How Western China International Fair captures global interest
52:48 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying. Coming up, the 20th Western China International Fair is underway in Chengdu. What are the highlights of this year's event and how is it promoting Western China's role in the global market?

Chinese Premier Li Qian has visited Indonesia and called for the two countries to uphold the "Bandong spirit". We take a closer look at how this spirit remains relevant in the bilateral ties today. French President Emmanuel Macron is on a six-day visit to Southeast Asia, whilst driving France's growing interest in the region.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has sent a congratulatory letter to the 20th Western China International Fair, which opened on Sunday in Chengdu. He noted that the fair plays a key role in fostering a new development model and promoting high-quality belt and road initiative.

He said it also offers a valuable platform for the world to engage with opportunities in China's western region. President Xi expressed China's readiness to use the fair to deepen understanding, strengthen friendship and expand cooperation with other countries.

For more, we are joined by Dr. Yao Shujie, Changkeng Professor of Economics at Chongqing University. President Xi emphasized the fair's role in promoting high-level opening up and regional cooperation. How do you see the event contributing to these goals? The event has been meeting the goal gradually because the forum has been held for the last seven years and the latest one actually demonstrated the dynamism

of the Forum for International Investment and Trade, - focusing on the western part of the countries, - using Chongqing as the investment and trade hub - for promoting this platform to the outside world. So, the presidency's idea is to have a coordinated regional development -

between the eastern and the western and also the middle part of the countries. And by holding this forum, it actually provides a very useful mechanism for exchange of information, for demonstration of product made in the western part of the countries, and also providing the opportunities for trade and investment

for the global participants from different countries, especially along the bail and load initiative economies.

So in a sense, by promoting the forum, which provided a mechanism and statements for opening up the western part of the country to meet the long-term development goal of high quality economy growth and open up to the outside world.

You mentioned the Belt and Road. What specific opportunities does it create for Belt and Road partner countries to engage with China's western region? Yes, most of the Belt and Road countries

you know, either in Southeast Asia or in Africa and in some part of Latin America. Those countries, they are familiar with the eastern part of the country, but they are less familiar with the western part of the countries.

But the western part of China is actually full of ample opportunities - for investment and trade, particularly the specific product. Not only the agriculture, but particularly the manufacturing, automobiles. And as time goes by, the western part of the country - is producing more and more products which are needed by the rest of the world.

So the information is very important The exchange of product and investment opportunities between the Western part and the bear and low countries It is very important to get them familiar with all kinds of opportunities that may be provided by the Western part of China

So the Belt and Road is one of the major initiatives between China and the rest of the world. And in particular, I think the western part of China has many unique opportunities or the late-comer opportunities, which could be even more suitable for some of the Belt and Road countries.

And this, I mean, more suitable not only in terms of product and investment opportunity, but technological development and human capital, you know, experiences.

and service industries. Those could be fairly complementary to the many economies in the bell and low countries. And this is why this particular forum is fairly special and fairly useful for opening an important gateway of China to the rest of the world.

President Xi called for boosting the construction of a modern industrial system in western China. What kind of industries are being prioritized in this region? In this region, it could be a very complex industrial system. But sincerely, whatever the eastern part of the country can produce, the western part of the country can also do so.

But the western part of the country is lagging in terms of industrial development. So the eastern part is more advanced in terms of digital economy, in terms of automation and logistics, and also modern services. They are the kinds of areas that have advantage. In the western part, I think those areas are still

are beginning to develop, but traditionally I think the Western part is particularly good in manufacturing and industrial system and equipment.

Those system equipment provide the resilience of the Chinese industrial system because the western part, if they built up the system, they provide too important support to the country's industrialization process.

The first is that it provides ample opportunity of employment for the huge population still resigning in the western part of the country. And secondly, I think that the western part of the country have some advantages in terms of the spatial space. You know, the more ample space, land in particular,

water and also green development, the ecosystem. So by building up the western part industrial system, it's not only useful to create opportunity for local residents, but also provide resilience to the country's industrial system. So for the whole country, it will become more, you know, robust,

when the country is facing fierce competition in the international level. And also, it's important for the so-called unified market development and production chain development.

So China can build up a very strong so-called double circulation system. Yes, but what are the economic or infrastructure challenges that Western China faces compared to the more developed eastern coastal areas? And how is China working to address this disparity?

Yes, if you look back 20, 25 years ago in the last centuries, - the end of the last centuries and the early part of these centuries, - before, let's say, the world financial crisis, - the Western infrastructure system was highly inefficient and inadequate - for meeting the rapid industrial and urbanization development.

So there's lots of labor moving to the eastern part of the countries But over the last two decades or so, particularly after the world financial crisis China has made a huge progress in terms of physical infrastructure development and the internet plus

So by today's standards, I think the Western part is now fairly advanced in terms of the infrastructure development and also the internet of things. By saying so, I think there are still some differences and there are still some major gaps between the Western part and the Eastern part of the countries.

So there are still some, you know, way to go before the western part can really, you know, compare largely equally with the eastern parts in terms of infrastructure development. For example, like the high-speed rail,

I recently detected a high speed rail train, and I feel that in the western part, the speed is still relatively low and the frequency is still not as good as in the eastern part of the countries. So there's still somewhere to go. In particular, for example, like Chongqing, at the moment, high speed rails, the speeds are more or less 200 kilometers.

So by moving from 200 kilometers to 300 or 350s, we probably need to wait for another at least five years or even more.

So yes, there is some gap. And also, the talents, people and also the industry, the leading industrial institutions, they are still somewhere to go. And how we can deal with this issue, I think, number one, we have to have this information exchange, the free flow of

production factors, particularly the people and capital. And this is why the Western Forum, the fair we are discussing, is very useful. It's not only for attracting international investments and people are doing international trade,

but also attracting people from the eastern part of the country, particularly the big company, the more advanced company, to make investment in the western part of the country. So it's like the gap between Chongqing, the western part, and the rest of the country, particularly in the eastern, more advanced development areas.

gap could be gradually reduced due to this kind of bilateral development not only within the country but also between the western part of the country and the the bill and low country and also other including the industrialized country in the western europe and also maybe united states japan

So this is why it's important to have this fair so that we can now work out the advantage, the opportunity and also the limitation of the western part development so that we can have more effective policy in the future.

Yeah, and also President Xi stressed the importance of maintaining stable global industrial and supply chains. How does the FAIR contribute to ensuring this stability? Yes, I mean, the global situation is getting more and more complex.

Particularly, we see some countries like the United States is using this Protestantism approach. And it's also the division between different economic blocs. These are the kinds of important challenges for China.

So it is important for China to build a unified domestic market. And the western part of the country is a very significant component of the unified domestic market itself. The development of the Western trade corridor and also the Sino-EU, the European rail system.

It's part of the transportation, modern transportation system, which facilitate the development of western part of the country, contributing to the national resilience, to the kinds of external uncertainty and risk. That is Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University. You're listening to World Today. Stay with us.

This is World Today, I'm Zhao Ying. Chinese Premier Li Qiang has stressed peaceful coexistence and bend-on spirit during his visit to Indonesia. He made the remarks during talks with President Prabowo Subianto in Jakarta.

The two countries pledged closer cooperation and better strategic coordination. Premier Li urged both sides to make a bigger pie of cooperation, strengthen industrial integration and safeguard free trade. He told Chinese enterprises in Indonesia that Beijing has made full preparations for external shocks.

He pledged efforts to create a favorable environment for the overseas development of Chinese companies. The premier also said China is exploring new policy tools, including some unconventional measures, in order to respond to evolving segment stances in a timely manner.

29 Asian and African countries gathered in Bandung, Indonesia in 1995 under the flag of solidarity, friendship and cooperation, marking the awakening of the part of the world now known as the Global South. For more, we are joined by Dr. Li Pei Mei, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the International Islamic University, Malaysia. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you, Cheng Ying, for having me. So during Premier Li's visit, he emphasized the Bandung spirit and peaceful coexistence. So in your opinion, how relevant is the legacy of the 1955 Bandung Conference in shaping today's China-Indonesia relations as well as the broader South-South cooperation?

Well, I think the Bandung spirit remains very relevant today because it reminds developing countries of their shared history of anti-colonialism and solidarity. Well, although China is not an official non-aligned movement member, but she has consistently expressed support for the principles of non-alignment, sovereignty and self-corporation. So,

When Premier Lee emphasised the Bantam spirit and also peaceful coexistence, I think it's really relevant today because we can see now that there are one country which resorted to economic bullying, which the actions itself is resembling former colonisers' actions.

So I think countries like China and Indonesia are reminded of the importance of working closely together to counter the economic bullying. So since China and Indonesia are also part of BRICS, which we widely regarded as a global self-block, so it actually gives them more opportunities and reasons to cooperate with one another, not only bilaterally, but within the broader self-self-cooperation.

Yeah, and primarily emphasize expanding cooperation in areas like digital economy, AI and green manufacturing. How does this align with Indonesia's current development priorities?

Well, I think it aligns very well with Indonesia's current development priorities, especially making Indonesia 4.0. So making Indonesia 4.0, although it's a national industrial strategy which was launched by the previous administration,

which is the Jogowi administration. But this national industrial strategy will continue under the current President Prabowo. And actually what Premier Lee emphasizes on, which is more corporations in areas such as digital economy, AI and green manufacturing, it actually emphasizes

is the global trend that all the countries in the world are actually embracing towards this global trend where countries are moving towards a greener world with renewable energy. So in fact, if you look at Prabowo government's policy, they are pushing for greener development. And one of the things that he has done is setting up this energy transition and green economic task force.

So this task force itself, they focuses on green energy, green industry, green partnership and investment, and also many other areas. So the purpose of this task force is to accelerate the country's shift towards a low carbon economy.

And as I mentioned earlier, this is a global trend. So it's not only Indonesia, which gladly would have expanded cooperation with China in this area. There are other countries like Malaysia. We are also looking forward to more collaboration in these areas.

Yeah, and as China promotes this high-tech collaboration, is there a risk that Indonesia might become over-dependent on Chinese technology? Or is this partnership a pathway to local innovation capacity building in Indonesia?

Well, I think there is always this dilemma. On one hand, with countries wants foreign direct investment, and we want a high tech collaboration with another countries. But on the other hand, there is always concern from some parties about over dependence.

So how then should we address this dilemma? I think countries such as Indonesia, they can manage the partnership well through joint venture and also cooperation in technical and vocational education and training.

I'll give an example in Malaysia. We actually have been cooperating with China since 2023 for technical and vocational education and training. So what China did was they're offering up to more than 5,000 places to Malaysian students for short, medium and long term training in 220 companies in China.

So for Indonesia as well, there is actually already a partnership this year

in March between China's Yangzhou Polytechnic Institute and Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta from Indonesia. What they did is they set up an Indonesian Luban Workshop Intelligent Manufacturing Center in order to train locals without the need for over, without the worry of over-dependence. So I think a joint venture would be one of the ways to

to facilitate skills, knowledge transfer and capacity building workshops and centers like this will help to train local workers so as to alleviate these worries of over-dependence. Yeah, and Premier Li mentioned China's readiness to address external shocks and explore unconventional policy tools. What do you think we can expect in this regard?

Well, when we talk about external shocks, for me, I think it's clearly the unpredictable and uncertain policies of the United States, not only towards China, but towards the world. Of course, there are also, we are increasingly seeing rising tensions and conflicts around the world that may disrupt the global supply chain.

So against this big backdrop, I think, which is very unusual and unconventional one, China believes that conventional policy tools may no longer be practical. So under these circumstances, I expect China to lend greater support to private enterprises operating in Indonesia because they are

hoping that private sector could step up their role in boosting the economy, the global economy and also economy of China. And this may include policy backing through government to government discussions. And China might negotiate for greater openness to the Indonesian market and provide more fiscal support to these Chinese enterprises operating in Indonesia.

But to me, I think what China might need to be prepared is, which is unconventional, is to set up an alternative supply chain that have to exclude the United States because of how uncertain United States policies are. And this uncertainty, unpredictability can actually disrupt the global supply chain and disrupt global trade.

And I think this is what probably China has been preparing for. Okay, actually, both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism and opposition to protectionism. How can China and Indonesia's strategic coordination influence ASEAN's broader stance on global trade challenges such as the U.S. tariff threats?

Well, I also observed that countries are actually becoming more protectionist. My guess is that probably it's the American first policy initiated by Trump. And as a response of that, countries are also becoming more protectionist.

Not only that, countries are also becoming more nationalistic, which is very concerning because our world, we have generally benefited from a free, open and inclusive market and trading system.

Well, I agree that the benefits due to this free, open and inclusive trading system might not be distributed evenly, but generally people are better off than before, including us in Southeast Asia.

So for ASEAN, we are actually also opposing US tariffs and protectionism. So I think China and Indonesia, when they reaffirm their commitment to multilateralism and opposition to protectionism, it gives ASEAN the confidence that we have now a partner to work with, which is

China so that we can on both sides, we can both push for multilateralism and find ways to prevent countries from becoming protectionist. Because I think

In the 1920s, 1930s, we've seen how countries became setting up tariffs and it actually caused the global trade to shrink. So this is not actually benefiting any countries if there is, you know, this kind of tariffs imposed by the United States on all. Yeah, thank you, Dr. Li Peimei, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the International Islamic University, Malaysia. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back after a short break. ♪

You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. French President Emmanuel Macron is on a six-day visit to Southeast Asia, where he is trying to pitch his country as a reliable partner. He arrived in Hanoi on Sunday, marking the first trip to Vietnam by a French president in nearly a decade.

Macron said that Paris would engage in closer cooperation with Vietnam on defense, satellites and railways. The two countries signed a deal for 20 Airbus planes, among other packs. The trip will also take him to Indonesia and Singapore. For more, we are joined by Rong Ying, chair professor with the School of International Studies at Sichuan University. Professor Rong, thanks for joining us.

Thank you for having me again. So does President Macron's visit signal a renewed French focus on Southeast Asia? Why is Paris turning its attention to the region now? Well, I think France is traditionally has been a very much a kind of a player or has a strong interest in Asia and Asia Pacific in particular. We have seen that

France has been, I think, the first European country that's been issued a kind of a so-called Indo-Pacific strategy. And also, I think, in recent years, we have seen the strategic

MR PRICE: Both at, I think, a strategic level – I mean, the strategic community and also at the policy circles, we have seen that the interest of increasing or its presence and also investment in this part of region, as we've seen that not only President Macron himself but also, I think, the policymaking within this community as well has

shown interest in this part of the world. Obviously for geopolitical reasons and also I think for geo-economic reasons, so with the potentialities, business, I mean for business and also I think for investment. And so I've seen on the one hand, France has very much focus on

attach great importance to its relationship with China, as we have seen very recently. Actually, before his departure for the region, he had a very good extensive conversation with President Xi

emphasizing the interest of establishing deepening the relationship between China and also in the meantime for the region as well. This is obvious for obvious reasons, of course. France has always believed that it is one of the major

pose of that multipolar world and it pursues a kind of a strategic autonomy, an autonomous policy strategy in a way that would have helps itself in

pursue its strategic interest. And more importantly, I think it sees the opportunity in recent times, particularly in the wake of the Trump administration's global tariff war and the concerns

and that has been under pressures arising from that from the region so you know i see that this is just the first ever sort of presidential visit state visited by president macron after he resumed i mean i mean got it reelected in the region but it's obviously i think he wanted to show to that

France has now growing interest and they wanted to play a major role in this part of the world by visiting the three countries and also going to make a speech at the Shangri-La that

Okay, and he is pitching France and also the EU as a reliable partner of Southeast Asian countries. How persuasive is this message to countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore?

Yeah, that's a great question. I think this is – could be at least from the so-called pre-visit briefings by the French Government that in the – President Macron would like to present, I mean, itself, I mean, France as a kind of a reliable and respected partner for the region. And

And they were, I think, reinforce that message, I believe, in the process during the ongoing visit. But what I want to say is that whatever statements, whatever the policy has been, it's all in – the most important thing as far as I can see is that

uh i think countries like france on the one hand it has a lot of uh i guess constraints and the question of sort of visibilities in the part of the region because policies strategies are there but the implementation is always a problem the most important thing is that if they really want to show the

I think countries like France want to show reliability and earn respect of the region. First and foremost, I believe they have to respect

the principles and the practice that has been under, I mean, by the region. For example, on the question of Asian regional integration, development things and efforts by the region to pursue their own development and stability.

Particularly in the context where ASEAN certainly and the region as a whole, they have their own way of thinking and their own way of managing their problems and pursue their own development. At a bigger level, I think they have to also make effort to show that they are sincerely working with the region for development.

I mean, multi-polarity, my practicing multilateralism and also against unilateralism, so on and so forth. So this is a kind of a partner. This is a kind of a sort of a cooperation, I think, the region are looking for.

Yeah. And we know that Vietnam is under pressure from the U.S. to buy more American goods. So now with Macron's visit and the deals like the Airbus aircraft purchase, does Hanoi now have to balance its ties between Washington and Brussels? Well, Vietnam certainly, I think, would like to have more

more sort of cooperation with countries like France and others. And we know that France and Vietnam has kind of a comprehensive strategic partnership established in last year, 2024.

And France has also very much pledged to working with Vietnam in the context of development, defense, and others. And again, which has been seen that they are going with it more than – I think more than 20 agreements have been signed. And one of the interesting area you mentioned is about that kind of –

purchase of Airbus vis-a-vis the speculated sort of purchase from the United States, the Boeing, which is a rival of France. So how that reflect a kind of

challenges or dilemma for Vietnam, with the France and the United States is going to be a very interesting sort of a thing. But all in all, I would only emphasize that as the – what the region would like to see. And I think Vietnam in particular, even though I cannot speak for Vietnam, is a real, substantial, true partnership that would help

partner that would help their development. Thank you, Rongying, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies at Sichuan University. This is World Today. Stay with us. Welcome back. You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. The U.S. House of Representatives has narrowly passed a sweeping tax and spending bill. The move comes despite prior warnings from the budget groups that the legislation will significantly increase federal debt.

The bill extends corporate and individual tax cuts enacted during U.S. President Donald Trump's first term in 2017, while adding new tax breaks for tips, overtime and car loans. It also increases defense spending and allocates additional funds for deporting immigrants.

With more, Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, a professor of economics at Wyoming University. So first Yan, tell us what's the details of this bill and what does it mean for the U.S. federal debt? Well, this bill is to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump 1.0 put in place. I still think that this bill will show grave distributional effect

Because what you see is that even though 94 percent of Americans will get a tax cut as a result of this bill, but two-thirds of the benefits will go to the top 20 percent. One-quarter of all the tax cut benefits would only go to the top 1 percent. And the increased military budget, the increased interest payment would only mean that the federal government's fiscal space is further squeezed.

So they will have to reduce the spending on other important areas, the social safety net being one, but also other industrial development and supportive policies. Because this bill also include a lot of the provisions to rescind the green energy and other green investments tax credits. So all of this just to show that this bill may really help the rich, but it's really regressive when it comes to

for the lower income families, but also for the long term prospect of the economy when it comes to green investments. That is really essential for the economy in the future. The provisions also include some of the spending increases, most notably military expansion, border security and the mass deportation operations. All of these will see increase in spending.

And we know that Moody's has recently downgraded the U.S. credit rating due to years of rising debt and deficits. And at the same time, the Trump administration is pushing for more tax cuts, likely to pile even more debt. So why is President Trump so serious in terms of seeking this tax cut plan? Actually, what does it mean for the federal debt?

Well, I think it's very keen to promote this tax cuts because this fits both of the Republicans tradition, right? The Republicans always advocate for the so-called small government and so giving tax cuts

to the public means that the government will be sort of quote unquote starved. And so that would help to minimize the government's footprint or the size of the government in the economy. And I think particularly for Trump, he pretty much campaigned on this idea of tax cuts and deregulation for his presidential election. So he needs to deliver the promises to his constituents.

And as you just mentioned, yes, this cut tax cuts will be expensive. It's forecasted to add at least $4 trillion to the budget. And even if this tax cut will help to promote GDP growth, the added revenue due to GDP growth is still not sufficient to completely offset. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Foundation,

the tax cuts will generate some economic growth, but that would only offset about 16% of the increase in the deficit and debt in 10 years. And so that means even the economic growth will offset about $710 billion.

The combined the revenue loss was to be at four point five trillion in 10 years. So this is going to add to the federal debt. And that's why I think Moody's has downgraded this time and following, you know, the other two rating agencies where S&P has downgraded the U.S. back in 2011 and Fitch Fitch.

has downgraded 2023. So now this is the last major rating agencies downgraded the US's credit rating. And so that could create some market ripple effects. And so that could add to some of the sort of obstacles for this kinds of tax cut bills.

And as you mentioned, the first time to downgrade the U.S. from AAA is at 2011. And now, 14 years later, this is the third agency doing the same. So do you think the environment is the same or the environment has changed this time around, in particularly when we are in the middle of geopolitical changes and global tariff tensions?

Oh, that's a great point. I think times have been very different. For one is we know that back in 2011, the Fed funds rate was hovering around 0 to 0.25%, very low interest rates. And now we're in a very different environment, right? The Fed funds rate is 4.5%.

And so what that means was $36 trillion federal debt outstanding. The interest payment has already become the second largest federal spending after the social security spending. It's actually more than the defense

spending in the US right now and is projected to continue to grow because this tax cut bill is going to add more federal debt and the Federal Reserve is not likely to cut interest rates in the short term, not by the end of this year, according to, you know, right now the market expectation. And as you just mentioned, one of the major reasons why the Fed is hesitant to cut rates is because they worried about inflationary pressure.

And part of the reason that the inflationary pressure is elevating is due to Trump's tariff war against 150 trading partners, especially with China. We know now that Trump is having a sort of a tariff truce with China for 90 days starting early May. But still, the current tariff rate includes a universal 10 percent of tariff rate.

on all countries. And for China right now, the average tariff rate is about 30% for the second term and added to the first term about 11, 14% of the tariff rate. So now we're still seeing relatively high around 41% tariff rate

on China's exports to the United States. And so all these tariffs mean that import costs are gonna rise and that's going to add more inflation pressure to the United States economy. So I think now the difficulty is that on the one hand, you have this tax cut bill that Trump has determined,

to push, to pass through. But on the other hand, you have this inflationary pressure, high interest rate, high interest payments that pretty much encroach on other federal spending. And the Republicans are also trying to pay for those tax cuts

by slashing on some of the social safety net, such as the Medicaid and also food stamp. Now these programs are very popular among the Republicans voters. And so I think that creates a conundrum for the Republicans.

Well, the veteran investor Ray Dalio said the risks from the U.S. credit downgrade are greater than the rating agencies are conveying. He said, quote unquote, "They don't include the greater risk that the countries in debt will print money to pay their debts, thus causing holders of the bonds to suffer losses from the decreased value of the money they are getting." So, Yan, do you agree with him?

Well, I think on the one hand, yes, the idea that the investors may suffer some losses because of maybe inflation is going to eat into the value of their investments. And so that is what he meant by so-called printing money. The idea is that even if the creditors will get paid, right, the U.S. government will never run out of dollars. So they will get paid on the treasuries that they hold.

But the value of what they get back is going to be less because of inflationary effect. And on the other hand, I think there is also a risk where, as we know, even though the U.S. is not going to run out of dollars, but there is this political theater where the two parties are always debating about lifting the debt ceilings or not, right? And the U.S. is the so-called ex

the day when the revenues are going to fall short of the payments, this year is going to be around August.

So there's always a contention whether or not the two parties could reach an agreement to lift the debt ceiling to allow the U.S. government to pay its bill. So there is a political risk where if the bipartisan tension did not allow or will not allow the debt ceiling to be lifted, then that would be a U.S. entering a voluntary default. And so that is also another risk.

That is Yan Liang, professor of economics at Willamette University, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yang. This is World Today. Stay with us. You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Yang. Harvard University has sued the Trump administration for the second time, one day after the Department of Homeland Security said it would block the university from enrolling international students.

A federal judge immediately issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from revoking Harvard's rights. The order provides temporary relief to nearly 7,000 international students at Harvard, accounting for 27 percent of its total student body who otherwise faces being forced to transfer to other universities or leave the country entirely.

For more on this legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration, let's go to my colleague Gao Yingshi. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. So what is the current status of this dispute and how are the legal proceedings unfolding?

Well, the situation took a dramatic turn on May 23rd when Harvard filed an emergency lawsuit within just four hours and a U.S. District Judge Allison Burgess issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's revocation. This means that for now Harvard can continue enrolling international students and current students can remain at the campus.

Notably, Judge Bogus is no stranger to either party. She previously upheld Harvard's affirmative action admission process in 2019 and has previously blocked Trump administration's policy.

And the temporary restraining order, they typically last to the end of the hearing. A remote conference is scheduled for Tuesday with arguments over whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

That would block the administration's action until a final court decision. So this means that if the judge doesn't extend the order, the government could again revoke Harvard's certification. While this is not the first legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration, what is the broader background behind Trump's decision to revoke Harvard's certification?

Well, I say, Harvard isn't alone in facing the federal pressure. The Trump administration has accused Columbia University of violating civil rights law by showing "indifference" towards discrimination against Jewish students.

And in April, we also see that the government suspended dozens of federal grants to Princeton University. And this represents a systematic campaign targeting elite universities across the country. And for Harvard, in the case of Harvard, since January 2025, Trump's administration has launched a comprehensive campaign against Harvard. It phrased

$2.2 billion in funding and also threatening the tax exempt status and demanding elimination of the DEI programs. In the view of the current administration, this goes far beyond than just some policy disagreement. It's an, I would say, an ideological war over control of American higher education system.

and Harvard it represents what Trump opposes about the American elites. Those coastal, liberal, privileged establishment with like 53 billion endowment. The university in some way it embodies the cultural and intellectual elite that Trump claims to

to challenge in the eyes of current administration, forcing Harvard's capitulation would be a powerful symbolic victory over the so-called liberal establishment.

Sorry, I really want to add a little bit more. And we see like conservatives, they critique Harvard as promoting woke ideology and the anti-American sentiment. And they view that the university's resistance as sort of an elite arrogance disconnected from the value of the Republican supporters.

and it's part of administration's agenda to reshape higher education according to more conservative principles. And from Harvard's perspective, these more represent a retaliation against the university for refusing to surrender academic independence and submit to what they call the federal government's

illegal assertion of control over Harvard's curriculum, faculty, and students. And as former Harvard president Lawrence Summers put it, it's an extortion, it's a vendetta.

Yes. So what goal exactly does Trump government wants to achieve by revoking Harvard's international students certification? Well, there are actually multiple goals. And first, the action is integral to Trump's border immigration agenda. But it also reveals a fundamental shift in how this administration views international students and global talents. So rather than seeing those students as presbyterians,

potential bridges that could help to stabilize bilateral relations or as like contributors to American innovation. The current administration increasingly views the students as problematic populations. It requires a strict oversight and this represents a dangerous shift, I would say, from a decade of like mutually beneficial educational exchange and

And perhaps more significantly, there's an unspoken but very crucial goal here, is that using Harvard as a high-profile example to intimidate other universities across the United States. By severely punishing Harvard for refusing to comply with ideological demands to eliminate IDEI programs,

or restructure admission policies and surrender campus government's autonomy, the current administration is sending a clear message here, which is comply with our political agenda or face devastating consequences. Harvard, as America's oldest and most prestigious university, serves as the perfect test case if they can force Harvard

to surrender, to capitulate, other institutions were likely to fall in line rather than risk a kind of similar retaliation. Yes, and how might this decision reshape the landscape of international education in the US and affect global talent flows to American universities?

The Harvard case, it has already created a chilling effect across international education. Like over 6,700 international students at Harvard, they are now facing immediate uncertainty. And this uncertainty not just extends beyond Harvard. Like international students nationwide, they are questioning their future in the American higher education system.

And the United States has, we know that it has historically dominated the global higher education with like elite universities, like a sort of a magnet for the world's brightest minds, I'd say. However, that's a relationship of like mutual benefit. If the roads cut off, will Harvard be the same Harvard? I'll put a question mark here. And policy risks are

fundamentally undermining Americans educational competitiveness when countries or regions like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom they are actively courting international students and I saw that a day later at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology they just published a statement they offered unconditional admission to international students at Harvard so under the current Trump administration

We've been seeing that a lot of high profile academics, they have been seeking opportunities outside the US. This Harvard decision could just accelerate this trend significantly. So in short term economic effect, international students, they contribute significantly to American economy and they are more likely to pay taxes.

for tuition brings substantial revenue to universities. But we should also see that in the long run, repelling international students would ultimately damage the US competitiveness in science, technology and innovation.

Okay, thank you, Gao Yingxu, for joining us today. And 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 Jiao Ying. Thank you so much for listening. See you next time.