We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode How China's “NO. 1 Central Document” strengthens rural reforms

How China's “NO. 1 Central Document” strengthens rural reforms

2025/2/24
logo of podcast World Today

World Today

AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
G
Ge'anna
G
George Zougopoulos
L
Liu Baocheng
Y
Yao Shujie
Z
Zhang Xin
Z
Zhao Ying
Topics
Ge'anna: 中国发布的中央一号文件,重点是深化农村改革,推进乡村振兴,保障国家粮食安全。 Yao Shujie: 中央一号文件连续多年强调农业、农村和农民问题,今年的首要任务是保障国家粮食安全,这关系到社会经济稳定。同时,需要创造非农就业机会,提高农民收入,实现共同富裕。此外,科技创新至关重要,农业生产需要向更高效、高质量的方向发展,应用数字化、人工智能等技术。 中国农业资源有限,劳动力也在减少,但农业产出却在增加,这主要归功于科技进步,包括生物技术、化学技术和机械与数字技术。 防止大规模返贫对中国很重要,因为共同富裕的目标不仅要惠及城市,也要惠及农村低收入农民。政府需要创造就业机会,改善农村基础设施和互联网系统,并为弱势群体提供社会保障。县域经济发展需要吸引人才留在农村,改善医疗、教育等社会服务是关键。

Deep Dive

Shownotes Transcript

Translations:
中文

Daily news and analysis. We keep you informed and inspired. This is World Today.

China outlines key tasks to deepen rural reforms and advance rural revitalization. Three years into the Ukraine conflict, how US President Donald Trump's return has shifted the dynamics. An exit poll showed that Germany's conservative bloc has won the federal election. Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.

I'm Ge'anna in Beijing. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching ROU today. China has unveiled this year's No. 1 Central Document, aligning priorities for deepening rural reforms and advancing rural revitalization. The document emphasizes strengthening China's ability to supply key agricultural products.

such as grains and enhancing rural industries. It says one of the top priorities is to safeguard the country's food security. The document also says the country will ensure that no large-scale lapsing or relapsing into poverty occurs, maintaining targeted support for vulnerable groups, such as low-income earners and relocated rural populations.

So for more on this, our Zhao Yang spoke with Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University. So Professor Yao Shujie, thank you very much for joining us. China has unveiled its number one central document for 2025. What are your main takeaways from this document regarding the agriculture, rural areas and farmers? And what are the policy priorities for the year?

I think first of all, it's the number one document emphasising the agricultural law in farmers. This is consecutive for many, many years.

As regarding the contents of the document, I think, first of all, food security is the number one top priority because China has 1.4 billion people, still the largest population in the world as a single country. So it is very important to make sure that food security is

tightly controlled, the social economy stability, - depends on how the agricultural sector is going to supply - the ample product for the requirement of the people, - not only the basic needs, but also the quality of the dining tables, -

So this is a very important issue. And secondly, I think because you cannot just ask the farmer to do the agriculture, you also need to create non-farm employment opportunity for the farmers so that they can earn adequate income to make sure they move up from the low income level to a medium and to a high income level as in the urban counterparts.

So, you know, low-low, especially at the county level, economic developments, those are very important. And certainly, I think the document emphasises technology innovation

the so-called new productive forces it means that agricultural production is going to move away from the traditional uh you know production mode where we only you know employ more farmers and employ more land and other materials we also want the production system to be more efficient

And in order to be more efficient, I think you need to enable all production systems, including the farmers, the land, and also the equipment that are employed in the agricultural production process. They have to move into a higher level of quality.

And in order to do so, given the current state of technological developments, I think digitalization, artificial intelligence, and all these kinds of things, e-commerce, they're going to be popularly applied into the agricultural system in the rural construction area.

So these are fairly comprehensive documents. So as you mentioned, one of the top priorities is ensuring the country's green security. So how would you assess the importance of scientific and technological innovation in safeguarding the green security?

China has limited agricultural resources, particularly land. And also in terms of labor, I think during the last few decades, China has experienced a very rapid process of urbanization and industrialization. So lots of agricultural labor has been absorbed into the urban sector and the industrial sector. This means that the absolute amount of labor

in the agricultural system have been declining very steadily. And the agricultural land has been very stable and to some extent it has been slightly declined. So it means that the traditional input like labour land, they are actually contracting.

but the amount of agricultural output has been an increased phenomenon. And why we have this situation? Why the traditional input has been declining and the output has been increased? This is purely due to technological progress. Now, agricultural technology can be classified into different categories. For example, biotechnology, where you have the breeding of new varieties,

which produce high yield per hectare of land. You also have some sort of chemical technological innovation. You use more efficient chemical fertilizers and organic fertilizers so that the land can become more productive.

And the third branch of technological progress is the machinery and digital technology. Machinery such as tractors, harvesters, and transplanters, all those different kinds of machinery employed in the agricultural system.

They become more powerful, more efficient, so that per unit of agricultural machinery they can cultivate or looking after much wider area of land. So these three branches of technology together

enable labor input to be declined and land area to be stable. But at the same time, the agricultural system produces far more products than before, including not only grain, but also fishery, animal husbandry and other things. So the Chinese people have enjoyed plenty of food on their dining table. And

If you have international experience, you know that the Chinese consumers are probably enjoying the most plenty supply of agricultural products in the world. And yes, indeed. And in this year's document, China for the first time used the term new quality productive forces in the agriculture sector. And so, Professor Yao, so beyond green security, China also vows to

prevent the large-scale relapse into poverty. And this is also a key task for this year and beyond. So what do you make of that? And why is it so important for China?

China's ambition is to build up a modernization of socialist country. And the modernization of socialist country with the characteristics, the betterment of life, is not only just for the urban field, but also including the low-income people. And much of the low-income people are actually living in the countryside.

So are the farmers. Farmers can have two kinds of employment. The first employment is that they migrate into the urban area to take on industrial and service employment. But there is a significant proportion of farmers who are left behind in the countryside.

And what they do, they actually do the traditional agricultural jobs, but they can also do rural industrial jobs, such as food processing, tourism, e-commerce, and so on and so forth. So what the government wants to do is to create a conducive environment so that the farmers have ample employment opportunities.

They can have these kinds of high-income earning opportunities. But in order to have this high-income opportunity, the government and the society have to invest heavily. First of all, you increase the rural infrastructure, transportation, and so on and so forth, and also the internet system.

And secondly, it will enable the countryside to use the internet plus and also the digital economy. So that not only the employment opportunity are created, but also there is a significant opportunity for people to enhance their income generating capability. And also for those people who are living in the very opposite area,

where productivity is constrained by the difficult environment, the government should be able to help those people by improving their production condition. And education and healthcare and also social security to help the fairly unable people, for example, the sick and also the disabled.

who are unable to protect themselves, the government should also give more social security to support those people. Yes, indeed. And the document also highlights the importance of county-level economic development in driving the rural prosperity. So, Professor Yao, what are the steps needed to achieve that? And what are needed to attract more talents and funding into the rural areas?

Yeah, the county level development is a very hot issue. So we need to attract sufficient number of people who are willing to stay in the countryside.

But staying in the countryside, you also need the so-called urbanization, anti-labor urbanization. The county as the center and the major township as some sub-centers to attract local people. In order to attract local people, I think,

The most important constraint is social services. For example, like healthcare, the quality of hospital and medical care, and also the quality of, you know, county-level schools and also the township-level, village-level school education. So education support is probably the most important and visible

you know, investment that the central government should pay serious attention. You know, there is a significant gap in terms of education quality between small town and medium city and between medium city and large cities. Actually, urban rural should be integrated together in terms of providing the high quality services.

That was Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong professor of economics at Chongqing University. Coming up, three years into Ukraine conflict, how US President Donald Trump's return has shifted the dynamics. Stay with us. Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievsk Teixeira. I'm a professor of public policy management at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

I am a great listener of The Wall Today. In my opinion, The Wall Today is one of the best China radio programs. In The Wall 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 Road Today. Monday marks three years since the Russian-Ukraine conflict began. A CNN report says Kiev has lost 11% of its territory and a generation of Ukrainians is growing up in war.

Once seen as a hero in the West, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy now faces political uncertainty. Hopes for peace talks have dimmed after U.S.-Russian negotiations excluded Ukraine and Europe. Meanwhile, fighting rages on. On the eve of the anniversary, Russia launched its largest drone attack, over 260 drones.

Zelensky made a surprise statement saying he'd step down if he meant peace or NATO membership for Ukraine. If to achieve peace you really need me to give up my post, I'm ready. I can trade it for NATO if there are such conditions, but I don't want to talk about it for a long time. I am focused on Ukraine's security today, not in 20 years. I am not going to be in power for decades.

He also urged U.S. President Donald Trump to extend security guarantees and meet him before speaking with Russian President Vladimir Putin. For more on this, joining us on the line is Dr. Zhang Xin, Deputy Director of the Center for Russian Studies at East China Normal University.

Professor John, let's assess the current state of the conflict first. As we enter the third year of the Ukraine conflict, how would you evaluate the current military situation on the ground? And what are the key developments and challenges faced by both sides?

Overall, I think into 2024, then onward toward 2025, the overall situation on the battlefield can be summarized as Russia overall is on the offensive. Ukraine is overall on the defensive. Then except for the Kursk incursion last summer, when the

When the Ukrainian military for the first time took the initiative to enter Russian home territory and held on a substantial chunk of Russian land for a while, except for that, I think the pattern just described hold for most part of 2024 onward to 2025. And in this war of attrition, we might call, Russia seemed to be holding the upper hand overall.

in terms of manpower, in terms of the supply of ammunition, the basic things you need on a battlefield.

and also the overall advantage in aerial control of the aerial space. In terms of missiles, long-distance drones, Russia is still also on the relatively bigger advantage. But this attrition war is still going on. Ukrainian army still has intense fighting, especially in Donetsk.

As all the push for negotiation go up, we actually see Ukrainian army in the past few days having launched some counterattack in Donetsk. I wouldn't rule out the possibility even when the negotiation in different forms will be conducted through multiple formats with the multiple participants, the warfare on the battlefield may still going on for a substantially long time.

The situation remains very complex. But Professor, under the previous U.S. administration, the United States mainly influenced the situation in Ukraine through NATO and arms sales. But since President Donald Trump took office, we have observed a more direct and assertive intervention. For instance, Trump stated the conflict wasn't Russia's fault, a view that significantly diverges from the mainstream Western narrative. What do you think,

is the political intent behind such statements and how might this affect the U.S. position within NATO and its broader stance on international affairs?

President Trump has already made it very clear in his election campaign that he wants to end the Russian-Ukraine conflict. And overall, he has been on a relatively good relation with his Russian counterpart. They seem to be able to talk to each other on a personal level much better than the relation we see between the mainstream political establishment in Europe and the Russian political elites.

And then for the past few days, we do see some dramatic statements from President Trump and his top-level diplomats, including the phrase that Ukraine actually provoked the beginning of the war.

Russia is not responsible for the beginning of the war, some phrases along that line. I think his intention is obviously try to modify, re-collaborate the narrative about the causes of the war, also the nature of the conflict.

so that there will be more space for the United States and Russia to reach some deals to end the warfare. And to some extent, we already see the results. The Russia side responded overall to the American initiatives in a positive way.

Those re-collaborations of the cause and nature of conflict so far hasn't gone very well with most of the European mainstream political establishment, as well as political, key political figures from Ukraine. The real response is that this is a complete manipulation of reality. To some extent, it's a misinformation campaign.

So I think those divergent views about the causes of the war, the nature of the conflict, will haunt the transatlantic relations for the weeks and months to come. It may be the beginning of the end of transatlantic alliance as we have seen since the end of the Cold War.

Professor, President Trump also recently threatened that Ukraine should repay Washington for its aid with 500 billion U.S. dollars in mineral resources. Could you elaborate on why Trump has recently focused on Ukraine's mineral resources? How significant do you think this proposed mineral deal is in shaping the U.S. approach to resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

I would say on the one hand, this seemed to be very consistent with President Trump's overall modification or recalibration of U.S. grand strategy. He seemed to be interested in withdrawing certain strategic resources from Europe, reduce U.S. involvement and investment in that part of the world, and move resources to the key potential battlefield in the future, Asia-Pacific or Indo-Pacific.

and also further strengthening U.S. control of its near neighborhood. So I think the possible demand for Ukraine's mineral resources and even beyond that, that we see in the past 48 hours, U.S. rhetoric is not only covering critical minerals or natural resources from Ukraine in exchange for U.S. continued support. I think the U.S. top officials are also indicating the ports,

and some other critical infrastructures can be included in this list. So that's very consistent with Trump's suggestion or insistence on bringing Canada to be its 51st state. It's insistent on reclaiming control of the Panama Canal and the possibility to purchase Greenland.

I think in that sense, the mineral story is consistent with Trump administration's modification of U.S. grand strategy. On a practical level, there are still a lot of details we don't know about the mineral deals. Ukraine, if you look at it, really the statistics, it's mineral deals.

reserves are not that abundant. It's mostly linium and titanium. And the reserves are relatively limited. And most of them are in the Russian-controlled territory. So if we factor that in, I would say the push for the mineral story is also part of President Trump's negotiation strategy, tactics, using this maximum pressure to

Both push the Ukrainian government to be on his side in the possible deals he would work out with Russia and also function as something the Trump administration can manage to sell to its domestic audience. He can say to the U.S. audience, U.S. domestic audience,

voters to see like now our deal with Ukraine is we're not going to waste our tax money endlessly in that part of world, distant part from US. If US is going to further involved, there will be a material guarantee. So that can be also part of his negotiation tactics, both for Ukraine as air pressure for Ukraine, but also as something he can sell to the American audience.

But Professor, initially President Zelensky expressed a willingness to strike a deal with Trump, but later rejected the deal. What does this shift in position reveal about Ukraine's internal considerations? And from Ukraine's perspective, we talked about the security guarantees and Zelensky said he'd step down if it meant peace or NATO membership for Ukraine. How likely will that happen?

I think from the Ukrainian government's perspective, it came as somewhat a surprise or shock. It took some time for them to have a pulse of what it really means and also the possible details. So it's not surprising President Zelensky would change some of its attitude towards the mineral deal. Overall, unfortunately, I think the Ukrainian side

including President Zelensky himself, do not have that much of, we might say, bargaining chips on the table. Ukraine is not even on the negotiation table between Russia and the U.S. right now. So I think the recent statement shows some sort of a desperation from President Zelensky to say, well, if there is a credible security guarantee and NATO membership, he's willing to step down.

look at all the things coming out of the mineral deals. I don't see anything credible from U.S. about the exchange of mineral resources or maybe even critical infrastructure with a credible security guarantee. U.S. wasn't even mentioning that

didn't seem to be committed to that at all, even if the minerals are going to be controlled by the U.S. So I think that also feeds into President Zelensky's statement of desperation. One last question, Professor. From Russia's perspective, what do you believe are Russia's core demands in these talks?

How might Trump's eagerness to end the war affect the geopolitical dynamics between the U.S. and Russia? No, I think the ball is on the Russia side overall. I think the Kremlin probably see a really big space open up.

for them to request or even demand more from the possible ceasefire or maybe even political agreement to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The top U.S. Russian officials already openly stated the negotiation between U.S. and Russia

It's not going to be just about ending the conflict in Ukraine. So I think they will use the opportunity to demand more either compromise or more exchanges in spheres beyond just ending the conflict on the battlefield.

So including long term security arrangement in Europe and also including so-called a grand deal between many other policy dimensions, including, for example, nuclear negotiations on the U.S. and Russia bilateral side.

I think the Russian top decision makers are going to really exploit this possibility to demand more from, again, mostly in the security sphere in Europe and also between Russia and the U.S.

That was Dr. Zhang Xin, Deputy Director of the Center for Russian Studies at East China Normal University. More to come, we'll take a look at Germany's election result. You're listening to Road Today. We'll be back after a short break.

You've been listening to Road Today with me, Ge'enna, in Beijing. Active posts show that Germany's conservative bloc has won the federal election,

Frederick Meyers, who leads the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union Alliance, has pledged to restore Germany's prominence in Europe and demonstrate that it's being reliably governed. Meyers is facing messy coalition talks after the Alternative for Germany Party achieved its best result in second place.

The Social Democrats tumbled to their worst result since World War II, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz conceded defeat. He said he would remain in office until a new coalition government is formed. So to talk more on this, let's have Dr. George Zougopoulos, Director of EU-China Programs and Senior Research Fellow at European Institute of Nice. Thanks for joining us, Professor.

Thank you for having me. Professor, while the conservative bloc won the election, but their vote share was at historically low level. What do you think this reflects about the mindset and demands of German voters today? And what potential impacts could this have on the future direction of Germany's politics?

Well, Germany finds itself at crossroads. And although the conservatives, the Christian Democratic Union, won the election, indeed, its increase, the increase of its percentage in comparison to the previous Bundestagswahl four years ago is not spectacular.

And I would say that this is indicative of the current situation in Germany where mainstream politicians do not necessarily send reliable messages to voters. And for these reasons, voters themselves

are not particularly confident that a change in the governmental policy will necessarily solve the problems which have been created in the last three or four years. So this can explain why the Christian Democratic Union, although it won the election, has not scored a particularly high percentage in yesterday's Bundestag's vote.

Building on that, the far-right populist party Alternative for Germany has achieved a higher vote share. How do you think this will affect Germany's political landscape, especially in areas like immigration policy and social integration?

Well, indeed, if we are looking at the numbers, the Alternative for Germany party scored a very impressive result. It almost doubled its power in comparison to four years ago. And especially in the eastern part of Germany, it is particularly successful. I would say that being the main opposition party, as it is the likely scenario,

right now, the Alternative for Germany party will play a very important role in German domestic politics, and it will certainly influence the political debate towards several directions, not only social integration and the migration crisis, but also Germany's economic policy, which will certainly be an issue of high interest for the years to come. So with the Alternative for Germany party in the main opposition, I expect

that political divisions in Germany will possibly increase in the months and years to follow. Then, Professor, what's your assessment on the Social Democrats? Because we saw they have a sharp decline in votes, dropping from around 26% in 2021 to just...

16%. In your opinion, where did the SPD lose their voter support? Well, this is a very important question and your remark is very correct concerning the fall in the percentage of the SPD, the Social Democratic Party in Germany. I would say

would rather attribute this fall to the current status of the German national economy, which finds itself in recession. And obviously, the policies of the German government in the previous three years and a half

did not help the German economy maintain its status in Europe, which for many years was the leading economic power in the Eurozone. It's not any longer the case. And although it was a coalition which was formed of

of three different parties. Certainly the role of the Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and of the SPD, the Christian, the Social Democratic Party, was to blame for the anemic performance of Germany's economy in the last three years and a half. So again, it's the economy which led to this disastrous result for the social democrats in Germany. Professor, as you mentioned, Germany is facing multiple crises, including economic and foreign policy challenges.

May has promised to restore Germany's strong leadership position in Europe. What concrete measures do you think he will take to achieve this goal?

Well, I would say it is too early to say because the most important priority right now for Germany is to form a coalition government. And possibly this coalition government will be formed by the winner of the election, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democratic Party, which lost yesterday's election. But in order for the government to be formed, the two will need to agree. And this will not be very easy. Also, judging on the

previous experiences in 2017 in particular. So Merz, as the new chancellor of Germany, will certainly attempt to play a role in order to see his country back to the epicenter of the European attention. But again, problems which have lasted for three years approximately cannot immediately disappear. So I would rather employ a wait-and-see approach for the government to be

and also for all other international developments to take shape in order to command on Germany's new role in the European Union. Let's shift gear to Germany's foreign policy challenges. Kuzmets emphasized the importance of independence in dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump and managing relations with the U.S., aiming to gradually distance Europe from American influence.

How do you assess such a goal and what do you think are the key challenges and opportunities Germany faces in achieving this goal?

Well, to start with, the general objective of Germany to become autonomous or independent from the United States is not a decision that Germany itself is taking. It's a decision which is a result of what President Donald Trump is saying and doing. So the European Union is responding to that. And the European Union and Germany in this case will certainly attempt as much as possible to protect national and European interests.

interests in a changing world where President Donald Trump does not really value the role of the European Union. Once again, challenges will be tremendous for the new German government because it

all depends on whether the United States and Russia reach an agreement on Ukraine, because this will certainly influence the new German foreign policy as far as relations with Russia are concerned. So again, I would say that

Germany is not having the leading role right now. On the contrary, it is waiting to see what others, Russia and the United States in particular, are doing. And this will be the critical factor to save Germany's foreign policy in the years to come. Then on China-Germany relations, Will Mayer's new government and a continued stance from previous one on economic policy towards China, for example, or might there be changes? If so, in what areas could these changes manifest?

Well, again, I would say that it all depends on how the new coalition government in Germany will formulate its foreign policy. But judging, again, on history and what Chancellor Merkel did as far as German relations with China were concerned, I would expect the new chancellor, Merz, to follow a pragmatic foreign economic policy vis-a-vis China because China is a critical actor in

in the international system and obviously China's economy is quite significant for Germany, especially taking into account ongoing challenges, especially with electric vehicles and so on. And also Chancellor Scholz in the last three years

attempted to shape Germany's foreign policy vis-a-vis China from a pragmatic point of view. And if a coalition, a government is to be formed on the basis of such an agreement between the two main parties, the Christian Democratic Union and Social Democratic Party, I expect Germany's foreign and economic policy vis-a-vis China to be based on logic and for ties, especially in the economic sphere, to expand despite existing challenges.

Thanks, Professor, for your insightful opinions. That was Dr. George Tsougopoulos, Director of EU-China Programs and Senior Research Fellow at European Institute of Nice. Coming up, Israel delays the release of Palestinian prisoners over the dispute on hostage handover. 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've been listening to Road Today. Israel has postponed the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, citing concerns about how Hamas conducted recent hostage handovers. The Israeli government stated the delay was in response to what it called humiliating ceremonies during the handover process.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas of violating ceasefire terms and using hostages for propaganda purposes. In return, Hamas condemned Israel's decision to postpone the release, calling Israel's claim that the Hanover ceremonies were humiliating a false claim, meant to avoid its responsibilities under the ceasefire agreement.

Senior Hamas leader Mohammad Madawi declared that Hamas would not engage in any further ceasefire discussions until Israel releases the 620 Palestinians who were supposed to be freed on Saturday. So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Ying is joining us in the studio. Thanks for joining us, Zhao.

Thanks for having me. Israel and Hamas have both accused each other of violating the ceasefire deal. Can you please tell us more about what specific violations each side is alleging and how these claims are affecting the truth?

Well, on the Israeli side, Israel accuses Hamas of violating the ceasefire spirit by staging high-profile releases for Israeli hostages. They're described as humiliating ceremonies by the Israeli side. For example, there are masked militants flanking hostages during handovers.

and one captive was filmed kissing a gunman's head. And also, there's a video showing two other Israeli hostages being forced to watch three of their fellow captives being released. And they pleaded on camera for their freedom. Israel say these are part of the psychological warfare. And while the ceasefire text doesn't explicitly ban such acts,

Israel argues that these acts exploit hostages for propaganda and they use this as a justification for delaying the release of over 600 Palestinian prisoners. And Benjamin Netanyahu said the release is now going to be delayed until the next handover of hostages by Hamas was guaranteed and without what he called the humiliating ceremonies.

While Hamas, on the other hand, claims Israel is violating the ceasefires explicit terms by postponing the release of these 620 Palestinian prisoners.

They were supposed to be released on Saturday, but families waited hours in vain in the West Bank and Gaza, and this fueled Palestinian anger. And Hamas calls this a blatant violation and accuses Netanyahu of inventing excuses to sabotage the deal. And Hamas also accused Israel of humiliating Palestinian prisoners and detainees during the release process.

like mistreating them until the very last moments and banning their families from holding celebrations. And Hamas argues that these acts contradict the agreement's humanitarian intent. And also Hamas condemns Israel's deployment of tanks to the West Bank and ongoing assault on refugee camps, which displaced 40,000 Palestinians. And Hamas frames this as part of a broader pattern of Israeli aggression,

which undermines the ceasefire agreement. As we mentioned, Israel cited humiliating ceremonies during the hostage handovers as a reason to delay the release of Palestinian prisoners. From your perspective, is this a legitimate concern or an excuse to stall the process?

Well, of course, from Israel's point of view, this is about maintaining the integrity and respect for the hostages. But from Hamas's side, they argue that Israel is using the ceremonies as a pretext to avoid fulfilling its commitments under the ceasefire. But I think the core issue here is the fundamental lack of trust on both sides.

The agreement, as we know, was structured in three phases, and each of the three phases requires new negotiations. So now each side is accusing the other of violations, but the underlying problem is that both sides have little faith in the other's willingness to adhere to the terms. And also, Hamas is particularly concerned that Israel will secure the release of the most vulnerable hostages, and then once these hostages are safe,

they may resume military operations. And on the other side, Israel has its own concerns about Hamas's ability to follow through. And they claim that Hamas has already violated the deal multiple times since it began. So I believe the lack of trust on both sides is the biggest barrier to peace.

Speaking of that, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has indicated Israel is ready to resume fighting if necessary. How does this threat affect the already fragile ceasefire, in your opinion? Well, I think a clear message we can get from Netanyahu's threat

threat is that he views the ceasefire as temporary and conditional instead of a pathway to lasting peace. And for Hamas, this, I believe, reinforces suspicions that Israel is negotiating in bad faith. And it's important to understand that any sign of a potential military escalation can immediately destabilize the negotiations, especially when both sides have already shown a lack of trust in the agreement.

And Netanyahu's comments could also be seen as a pressure tactic, signaling that Israel is unwilling to make further concessions. But on the other hand, this also plays into Hamas's own concern about Israel's intentions, given the public statements from Israeli officials suggesting that the second phase of the ceasefire may involve a military resumption if conditions are not

met. So I think now both sides are teetering on a knife's edge and any misstep could easily trigger a return to full-scale conflict. The temporary ceasefire is set to expire on March 1st. What are the chances of an extension?

Well, I think the chances remain uncertain, and there are a number of factors at play. On the one hand, the ongoing negotiations, particularly around hostage exchanges, have given both sides a vested interest in maintaining some level of calm. But the trust deficit between Israel and Hamas is deep, and both sides have shown skepticism about the other side's commitment.

to the deal. And Israel has made it clear that it's wary of Hamas using any ceasefire extension to regroup, while Hamas remains concerned that Israel might resume fighting once it secures the release of the key hostages. And these competing interests will likely make it very difficult to extend the ceasefire unless there is a significant breakthrough in those talks.

But at the same time, we have to understand that Netanyahu is facing increasing domestic pressure from his right-wing coalition, which could add to the uncertainties of the ceasefire. So, I mean, if Netanyahu feels his government...

stability is at risk. Will he prioritize his own political survival over extending the truce? And also the international mediators such as the U.S. will also play a role because Donald Trump did play a role in brokering the ceasefire deal. But I think his pro-Israel stance may also create significant challenges for the ceasefire deal to hold. And he actually said on Friday that he is really fine with

with any decision Israel makes as whether to continue to a second stage of the ceasefire deal or to return to war in Gaza. So as we know, both sides need to make compromises for negotiations to move ahead. But Trump's rhetoric kind of

emboldens Israel and further complicates this delicate balance of the ceasefire. So I mean, we really need to wait and see. Thanks, Zhao, for your insightful analysis. That was Zhao Ying on the recent development of the Gaza crisis. Coming up, China's trade promotion agency urges U.S. to lift two-way investment curbs. 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 Chinese business community says it opposes Washington's repeated generalization of national security concepts and obstructions of bilateral economic and trade exchanges. The China Council for the Promotion of International Trade is urging the U.S. to lift curbs on two-way investment related to the American First Investment Policy Memorandum.

U.S. President Donald Trump signed the memorandum on Friday. It contains provisions to encourage investments from allies in strategic industries while limiting mutual investments between the U.S. and China. The Trade Council says the measures will severely impact the decision-making of enterprises, undermine the international economic and trade order, and disrupt the security and stability of global industrial and supply chains.

To delve into this, joining us on the line is Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics at University of International Business and Economics. Thanks for joining us, Professor. Yes, it's a pleasure.

Professor, compared to presidential executive order or a congressional bill, a presidential memorandum is not legally binding and is more about express policy direction. But what tangible impact do you think this memorandum will have on bilateral investments between China and the United States?

It's going to cause a lot of confusion within the business community from China and US on both sides because the memorandum, I counted the 12 times they mentioned China, although they identify foreign adversaries that are targeted.

So the communities are waiting and see, but it seems that the new Trump administration is pretty much determined to go towards the trajectory of decoupling with China on all rounds, actually since his

first term in 2016. Chinese investment in the United States has been declining very steadily over the years by 10 times until the end of 2012.

So, these restrictions will further deter the first of the US firms to invest in China, particularly in the high and sensitive technology area. And then it forces Chinese firms to shift also their investment into other regions with more predictability.

for example, along the Belt and Road in the Southeast countries or Middle East and also Europe. And given that

But he is also getting so provocative to Europe. It seems that there is good reason that EU is going to work more closely with China and his leverage on the technology compact with EU is going to be weakened.

And then the capital market is also holding the money and wait and see if this is really turning into the real implementable policies or laws. So that's also going to disturb the whole global, the capital market, given that both China and the United States are strong in the capital flow and also in the stock exchanges.

And with the disruption of investment, the global supply chain will also have to deal with adaptation and also readjustments. Professor, the memorandum mentions reviewing the potential suspension or termination of the 1984 U.S.-China tax treaty. If this agreement is suspended or terminated, what kind of ripple effect do you think

this will have on trade and economic exchanges between Chinese and American businesses. Further costs will have to be added in doing business because

The treaty is there to prevent double taxation on companies operating in both countries. Without it, business will have to face increased tax burdens, and given the volatility of the U.S. policy, they will also face more uncertainties. So that's going to reduce their enthusiasm to invest.

And the U.S. companies in China now are also there to have to consider some investment plans and to deal with some contingencies. And they also have to make different type of budget, even though they are determined to stay put in China.

And then the trade and finance market will also face the impact because if more of the financial and tax risks will be present, that can really discourage the small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in the China-US investment and trade schemes.

We know the U.S. claims that this policy is aimed at protecting national security interests, but in reality it severely hampers bilateral investment between China and the U.S. So how do you view the U.S. approach of using national security as an excuse to implement investment restrictions?

Very obviously, the U.S., particularly under the Trump administration, they have been politicizing and even weaponizing the whole trade relations with China. This definitely violates the global rules set forth, for example, by WTO to discriminate

a particular member of WTO in their trade policy and investment policy. This will further hamper any prospect

to resume the talks over the bilateral investment treaties because until 2016, both countries had made tremendous efforts and spending years to negotiate on the bilateral investment treaties to further relieve the restrictions on investment

on both countries. And now it seems that the prospect is going to be extremely bleak because global investment does not only involve two countries across the Pacific. Investment portfolios will be arranged on the entire global front.

So now with this one that's possibly in place, this is also going to disturb the investment flow of the global financial market. Unfortunately, we ran out of time for this edition of World Today with me, Ge'Anna. Thank you so much for listening.