Wang Yi’s Europe tour, Belgium reaffirms push for greater European autonomy
53:03 Share

Belgian backs push for a greater European autonomy in talks with China's top diplomat. Hong Kong is on track to regain the position as the world's leading IPO fundraising hub in 2025. And a US Senate narrowly passes one big beautiful bill in a dramatic 51-50 vote.

Welcome to World Today, a news program with a different perspective. I'm Ge'Anna in Beijing. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.

We start with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's week-long trip to Europe. China and Belgium have reaffirmed their commitment to enhancing exchanges and upholding multilateralism. During his meeting with Belgian Prime Minister Bardet Weaver, Wang Yi said Beijing appreciates the rational and pragmatic approach the new Belgian government takes toward China.

He added that China is willing to work with Belgium to advance the all-round partnership of friendly cooperation. The Belgian prime minister reaffirmed his country's commitment to multilateralism and support for a greater autonomous Europe.

Li Jianhua has more from the Belgian capital. We met Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever and had an hour-long closed-door meeting in the residence of the Belgian Prime Minister. And right after that, we got the readout. And this is what we have learned so far.

Wang Yi highlights Belgium's unique position in the process of European integration and advancing China-EU relations. In the meantime, he expressed appreciation for what he called the rational and pragmatic approach

adopted by the new government towards China. He also hoped that more Belgian companies would invest in China. In the meantime, he called for joint effort to support multilateralism and act as a nanker in this uncertain world.

and the response part of a first says there should be more communication and mutual understanding between China and the European Union in phase of the set growing dual political uncertainty also reaffirmed Belgium's commitment to much intellectualism and support for

Europe's strategic independence. Basically, this is what they talked about. De Wever is not new to China. He visited the country a couple of times, but not as the prime minister of the country, but as the mayor of Antwerp, a rather wealthy region of Brussels. And he used to be quite

business-driven and business-focused but ever since he became the prime minister of the country not too many months ago he has been adopting rather balanced approach towards China while in the meantime calling for measures to protect the security interests of this country of course in the coming days and Wang Yi's expected to meet the deputy

Prime Minister of the country who is also the foreign minister of Belgium and after that he will also meet the president of European Council Antonio Costa before co-chairing the 13th round of China-EU high-level strategic dialogue with the Kayakalis who is the EU's foreign policy chief. And after his stop here in Brussels he expects to fly to Germany and to France, the two top economies in the European Union.

That was Li Jianhua reporting. So for more on this and also on China-EU relations, let's bring in Mr. Chen Weihua from Brussels. He's the chief of China Daily EU Bureau. Great to have you, Mr. Chen.

Thank you for having me, Anna. Mr. Chen, this is Wang's second visit to Europe and his first to the EU headquarters in France this year. He also marked the first visit to Germany since the formation of his new government. So how do you interpret the timing and priorities behind this European tour?

Well, I think both. I mean, the timing and the priority are very important. The 50th anniversary of the diplomatic relations of China-EU relations, the choices of the three countries, Germany, France, I mean, traditionally have been playing the major, major role in the European Union.

Of course, here in Brussels, I mean, Belgium, we talk about being the capital of European Union. You mentioned that Germany has a new government just a little more than a month ago, you know, led by Chancellor Frederik Mertz.

and Belgium's new government, which just took office in February. So, I mean, it's, you know, your report has said very well, I mean, the Belgian prime minister is not new to China. I actually, you know, met him where he attended the Chinese New Year sort of celebration in Antwerp.

But anyway, I want to say, I mean, that the timing couldn't be more important because we know the new U.S. administration really is challenging the global system, multilateralism, trade war, withdrawing from international treaties and organized

So in that aspect, China and the EU actually share a lot of common interests and common understanding. So we need to cooperate better to defend those multilateral international systems.

If you look at the China-EU cooperation, it's been very fruitful in the past decades, but we are facing some challenges. I mean, it's different from previous, because China has moved up in the supply chain, so it's become more sort of a peer competitor, at least in the eyes of Europeans. So, of course, the conflicts are important to discuss between Russia, Ukraine, and in the Middle East.

So China, EU have a lot of common interests too. So a lot of other issues, I mean, climate change, I mean, we could... And China, EU are basically the major player in international stage. A lot to be expected.

Belgium Prime Minister said that while China and the EU may see the road through different lenses, both sides should deepen exchanges and build trust amid today's complex geopolitical landscape. He also reiterated Belgium's support for multilateralism and a more autonomous Europe. What do you make of this message and what signals does it send about China-EU relations today?

Yeah, Prime Minister De Weaver, I think, is quite pragmatic. He has been the mayor of Antwerp for more than 10 years, like 12 years or so. I mean, he knows China very well. Antwerp, obviously, is the major hub of trade with China. If you talk about diamonds, I mean, China imports from Belgium or from China.

Antwerp, I mean, Antwerp is the major port city. I mean, the Bruges-Antwerp port is the major European port too. So I think Prime Minister De Weaver is not very, in the sense, a political correct. I mean, he wants more autonomy for Belgium, even from the European Union. I mean, he wants the European Union to be more

from the US. That doesn't mean they are going to get rid of the US, obviously. So I think from China's perspective, we always advocated for European Union to have more strategic autonomy. They have talked about it all the time,

over the years, but it's hard for them to have the courage to take measures, adopt it, especially when Washington ramp up the pressures on them. So I think this is a critical time, as I mentioned, multilateralism, everything is under threat, and Europeans are kind of waking up, I think. So yeah, it's Prime Minister de Vries who is going to play a role.

Mr. Chen, we know China and Belgium share a long-standing history of engagement with active people-to-people exchanges and growing economic ties. Many view Belgium as a gateway for broader China-EU cooperation. How would you assess the strategic role of China-Belgian relations within the overall China-EU dynamic?

Yeah, I think you mentioned very well the people-to-people exchange. President Xi visited Belgium in 2014. Since then, we have Panda. It's a big star in Belgium. The Zeus Chinese business. Actually, I'm going to today later meet some Chinese business leaders in Belgium too. I mean, Chinese business leaders.

big here. I mean, we have a bilateral trade between China and Belgium approaching like 40 billion US dollars. I mean, more exactly like 39. So China is the EU's third largest partner outside the European Union. I mean, whether you talk about the current prime minister or the former one, Alexander Deku, I think they're quite good in some of the more

or hostilely, easily hijacked by Washington, I would say. And EU institutions are basically headquartered in Brussels. It's also the headquarter of NATO. I mean, it's been warmongering about China. So I think Belgium, Brussels can obviously play a very important role. I mean, at least, I mean, from the point of being a place for communications, exchange, and because that

is so vital for understanding for relations between China Belt and between China and the EU. Mr. Chen, despite positive signals from European leaders, tensions remain, right? Because just days ago, the European Commission moved

to restrict Chinese firms from bidding on public procurement contracts for medical devices. And ongoing discussions over Chinese EVs and French brandy imports also linger. So how do you view these frictions today? And do you think both sides are prepared to manage their differences constructively in the near future?

Well, frictions are normal and you have a bigger relation. We are going to have more frictions. Europeans have lots of frictions with the United States, even they call each other allies. I think there was different friction now, as I mentioned earlier, that China...

is no longer a low-end supplier manufacturer. China moved up. So, that's changing the dynamic, the mindset in Europe. So, they adopted more protectionist measures against the Chinese products, exports, industries, you know, and that is the new trend. I mean, obviously, the good thing we see is that the bilateral negotiation regarding the Chinese EV is actually making progress.

on possible deal about minimum price mechanism. So no longer resorting, for example, to a tit for tat. Because tit for tat is a lose-lose game and we should not engage. And if we can solve our differences, frictions, and at least temper them through negotiation, consultation deal, that will be a win-win, I mean, for both.

Indeed. Mr. Chen, I came across an article from the South China Morning Post. It says security concerns are playing an increasingly prominent role in China-EU relations. At the EU foreign ministers' meeting weeks ago, some officials urged member states to adopt a pragmatic approach toward China on the matter. How should we understand this call and how might China respond?

Well, EU is not the United States of Europe. It's 27 members. So definitely, I mean, there are different voices. We have noticed some want to close our relations with China, unlike in the previous year, which we had a set backing bilateral relationship. I would say, in my personal view, the current foreign policy chief,

Carlos is not one of those, I believe. I mean, he is more on the hawkish side. But after what I said, the power example set by Washington in dismantling the international system, I think a lot of Europeans are waking up to realize China actually is not that kind of a threat, but

portrayed by some of their politicians. Obviously, I think we have a lot of communications to do and because the Russian-Ukraine conflict obviously has caused a lot of misunderstanding, misperception about China among the average Europeans.

And we need to do a better job to communicate that, you know, because we are neutral. We want peace. I mean, we support European integration. And I think, for example, the Chinese visa-free policy for many European countries is a great move because the more people come to visit China,

and the more they understand the real China. Because I ask people why they see us as a threat, because we have not even waged a war for decades. So I think the misunderstanding, ignorance is huge. That's the big challenge. But yeah, we have to work hard on it. Indeed. Thanks, Mr. Chen. Appreciate your take on this. That was Mr. Chen Weihua, Chief of China Daily, You Bureau. This is Road Today. Stay with us.

The Hong Kong IPO market registered a strong performance in the first half of this year. A report released by Deloitte shows the exchange welcomed 40 new listings during the first six months.

That was a 33% increase in IPOs and a more than 670% surge in fundraising compared to the same period last year. The outstanding performance propelled the Hong Kong exchanges and clearing to surpass Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange at the world's leading IPO destination by capital raised during the period.

Technology, consumer goods and financial services emerged as the primary sector driving this IPO momentum. Meanwhile, the market witnessed a particular strong activity from Chinese mainland firms. So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Chen Jiahe, Chief Investment Officer at Nomenark Technologies.

So, Jia He, what are the key factors driving the surge in IPO activity and investor interest in the Hong Kong stock market? Basically, these two things follow each other. I mean, you have a hot market, you can have more IPO in the market, and you have a lot of IPO that brings more investors into the market. So these things actually come together. And behind this is the hotness of the

Hong Kong stock market. Basically, this comes from the very solid economic growth of China's economy. I mean, if you look at the world today, there are war and there is a tariff and a political chaos in the United States. But if you come over to China, you don't have anything

are expected here. I mean, the economy is stable, it's growing at 5% per year. The government policy is stable. We don't set crazy tariffs to our trading partners. We don't start wars to any other country. So everything is pretty stable and growing over here. I mean, China is the world's second largest economy up.

And another reason is that Hong Kong stock market has got a pretty low valuation right before this rally. The PE ratio, I remember the Hansen index was trading at about seven times PE ratio before this rally.

after a rally of over 50% in less than two years' time, if you look at the valuation of Hansa Index, still around 10 times P ratio. So it's pretty cheap compared with most of the other stock indices in the world. I mean, if you look at SP5,

or NASDAQ index, they're trading at 20, 30 or even close to 40 times P/E ratio. So basically speaking, it's a low valuation plus a very good economy. So why not a bull market? I don't think the bull market will end here. And with the rising presence of biotech and other new economy firms, along with the regulatory fast-tracking initiatives, how is Hong Kong positioned itself to strengthen its long-term competitiveness as a hub for global component listings?

Well, if you look at Hong Kong's economy, basically speaking, they are sitting between the large economy of the whole China and the rest of the world. Hong Kong is a hub here. I mean, on one side, it's a Chinese city.

So it's actually backed by all the economic resources of China. I mean, it got support from many other cities. There are hundreds of large cities in China, each populated by over a million people. So Hong Kong is backed by the...

whole of the China's economy. And also, if you look at Hong Kong, its strength is very unique. It's among all the cities in China. It's actually the most English-speaking city. I mean, it's got a lot of cadences.

speaking English in Hong Kong. And you have all the legal system in Hong Kong written in English, which is very unique and very convenient for multinational companies and global capital. They don't have to check the Chinese version of the law. They can just read the English law. And if you look at the stock exchange of Hong Kong, it's also very special with the English capacity is that they got all the

the public files of listed companies written in English, which is not available if you go to Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. That's not a compulsory, although some listed companies also publish their annual reports in English version. I have saw some of them in Shanghai and Shenzhen, but it's not a compulsory issue. So many companies just give you the Chinese version.

So that means Hong Kong is the gate between China and the world. It's a very good gate. So it's really convenient for global companies to work in Hong Kong. So this is the very special feature of Hong Kong. And that's why it attracts so much capital to invest in the leading companies of China, for example, the bio companies, the tech companies, etc.

And we found that technology, consumer goods and financial services emerged as the primary sectors driving this IPO momentum in the first half of this year. So why are these sectors?

Yeah, if you look at the IPO, it's always talking about the latest technologies and the latest sector. That is to say, the hottest sector in the economy is easier to grab the capital from the IPO. So that's why you see...

this sector has been able to get a lot of funds from the latest IPO activity in Hong Kong market, basically because they are the growing sectors of the Chinese economy. I mean, there are also a large amount of traditional sectors, but

You don't have a lot of companies from these sectors to attract global capital, basically because you're traditional. You don't have the imagination in the IPO market. So yes, I mean, IPO market is fulfilled with these companies, which represents the current growth sectors of China.

And the market witnessed particularly strong activity from Chinese mainland firms. One example is the world's largest EV battery maker, CATL. So tell us more about that. Why did they opt for a secondary listing in Hong Kong?

Well, that's a very good question. I mean, people ask why you need a second listing once you have already got a very good listing in Asia. So this is attributed to the special nature of Hong Kong market is that it's really connecting to the rest of the world, much more convenient compared with the stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen. So they got high efficiency for, you know,

reallocating capital. They got high efficiency for raising capital from global companies and the flowing of currency is easier if you are listing in Hong Kong stock exchange. For example, you sell your shares to global investors and you get the Hong Kong dollar and it's easier for you to transfer this money all around the world, especially when you get global

uh businesses and if you look at um the business is that if if you got a lot of global presence with your business like the battery company they keep on exporting a lot of their products to the uh to the other economies around the world then in that case by listing in hong kong and publishing all their documents with english to the world is also a very good thing for expanding their global business activities so so you know hong kong is

really attractive market. That explains why many Chinese companies, although already got listed in Asia, they want to get a second listing in Hong Kong. And Hong Kong aims to become the world's top cross-border asset management hub within two or three years. So what strategic advantages and market conditions could help to achieve that goal?

Well, if you look at the asset management business, it's really growing in China. I mean, and that's why Hong Kong as a gate between China and the world is a very important city for building up this asset management business. If you look at China's asset management business, it's a very young industry compared with its peers in China.

in the mature economies. If you look at the ages of

The fund managers, for example, you can see that many of the fund managers are between their 30s or 40s or maybe 50s. But it's very rare for you to see people above the age of 50, although there are some, but it's very rare. But if you go to Wall Street or London City and you talk to the mutual fund managers, you see that most of them are above their age of 60.

So this shows you that it's really a growing economy in China. So this market is growing. People have more and more money. They started to seek fund managers that they can trust. So Hong Kong is a pretty good city for foreign capital and especially foreign talents and foreign funds to invest.

to get into this market of China that they can engage into this fast-growing industry of China. That was Chen Jiahe, Novantark Technologies. This is Rave Today. We'll be back.

You've been listening to Road Today with Mika Anna in Beijing. The U.S. Senate has narrowly passed President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, which is expected to add around $3.3 trillion of deficit through 2034.

The Republican-controlled Senate passed the One Big Beautiful Bill by 51 to 50 after a marathon voting process that started Monday morning. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance broke a 50-50 tie by casting a vote. The legislation now has to the House of Representatives for final approval.

For more, Zhao Ying spoke with Andy Mock, a tech analyst and a senior researcher fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. So first of all, what do you believe are the core objectives of Trump's big, beautiful bill? And how does it reflect his priorities in the second term? You know, this actually, I think, is one of the most important legislative objectives for Trump in his second administration.

you know first of all it addresses a number of his most important campaign promises one to extend and make permanent the tax cuts in his first administration second to address what he and his administration sees as national security threats so primarily border security is a very important one as well as

what they're calling peace through strength, increasing the defense budget, as well as energy security. Again, from their perspective, of course, we know, as I'm sure we'll talk about, this has been an enormously polarizing piece of legislation, not only across the typical Republican-Democratic card,

party divide, but even within the Republican Party as well, because many believe, based on their own analysis, that it will significantly increase the budget deficit and increase the U.S. government debt, perhaps to unsustainable levels. The bill allocates $350 billion U.S. dollars for border security, and that includes $350

$46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and funds for mass deportation efforts. How justified is this level of spending and what ethical or legal concerns might it raise?

well and again you know i think this is what makes it such a polarizing issue um you know from the trump administration and perhaps a large contingent of the republican party this is absolutely essential that you cannot have a country you cannot exercise sovereignty without the ability to control your borders now of course the important question comes in in how this is

implemented on but before I I I address that um there are some democrats who actually a profoundly disagree with this notion and would seem to believe that's um you that the US border should be porous certainly go by some of their statements and again it's important to stay here that not every democrat believes this but certainly enough of them that this is a very polarizing issue in the United States

Then of course the question comes that if you do accept this notion that a country must be able to control its borders, how you do it is very important as well. And again, here I think we see quite powerful polarization in the how, including everything from how state national guards are used, for example, in California most recently,

For many Americans, they really see this as a black and white issue. And there really is little room for compromise, it would appear. Let's talk about the debt issue, because the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over a decade. So how sustainable are these fiscal matters, given that the U.S. debt already exceeds $36 trillion now?

Yeah, so again, you know, this is, I think, a hard question to answer because certainly there are numerous groups, individuals that make these claims that it will increase the deficit over a certain number of years by more than $3 trillion, of course, adding to the debt.

making it unsustainable. Now, the Trump administration has argued, and they have their own data, their own analysis, saying that this actually puts the U.S. on a more sustainable path

path in terms of reducing the deficit and again the deficit here we can think of as just the annual profit or loss of the country it's just the the U.S. tax revenues minus its expenditures that this will actually reduce the deficit and reduce debt over time primarily because it will grow the economy and if the economy grows even though you're taking a smaller percentage

of taxes, your absolute tax revenue will grow because the base is bigger. Now, of course, many Democrats, including Hakeem Jeffries, who's the the House minority leader, strenuously disagrees with these claims. So, again, I think it's it's it's it really depends where you stand, depends on where you sit on this question, I think.

Okay, and we know that the bill passed the Senate 51 to 50, with three Republicans voting against it. So what do those defections reveal about internal GOP divisions? And how might that foreshadow its chances in the House?

Yeah, so that's another very, very good question. So if we look at it in a less cynical way, we can see that it passed only because Vice President J.D. Vance cast the deciding vote.

And similarly, in the House of Representatives, it passed, I believe, by one vote. So again, looked at on the surface, uncynically, you know, this is a very, very contested decision. But at the same time, I think we have to recognize that American politics often is very performative. The key person was Lisa Murkowski, who's the U.S. senator from Alaska.

You know, I can't help but suspect that it was known she would ultimately vote for the bill, but she wanted to get the best possible deal for her state that she could. So we can see this again more cynically as just a performance, but at the same time demonstrating a certain kind of corruption, perhaps we could call it,

in that these national level politicians are using their position, using their leverage for narrow interest instead of the greater good of the country. And again, you know, it's not out of the woods yet because it has to go back to the House and we'll see whether it will pass by.

you know, by July 4th, which was the deadline that President Trump had set, or whether it'll take more time. You know, most credible analysts believe that this will pass, whether it will pass, you know, on July 4th is more of an open question. But ultimately, some sort of consensus will be reached. The tax cuts will be made permanent. We'll see

This allocation to border security, to an increased defense budget, etc. Now, whether this is ultimately good for the United States, good for its relations with other countries around the world, and good for the American people, I think, remain to be seen. Mm-hmm.

Well, Elon Musk, who was once a Trump ally, has vocally opposed this bill and he called it fiscally irresponsible. And he even threatened to launch a new America party. I mean, how significant is his criticism and how seriously should we take this, his ambition of building a third party?

Well, you know, I think we have to see. And again, you know, in this sense, you know, we really can understand American politics as performative and as entertainment, you know, for better or worse. And I think both Trump and Elon Musk are masterful at this kind of performance. So whether he actually does launch a third party, whether it can gain any traction, I

I think we certainly have to see, but certainly it attracts eyeballs. So I think that certainly, you know, there is a there there in that I think some of his criticisms are understandable and legitimate. But, you know, again, is he doing this purely because

for policy reasons or does he see some personal gain from this as well? I think it is a harder question to answer. That was Andy Mock, a tech analyst and a senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. This is World Today. We'll be back. Let's move to Russia and France, where diplomatic conversations are back in the spotlight.

In a rare diplomatic breakthrough, Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron have spoken by phone for the first time in nearly three years. Despite sharp differences, both sides found common ground on one key point. They agreed that Iran's nuclear issue and wider regional tensions must be resolved through political and diplomatic means.

The two leaders also discussed the conflict in Ukraine in what the Kremlin described as a substantive conversation. On Ukraine, Macron reiterated France's support for Kiev's sovereignty and called for an immediate ceasefire and a return to negotiations.

Putin, for his part, accused the West of prolonging the war, but said a long-term solution must reflect what he called new territorial realities. So to unpack the implications of this dialogue, I'm joined by Vasily Kashin, Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at Higher School of Economics in Moscow. Welcome to our show.

Thank you. Professor, this was the first phone conversation between Presidents Macron and Putin in nearly three years, and it focused on two major issues, Iran's nuclear program and the conflict in Ukraine. What do you make of the timing of this call and why there's such a long gap in direct communication between the two sides, and what might have prompted this outrage now? During most of the Ukrainian conflict, the

relations between Russia and the European Union have been considerably worse than the relations between Russia and the United States. Russia and the United States have maintained some limited dialogue throughout the war, but

the contacts with the Europeans were almost completely suspended and basically that was position of both sides, Europe and Russia. Europe was also much more persistent than the United States.

in imposing new sanctions on Russia. And after Donald Trump came to power, we could see a very significant difference between Europe and the United States. United States were advocating ceasefire as soon as possible, while Europe was still talking about continuing war and

some kind of strategic defeat for Russia. So that was a complete freeze in relations. And that is why this phone call is so important. That means that

France, as one of the leading countries of the European Union, is ready to restart political dialogue with Russia and Russia is ready to talk to France. They might start discussing a bunch of issues. Of course, now they insist, the French side insists that it was mainly about Iran. But I really doubt that. I think the real purpose was to start dialogue about Ukraine. Beautiful.

Building on that, from a geopolitical perspective, could you please elaborate more on France's unique role in both the Iran nuclear issue and the Russian-Ukraine conflict? In your opinion, in what ways does France's position align with or diverge from the broader stance of the European Union? I believe France took...

took a leading role in shaping European position on Ukrainian issue. France also played a very important role in providing military support to the Ukraine because France is the only nuclear power within the European Union and the biggest arms producer within the European Union.

Any future joint European defense policy will heavily rely on French capabilities, which makes

French position even more important now. That is why France is playing a key role in shaping any kind of European response to developments in Ukraine. Other countries in Europe simply don't have very significant defense capabilities and defense industrial and technological capabilities. Of course, still there are a lot of players who are

participating in formulating of the joint European policy, but France is the most important one, to my opinion. In Iranian issue, the French are trying to play a role, but it's not as important as in the Ukrainian issue. Of course, the Europeans have their own concerns.

And they have huge problems in communicating with Americans on both European and Iranian issues. And there are a lot to discuss, but the real pressing issue is actually Ukraine now. As you said, the conversation inevitably turned to Ukraine, a subject that has defined Europe-Russian relations since...

since 2022, Putin blamed Western policies for triggering the Ukraine conflict, while Macron reiterated calls for a ceasefire and renewed negotiations. So given these divergent positions, especially President Putin's emphasis on

recognizing new territorial realities. Do you think this phone call could, you know, somehow help narrow the diplomatic gap or lay the groundwork for any form of compromises later? Basically, if we look carefully into the Russian memorandum on resolution of Ukrainian crisis, which was passed to the Ukrainian side during the recent round of negotiations,

The main option for ceasefire doesn't require any recognition of new territorial borders. It only requires the Ukrainian side to take a number of political and military obligations for the period of ceasefire. This is what can be discussed actually, because

Of course, the memorandum includes a part about final resolution, which requires mutual recognition of borders, but it's a very long-term stuff, which could be negotiated in peaceful conditions and probably for quite a long time. The main scenario is actually ceasefire along the current, more or less along the current

front lines, but with political conditions, like Ukraine shouldn't accept any more shipments of foreign weapons, Ukraine should stop mobilization and take a number of other measures. This is something which could actually be discussed. And we see certain interest

we could see certain interest from the US side in discussing some of these conditions. Because of course the memorandum is just starting base for negotiations.

If the Europeans are ready in principle to discuss this document, then probably we could move forward with our efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Let's turn to the other topic discussed in the call, Iran's nuclear program, where France and Russia

Iran is an important

partner for Russia and at the same time European Union is as well as many East Asian countries including China, South Korea and Japan. They're all depending on the supplies of Middle Eastern oil which could be disrupted in a major way if there is a full scale

prolonged regional war. So there is a common interest in avoiding this kind of war. At the same time,

Both Russia and France are interested in upholding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so no one wants to see Iran going nuclear. At the same time, the safety concerns and security interests of Iran should also be taken into account.

Of course, there are differences in our positions, but there are also common interests. And this is something which could be discussed because Russia still has very close and friendly relations with Iran. We have a major political treaty recently signed and ratified by two countries' parliaments.

and we have very close cooperation. We could be mediators between Iran and some Western countries. And Russia proposed to play such a role. President Putin proposed that, although

President Trump rejected this proposition. So we could actually cooperate in this and we could facilitate dialogue between Iran and the European countries. Then talk about this phone conversation. What might be the broader diplomatic implications for Europe, especially ahead of any multilateral talks on Ukraine or Iran?

I believe the major implication for Europe is that this long-term taboo on talking with Russia at political level, at highest level is broken and we can maintain dialogue on specific issues first of all related to Ukraine because for both Europe and Russia Ukrainian issue is much more important

But at the same time addressing other issues of concern and Middle East is probably a good starting point because we have certain common interests concerning the Middle Eastern politics. Both Russia and Iran are interested in the

stability of the region from both economic and security points of view, because we should remember that Europe is afraid of new influx of

refugees from this region and of course there is energy issue at the same time so we could use this as starting ground for some constructive discussions but the real goal is to find some difficult compromise on the Ukrainian issue which would allow us to at least achieve stability no one really hopes for relations to be rebuilt

but they could be stable and Europe could be peaceful. Then do you think this renewed Russia-France communication could mark the beginning of a more pragmatic phase in European diplomacy? I believe that will be difficult because of course there are positions of certain Eastern European countries which is much more radical, although it's changing as well. There are some

radical views on the level of European Commission and they might also complicate things. But it's a very encouraging sign and we need to develop some kind of

constructive dialogue. Thanks, Professor, for your time and insights. That was Vasily Kashin, Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at Higher School of Economics in Moscow.

Malaysia is no longer accepting plastic waste shipments from the United States, citing America's failure to ratify the Basel Convention. The international treaty is designed to regulate the cross-border movement of hazardous waste and prevent wealthy nations from offloading hard-to-recycle materials on developing countries.

The U.S. remains one of just a few non-signatories. The move is expected to hit major exporting states such as California, which has long relied on Malaysia as a destination for plastic waste.

So for more on this, let's have Aynur Tangan, Senior Fellow of Taihe Institute and Chairman of Asia Narratives Substack. Thanks for joining us, Aynur. Always a pleasure. To start, could you please explain the significance of Malaysia's decision to ban U.S. plastic waste imports, and how does this move fit into wider global efforts to regulate hazardous waste and promote responsible recycling?

Well, I mean, Malaysia's reacting to this waste colonialism. And it's, you know, the U.S. has this tendency to say, oh, you know, there should be a global order and all that type of stuff. But even during the Biden administration, they failed to

do what was necessary in order to not, they ratified the treaty, but they didn't do what was necessary to make sure that there was laws in effect to enforce that.

So, you know, this is all about the Basel Convention, which was pushing this kind of circular economy idea that, you know, a nation like the U.S., which consumes two times as much energy per person as a place like China, that produces twice as much waste per person.

cannot be allowed to just, you know, toss that into the third world and pretend that it doesn't exist. There's supposed to be some sort of responsibility, especially when it comes to plastic. And right now that doesn't exist, not in the U.S.,

Could you please walk us through what the Basel Convention is and why the U.S. has not ratified it? Well, the Basel Convention is a global framework for responsible waste management. And obviously, this is necessary when we start talking about the plastic particulates that are in all the water, it's in the air, it's in the soil. These are not good for us, and we know that. And the question is, how do you address it responsibly?

So the U.S. ratified the treaty, but they didn't pass the laws necessary to make the treaty effect. So it's like saying, yeah, I'll do that, but you don't actually do it. And Malaysia is taking a very responsible stand here. They're basically saying, look, we're not going to be a trash can for America. And that's quite right.

While the U.S. is not officially part of this treaty, it remains one of the world's top exporters of plastic waste. According to reports, the U.S. recycled less than 10% of its plastic in 2024, yet exported over 35,000 tons of plastic waste to Malaysia, with some containers even smuggling toxic materials under the guise of raw materials.

What environmental and public health risks does this kind of outsourcing pose to developing countries like Malaysia?

It's a toxic reality. You know, pollution from this quote, recycling, unquote, in developing nations. This is just, as I said, you know, these nations are used as garbage cans and companies involved in the U.S. like waste management and others either knowingly or unknowingly participate in a situation where other things are mixed in because it's going outside the U.S. You know,

you know, if I have toxic materials and it would cost me, you know, 10x what it costs to just ship them overseas, right? Of course, you know, if I can figure out some way of pretending that, oh, I don't know, somehow they got involved with, you know, mixed in with the plastic waste. It's not true. They're simply trying to cut their costs because, you

Environmental regulations in the U.S. are still very strong. Under Trump, they're looking weak. But the fact is, it costs money to recycle these. So they're going for the least expensive option, which is, of course, using the rest of the world for trash. Einar, despite the damage, because many people in wealthier nations, they still believe their assorted plastic waste is actually being recycled.

But according to experts, in reality, a large portion ends up illegally dumped. This creates a troubling cycle where developing countries not only bear the cost of waste processing, but are also blamed as polluters. So how do you assess this fake recycling phenomenon? And is there any international mechanism beside this convention to hold the real polluters accountable?

Unfortunately, I have to say there isn't. Remember, international law is about agreeing to abide by rules. Right now, the United States doesn't recognize any rules, especially in the current administration. They're pulling out of WHO, all of the organizations. They're pulling in all of their outreach. They're basically saying, we don't care. Unless we start a benefit, we're not going to get involved. So this may

fake recycling, the systematic failure, its environmental injustice. The Basel Convention and Global Classics Treaty was all about accountability mechanisms. And it didn't go that far. That's the irony here. It was a compromise to begin with. And the U.S. couldn't even rise to a compromise that it created. So it's really kind of damning.

That's really unfortunate. I think that's exactly why more and more countries are now taking the initiative to protect themselves from the toxic waste exported by Western nations. That was Einar Tengen, Senior Fellow of Taihe Institute and Chairman of Asia Narratives Substack. That's all the time for this edition of Road Today with me, Ge'anna. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.

so