putin era, I don't know when that might be, but should there be another president someday? The first thing he will think about is why would he change this policy?

a good relationship, right? It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, indeed. Let's shift back to China-Russia relations. As they continue to deepen in cooperation in trade, energy and technology is expanding. And against the backdrop of a shifting global economic landscape and the rise of trade protectionism in some countries,

Bilateral trade between China and Russia reached over $240 billion in 2023. How can both sides continue to push for deeper cooperation in trade and investment to enhance the resilience and stability of China-Russia economic ties?

I think it is in the interest of both sides to enhance this kind of cooperation. But I have to point out that this kind of growing trade has something to do with Western sanctions on Russia, right? Because Russia cannot buy

what it wanted from the West. So it has to turn to China and China happens to be able to provide all these kinds of things. So why won't they buy things from China, which has good quality, but also a much more affordable price.

So if Russia and the United States could improve the relationship, so probably the United States might leave its sanction, therefore Russia might be able to buy things in the past from the West, from the United States or European countries.

So that might change, yeah? There's a volume of trading between China and Russia, but that is a kind of normal situation. But at the same time, I think even if that is the case, China and Russia definitely would want to consider how they can just deepen this kind of trading relationship. And then we have to think about what kind of things

you know, are really badly needed by the other side. Because trading basically is a kind of interaction between people's mutual needs, right? Because you need something from this country, therefore you will buy. So you have to consider what kind of products I can really sell to the other side.

Thanks, Mr. Zhou Bo, for your insightful analysis. That was Zhou Bo, senior fellow of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University. Coming up, UN Security Council has adopted a resolution urging a swift end to the Russian-Ukraine conflict. This is Roe Today. Stay with us. 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 UN Security Council has adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution appealing for a swift end to the Russian-Ukraine conflict and urging lasting peace. The U.S. sided with Russia and China to win UN Security Council backing for the resolution. It received 10 votes in favor and none against.

Five countries, including France and the UK, abstained. The document calls for a quick end to the crisis and mourns the loss of life without blaming Russia. Acting U.S. Ambassador to the UN Dorsey Hsieh told the consul that this resolution is not a peace deal but a path to peace.

Meantime, the General Assembly, which represents the 193 UN member states, approved a Ukrainian resolution pinning the blame on Russia for the conflict despite U.S. efforts to kill it. The U.S. was joined by North Korea, Russia and Belarus in voting against it.

So to talk more on this, let's bring in Joseph Mahoney, professor of politics and international relations at East China Normal University. Thanks for joining us, professor. Thanks for having me. Professor, these rounds of votes are highly intriguing because they're

The intense debate over the Ukraine-related resolution at the UN highlights the significant differences in the interests of various parties, and the public divide between the US and its European allies on this issue is also notable.

Some have suggested that the U.S. government has undergone a dramatic shift in its stance on Ukraine issue. What's your view on this change and how would you assess the current considerations from the United States?

well you know trump's position has long been that the war in ukraine uh was a war of choice on the part of the biden administration in short a war that biden wanted and did not want to end now this assessment is fundamentally at odds of course with the biden and european position which asserts that this is a war that was entirely the result of russian aggression now i think

we have to look past the competing narratives, including whether this war was provoked, as Russia alleges, by unchecked NATO expansion since the collapse of the USSR and via US efforts aimed at undermining the political systems and states that were previously friendly to Russia, including Ukraine and Georgia. Instead, we have to confront the reality that despite Western promises, Russia has not been defeated.

And that Ukraine's position continues to erode as the conflict continues. So the bottom line is that the war needs to end despite Russia not being defeated. And this requires a fundamental shift in the U.S. position, which Trump has.

has offered. The U.S. shift has had a major impact on its European allies with French President Emmanuel Macron flying to Washington to meet Trump and discuss Ukraine's peace process on behalf of Europe. Do you think this meeting will somehow influence the U.S. newsstands? And how do you view the development of transatlantic relations through the lens of Ukraine issue?

Well, in fact, I believe that Trump is doing the EU in particular a favor. First, Trump has excluded the EU from directly participating in the peace process. As Trump's envoy said, this is a matter of being realistic. There's no way the EU would be able to function collectively and concede Ukraine's territorial losses, despite the fact that it's completely unrealistic to believe those losses can be regained at this point.

Consequently, Trump can make those concessions and Europe and even Ukraine can point the finger at him and thereby eschew political responsibility, even though this is really the only way to move forward in ways that restore peace and end Ukraine's suffering. Second,

I think Macron is organizing a European response, one that will criticize whatever peace Trump achieves, but then complement U.S. efforts to ensure security in Ukraine. So we'll see perhaps two tracks. We'll see them at odds rhetorically, but it's also possible that we'll see them effectively working together by assuming different but somewhat mutually supportive responsibilities.

That's a very interesting viewpoint. But the International Crisis Group has observed the UN has not witnessed such a significant U.S.-EU split since the Iraq war, and this divide directly impacts European security. How do you think this will affect the long-term stability of Europe's security situation? Will European nations reassess their security strategies as a result?

Well, in fact, Europe has been reassessing its security since the first Trump presidency and had already taken steps before Trump entered office a second time to increase spending on defense. Now, the larger questions are whether we'll see NATO continue more or less as it has, or whether we'll see that block increasingly facing some sort of sunset. Now, my guess is that we might

be in a transitional period, perhaps an uncertain period for some time where NATO might slowly be diminished. Of course, Trump can and might play a more disruptive role, but I don't think we should over-interpret current developments, as some people have, as indicating that NATO is absolutely on its last leg.

But do you think this divide or the recessing from Europe will reshape Europe's process of asserting its strategic autonomy in their international affairs?

Well, we've already seen some countries, Poland, for example, rapidly expanding defensive capacities. We've also heard increasing calls for the need to build a so-called EU army. This was, of course, echoed recently by Ukrainian President Zelensky in the wake of Trump's decision to move for peace. The problem, however, is twofold.

First, most European countries have struggled to increase their defense spending to 3% of GDP, while strategic autonomy would require, by some estimates, them exceeding 5% or 6% of GDP, and even this might not be enough.

Second, Europe is not as united as it sometimes seems. And there are growing anti-EU movements in a number of countries that pose risks to the long-term stability of the Union. But even without those growing internal challenges, it would still be hard for the EU to function collectively, politically speaking, as we know that different parts of Europe, say, for example, Eastern and Western Europe, have divergent views on security, economic development.

and Russia. Professor, during a press briefing, Macron famously interrupted Trump and corrected him regarding his statement that European countries were providing aid to Ukraine in the form of loans. What do you make of Trump's insistence on this loan narrative and what political and economic motivations might be behind this?

Well, it's very simple. Trump wants to normalize the high price he's making Ukraine pay for security. Now, President Zelenskyy said the US didn't do this to Israel, despite all the aid the US has provided to Tel Aviv. And the European position, it's a bit gratuitous to be sure, is that they have a collective security responsibility to stop Russian aggression, to ensure Moscow doesn't perceive the EU itself as being weak

and ripe for the picking. Now, Macron's interjection was, quote, "No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort. It was like the US loans, guarantees, grants." However, I think it's important to note here that the French president effectively acknowledged that at least some of it was in the form of loans.

The Trump administration has proposed claiming 50% of Ukraine's critical minerals as repayment to its aid. According to Trump, the U.S.-Ukraine mineral agreement is very close to being finalized. If signed, how would this deal affect Ukraine's resource sovereignty, economic development, and the future trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Well, Trump has Ukraine over a barrel, and I think it's pretty clear that his general approach to most countries is to take all he can when it comes to bilateral negotiations. Of course, the problem is that the U.S. has already taken so much from Ukraine, and Ukraine has already lost so much to Russia. Now, while there are those who will normalize this kind of transactional security, other

Others will point to how the impoverishment and resentment

contributed to the rise, for example, of the Nazis in Germany in the wake of the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed sort of these invariable costs on Germany. So while, let's say, in the case of Ukraine, such a deal would definitely impose heavy losses on top of already heavy losses, and while it might be unavoidable given the high price Trump requires for security,

It might well be the case that we see internal security and politics in Ukraine taking a darker turn, and this perhaps creating dangerous security risk, for example, for whatever American firm undertakes the job of extracting Ukraine's mineral wealth.

Thanks, Professor, for your insights and analysis. That was Joseph Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University. More to come, we'll take a look at the six tech upstarts based in China's Hangzhou City. You're listening to Road Today. We'll be back after a short break.

You've been listening to World Today with Mika Anna in Beijing. The six little dragons of Hangzhou are creating quite a buzz across China. The six little dragons are six tech upstarts based in eastern China's Hangzhou city and have risen to prominence in just two years.

They include large language model developer DeepSeek, high-performance civilian robot manufacturer Unitree Robotics, and game science the company behind award-winning action role-playing game Black Myth Wukong, was driving Hongjo's success in becoming a hotbed for innovative startups.

To explore this, we're joined today by Wang Jiayuan, Data Research Development Manager at China Securities Data. I'd like to start with DeepSeq as an example. While the U.S. continues to apply pressure on China's technological development, DeepSeq has bypassed high-end chips and shot the entire AI world with its low-cost approach. What do you make of the success of the tech company DeepSeq in China?

So DeepSeq's success shows how China can innovate even when facing challenges like US tech restrictions. Instead of relying on really high expensive chips, DeepSeq found a way to use the better algorithms to solve the problems so they didn't happen by chance. So Hangzhou's environment also played a big role. Like the city has focused on the digital economy for over 20 years.

It means that they can have AI infrastructure and various different types of talents can gather there. And also it can have a big company like Alibaba. And the government also showed support startup early and didn't control their decisions.

letting the entrepreneurs experiment freely. In addition, Hangzhou also has lower living costs compared to cities like Beijing or Shanghai, so make it easier to check talent. Key lesson here isn't just about AI, it's about creating a space where business can take risk without too much government restriction.

Let's delve further into this. From a broader perspective, we know Hangzhou is known as an emerging tech hub with a vibrant entrepreneurial atmosphere. It's home to Alibaba and the highly regarded six little dragons of tech startups.

And we see examples like companies like Unitree and Deep Robotics, they have seen rapid growth with Unitree's G1 humanoid robot being launched online this year, just one year after its 2024 last year's release. So could you please elaborate more on how has Hongzhou's

unique ecosystem enable these startups to develop quickly in a secure position in the global market? Hangzhou's success comes from three things. First of all, it's timing. So China's digital economic boom gave Hangzhou a great chance to grow. So it gives Hangzhou a great opportunity to have great talent and

And also the infrastructure here because of the new economy like Alibaba can give government a chance to implement policy that can win Hangzhou's success in the new economy. And second, the location in the Yangtze River Delta gives access to talent from cities like Shanghai, Suzhou,

where lots of great universities there, university students, the graduate students there are willing to be involved in Hangzhou. And third, the city has a strong private sector culture, which means the entrepreneurs are willing to take a risk

and willing to invest in new ideas. And the government helps by funding small startups early, but avoids telling them what to do, what to need to do. And for example, Hangzhou's lower housing costs and relaxed policy for newcomers make it easier for the companies to hire talents.

Compared with Beijing and Shanghai, Hangzhou are more willing to give them a place, give them the talent and let them to innovate and try it out freely. Alibaba's success also created a network of tech companies like Robot,

or AI company like DeepSeek and making Hangzhou a hub for innovation. In my city, with straight rules, Hangzhou shows that giving business freedom leads to global success.

We know DeepSeek's success has garnered global attention and sparked a surge in demand for AI talent. During this year's spring recruitment season, AI engineers led job applications growth.

with companies offering high salaries and recruiting worldwide. How do you view China or Hangzhou's, or to be more precise, these six tech startups, their current ability to attract top-tier global talent in cutting-edge technologies?

First of all, I think China is becoming a strong choice for talent because many engineers, for example, in the United States, their family are in China. So actually, if they want to go back to China, their family will be really happy. The companies like DeepSeek offer really good salaries.

And cities like Hangzhou have also lower living costs compared with Beijing or Shanghai. So it gives the Italians more willingness to come to the city like Hangzhou. And also the government is

as I mentioned, also play an important role that making easier for people to move there. Like relaxing the hukou rules, which is the household restriction, like in Beijing and Shanghai is very strict. And also some of the cities need to focus on the quality of life.

like the fun places to hang out, like the cafes or co-working spaces. These two places are more common in China compared with five years ago or ten years ago. And to keep talent happy and have a work-balanced life,

And while the U.S. also still attracts top researchers, China's huge market and fast-growing tech fields also join people who want quick career growth. So basically, these are the main reasons that China can attract various top global tech talent. In light of U.S. technological sanctions, what adjustments are

And optimizations, do you think Hangzhou or China as a whole needs to make in terms of policy and industrial guidance to help tech companies like the Six Little Dragons better navigate these challenges? What advantages and resources do we currently hold to counter external tech blockades?

First of all, is that for the barriers, China has some advantage like the huge domestic market, strong supply chain and also the flexible policies. China has some advantage that United States might not have. And also you cannot ignore the talent in China. There are so many engineers.

becomes a graduate student and that can directly go to the AI industry, invest in basic like the AI infrastructure. Although you see the giant seven companies in the United States spend lots of money, time and talent on there, you cannot ignore that the China government, if they want, and lots of great companies will spend their every effort

on the AI infrastructure. And the infrastructure spending is much larger than the States. That was Wang Deyuan, Data Research Development Manager at China Securities Data. Coming up, Goldman Sachs predicts China's deep-seek led AI emergence to draw 200 billion US dollars into stocks. 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.

This is Road Today. Goldman Sachs have predicted a potential 15% to 20% surge in China's stock market value, driven by the country's rapid adoption of AI. Foreign investors are increasingly turning their attention to China's A-share market, focusing on opportunities in AI and robotics.

Nearly 100 foreign institutions have been actively researching China's A-share listed companies since February. China's tech innovation boom has driven revaluation of asset values. With more, Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, a professor of economics at Wellamette University.

So, Yan, the foreign investors are turning their attention to China's A-share market with a particular focus on opportunities in AI and robotics. So tell us what's your feeling of the sentiment and why has China's stock market attracted global investors right now?

Well, I think what Deepsea optimized is really the capability that China has with not just one company, Deepsea, but just the entire ecosystem of its technological sector is making these stock markets rally. I think, yeah,

many investors now see the potential of China to develop technologies and also to be able to apply and integrate these technologies into the broader economy. So I think that really gives the confidence to the investors in the short term. They see that some of these technological innovations is going to help to boost

the corporations' earnings. And in the medium and long term, this also shows that the economy is going to be boosted through these technological innovations and productivity growth. So I think this is the main reason why we're seeing the stock market is rallying and attracting global investors.

And China aims to become the world's major AI innovation center by 2030. So given the rise of DeepSeek, what's your assessment of how China's AI ecosystem compares with other major AI powers or countries?

Well, I think what it shows is that China is very competitive and its ecosystem is very complete. Right. It has, you know, from the in terms of the hardware. Right. In terms of the semiconductor chips companies, manufacturing, fabrications and research to the downstream users of these AI technologies.

models, right, in terms of both robotics, manufacturing sectors, you know, advanced manufacturing and also logistics services. There are many different industries and companies will be utilizing, you know, AI. As we know now, you know, 4,500 companies have already integrated generative AI in their operations. So I think, you know, from the upstream to the downstream, we see this very complete ecosystem, not to mention just in the

AI model, now I think there are many large language models that are developing in China, and DC is just one of them. So I think that just shows the potential of the ecosystem, of the entire AI system to continue to develop. It's very promising. And so I think compared to other countries, we know that not only China is able to develop

build these large language models with very high level of competency, but also the cost, right, is very, very effective. It's just a fraction of the cost compared to, you know, the United States.

So I think that's why compared to other countries, China is really taking a very unique approach and also have their unique competitiveness. So we also know that, for example, China holds 60 percent, over 60 percent of the AI patents compared to the United States, 29 percent. So I think that just shows that many of the advantages China has in the AI ecosystem.

And we have AI firms like DeepSeek, but another thing is to integrate AI across industries, across sectors to boost productivity. So how fast do you expect the adoption of AI in different sectors or industries in China?

Well, I think it will be a very rapid process for a number of reasons. One is, as I just mentioned, right now China has 190 large AI models. Models like DeepSeek, it's open sourced and they actually are going to open more, release more of these open source codes.

So I think, you know, that open sourced model would really help to the users, right, to modify, to improve on the basis of the original model and really tailor for their own needs. And China has recently rolled out a new action plan to stabilize foreign investment.

Among the measures, the plan encouraged foreign companies to make equity investment in China and guide foreign capital towards the long-term investment in China's listed companies. So what do you make of that?

Well, I think that shows that China is ready to welcome different types of engagements of the foreign investors. Traditionally, the requirement is that in some of these sectors, the foreign companies need to establish joint ventures.

But now I think with the more varieties of ways that these foreign investors can come in and invest, like you said, they could invest in the equity markets. They're also able to, I think, borrow domestically to finance some of their investments.

I think that also makes it easier for foreign investors to conduct mergers and acquisitions. I think that would really help to facilitate these inward investments, right, the different varieties that would really meet the different needs of these foreign investors. But that said, I think, you know, certain restrictions and certain gradual process still need to be put in place because I think inevitably when you have these kind of big technological shocks,

you would have speculative investors that are coming in, right, just wanted to trade on the technical side. Some of these would be totally fine. But I think eventually what China is interested in is more of a patient capital, right, the more sort of long-term and stable investors that would really help to, you know, create jobs, to promote technological innovations, to also partner with domestic companies to,

really help to improve the businesses, right, as more of a going concern. So I think on the one hand, yes, we need to be more flexible. But on the other hand, I think we also need to really not to lose sight, right, of the ultimate sort of objectives of introducing foreign investors. So I think even if, let's say, there's no large inflows of investors, you know, because of these, you

I think we still need to be mindful that China is at the point where we wanted to welcome really productive capital instead of speculative capital. And we've seen that worldwide, the cross-border investment remain weak due to slow economic recovery and particularly the stagnant growth in developed economies.

And additionally, Trump's tariffs are expected to make the global economy fragmented further. So, Yan, what's the outlook? Are we going to return to the pre-globalization era when each country had to be more economically self-sufficient? Or what should the international community do to improve the global cross-border investment and economy?

I think that's a great question. I think according to the United Nations, the UNTAD, the foreign investment has fallen by around 8% in 2024. As you mentioned, there are slower growth, but there's also increasing the kind of fragmentation in the global trading and also investment system. So I think that could be very damaging to the global economy. I think, you know, the WTO general director has mentioned, you know, fragmentation could reduce the global GDP by, you know, 6%.

six trillion dollars. So, you know, this investment fragmentation would also be damaging to the global economy, right, in addition to the trade fragmentation. And I think you're right. Now we're really enter very different, you know, uncharted, almost water, right, with Donald Trump really on the one hand said that he wants foreign investors to come to the United States to invest, but then at the same time really screwed it

scrutinize investors that go into certain sectors in the U.S., right? For example, some of the tech sectors seem to be off-limits for some of the foreign investors. And his administration, of course, is putting very close scrutiny when it comes to outward investment, right? Let's say if the U.S. investors want to come to China and invest in some of the tech sectors, right?

I think that would, again, be in a way prohibited or limited to a great extent. So there is a politicizing of investment. And there's also the really, I would say, abusive use of the so-called national security concerns. So I think that is very concerning. But that said, I think it is still in the interest of the greater world for countries outside of the United States.

United States, um, to really, you know, take advantage of the competitive advantage and take advantage of the benefits of investments, diversification of supply chain learning, you know, from different countries, um, technologies and serve different countries markets and to, you know, leverage on the economies of scale. There are still plenty of reasons for why companies would want to invest, you know, outside of own country. So I think, you know, uh,

we need to continue to cultivate policies to encourage that. And I think China is definitely leading the way of welcoming foreign investors, right? Not only now there's no restrictions for FDI in the manufacturing sector, but China is also expanding gradually, right? The service sector like communication, education and healthcare. So I think that really helped to attract investors and provide more opportunities for the global investors community.

That was Yan Liang, a professor of economics at Willamette University.

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.

A prominent American economist has commented on China's efforts to establish a clear path forward, dismissing claims that the Chinese economy is facing a crisis. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Center for Sustainable Development,

at Columbia University, made the comment in an exclusive interview with Liu Xing. He says Chinese economic fundamentals are strong, highlighting education, saving rates and innovation among a slew of points of strength. The professor also points out the Hiawan's China thesis mainly comes from outside of the country.

China has been contributing to global growth. Actually, China has been contributing about 30% of global growth since at least the last two decades. But all the while, some people have been predicting China's imminent collapse, the Chinese economy at least. So, Professor Sachs, I want to get your feels, your analysis on the so-called stalling reforms or China trying to throttle its private sector. What's your take?

well my take is very different and that is that china is extremely successful at innovation and increasingly in fact dominating the new technologies especially zero carbon energy systems whether it's renewables or fourth generation nuclear uh

fast rail which the United States still does not have one kilometer of fast rail China has tens of thousands and his now sharing that technology in projects in different parts of the world China is

mastering 5.5g now it's not only 5g it's at least 10 times faster than when 5g was unveiled five years ago in fact this is a period of rapid technological advancement

despite the United States attempt to stop this. So a lot of the rhetoric has been around for more than 30 years. We can go back to the 1990s when articles were written called the myth of the East Asian miracle and that China was on the verge of collapse.

when the 1997 Asian financial crisis came that was

taken as proof that China's growth was over and so on. So this has been the rhetoric for a very long time. It's mostly a kind of propaganda in the United States or the Anglo-Saxon world. In terms of reform, that the reform is nearing the line and that progress has stalled or backslid. What exactly is going on in terms of reforms? What is your read?

Well, I think that all of the major regions of the world, the United States, Europe and China,

are engaged in a new kind of industrial policy right now. We're in an age of rapid technological change, the AI revolution, robotics, digital technologies more generally, the need to shift to green technologies. None of this is straightforward. All of it means a rather complicated change of an overall system, not just one particular technology. So the United States has its industrial policies,

Europe is a bit lost right now, but there was just a recent report, the so-called Draghi Report, which called for a European industrial policy. And China has a very sophisticated industrial policy, certainly the most sophisticated. You can date it 10 years ago to the Made in China 2025 program.

We've now reached essentially 2025, and that program has been very, very successful. That's what really scared the United States, in fact. China said 10 years ago that it would master a wide swath of 21st century technologies, and it has done so. So this is really a demonstration of success, not of failure.

Now, we should really emphasize a basic point. The United States is trying actually to stall the Chinese economy. In other words, China is facing headwinds, not mainly

internally but deliberate attempts by the United States to slow or stop China's growth. Yeah. So in that context, we are talking about the kind of environment that the Chinese economy is trying to continue to mull ahead.

And then you read the media reports, you know, criticizing the effectiveness of the Chinese policy, the performance of the Chinese economy. That puts things in a different kind of perspective, doesn't it? Because otherwise you feel it's just the Chinese policymakers that are making mistakes that are not good, that the Chinese model is not effective anymore, so on and so forth. Is that the broader picture we should look at?

First, the most fundamental picture of an economy is, is it innovating? Are young people learning well? Are new technologies emerging? And is there a high saving rate?

China checks all those boxes. In other words, the fundamentals are strong. The education system is strong. The saving rate is high. Innovation is rapid. And China is the low-cost producer of high-quality advanced technologies, not across the board, but in many, many crucial areas.

So this is not a weak economy. This is a strong economy. If I look at the United States, I have a lot different worry. The saving rate is very low. The budget deficits are enormously high. The debt is very high. And there's a lot of instability and no coherence of what America is trying to do. There's a lot of confusion. So I give China high marks on

setting a clear path forward, investing heavily, and also designing a major program, which I strongly favor, the Belt and Road Initiative, in which China engages with a

wide range of countries especially in Southeast Asia South Asia Central Asia Western Asia Africa and Latin America to trade with those countries and for China to be the exporter

of critical infrastructure for those countries, with China providing a lot of the financing because of the high saving rates. China has a significant trade surplus. The United States has an enormous trade deficit. How does one come to the conclusion, therefore, that China is the country in economic crisis? I don't.

That was Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. That's all the time for this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. I'm Guiana in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.