How two rounds of leaders' talks highlight challenges to a Ukraine ceasefire
52:24 Share

Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited Li Jiang's Trust Sustainable Healthy Growth and Cultural and Tourism Industry. U.S. President Donald Trump has his eyes on the ownership of Ukrainian power plants in exchange for providing security.

and the European Union has launched a new initiative to reduce security dependence on the United States. Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective. I'm Ge'e Na in Beijing. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited Lijiang, Yunnan Province during his inspection tour in the southwest, encouraging local farmers to continue to develop modern agriculture. He stopped by a flower industrial park and the Lijiang Old Town. He learned about the efforts at developing specialized agriculture adapted to local conditions.

strengthening the protection and utilization of historical and cultural heritage and consolidating the sense of community for the Chinese nation. President Xi thanked local residents for their invitation to coffee. Thank you. Yunnan coffee represents China.

The president asked the villagers about the flower business and wished them a life as beautiful as the blossoms. So to delve into this, let's have Professor Qu Qiang, a fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minsu University of China. Professor, during President Xi Jinping's visit to the Flower Industry Park,

He emphasized the importance of aligning agriculture with modern development trends. So looking at Yunnan as an example, how would you describe China's approach to agricultural modernization today? And how has this shift boosted the competitiveness of Chinese agricultural products on the global stage?

Well, actually, I know this. I've been going to the rural China for continuously more than 15 years, and Vietnam is actually a very frequently visited place, especially in rural development and agriculture. Well, look,

before China have a large-scale poverty alleviation and modernization of agriculture campaign in the remote provinces and regions like Yunnan. Well, I think local agriculture and rural development are actually in a very low level. For example, Yunnan is a beautiful place, always a beautiful place.

They've been in the subtropical area and they have very hot temperature, but their latitude in those areas, because it's a mountainous area, so the latitude makes Yunnan a very cool place. So they have very good humidity, great raindrop, and also good weather. So that is a perfect paradise to develop the agriculture. But on the contrary, like 20 years ago or 15 years ago, the local agriculture is actually in a very low level. The reason why is that lack of investment.

the lack of technology. They do not have a very matured marketization. They do not have the full supply chain.

so that their agriculture just like small farmers tried to you know plant their own flowers local fruits local you know grains was in this very small scale was lower quality was absolutely no branding was no market channels so the value added and the whole market structure is not even there yet uh

So this, after the President Xi Jinping has been mentioning about we need to really focus on the modernization of agriculture rather than just expand the size of agriculture, I think Yunnan provinces actually follow that trend. For example, technology-wise, Yunnan has been introducing lots of the most advanced technology in the whole world. For example, like the flower planting and the flower seeding technology.

from the Netherlands, from the European Union, from South America. So right now, I think Yunnan's flower industry is probably the largest in the whole world. Their turnover each day is absolutely larger than the European Union. And also, secondly, of all the building, the whole supply chain,

You see, relying on one province, you will get nowhere because the whole industry is different from agriculture itself. Agriculture industry means it concerns upstream and downstream. They will have the supply chain, they will have the delivery system, cooling system, processing systems. So it's going to be very complicated industrialization system. For example, right now, Vietnam provinces paid attention to the value added. For example, they have brands.

Yunnan flowers have several very famous internationalized local companies. They have their own brands, very famous, and also they have a process, procedure. For example, not only with the flowers, the fruit will also be processed with higher value.

value added like making them into good juice and like the dry fruit like making them into dessert and everything and also surrounding the whole thing they've been building up the tourism was a culture park a flower park you know everybody will come here for their instagram shooting very very good and also they have very high quality with green development no fertilizer no pesticide

So their product can actually be sold at a very high price, not only as a food or like a drink, but more like a luxury, enjoyable things which can mark out your identity. So everybody are purchasing their product. So this is just one small image and story about how modernization are helping Yunnan aquaculture to build from farming into a whole different level of industrialization.

So I think more of the things is coming. And I think with President Xi Jinping's visit into Yunnan, this trend is going to be built on and form a new momentum. Building on that, Professor, as you said, with the tech advancements, Yunnan's agricultural output saw solid growth in 2024. Now with this visit, what kind of new opportunities do you think will be created for Yunnan to build on its existing strengths and tap into new growth areas?

Well, everybody knows what China has been very good at is that the top leadership or the overarching design can form a synergy of the policy, of the market, of the resources to form a very strong push in certain sectors. So we have a saying that when the central government or when the top

policies has been you know paying attention to certain area the certain area will always reform the synergy will pour the wisdom and the pool the resources very quickly to a you know very good scale so i think when the president xi jinping has been visiting yunnan and i according to the footage we've been viewing that he's really happy to see local people has been improving their living standard and local agriculture has been modernized uh

So I think this good experience already happening in Vietnam will be continued. And also the local government and local companies will get more of the support like financial investment, taxation rebate, and also like the green development package of the policies. So all of this will actually helping Vietnam to improve their agriculture and also logistic infrastructures.

like irrigation, like the road system, like the cooling system, a warehouse and etc. And also secondly, I think what will continue to carry on with the trend is about technology and also talent nurturing. I think when the president with Yunnan, I think most resources will be, you know, enter Yunnan technology.

Technology-wise, I think that institutions like the China Academy of Science already are doing more of the project, helping Yunnan to get more of the better seeds, to get better fertilizers, to get better technology of the green pesticide. So all this can help the local agriculture to save the cost and improve the quality. And also local universities and colleges are also getting involved.

you know, build on this momentum and to nurture more of the talents, more of the people will pay attention to local universities and more of the projects that can be introducing in them to strengthen their research and development and also brand. Well, when the president are somewhere, I think the attention will be somewhere and the local brand, local company will be absolutely covered by all the media, by all the social media.

And I think the brand effect actually can help the local enterprises and local products to get further. And more than that, and I think international cooperation will also be built on that. I think President Xi Jinping mentioned a lot that Yunnan is actually adjacent to several countries. So I think Yunnan is not a landlocked province, but international.

Instead, Yunnan should become a land interconnected provinces towards many other neighboring countries. So I think this very important international hub role will facilitate Yunnan to grow into a new modernized agriculture cooperation center in the future.

Professor, when chatting with locals and tourists in Lijiang, President Xi Jinping brought up Yunnan coffee. So with your extensive experience and knowledge on the region, how do you see this emerging industry helping Yunnan strengthen its product branding, boost rural revitalization and improve farmers' incomes?

well, I'm very familiar with it. I've been watching the whole production base has been established from zero, from Meng Lian production zone to Li Jiang production zone. I think the Yunnan Xiaoli production

Coffee has really been making its own name inside of China and outside of China. And we've been drinking Yunnan coffee a lot. And also Starbucks, I think, is one of their partners. They've been popularizing the Yunnan coffee into the Starbucks network all global-wise.

I think that's a great push. I think the reason why they can do that so successfully is because they aimed very high when they are trying to build this whole industry in the first place. So even though they don't have anything, before they don't have anything, when they try to establish this program,

they actually tried to select the best seeds. They used very standardized plantation technology, very much industrialized coffee plantation management skills.

brand management skills. So from the very beginning, we can say they've been following the international reach, the highest standard and procedures. I think that's the reason why they built such a good brand because, well, the market wouldn't lie. If your coffee doesn't taste good, if your brand doesn't have an image, if

If your market channel doesn't work, you wouldn't have that name out there. You wouldn't have profit. But I think they have done every part right. So that is very correct. And also, I think second thing is that in China, we say you need to follow the right timing. You need to find the right location and you need to work with the right people, right?

So I think the right timing and location is what we call the poverty alleviation campaign slash rural area revitalization policy, because President Xi Jinping really sees it as one of the most important

you know, a political and also people's livelihood campaign that to reduce poverty in a remote area and revitalize the rural area in those places. So government actually be using a lots of the resources and policies try to boost poverty alleviation and try to, you know, try to boost up the rural economy. So the technology support,

money support, talent support, and everything has been pouring into those areas. And the coffee industry is just one part of it. But when the small industry in Yunnan can use all these resources and the whole effect of the growth can be amplified. So I think they catch the right moment and right momentum so they can grow that big. And thirdly is how can this thing get continuously growing or sustainable? That is benefiting people

people so local farmers actually get a lot of the profit from this you know coffee industry usually in yunnan because they have the mountainous area every farmer every family probably only have a very small piece of land they can grow very limited grain and sell them at a very low price so they're barely making it you know to survive with such a kind of thing natural endowment

So I think the coffee industry gave them a new way out because coffee actually is a high-value added crop or product. So local farmers have been cooperating with the international stores.

suppliers and like Starbucks or like many of the coffee shops in China. So they can guarantee to have a very high income based on their plantation and also because of the modern management and the guaranteed purchasing. So their income has been gradually growing up and

And when local farmers can benefit from it, they will have all devoted power and energy to grow even better coffee in the future. And also the consumers will feel, wait a minute, Yunnan coffee tastes so good, but it grows in China, which means the transportation is very near. The cost is much lower than to ship some coffee from Africa, from Latin America. So

Consumers will also benefit from it. So this, I think, is a typical story of a win-win-win result. Farmers, consumers, as well as for the companies, coffee companies, they all benefit from this new thing. So I think this is ultimately make this whole brand in Yunnan very, very successful. That was Professor Chu Qian from Mingzhu University of China. This is Road Today. Stay with us.

Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski Teixeira. I'm a professor of Public Policy and 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. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says a halt to strikes on energy infrastructure in his conflict with Russia could be done quickly. Zelensky made remarks after a phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump, the first call since their White House clash weeks ago.

The talks comes a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to Trump and agreed to pause strikes on Ukrainian energy sites. The White House says Trump also discussed Ukraine's electricity supply and nuclear power plants. Trump said American ownership of these plants would be the best protection and support.

So can these two rounds of talks lead to a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict? To explore this, joining us on the line is Timo Kibimaki, Professor of International Relations at University of Bath in the UK. Thanks for joining us, Professor. Thanks for having us, Bethany.

Professor, just days ago, Zelensky and Trump had a heated exchange at the White House. Now the two leaders have spoken again. What do you think motivated both leaders to seek this opportunity for dialogue? I think the meeting in the White House was basically a clash between Zelensky's party

kind of agent-centric good guys, bad guys view and Trump's more business-like relational view of conflict. Zelensky saw the conflict as something merely related to the characteristics of Russia and Putin. Russia, in his mind, was the bad guy and thus peace could only be achieved by forcing Putin to stop the war.

as if he was the only party fighting it. In this perception, Ukraine was also the hero who is fighting and standing against Russian imperial and ambitious. And in this sense, Zelensky sees Ukraine fighting a war for Europe and not just for itself. In fact, even for the whole of the West and for democracies.

And this is just this kind of good guy, bad guy view that is actually very typical for American thinking as well. Yet I think Trump is different. He's a businessman and as a businessman, he focuses on relationships and deals. So he sees the conflict in Ukraine as a bargaining relationship. In this bargaining, Ukraine, despite its bad bargaining leverage,

Ukraine is insisting on solutions that are unrealistic under the existing power political conditions.

This way, Ukraine is not the hero that is fighting for the West. Ukraine is gambling with World War III, as Trump said in the White House meeting. In this view, Ukraine is not fighting America's wars, but rather, on the contrary, Ukraine is risking American security by

potentially drawing US directly into this disastrous conflict

while using American resources to fight the war. For Trump, Ukraine is fighting its own right to join the NATO and Ukraine's right to treat the Russian population as it pleases and Ukraine's right to keep all its territories, even those that Russia claims chose to leave Ukraine. In such a situation, Ukraine cannot take U.S. aid as a given

There must be mechanisms for Ukraine to pay back for U.S. help. Now, this was the clash in the White House. And I think Zelensky currently understands the power realities better.

With regards to the US, Trump's framing of the conflict is more important because Trump represents the US, which is a bigger power. So while Zelensky currently talks in the world, he talks about the war as something that is a result of Russian imperial ambitions. His speech with Trump has changed.

He's now ready to admit his weak hand towards the US and as a result he needs to compromise. And so while Zelensky was still resisting realities of power in the White House, the meeting there forced him to view the termination of conflict as something relational where more

more than just stopping Putin is at place. Zelensky and Ukraine must make compromises to end this war. And this is something that Zelensky has understood that he has to accept when negotiating with Trump. And I think that's why they are getting some results from

and getting closer to a common understanding between Trump and Zelensky. Professor, the talks reviewed several points of focus, the scope of the ceasefire, U.S. military support for Ukraine, the ownership of Ukraine's energy infrastructure, among others. So let's start by examining the prospects for a ceasefire agreement.

The U.S. and Ukraine have agreed to hold talks in Saudi Arabia about extending the ceasefire to include the Black Sea. Why has the Black Sea become such a focal point? What impact could expanding the ceasefire zone have on Ukraine's security and the regional situation? I think the way how the peace process progresses now is

is that different issue areas are removed from the war one by one as their exact conditions are being negotiated. So once there is a deal on the exact conditions, then that part of the warfare is taken away from the warfare. The non-targeting of energy infrastructure was the first step. The next could be something that the Ukraine has

has requested already previously, namely the ceasefire covering the whole of Black Sea area and the long range missile strikes and the release of prisoners. So these would be easier to negotiate because they don't require that much detail in the terms of for the terms of ceasefire. Whereas

drawing the line where the fighting stops on the ground would be more full of details that are difficult to negotiate. So I think that's why Black Sea area becomes one of the easier issues to deal with at this stage.

Professor, the United States and Russia seem to have significant differences regarding military aid to Ukraine. How do you view the different stances among the three parties on this issue? I think there's less controversy here than it seems, actually.

Once the two countries, Ukraine and Russia, no longer fight each other, there's no need for U.S. help, for example, for targeting intelligence. If Ukraine doesn't target Ukraine,

Russian targets, there's no need for targeting intelligence. So before the end of hostility, such need exists while after ceasefire, such intelligence help is no longer needed. Now Putin seems to suggest that

that in the end we need a solution where the cooperation between US and Ukraine would not exist in that level that it would endanger Russia's defensive interest. This basically means that NATO and the US cannot maintain cooperation that enables, for example, NATO's offensive operations through Ukraine, etc. That kind of things. However, of course, Russia...

would like such military intelligence, I mean, military assistance and intelligence aid to Ukraine to stop as soon as possible. But this is one of the issues on the bargaining table and something that...

would then affect Russia's bargaining leverage. At the moment, Trump, I don't think he wants to strengthen Russia's hand too much, as this would reduce Russia's willingness to compromise. So I think it is a matter of when rather than whether. I think in the end, as the peace process progresses, the question of U.S. aid

with military equipment and intelligence would become less pertinent. And once there is a peace deal, it's no longer on the table. Thanks, Professor. That was Timo Kivimaki, Professor of International Relations at the University of Bath in the UK. More to come, the European Union has launched a new initiative to reduce security dependence on the United States. This is Road Today. We'll be back after a short break. ♪

Welcome back to Road Today with me, Ge'enna, in Beijing. The European Union has launched a new initiative to reduce security dependence on the United States. It consists of a white paper for European defense readiness by 2030. It also provides financial means for the EU member states to boost investment in defense.

The new security strategy urges EU continues to buy most of their military equipment from European suppliers. The EU is also encouraging closer security ties with NATO allies outside the bloc, including Britain, Canada and key Pacific partners like Australia, Japan and South Korea. The shift comes after Trump administration signaled that U.S. security priorities would focus on its own borders and Asia,

leaving Europe to take a greater responsibility for its own defense and support for Ukraine. The U.S. president has also repeatedly questioned the rationality of Washington playing a leading role in NATO. So for more on this, Zhao Ying, my colleague, joins us in the studio. Hello and welcome. Thanks for having me. So can you give us a quick overview of this white paper on European defense and what this plan is trying to achieve by 2030?

Well, yes. Well, simply put, this is all about making Europe stronger, more independent and less reliant on the United States for its security. It lays out a vision for a more self-sufficient Europe where defense industries within the bloc can produce and procure more of their own military equipment rather than relying so heavily on American arms manufacturers.

And at the heart of this plan is funding. The European Commission is proposing a 150 billion euro loan program, along with changes to fiscal rules that could free up as much as 6050 billion euros in additional defense spending. And that's a massive financial commitment aimed at modernizing Europe's military industrial base, boosting joint procurement among member states, and ensuring that European nations can respond more effectively to security threats

And by 2030, the EU hopes to have a more integrated and capable defense sector with stronger European defense firms, more standardized military equipment across member states, and a more coordinated approach to security and security

The ultimate goal is not just to bolster EU's defense, but also to reshape the continent's strategic position, like make it less dependent on outside powers and more in control of its own security future. EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaya Kallas called this a pivotal moment for the European security. What exactly does she mean by that?

Well, first of all, of course, this is a critical moment. First and foremost is, of course, the ongoing war in Ukraine, which exposed the vulnerabilities in the EU's defense capabilities and also highlighted the risks of relying too heavily on outside partners,

for military support. Europe also feels the importance or the necessity of a stronger European defense industry that can quickly produce and supply weapons rather than depending on the slow or politically complicated deliveries from allies like the U.S.

And then there's the shifting role of the United States in European security, because as we can see under Donald Trump, we already see in Washington temporarily halting military aid to Ukraine. And the question is commitments to NATO. So there's growing concern in Brussels that NATO

future US administrations may continue to deprioritize Europe in favor of other strategic interests like countering China. And that uncertainty is forcing the EU to rethink its security posture and prepare for a scenario where it has to take on more responsibility for its own defense.

And of course, beyond these external threats, there is also an economic dimension because many European leaders see this surge in military spending as an opportunity to stimulate economic growth, like by creating new jobs, building more factories, strengthening the continent's industrial base, and of course, reducing dependency on U.S. and foreign defense firms.

The European Union is proposing to borrow 150 billion euros for defense loans and loosen fiscal rules to unlock up to 650 billion more. How realistic is it that member states will actually take on such a huge sum of debt? Yeah, that's a big question here. And let's break it down a little bit. This 150 billion euros in loans comes from the EU borrowing on capital markets.

where it gets lower interest rates thanks to its strong credit rating. And this might be attractive to nations where borrowing costs are higher. The commission estimates that this could benefit around 20 countries that struggle to borrow cheaply on their own. But of course, this is optional, like countries can choose whether to participate or not.

And wealthier countries like Germany and the Netherlands can borrow at low rates without EU's help already. So they may just skip these loans. And France, which has a strong military, is more focused on selling its own equipment to other countries than borrowing. And also those high-debt countries like Italy and Spain are

They both have over 100% of GDP in debt, so they may also be hesitant to borrow large sums for defense.

And when you look at this 650 billion euros, this is quite different because this is not direct loans, but extra room under the EU's fiscal rules. It allows nations to spend 1.5% more of their GDP on defense. And actually, Germany is already doing this independently. It is funding a 100 billion euro military boost.

But not all countries are willing to use that flexibility because it will also depend on political support. Some EU member countries, especially those Western and Southern states, they may hesitate if their citizens prefer spending on other needs like schools or health care.

And actually reports suggest the full 800 billion euros is quite unlikely, with perhaps half being more realistic if enough countries sign up. It's interesting to see that companies from the US, UK and Turkey are excluded from this new defense spending plan unless these countries sign defense and security pacts with Brussels. What's your take on this? How likely is that?

Well, of course, this is a clear signal that the EU wants to take charge of its own security destiny. The war in Ukraine has shown the downside of relying on foreign weapons. As the foreign policy chief said, in a crisis, your forces need free reign, not someone else's permission. And the White Paper sets a rule, at least 65% of this cash must stay with EU firms or allies like Norway and Ukraine.

But also it's about jobs and industry. Countries like France have pushed this bi-European approach because two-thirds of EU defense buys went to US firms in recent years, and that leaves EU's own industry lagging. So I think that is why they want to keep the US out. But it kind of

of kicks the ball to the US side. Like if you sign this defense deal with us, if you are still committed to this transatlantic alliance, then you can still be part of this plan. Otherwise, we'll do it on our own.

And when it comes to the UK, the UK is actually lobbying to join and talks have already begun on a potential defense and security partnership. And there will also be a summit in May to discuss this. But this is tangled in broader issues like fishing rights and migration.

And as for Turkey, the commission's report includes a direct reference to Turkey's longstanding EU candidacy. And it notes that while the country is excluded from the defense funding pool, it remains a long term partner in EU foreign and security policies. But the paper also said Turkey needs to align with EU priorities.

But I mean, the approach can also be risky because up until now, Europe still relies heavily on the U.S. for security. And this might lead to a situation where European defense products are not as advanced or cost effective, especially in areas where the U.S. has a technological edge. So some European leaders do have questions about this approach as they do not want to cut the value chains with non-EU countries because

There's just so much intertwined there. Thanks, Jia, for your insights. That was my colleague Zhao Ying. Coming up, U.S. Federal Reserve chair says Trump tariffs could delay process on the inflation fight. We'll be back. Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievs-Pesceira. 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!

This is World Today. The U.S. Federal Reserve has left the federal funds rate unchanged. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said they will wait for more clarity on policies from U.S. President Donald Trump before adjusting rates. He said a good part of the anticipated inflation will come from tariffs.

policymakers at the U.S. central bank have indicated that they still expect to reduce borrowing costs by half a percentage point by the end of this year. So to talk more on this, let's bring in Liu Zhicheng, senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China.

During the press conference, Powell reportedly mentioned terrorism for the first time in such a case and acknowledged that Trump's policies have impacted the economy. But he was cautious in making any definitive judgments. So what do you think is behind his ambiguous stance?

I think the response from Mr. Powell is not surprising the market as we know that in the past three years the powers working style is always the same

that are quite neutral not too extremist so his conclusion i think has several reasons or factors behind it the first thing that as he always mentioned that the situation is uncertain so he needs time to see that what the economic development exactly will have or take place or will happen

what kills they will meet in the future. So they still have no definite answer, even have no definite expectation for the Trump's policies impact. So in fact that we are seeing that Mr. Powell is still taking his advantage that he made slow decision and waiting to see what could be happening.

So his action or his policy will have some impact on the market in the future. As an economic expert, how would you assess the actual impact of Trump's tariff policies on the U.S. economy? Is the recent economic slowdown and deep market confidence, as Trump described, merely a period of transition before his policies take effect?

when we're talking about the impact of the mr trump's policy i think the whole world is controversial that some people say agree some people say disagree some people optimistically some people are pessimistic that's why they make the chaos and the expectation in the market as we know that they have some indications that the u.s economy has slowed down and

and also the market confidence has sharply influenced by some actions and the restructuring of the government and institutions. But as we mentioned that this is a period of transition, I mean, I agree that this is a problem or the troubles that only take place in the transition period. But how long it can take?

Whether it's a short term or whether it's a long term, this is what we are interested and more concerned. Regarding inflation, the Fed chair said Trump's trade agenda would be likely to drive up prices. But he also stated that long-term inflation expectations are unlikely to rise significantly. How would we interpret these seemingly contradictory viewpoints?

Actually, because they always mention that the two sides, as we know, any coin has two sides, one positive, one negative. But it's still always some leaders that the policymakers try to make him some more neutral, so didn't tell the fact or the truth. But actually, we should know that

Trump's policy about the tariff will surely increase the price. And also in short term, we'll have some negative influence or impact on the inflation. But whether this tariff could be digested by the market or by other new policies to make a conservation, this is what we are interested to see.

But we are sure that these contradictions can make the people, especially make the policymakers will be more cautious to make any new additional policies to strengthen or to lower down the growth of the economy. They became more cautious now. I think this is a good sign for the US economy.

The Federal Reserve Chairman, during his speech, he repeatedly emphasized uncertainty. Besides tariffs, what other factors are contributing to such an unclear economic outlook for the United States? As we know, the uncertainty is already becoming more standard word to express all the differences in the policy makers. At now, the state, I think they have some other concerns

a series of factors that influence the economic development in the united states for instance the restructuring of the institution or the government whether the real government efficiency can be really improved or increased or strengthened as they wish or especially when the people's confidence whether can be strengthened and because everything they should have

the trust and the support from the public. So now this and the public has still patient to wait and see. But if the public has lost their patience, I think that they will have troubles. I mean, the Trump administration will have more troubles and challenges. So this is what we are more concerned about contradiction in the US economic development.

We've also seen President Trump urging the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. Beyond concerns about the economic impact of tariffs, do you think there are other political or economic motivations behind his push?

I think his push is very simple to understand because as we know, this is not the first time for President Trump to ask the Federal Reserve to cut interest because in the past, he always repeatedly asked the FBI to do so. But unfortunately, the Federal Reserve has its own independence from making any decision.

Actually, they have some other political and economic motivation. For instance, the Trump administration is willing to have a very quick, very strong, but the growth of the economic development in the US to demonstrate that his policy is right.

This is a very important evidence or witness to see his policy, his decision in the past 70 days that are right to meet these people's interests. This is a very important motivation. He has to show that his political rights, his economic policy also right for the future, especially in long run that would

help the U.S. economy to further develop in the right way. Thanks, Zhiqin, for your insightful analysis. That was Liu Zhiqin, Senior Fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. Coming up, new data reveals 17 EU member states still rely on Huawei and ZTE for 5G equipment. 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.

Despite nearly five years of the EU efforts, 17 of the 27 EU countries, including major economies like Germany and France, have yet to fully implement plans to reduce their reliance on Chinese telecom giants Huawei and ZTE. A new report from Danish consultancy Strand Consult also reveals that four countries –

Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Hungary have no plans to adopt the EU's 5G cybersecurity toolbox.

The European Commission announced moves in 2023 to stop using Huawei and ZTE equipment under U.S. pressure and accusations that using Chinese technology increases risks. Beijing has denounced such accusations. So for more on this, my colleague Xu Yaowen spoke with Einar Tengen, senior fellow with the Taihe Institute.

Anner, it's been nearly five years since the EU adopted its 5G security toolbox, yet 17 European countries are still using components provided by Chinese tech firms, Huawei and ZTE. So how do you view their approach? Well, I mean...

There's a real difference between what government's guidelines are being put out there and then what these private entities are. I mean, to replace these component pieces requires a lot of money. And the question is, where is it going to come from? There were some subsidy plans and things like that, but they obviously have not been enough to get these countries to move on. I mean, what Huawei and ZTE offer is a very good product at a very good price.

And quite frankly, there's no one who can beat that. And that's why they have been so successful worldwide. But like EVs and anything else, solar, wind, etc., anything that China does is automatically seen as suspect. Does that imply that some European countries, they do not fully trust the U.S. security allegations? Because as we know, initially,

EU adopted this so-called de-risking measure was because of the US pressure and US allegations that Chinese technology increases security risks. So now we see that 17 countries are still using components from Chinese tech firms. So does that mean they do not fully trust the US allegations?

Well, let's go back and revisit. I mean, the UK had to be beaten bloody to they said, you know, to to accept this idea that they need to get rid of Huawei. They did an internal investigation. It came up that there was no there's no risk or anything like that. And then in a very, very heated phone call with cabinet members in Washington, they were told you either comply or we will not let you be part of the five eyes.

So they went forward. There were similar things that happened in other countries. But once again, the United States said, you know, you're either with us or against us. And, you know, what has been the result? Basically, these countries don't believe it. So they don't see any haste. They don't see any danger. And quite frankly, when it comes to spying, you know, as Merkel knows from the U.S. spying on her phone and countless other instances and Snowden's revelations, you

The U.S. is the number one spy master in the world, and it likes to accuse others of doing exactly what it's doing. So, you know, it all kind of falls on deaf ears. It's not a threat. If there's any threat out there, it's probably more linked to Washington than Beijing. So don't expect any big movements going forward, especially as money gets very scarce.

Anna, it's very interesting. Nearly five years ago, the European Commission labeled Chinese tech firms as high-risk suppliers without sufficient evidence. So it's been a few years now. Have they found any new evidence to support your claim?

Of course not. If they had evidence, they would have presented it at the time. This was simply the EU. There were groups in the EU who were taking the Washington line and saying that this is a danger or potential danger. When they can't say it's an actual danger, they say potentially dangerous. It's like saying the butter knife in your...

utility drawer is potentially dangerous. Yes, everything's potentially dangerous. So it's a very wide area. But there's been no new offerings on this. And that's why you've seen this kind of lackluster enforcement. No one believes it. They just simply didn't want to foul, you know, they didn't want to get on the wrong side of Washington. But now that has changed.

Washington has taken it upon themselves to alienate the EU. And I can't imagine that they're going to be in a hurry to...

to respond to US dictates when there is no reason to do so anymore. The report finds that, for instance, some mobile operators, they are facing some challenges like they need to replace the so-called high-risk Chinese components in their older 4G mobile networks while building their new 5G mobile networks without Chinese tech firms' components.

So what impact will the EU's restrictive measures on 5G construction have on its market competition and innovation? No one is in a hurry to replace 4G components because why? People are moving to 5G and eventually to 6G. It doesn't make sense to basically be changing an already working system

when you're moving on to the next one. In terms of 5G, it's not that Huawei has the, and CTE have the only 5Gs that work. There are other 5Gs. The question is, are you gonna pay more for them? And the answer is yes. So the impact is the additional cost of selecting a higher priced vendor. And that's gonna vary depending on,

country to country, how much they charge you for access and things like this. But, you know, gradually over time, if you adopt this attitude that I'm only going to buy my own stuff, you're not being in a good position. I mean, you're going to be uncompetitive versus your international competitors.

They will adopt a lower cost and therefore they can undersell you given any number of variables, including wages, et cetera, et cetera. And that does over the long term affect economies. And in theory, we got away from this after the crash, right?

in 1929 in the stock market in the US when you had a global meltdown and people said, yeah, these protectionist measures don't work. We need to start thinking in a modern way. But unfortunately, today you have people in Washington who have literally gone back to those days and think that the old days will somehow provide solutions to the new problems. What's your assessment of China and EU's cooperation in the tech sector despite all of this?

Well, I mean, it goes to competitiveness. ZTE and Huawei offer a terrific product at a better price. Generally, if you're talking about, as Europe always often does,

you know about capitalism in theory you should always select the product with a better price and and value but right now because you know geopolitical change ai is is changing things uh the us has changed positions it's drawing in it's more hostile it's going alone so you have political and economic kind of currents coming together

And right now, Europe is a little confused. It's divided. It doesn't always agree on any particular position. And it's really difficult to get 27 countries together to act in a uniform manner, especially when the one part, like the eastern part, is growing pretty well. But the western part, the traditional powerhouses like Germany and France, are really very anemic.

Of course, Britain, Great Britain is out of the picture. They might be coming back. Canada said that they want to join. It reflects a regionalism. But how this takes shape, I think increasingly it's going to be a situation where they're not as concerned about what Washington wants and more concerned about what they need.

That was Aynur Tiangong, senior fellow with the Taihe Institute. That's all the time for this edition of World Today. I'm Ke'anna in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.