How will a new high-tech fund help China’s emerging industries grow?
53:26 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing. Coming up, we will take a look at how China's newly announced high-tech fund is going to grow AI and other emerging industries. In Syria, Kurdish-led SDF agrees to integrate with government forces.

Citigroup has raised the recommendations for China equities. And India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi is going to support the Mauritius sovereignty over Chagos archipelago during a visit to the country. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.

China will establish a national venture capital guidance fund to strengthen innovation. The head of the China's National Development and Reform Commission announced this particular move at the two sessions. Zheng Shanjie said they aim to attract a trillion yuan in capital with the fund or some US$138 billion over 20 years from local governments and the private industry.

The fund will focus on cutting-edge areas including artificial intelligence, quantum technology, hydrogen energy, and energy storage. Tuesday was the last day of this year's two sessions, during which many social and economic issues were discussed. For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Professor Jiang Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.

So Professor Gong, developing new quality productive forces and speeding up the development of modernized industrial system, that was mentioned in terms of the major tasks for China in 2025. And China's top economic planner, the NDRC said it will set up a national venture capital guidance fund to strengthen the development of innovative companies. So how

How do you see the role of this new fund in supporting the development of new quality productive forces?

Well, it's a major development in my view. It looks to me, it's like a sovereign venture capital fund, which is something no government in the world has ever done before. Granted that the government's being involved in venture capital business is not entirely new here in China. As a matter of fact,

Many local governments across the country have set up funds similar to this, but not as large as this, investing in new startup companies. And some of the results have been turning out fairly surprisingly good.

And, you know, so I think the business model, the model that a government's investing in startup companies, the government being involved in venture capital business is viable in my view. You know, the experiences in China so far have been proven that this is indeed doable. Now, this time we're talking about the central government setting up a fund on the scale of a trillion yuan.

doing this, you know, this certainly exceeds in scale greatly of what the local governments have been doing for years. So I think it's an interesting development that the central government is indeed doing something like this to set up such a large fund and, you know, as I said, it's the first

venture in itself in the history of venture capital in the entire world that a central government has set up a sovereign venture capital fund to do this. So we'll have to see how this can be done and will this be as successful as some of the best local governments have done, have achieved in China in the venture capital space. But I think it's a

you know, it has its merits in a sense that the national government, the central government can pool resources. I mean, they surely will be investing in the most promising ventures in the future. And, you know, VC is, the VC business is not just about investing. I think it's also about investing

mobilizing sources to support the invested entities to make sure that these businesses can grow to make it easier to grow its business. Certainly the central government has many more resources to do that. So what sectors will be the primary focus of this VC guidance fund?

Well, I think it's going to be the usual suspects in the sunrise industries, the things that are emerging over the horizon. You can easily think of quantum computing, quantum communications, AI, robotics in the biotechnology area, and all these things.

new technologies emerging on the horizon. I think these areas will certainly be the focus of the investment from this new fund, this national fund. And you mentioned artificial intelligence, quantum computing, etc. So what do you make of the AI applications and ecosystem in China? And does China have enough talents for AI development?

Well, you asked two questions essentially. One about the ecosystem. Certainly China does have an ecosystem to support the development of technologies and examples of examples have shown this can be done very much due to the very large market here in China, very much a comprehensive

industrial base that stand to benefit, that stand to first use the latest AI developments. This is already being done, I think, across the country. Many businesses have already said, have already taken actions actually to apply the latest AI technologies. And I think the governments, many local governments have also committed that they're rapidly adapting their businesses, their

services functions, government functions towards the AI direction. So I think this is very unique about China system that once something

that the government advocates for application, things can happen very, very rapidly. Now your second question is about whether China has enough talents for that. Absolutely. I think we have very smart people here in China and our education system is very much attuned to a STEM education, STEM style type of education, meaning science, technology, engineering, mathematics.

which are critical for AI development. So, we've seen some quite impressive breakthroughs in AI space against the backdrop of very severe sanctions imposed by Washington in the chip area, semiconductor area. China can still

achieve some impressive breakthroughs in AI. So that means that we do have the talent. So I never doubt about China's talents, capabilities of devoting resources to

the latest technology. And with the rise of DeepSeek, China's tech innovation activities have drawn attention from both the domestic and international investors. So will this enthusiasm for Chinese assets continue over the long run? I think starting from the beginning of the year, the international narrative of China's future

about China's innovation capability is starting to change. I think now the international investors, of course, including domestic investors, they're starting to change the view about China's future prospect, not just in terms of economic growth, but also in terms of technological growth. All of a sudden, China is the place where a lot of innovations are taking place.

The myth about corporate China cannot innovate is totally debunked. I think this wave of new innovations is going to continue, the momentum is going to continue. So I think the enthusiasm for Chinese assets is going to last for quite some time. So at least I think in the short run, this is very sustainable. You're going to see resources pouring into this area.

The sovereign fund, VC fund, which I've been talking about,

It's one example that great things could happen. And China also continues to focus on consumption and expand the consumer trade-in programs for appliances and big ticket items. And 300 billion yuan of special treasury bonds will support this effort. So why do you think are China's policymakers emphasizing the trade-in program as a key way to spur the consumption rather than direct cash handouts?

Well, this is one of the measures to boost consumption. It is better than cash hand out because very simply, when people get cash, it's quite likely, well, at least a percentage of the people will just stack their cash, a percentage of their cash in the bank. They're not going to spend all of their money, I think. I mean, we have a very high saving rates here in China.

you know, trading programs make sure that the subsidies are indeed being spent on consumption, being spent on buying things.

Essentially, it's a rebate in my view. It's just a rebate. As a matter of fact, I think the trading money, the money to support a trading is indeed actually part of it is actually coming from the taxes collected on the consumption, essentially giving the taxes back to the consumers, just giving people a break in paying taxes on sales.

So, you know, in this way, make sure that people are indeed spending the money, buying things, and that's counted as consumption. So obviously, it's more effective than just giving people cash, which people may or may not spend in the end. And the government work report also said its deficit to GDP ratio at around 4% from the previous last year's 3%. So how do you see this deficit number?

I think a 1% increase is still reasonable and manageable. And this way, it also frees up the local governments to continue their normal business, to incur expenditures that they should incur.

And I think China's GDP has a fairly large portion of it attributed to government spending, and the local government spent about half of that pie. So it's important that the local governments continue their normal business, continue to incur expenditures that they should incur. So I think

even though the national data increases a little bit, but I think you look at the percentage of central government status, percentage of the GDP is still a very moderate number, around a little bit over 80%, which is not high at all compared to many other countries. So I think the overall national data is still manageable, and this year's 1% increase is also fairly manageable.

Professor Jiang Gong from the University of International Business and Economics talking to my colleague Zhao Yang. Coming up, in Syria, Kurdish-led SDF agrees to integrate with the government forces. Stay tuned. Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski Teixeira. I'm a professor of public policy management at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

I am a great listener of The 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 World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. A Kurdish-led militia alliance has agreed to a deal to integrate all military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state. The Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, will cease hostilities and hand over the border posts, airports, and some vital oil and gas fields under its control.

The deal has recognized the Kurdish minority as an integral part of the Syrian state, vowing to guarantee the rights for all Syrians to participation and representation in the political process. SDF's Commander Mazlom Abdi is calling the deal a real opportunity to build a new Syria.

And for your information, the SDF is currently in control over more than 46,000 square kilometers of territory in the country's northeast, where it defeated the Islamic State group back in the year 2019 with the help of an American-led coalition. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Wang Jing, a Middle East expert with Northwest University in Xi'an, China. Thank you very much for joining us.

It's my pleasure. So to Syria's interim president, Ahmed El-Sharon,

How big of a step forward does this agreement represent if we talk about, say, uniting a very divided, a very fractured country after al-Shara's Sunni-dominant Islamic group led this rebel offensive to overthrow Bashar al-Assad late last year?

I think this represents a very major process because we know that the hostilities between the Syrian Defense Forces, the so-called SDF for short, and the Syrian Central Interim Government led by President Ahmed al-Shahar has already lasted quite a long time, not just after the last December.

when the interim government started to organize, but actually it could be traced back to nearly a decade ago when the Syrian turmoil just started. So it could be understood as a very major reconciliation between the two sides. And also could be understood as a very major step

for the Syrian political reconstruction process. So that is why it is very meaningful and very crucial, not only for the Syrian different factions to end their hostility right now, but it's also, I think it will be very meaningful in the future for Syrian different factions to start a new political process and to organize a new political authority inside the country. So that is why it's very crucial and it's a very major step forward in the history of Syrian

government as well, the Syrian people. The SDF actually has tens of thousands of well-armed, well-trained fighters. That's an open fact. And during the 13-year-long civil war in Syria, it was actually aligned with neither the Assad government nor the opposition, right? So now if

All these military forces that previously belonged to the SDF can be integrated into the Syrian state. To what extent well does arrangement strengthen the military power of the government?

I think it's very difficult to say because on the one hand, this means that it's a kind of decrease of the uncertainties we're talking about, as you mentioned, because the other military forces and the different military factions, they will be integrated into the newly established and newly

organized military authority. So it is a good thing. Then it might decrease the uncertainties, it might decrease the hostilities between military factions. But on the other hand, it's just a kind of a starting point. And we don't know how much

the willingness of the Syrian interim government as well as the Syrian interim government-led military authority will do to kind of impose a new authority to the different factions, particularly the local

military factions, including the SDF. And also, we don't know how much a kind of agreement could be reached in the future. For example, in the regard of the arrangement of the military personnels, in the arrangement of the retired military personnels, and in the arrangement of

the weaponry materials and the controlling area. So it's difficult to say how this step would mean the major success of the kind of the military reconstruction. But it's a good thing because we're talking about new beginning and a new starting point. And I think it would finally benefit everybody if this process goes well in the future. Hmm.

So do you think the process to cease hostility and the process for integration will be moving on in a smooth manner? As we know, the SDF was previously actually in conflict with some Turkish-backed former Syrian rebel factions that are aligned to the current government.

And to what extent do you think this particular deal we are talking about today will manage to de-escalate the SDF's conflict with neighboring Turkey? Because as we know, the YPG, namely the biggest faction in the SDF, it is actually viewed by Ankara as a terrorist organization.

I think it's a good thing because we know that Turkey enjoyed a very, very particularly close relation with Syrian interim government led by Al-Shahar as well as led by the HTS. And also it means that the decrease of the turmoil and uncertainties in the northern Syria, which means it also could ease the tension between the border

of the border between Syria as well and Turkey. So I think it's a good thing. But it's also hard to say because it's just at the beginning point. It just represents the willingness of the SDF to cooperate closely with Shah

And we don't know this kind of agreement would be turned into the 100% of success of the close cooperation. And we don't know whether or not it would be turned into the 100% of the successful integration of different factions and different

military branches in the future between Syrian government as well as the Syrian SDF and the local Kurds forces. So I think we should also wait and see, but it's good thing. It's a positive step that would do influence the future direction of the Syrian political and military reconstruction. And we also were positively influenced by that to retire speaking, Turkey and Syria.

So about 10,000 ISIS fighters are currently detained in those SDF-run prisons, let's put it this way. And some 46,000 other people who are in one way or another linked to ISIS are also held in several other camps.

If all these people we are talking about here are to be transferred from those SDF-run facilities to the Syrian state, what do you think are some of the risks, potential risks that deserve particular care or attention?

I think we are facing a very major kind of attention or a major kind of turning point because when we are talking about the new cooperation on the new integration, it's also, as you mentioned, we cannot overlook the possible uncertainties that would rise in the regard of the military factions with the close ties to the SIS.

And also there were some kind of potentials in the future that the ISS were coming back. And also there might be the comeback of the Islamic terrorists and extremists. But as we repeatedly mentioned, it's a good thing because we don't know

We all know that the extremism and terrorism, they all come out of the areas of crisis, of hostilities and the fall of wars. When the wars come to an end, when the hostilities start to decrease, it also squeezes

the area for extremism and terrorism. So it might be a very positive starting point. But as we mentioned, we should wait and see what happens next. We hope that it will go well, but there will be a lot of challenges and uncertainties, of course.

I think they are now.

actually they are now has a very, face a kind of a very crucial choice right now because the Kurdish people, as you mentioned, they account for kind of 10% of the Syrian population. And also they have very close ties with the Turkey, the Turkey, and also they have the very close ties with the Kurds inside Iraq, although they have different ideologies and they have different political belongings.

but actually their relations are very particular. So that is why I think it's a kind of choice and also important opportunity for Kurds to find new ways to manage their ties with Syrian and other different ethnic groups

groups, particularly with the Syrian Arabs and other interim governments and other military and political factions. So actually, this is a kind of the new beginning point and the turning point inside the Syria history. And we hope that the Syrian Kurds will

will face new opportunities for their own life and for their own safety without the harassment and without the threats of war, without the threat of hostilities from other factions. So that is why I think it not only will benefit

uh the the curse people but also it will benefit the turkish people and also will hurt the benefit the the arab people in in both inside syria and outside the syria so i think it's a very important opportunity and we should wait and see what will happen next

Thank you very much for joining us today. That was Dr. Wang Jing, a Middle East expert with Northwestern University in Xi'an, China. We have just discussed this very latest development whereby the Kurdish-led militia alliance has agreed to a deal to integrate our military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.

So, more to come. Citigroup has cut recommendations for American equities and lifts views on China. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is to support Mauritius' sovereignty over Chaco Archipelago during a visit to the country. We'll be back after a short break.

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

You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing. City analysts have upgraded their recommendations for China equities to overweight from neutral. The report was issued on Monday. City economists have revised their forecast for Chinese GDP growth to 4.7% this year from a previous forecast of 4.5%.

Citi Strategist notes that Chinese equities look attractive even after their recent rally, citing DeepSeek's artificial intelligence technology breakthrough, the government's support for the tax sector, etc. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Liu Zhiqing, Senior Fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. Thank you very much for joining us.

So, technically speaking, first of all, can you help us explain what does an upgrade from neutral to overweight mean here?

You know, in the equity market, there are some criteria to identify the different quality of equities. If the situation in China or in other countries has been estimated as overweight, that means it becomes more positive. That encourages the investor to have more

investment in this country or in this country's stock market or in the equity market. So neutral is something like a middle point that could be better, could be worse. So you have to make your own judgment according to your assessment or according to the developing situation you are willing to invest in the touch of the countries.

So I think China's equity performance is quite well and positive. That's why I think

this is over-weighted by some international investment. That is quite the right decision or the right suggestion. So based on what you have explained, what you have elaborated just now, realistically speaking, are we going to see more and increased investment into China equities, especially China's tech sector?

I think that the future for China's tech industry, technical industry or smart industry, I think is very positive and optimistic. Now, especially in recent months, I think some big movement and changing situation in China has made the Western countries, especially the scientific field in the Western countries under pressure.

So I have to say that like a deep seek, make some deep chicken in the Western scientific fields. So in this way that I think there's a China's equity market, especially technical

companies that are growing up and becoming more mature and also becoming more optimistic in the more innovation because the innovation forces of this young generation in China is

is becoming very attractive for many investors. So this is the main reason that I believe in the time to come that more and more foreign investors will invest in China's tech companies. So by the way, Dr. Liu, how would you look at this very

There's been a lot of assessment by city economists or strategists saying that despite their recent rally, Chinese equities remain cheap in terms of their valuation. What do you think this would entail?

You know, in the past time, many Western investors look at China in a different angle. The value of China's scientific market, especially the value of equity, has been

lower estimated. That's why we see that many investors are trying to change their strategy to China because the value of the equity has been lower than it should be. Because China's equity in the tech companies are quite well formed, but the still values cannot come up. That's why our A share or the stock market

they have always turbulences in the past time. This is the main reason that because the pricing system or mechanism in China is always that influenced by some special factors from outside. Nowadays, I think when the China's

technical companies that have increased and shown their wonderful performance that changed the outlook of this market in China. That's why I think there are many foreign investors, especially those

the heavy giant the company like a city like other the world famous companies that are trying to have a exchange their new outlook on china's future i take a point so you have already mentioned about this point briefly more on that what do you think city strategists recommendation

Tell us about the importance of bolstering innovation in China to Chinese equities' future attractiveness or competitiveness. You know, the decisive factor to make a judgment of the equities' quality always remains on the attractiveness and also the quality of innovation.

Because without innovation, I think the equity value cannot be really well overrated or overestimated. This is a big point. So that's why the investments, the investors also need courage.

or need boosting forces to believe that what they are going to invest, they really have a right and a good future. So that's why they made the decision that China's future, especially in the innovation and its attractiveness

are very unique because of two reasons. One is that the Chinese young generation now grew up with unique innovation. This is what we can see in the past two months that make the whole world shocked because of China's innovation. Forces showing that the new quality productive force has been really put in the enforcement in the reality.

The second attractiveness means also systematically from overall policy of the state and from the enterprises are well stable and also long-sighted viewpoint. This is a big challenge for all other countries because many some other countries have only a very short sighted view that to make the policy support but China always has a long

For example, we have five year plan. We have even 10 year plan to make all this industry to further development. This is a good confidence for all investors. The power of planning. I definitely take your point.

So while the Citigroup has upgraded its recommendation on Chinese equities, in this same report issued on Monday, it has actually downgraded its views regarding American equities. Some people say this is a sign of the growing divergence in the outlook towards the world's top two markets.

Whether that's really the case, let's wait and see. But thank you very much for joining us. Professor Liu Zhiqing, Senior Fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back.

You're listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is on a two-day official visit to Mauritius for talks regarding upgrading strategic ties. His trip comes days after U.S. President Donald Trump signaled support for a deal between Mauritius and Britain over the future of a U.S.-British military base.

Mauritius became independent in the late 1960s, but London retained control of the Tragoes Archipelago. The archipelago comprises more than 60 islands in the Indian Ocean. The largest island has been used as a joint British-US military base since the 1970s.

India has historically backed Mauritius' claim over these islands, but more recently supported America's presence in the Indian Ocean. Britain is currently seeking to finalize a deal on handling sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Hana Hussain, co-founder of Initiate Futures, an international affairs think tank.

So thank you very much for joining us today, Hanan. Of course, I mean, India has close political and security ties to Mauritius.

And one thing interesting to note here is that this time, Prime Minister Modi is being received in Mauritius as the chief guest on this country's National Day, which is an anniversary of its historical independence from Britain. Indian officials who have organized Modi's trip this time say the settling of the Chagos sovereignty issue is welcoming news for New Delhi.

So what do you make of this message from India?

Thanks, Zain. So I think it's a bit more complicated than what New Delhi has sought to project. I think there are a lot of reservations, for example, on how the sovereignty issue is going to be handled out. Because when you look at the motivations from London, that's less about prioritizing Mauritius' independence and sovereignty and sense of autonomy. It's more focused on advancing

and protecting the US-UK military base, which is based on one of the largest islands within this chain. So as London pursues that objective and India puts its weight behind US-UK military interests,

it brings this broader argument into perspective that maybe Mauritius' sovereignty and independence, something which India may signal its support for, is not something which India supports on ground. And that defense relations as well as threat perceptions from the UK and the US

is more of the predominant theme in India's backing as we speak. So on the part of the Indian government, do you think there is a mentality that somehow views the Indian Ocean as its own sphere of influence?

And some people say it is in the interests of India to retain the U.S. presence and the British presence for that matter on the Chagos archipelago. What is your take on this?

I think it will be in India's interest to maintain that presence if it comes without additional baggage or controversy. I think from where things stand, India has made little surprise out of its efforts to use Mauritius to expand what it sees as

deepening influence in the Indian Ocean. We have seen, for example, key proof points such as India's ability to develop sea and air links to the distant Agalaga Islands within Mauritius,

So that kind of gives strength to many who believe that this could advance, for example, India's surveillance objectives within the Indian Ocean and elsewise. But I think it boils down to what Mauritius ultimately thinks. And it was quite a telling statement from the prime minister's office to say that, look,

We know that U.S. and other interests are focused more on threat perceptions as opposed to all else. And I think as long as that reservation becomes outstanding, no matter how much India tries to expand its influence, it faces limits. So, by the way, what could be the Mauritius perspective on this whole issue?

I think Mauritius' perspective would first of all be to include voices that were historically let out by the deal and of course the historical transfer of this

I think when we look at finalizing a deal, you know, the Tegucigalpa Voices, which is a group of those living in exile with regard to these islands, their voices and their interests, there's a lot of space for them to be accommodated. And I think the current approach being adopted is not something with factors indigenous voices. I'll tell you why that's important, because this should be seen as a holdover from colonial times. We have had the, you know,

an advisory opinion also coming in 2019 from ICJ, which said that the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed. And then Mauritius also had these outstanding reservations that it was, you know, illegally forced to give up the islands in return for its own independence. So

When the process of independence, something which is an empowering factor for Mauritius, has been left incomplete historically, I think in order for this deal to come off as fulfilling for Mauritius, it has to factor indigenous voices, which were also expelled and kept to the sidelines. You cannot negotiate something in the interests of the people by leaving the people on the sidelines. So I think unless there's an effort to kind of expand the ambit of this deal and bring in those voices and get their endorsements,

we would still see this something that is a bit underwhelming as opposed to, you know, something that's fulfilling. Yeah. When you were mentioning about those voices from the indigenous group, I guess you are talking about those original inhabitants of those archipelago or those

Islands who were, they were in a forcible manner expelled from their homeland to make way for the construction of this UK-US military base in the 1960s and 70s. I guess that was the point you were making, right?

Yeah, that was a point that I was making. And I think forcible expulsion by definition is something that has been decided against the will of the people. So if the defense right now is to present this deal in the interest of the people, we need to hear from the people first.

That's what logic would dictate. And I think beyond that, there are a lot of options for Mauritius to do that. For example, you know, if adequate opportunities and time are afforded to the people, that could lead to efforts to activate the diaspora and get their views intact. Because look,

Ultimately, this concerns sovereignty being ceded to Mauritius. And Mauritius' sense of sovereignty is in some ways kind of downplayed by memories of British colonialism and the holdovers and the unresolved issues since then. So if the idea is to truly back

you know, Mauritius's sovereignty. We need to hear from the people who believe that they are being critical of these voices, but that the criticism is still falling on deaf ears. So in other words, if we are to raise a question like this, whether such a deal finalized between the UK and Mauritius is a good thing in general, I guess that will be a question that will prove to be too simplistic or one-sided.

Yeah, because right now as we speak, there's still some details to be hammered out. We do not have the exact specifics on what this deal would actually look like. It's a plan as far as we say, and that a consensus, a formal consensus is to come. So I think, yes, the deal from where it stands is focused more on security interests, and that is leading to what seems as a trade-off on sovereignty being brought back to Mauritius.

But if it is to be presented as a security deal, I think it should be decided as one. But if it's something that concerns sovereignty of Mauritius, then I think the autonomy of the people is a question that has to be handled and addressed adequately. So the final question before we let you go briefly, what do you think this whole Chagos sovereign issue tells us about how...

historical colonialism or imperialism could complicate today's international politics or international affairs? I think it says a lot. It says, first of all, if you look at the timing of the issue, there may have been many opportunities in the past to settle this issue in the interest of the people.

It's difficult to buy into the argument that the voices that feel sidelined today did not harbor those sentiments going back years or decades. So why now and what are the interests that are driving it? That's, I think, one thing. And I think colonialism on another end is something that has reflected historical injustices. You even look to many parts of Africa.

and that a sense of ownership that was lost on the people because of the excesses of certain empires. So with that kind of sensitivity in the background, I think current arrangements complicate and oversimplify it by focusing on largely linear defense, security, interests,

but then using sovereignty to advance it. When sovereignty needs to be valued for what it was, and when countries have sought independence from colonial rule, the goal is that nations that were colonial powers and now detest it need to come through on their own understanding by ensuring that these countries do not fall.

face any other obstacles of sovereignty. So yes, it does complicate it. Security and political interests tend to simplify the injustices and reservations that these countries face. Thank you very much for joining us. Hanan Hussain, co-founder of Initiate Futures, an international affairs think tank. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back.

A new report is suggesting that the war in Ukraine has helped to grow U.S. dominance of the global arms industry. Data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that American arms exports increased by more than a fifth between 2020 and 2024 compared with the previous five-year window, reaching 43% of the worldwide total.

Over the past two decades, the US has averaged somewhere around 35% of global arms exports. At 43%, the US share is actually more than four times as much as the next biggest exporter, namely the French.

The US delivered weapons to a total of 107 countries between 2020 and 2024. Ukraine has been the biggest recipient of heavy weapons in this period, having increased its imports almost a hundredfold. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Kamal Makili-Aliyev from the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden. Thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you for having me. So, first of all, do you feel any surprise about this finding? Yes. Actually, that increase in the amount of global exports of arms by the United States is quite striking. Traditionally, the United States averages only for around 35%, and that is the data over the past two decades. And such a significant jump to 43% suggests that

the conflict in Ukraine has not only accelerated defense spending worldwide, but it also markedly boosted precisely American market dominance.

This is equally notable in Ukraine's role as the largest heavy weapons recipient, but with its imports increasing nearly hundredfold from what it was previously. And this underlines for me how the war has reshaped the global arms laws and the market priorities with quite clear concentration in Eastern Europe and Middle East.

So do you think it is fair to say that those American weapon producers have benefited from this war? Yes, absolutely. It's very fair to say that the United States weapons manufacturers, they have reaped significant benefits from the conflict in Ukraine, with the U.S. arms export growing by 21% between the previous five-year period, you know, 2020 to 2024. The American firms now

supply weapons to what around more than 100 countries. I think the number is 107 countries, actually. And this growth not only reinforces the strategic economic gains of these companies, but it also reflects broader influence of the United States military-industrial complex in shaping foreign policy. That means that the foreign policy of the Doves is being gradually overtaken by the foreign policy of the Hawks in the United States. Well, in practical terms, that is also...

shows that this complex comprising defense contractors, you know, this bulk of defense contractors, think tanks and government agencies, they have long been credited with steering United States foreign policy towards outcomes that reinforce

American geopolitical and economic interests. But then the expanded arms sales, especially into the volatile regions, serve as both a revenue booster for the companies and the tool to project this kind of American global influence. So actually, when we talk about, say, U.S. President Donald Trump's

um uh say how to say uh tendency um to uh to withdraw or to withhold support for ukraine

We see a very heavy element in terms of his America first policy. So do you think this idea or this new finding that the war in Ukraine has actually helped to grow American dominance of the global arms industry? Do you think this is going to alter U.S. President Donald Trump's thinking on whether or not to withdraw military support for Ukraine?

You know, this is a very interesting question. And why is it so interesting? It's because, well, the President Trump's stance on military support of Ukraine, it actually has always been framed as very much transactional terms, right? Demanding economic or strategic returns for such assistance. Yeah. And from one side,

Yes, Trump is not in favor of continued military support because he thinks that it's too much spending, that it's unnecessary to spend this and it doesn't strategically move United States interest forward. But on the other hand, this kind of data also shows that United States actually reaping a lot of benefit when it comes to especially military influence globally.

Will that data change the very firm stance that Trump has had before? It's very hard to say because on one side there is this reluctance to continue with military aid and Trump is doing his best to actually come to the point when that is significantly reduced or even nothing.

But on the other hand, this transactionality in his policy also favors the data that has been presented right now, but it actually helped growing. So my answer is I don't really know. And it's very difficult to predict. Yeah.

The biggest element of Trumpism is unpredictability, to be fair. So the final question before we let you go, from a European perspective, will this reality that the United States is increasing its dominance in the global arms industry incentivize European countries to somehow to do more for their own defense industries?

Well, to be quite frank, from a European perspective, the reality of growing U.S. domination in global arms exports, it could serve as a wake-up call.

Because European NATO members, they now import over 60% of their weapons from the United States, and this is up from 52% in early periods that the Stockholm Institute have looked at. They might view this dependence as a strategic vulnerability, and probably they should view it as a strategic vulnerability. So such reliance can limit their autonomy in defense planning and the diplomatic negotiations even.

So in response, I think European policymakers may be incentivized to invest more in developing domestic defense industries or strengthening pan-European cooperation. The efforts that they hinted at by initiatives like the EU's new defense funding proposals, for example, or building a more self-reliant defense industrial base that would

Thank you very much for joining us. Dr. Kamal Makili-Aliyev from Raoul Wallenberg Institute for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden.

Unfortunately, that's all the time for this edition of World Today. A quick recap of today's headline news. In Syria, Kurdish-led SDF agrees to integrate with government forces. Citigroup has raised the recommendation for China equities. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.

so