What does BRICS' united front against unilateral bullying signal?
54:03 Share

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

BRICS foreign ministers' meeting has reaffirmed the opposition to unilateral bullying. The U.S. economy shrinks in the first quarter of the year as its GDP drops to the lowest level since 2022. And a report shows American firms stay committed to the Chinese market despite geopolitical tensions.

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

Let's first dive into BRICS meeting in Brazil. Foreign ministers and representatives from BRICS countries and partners have backed a statement by Chair Brazil against trade protectionism. All 20 countries participating in the meeting spoke about their concerns for unilateral measures inconsistent with world trade rules.

So for more on this, let's have Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics. Welcome, Professor. It's a pleasure. Happy holiday. Thanks, Professor. Happy May Day holiday to you, too. Professor, let's start with the broader picture, the BRICS foreign minister's statement.

placed a strong emphasis on multilateralism and upholding fairness and justice in the global order. So against the backdrop of rising unilateralism and protectionism, how significant is this stance from BRICS nations in safeguarding international rule and stability? Well, the world is seeing increasing deglobalization drive led by the United States in

the manner of unilateralism, protectionism, and even isolation. So the BRICS are there to reaffirm that multilateralism and fair trade signals a great benefit to the whole world. They are there to have a

coordinated resistance to the Western dominant system that is there to block the free flow of economic resources and also a rule-based global order. They are there to showcase a normative leadership in which they positions the BRICS as a defender of the post-World War II international order based on the sovereign integrity, equality,

and a UN charter that is there to defend the multilateral institutions against the Trump-led transactional interest blocks and power-based the trading manner. So another very important issue is that the stability

of modern electoral institutions based on the rules and based on the commitment by all countries are crucial at the moment of geopolitical rupture that is going on in different regions and it is there to further strengthen the unity of the global south against the great power rivalry and

and also to defend their core interest against ongoing economic coercion by the Trump administration. One striking moment from the meetings that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi posed five questions in response to U.S. tariff war worldwide. He asked whether the world should accept a return to lawn-of-the-jungle politics.

or let one country's interests override global ones. He also questioned whether compromise ensures safety or whether we should accept a unipolar world or we could strive for a more equal multipolar system. What message, in your opinion, is Wang sending with these five questions and how do you interpret the broader signal behind this direct challenge?

Mr. Wang is there to offer a very forceful critique of American-led intellectualism. The message is there to have two folds of significance. One is that in terms of the moral integrity, he is here to frame the United States in the reciprocal tariff and also the unjust global behavior as

the economically aggressive and also it's morally regressive. It is there to invoke the image of the law of the jungle. Second, he is calling to a collective agency that the broader signal is a call for a non-Western power base

the international alliance to reject the passive compromise and instead, they assert a more equal, monopolar system with mutual respect, whereas no single power can dominate the global agenda.

So it is also a message to the Global South that by aligning together against the unwelcome forces and to protect the sovereignty of the Global South countries, we are able to move faster and closer together for our shared development interests.

Professor, we also heard strong supports from BRICS nations. For instance, Brazilian President Lula told Wang Yi that he admired China's firm and fair countermeasures in response to the tariffs war, saying unilateralism must be resisted and any form of power politics that overrides international justice should be firmly rejected. So how do you read Lula's comments here? And more specifically,

how might BRICS nations collectively push back against unilateral trade hegemony in the near future?

Against this round of crazy US reciprocal tariffs, China outstands itself as a defender of not only its own national interests, but also a defender of the multilateral institutions based on fair trade. Lula's remarks reflect the British's attitudinal alliance with China,

to really resist the economic coercion. It is there to affirm a broader BRICS consensus against the hegemonist trade practices. And he's also sending a message for collective pushback against the U.S. type of economic coercion and political pressure. So more concretely,

It is there to call the institutional alternatives, to expand the trade within the BRICS countries, possibly to optimize the utility of their own individual currencies, and to build the BRICS specific payment system to reduce the dollar dependence, and also to have a coordinated diplomacy, for example, to present a unified front

in the WTO reform talks and resist the unilateral sanction through the joint statements and offer the legal challenges.

Now, building on that, when we talk about trade is inseparable from financial support, the BRICS statement also called for a comprehensive reform of the global financial system to give developing countries a stronger voice. So from your perspective, how might BRICS countries work to break the current imbalance in global finance? And what concrete changes could we expect to see?

At the moment, the IMF, World Bank, and even Asian Development Bank, so these financial institutions are the legacy of the Bretton Woods Agreement, and they have really functioned to a positive effect over the several decades.

But now with the increasing position of the Global South and the developing countries, particularly those big emerging economies, they need imperative reform in that they have to be more inclusive in the interest of all the nations in particular.

the call for expansion of share of participation and voting power of the global South countries. Given right now the existing challenge, it is also important to accelerate the de-dollarization

By developing the cross-border payment system, for example, there has been a rising outcry whether the BRICS pay as a uniform currency within its unit can also be there to any extent to substitute the dominance of the US dollar.

and they're also there to push for the special drawing rights reform where the quarter shares in the IMF governance is here to reflect the current economic weight, where the developing countries represented by those countries can have a larger share. These are there to address the current

and the concrete challenges that are posing for against a equitable loan conditionalities. And also it's there to develop a financing facilities really more equitable, more prompt to answer the real needs of the global South countries.

Professor, technological development has also drawn significant attention from BRICS nations. They are calling for a stronger global cooperation on AI governance, specifically through the UN, rather than unilateral approaches some Western countries have taken. So what unique advantages do BRICS countries bring to the table in high-tech development? And what kind of cooperation potential are we seeing in this realm?

Well, every round of technological innovation will mean a new paradigm that can emerge along the horizon with geopolitical balance and also with the power rivalry among major countries.

the constituencies in the global community. So the BRICS countries are there to have a unique voice in the digital governance. One is that they have diverse development models. They are there to promote a smoother, protected,

but also more transparent data ecological system where the global south countries can really have a more coordinated approach in their regulatory procedures and also governance over the data flow in which they are there to facilitate the

benefit of the business community, of the consumers, but in the meantime to defend themselves against the digital hegemony that possibly exerted by the United States.

I think more importantly to contribute to the technological improvements that's there to benefit the livelihood of their people, but rather than really to support the monopoly of certain gigantic multinationals and a small interest group that is more politically oriented.

Professor, one last question. We're also watching the BRICS Circle of Friends grow with new members and partner countries joining the group. How is this expansion trend breathing new life into the group, the BRICS?

And what kind of impact could it have on the bloc's influence in global governance? The very fact of the BRICS offers a continued attraction to more countries. You know, after the existing five members, now we see that Egypt, UAE, Egypt,

Ethiopia, and Argentina are part of it, and more. The significant economies are also there to take a very positive outlook with the growth of the BRICS. It shows that the global south are there to have a strong intention to team up and build a consensus over what they see as a fair and equitable

ground for global governance and also for global development. And now they also get more and more skeptical with regard to the dominance of the Bretton Woods,

the rules that are being manipulated by the United States and particularly with regard to the dollar dominance and the polarization together with weaponization of the SWIFT system. So they are there to find a more unique way to defend the multi-polar world and also to shape a new platform so that their core interests can be addressed in a fair and equitable basis.

So I think very practically, with the Belt and Road Initiative that is being more and more popular among the countries that are involved, it is there to support a better financing vehicle and also to endorse more of the technologies that are there to deal

was green transition and also for the support of a new round of industrialization among those big emerging economies so that global South countries can get a better term with regard to the access to finance and also with access to their voice as the coordinated and also a fair, transparent global agenda. Mm-hmm.

Thanks, Professor, for your insightful analysis. That was Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics. This is World Today. Stay with us.

Welcome, I'm Elav Ellad, 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.

Let's move to the latest snapshot of the U.S. economy. The U.S. quarterly GDP has shrunk to its lowest rate in three years, raising concerns about the broader economic outlook and the impact of recent tariff policies.

This comes in stark contrast to the optimistic narrative projected by the current administration. So for more on this, let's have Liu Zhiching, Senior Fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. Thanks for joining us. Thank you.

First of all, U.S. GDP contracted by 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, and several key indicators have fallen short of expectations. So from an economic perspective, what role have terror policies played in this downturn? I think the GDP figure for the first quarter of the United States is not surprising that

economy because as we know that the market research have already warned and expected that the economic development in the US in the first quarter or second quarter will be seriously damaged. Now the figure is really just tell us the truth because the tariff played a really very key role to slow down this GDP's increasing because from the

In January 2020, when the Trump administration came to the White House, he announced so many times that he would impose heavy tariffs on the world economy. So I think the market has already lost confidence and also the strength for further development.

So that's why they made this economy and the industrial capacity in the United States has sharply damaged to grow up in the right direction.

And it's not just the shrinking GDP. New reports show that U.S. trade deficit widened further in March, reaching $162 billion, the highest on record. That figure runs directly counter to the original goal of the tariff policy, namely reducing the trade deficit. So how should we interpret these numbers and what deeper issues do they reveal about the U.S. economy?

I think the trade deficit in March has come to the historical record. It's true because this is a reaction from the market. As we know, March is the last month for the new tariff index imposed by the White House.

There are many retailers and importers from the United States that have imported and ordered so many products in order to put these products in the stock in order to deal with the impact of the coming tariffs. So that's why.

the figure for trade deficit in March is double increased as before. This is the main reason that the many importers started importing more than ever.

in order to deal with the threats of the prices hike in the market. So, of course, the supply chain is also seriously damaged and impacted by the tariffs policy. So this is a very important signal that the tariffs cannot solve this trade deficit. I think the US government should know this fact.

Economic data like this has direct impact on financial markets. Following the GDP release, all three major U.S. stock indexes fell sharply. So from a financial system point of view, how could continued market wave affect the broader economy?

I think the financial sections has the right reaction that is connected to the main economic figure in the United States because as we know the market is coming down and with the pessimism and also the people's confidence in the future so that's why the financials

market is fully impacted by the negative influences from the tariffs. This is not the first time, but I think in the past three months that the stock market has dropped in greater turmoil. And I believe that in the short time in the future, this problem will repeat and happen again, because only when the administration changes its policy of tariffs

I think the financial market will become more stable and more sustainable. We know businesses are the backbone of the economy, and many CEOs in the United States have raised red flags about the uncertainty created by tariff policies. So what kinds of negative impacts could this uncertainty have on businesses, on their operations as well, and also their long-term strategy in the U.S.?

Yeah, that's true. As you know, the businessmen are in the first line to be infected or impacted by this tariff policy because they have to prepare all the products on their shelves or supermarkets or even in the shopping mall in order to meet the demand of the market. But actually, this tariff has really threatened their strategic policy. They don't know how to make a

mid-term or long-term development strategy, or even they do not know how to make a plan to purchase or for sales or any new products to be imported. So they are in chaos that they don't know what to do, what is the right way for their development in the future. So this is very important.

a threat to the stability of the U.S. economy at the moment. So we should say that the tariff's negative impact will be further implemented to threaten the stability of the retailers and the businessmen in the U.S. We know according to Trump administration, one of the targets of this tariff strategy was to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

But recently, Treasury Secretary Scott Basin said the textile industry belongs to the past and isn't something the U.S. needs today. That comment triggered backlash from American textile organizations. Does this apparent dismissal of traditional industries conflict with the broader narrative of reviving American manufacturing? And what does this tell us about what the U.S. government really wants?

I should say this fact tells the whole global community that how naive this tariff policy is. If they want to impose tariffs on all countries, that they can bring the manufacturing line back to America, this is not realistic. It's not rational because

manufacturing line need a lot of jobs and raw materials and the skilled workers, even factory production lines. It's not easy to transfer from one side to other side. And the second is also the manufacturing section. They have to have a firm and stable expectation in the future. But all these two factors are missing in the United States policy. So nobody believes now what today's

The Trump administration promised to safeguard or to protect the manufacturing section because in the future they may be charged again the heavy tariffs on those production line or manufacturing line back to United States. This is very possible because nobody knows how uncertain the US government should have capability of protecting their own interests.

So in this way that we should say textile is only one part of the manufacturing line. They have many other products, for instance, automobile and also electrical products and house electrical grid also including this production line. But if the textile cannot be realized, the returning of the manufacturing line, I think that it is the same situation for other sections.

Very briefly, based on the current trajectory of policy and economic indicators in the United States, what risks and challenges do you see for the U.S. economy in the second half of this year? I think the main challenge for the U.S. administration is how to make the people believe

and have faith and trust what your officials promised to do. This is the main point that there is no faith, no confidence in the future in the administration. So they have to change their ideas that to follow the right way, that no more unilateral, they should follow the international cooperation, give more confidence and a more optimistic

policy support to the economy. So I think the market will come back again. Thanks. Liu Zhijing, Senior Fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. You're listening to Road Today. We'll be back after a short break.

You've been listening to World Today with Mika Anna in Beijing. Ukraine and the United States have signed a mineral agreement that will give Washington preferential access to new mineral deals. The court also establishes a joint investment fund for Ukraine's reconstruction. The deal came weeks after a heated debate at the White House when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited with the intention to finalize the document.

So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Ying is joining us in the studio. Welcome, Zhao. Yeah, thanks for having me. Let's start with the basics here. What exactly does this mineral deal entail? And what are its key components? Yeah, well, first to make it clear a little bit, I think you were referring to that very unpleasant meeting between Trump and Zelensky at the White House just now. And I think that was in February, about two months ago. And I guess a lot must have happened

over the past two months that made them finally come to an agreement. And the deal is an economic partnership aimed at leveraging Ukraine's vast mineral resources to support its post-war recovery while deepening ties with the U.S. And at its core,

It is a joint investment fund called the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund. And the fund focuses on Ukraine's critical minerals like lithium, titanium, graphite, which are essential for technologies such as renewable energy, military equipment, and industrial infrastructure. And Ukraine has deposits of over, I mean, 22 out of the 15 minerals deemed critical by the U.S.,

And the fund operates on a 50-50 partnership with both countries having equal voting rights and management shares. And according to Ukraine's Ministry of Economy, the U.S. would contribute to the fund directly or through military assistance, and Kyiv would contribute 50% of the revenues from the exploitation of natural resources. And also Ukraine said it still retains full ownership and control over these resources.

And profits from the fund will be reinvested into Ukraine's reconstruction, like rebuilding infrastructure, boosting the economy, and modernizing industries. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation will work with Ukraine to finalize the details, and American companies are expected to play a big role in mining oil and gas projects.

And the U.S. has also stated that no state or individual that supported Russia's war will benefit from Ukraine's reconstruction. And also it said the deal doesn't explicitly include new U.S. military aid, but a Ukrainian official said the U.S. may provide new assistance such as air defense systems.

If we go through recent U.S. media outlets, it seems that the Trump administration is placing such a high importance on this agreement. Why is that? What political or economic interests are they hoping to gain?

Well, Trump has been vocal about wanting a tangible return on U.S. investments in Ukraine, especially the aid it provides since the war began in 2022. And this deal is his way of ensuring the U.S. doesn't just give what he called a blank check, but gets something concrete in return. And what does the U.S. get out of it? First, I think, of course, is the access to Ukraine's vast reserves of critical minerals.

These are like gold mines for industries like clean energy, tech and defense, where the U.S. is desperate to reduce reliance on China, which accounts for 90% of the global rare earth market. And secondly, the deal creates economic opportunities for U.S. companies. The joint investment fund opens doors for American business to lead in mining, oil, gas and reconstruction projects.

And that's a multi-billion dollar market if a ceasefire can be reached. And Treasury Secretary Scott Benson has framed this as a chance for the U.S. to participate and even recoup some of its aid through profits.

And geopolitically, the deal gives Trump a personal stake in Ukraine's stability, which could influence his approach to peace talks with Russia, and has pushed it as a way to protect US contributions. And that, like he's signaling to Moscow that America is committed to a prosperous Ukraine, not just a military ally. But of course,

Some would argue that this focus on minerals over security guarantees shows that Trump is prioritizing profit over Ukraine's long-term safety. Some critics have described the deal as exploitative. What were the major sticking points during the negotiation? And is there evidence that Ukraine was pressured into signing it?

Yeah, some do argue that the deal takes advantage of Ukraine's wartime vulnerabilities. And there are several, there were several sticking points during negotiations. And the biggest one was security guarantees, because Ukraine wanted firm US commitments to protect against future Russian aggression as part of the deal. But Trump insisted that Ukraine sign the agreement first and discuss guarantees later.

This left Kyiv in a tough point, as Zelenskyy described an early draft as seeking him to sell his country. It demanded too much control over Ukraine's resources without offering enough in return.

But also Donald Trump has largely framed the deal as Ukraine's paying back for the aid that the U.S. provided over the past three years. And that kind of narrative raises concern that the U.S. was prioritizing financial gain over Ukraine's sovereignty. But what when it comes to this final deal, Ukrainian prime minister emphasized it

excludes any past aid from repayment obligations and only focuses on future investments. And whether Ukraine was pressured into signing it, I think there is absolutely pressure because, I mean, there's this power imbalance between the two nations.

Just think of that unpleasant White House meeting back in February, after which Donald Trump suspended all U.S. aid to Ukraine. And I think that shows the U.S. definitely holds more leverage in the negotiations and has used that leverage to put a lot of pressure on

on the Ukrainian side. But that being said, Ukraine has described the final deal as equal and beneficial partnership with both countries having equal contribution and management shares in this joint investment fund. But I mean, the deal might not be coercive in legal sense, but

the political and economic context just means that the costs of refusal simply were not a realistic option for Ukraine. Many believe the deal is seen as a step towards ceasefire negotiations with Russia. How might this agreement influence those talks? And what does it mean to Ukraine's bargaining position?

Well, Ukrainian officials obviously hope that the U.S. investment and pressure of American companies will make Washington more invested in Ukraine's stability and that will indirectly pressure Russia to negotiate. It's like it's tying U.S. interests to Ukraine's defense. But

The deal could also motivate the U.S. to prioritize its economic gains over Ukraine's sovereignty and pressure Kyiv into some sort of concession for a quick ceasefire to protect American investments like ceding territory or abandoning its NATO aspirations. And also the deal may escalate tensions with Russia because Russia may view this as a provocative move that may harden its negotiating stance.

President Zelensky has also described the agreement as a pathway to solid security guarantees. What kind of guarantees is Ukraine seeking? And realistically, can the U.S. deliver on them?

Well, Ukraine is seeking ironclad commitments from the U.S. to deter or respond to Russian attack post-ceasefire, and they may want some sort of security agreements that could include military aid commitments, rapid response mechanisms, or some sort of NATO-like mutual defense pledges to ensure that Russia doesn't violate the ceasefire.

And Zelensky believes that the mineral deal with its joint investment fund and U.S. companies' involvement will make Washington more invested in Ukraine's security as American economic interests would be at stake if Russia attacks again. However, securing these guarantees from the U.S. is...

is a tall order because as we discussed just now, a major sticking point during the negotiations was Trump's refusal to include security guarantees in the deal. And Trump insisted that Ukraine sign first and discuss protection later. We don't know much of the details of the final deal yet, but it's reported that it doesn't include security provisions.

So if that is the case, I don't think Ukraine will be likely to secure security guarantees in the near term because the U.S. is obviously prioritizing economic gains over long-term defense pledges. And if you look at Trump administration's attitude towards NATO and other international institutions, it is clearly withdrawing from this global leadership role.

Thanks, Zhao Ying, for your time and insights. Coming up, report shows American firms stay committed to Chinese market despite geopolitical tensions. This is Real Today. We'll be back. A mischievous little monster packed in mystery boxes is setting off a global craze from Asia to North America.

Labubu, the fluffy toothy toy from China, is sending fans camping out overnight and driving resale prices sky high. How did a China-made plush toy punch through the thick wall of tariffs and land in America's hottest news stores, opening one after another across the country? What's behind the China-made toy's unstoppable rise?

check out this week's chat lounge wherever you listen to podcasts and cgtn radio

Welcome back to Road Today. Despite all the talk of decoupling, nearly half of American companies still count China as one of their top three investment destinations. That's according to the latest report from the American Chamber of Commerce in China. At the same time, 63% of surveyed firms cite U.S.-China tensions are their top business challenge.

The report also notes a gradual improvement in China's business environment. One-third of the companies say they have seen better conditions over the past year, citing regulatory reforms and more open policies for foreign investment.

But the organization warns that growing geopolitical uncertainty and recent U.S. tariff hikes could destabilize global supply chains and increase risks for businesses operating across borders. So for more on this, our reporter Xu Yaowen spoke with Professor Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology.

We know nearly half of the American business community in China, that's about 49%, ranked the country among their top three global investment destinations, even though the percentage naming China as their top investment target has declined by 6%. So what does this suggest to us about the enduring value of Chinese market in the eyes of global investors?

Well, the Chinese market has three very important features about it from the point of view of global investors. Firstly, of course, is that it is a large consumer market. Historically, it has been an important market for multinationals. There is still more room to grow. You know, we've got another 400 million people to become middle class in China over the next 10 years. That's number one.

number two of course is that china has progressively become a very sophisticated manufacturing country with comprehensive supply chains with all the raw materials and the labor capabilities and so companies that are looking to manufacture sophisticated products will find china to be very attractive and the competitive proper

proposition that China offers is one that's very hard to turn back on. And thirdly, looking forward, China offers a growing depth in research and development in all the scientific and technological areas from AI through to material sciences and things like that. Companies looking to go up the value path will

will also find China incredibly attractive. The report also notes that while 63% of surveyed American companies cite U.S.-China tensions as their top challenge,

Firms like Toyota are still announcing investments, like major investments, in China's new energy vehicle sector, such as about $2 billion to build an electric vehicle plant in Shanghai. Does that mean that political tensions and external pressures have not shaken the fundamental attractiveness of the Chinese market?

There's no doubt that the Chinese market is attractive. And for companies that are not American, it is a little bit easier for them to be making longer term decisions as far as China goes. If, however, you are an American company with significant exposure in the North American market, whether it's institutionally, politically or whether you're listed on the stock.

stock exchange or you have a parent company back in the United States. And of course, you are going to come under incredible pressure in the current moment in time to be seen to be going along with the administration's broader strategic ambitions, which is to rejuvenate manufacturing in America and to some extent to decouple from China. So those companies will be trying to keep their head down, not say too much.

hopefully weather the storm and see where where things end up in six months or 12 months time so they're hoping that the uncertainty that exists today will eventually settle down and they will be able to make more rational longer-term decisions once all of that has happened

Well, many experts have suggested that there are no winners in a tariff war. In the meantime, the U.S. currently is imposing as high as 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, yet some items do enter duty-free. So does this expose contradictions in America's trade policy? And what's your observations on Chinese manufacturing sectors? Those companies break through this uncertainty.

Yeah, look, American trade policy since this administration took office has been characterized by confusion and uncertainty. The decisions that have been made in relation to tariffs, the escalation of tariffs, the suspension of tariffs, the modification of tariffs, where we're chopping and changing each and every day, really sends a very clear signal at the moment to the marketplace, and that is that trade policy is in a muddle.

is underpinned by all sorts of ambitions that are non-economic in nature whether they are geopolitical ones or whether they are really ones that aim that signaling to the domestic political uh support base that the that the administration is doing something to bring manufacturing back so very confused environment at the moment a lot of instability for investors

How do we deal with that? Well, of course, there are ways in which companies work their way around tariffs. The more complicated the rules there are, the more clever people get in finding ways through, whether it's through transshipment, establishing new manufacturing or assembly facilities in other parts of the world. These are all the kinds of things that companies will, of course, seek to do. But it's one thing. But to do that, you've got to remember one thing, and that is.

from china's point of view the growth is actually in the markets of the global south in 2024 china traded more with the bri countries than it did with the advanced world

the G7 world for the first time ever. So the growth is actually not in the United States relative to what's happening in the rest of the world. You know, this week there is the big news, which is China has passed its first private economy law, signaling stronger legal support and long-term commitment to the private sector. So how might this new law help improve confidence among foreign investors, especially to American firms?

Look, it's an important move because it signals to the wider community of investors and managers of capital that China is one, open for business and two, mindful of the need to continually improve and mature its operating environment to deliver

what is very important for businesses and that is certainty. When you're making decisions around investing capital that need to have clarity over a two, three, four, five or 10 year horizon, having a clear legal framework is absolutely fundamental to your confidence in making those kinds of decisions. This law sends a very powerful signal

that China is listening to enterprises and is working all the time to improve the environment for investors to move forward with confidence. The last question is about the future of China-U.S. relations. David Perdue, he was recently confirmed as the new U.S. ambassador to China. And he comes from a background of corporate leadership,

Also, he has previously served as a U.S. senator with strong views on trade and national security. So in your view, what impact his appointment might have on the future of China-U.S. economic relations, especially amid these ongoing trade tensions?

look he's on the record with some very strong views about china he certainly sees china as an adversary of the of america and and in that regard i think is a clear extension if you will of the general attitude not only of this administration but also of the bipartisan position on capitol hill so

So as an individual, I don't think we'll see particularly much from him that is outside of that broad ethos.

The bigger issue is whether or not that general ecosystem or that general political direction coming out of the elite in Washington will change over time. And we will only have to wait and see. These attitudes towards China have taken decades to evolve. And at the moment, unfortunately, the American political elite see the world very much in zero-sum terms.

That was Professor Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology. The UN aid agency for Palestinians has condemned the two-month Israeli blockade on Gaza as a silent killer of the most vulnerable in the community. Juliet Toma is a spokesperson for the UN Relief and Works Agency. It's almost been two months of a very tight siege.

I'm sure you're all aware they've banned the entry of humanitarian supply and commercial supplies alike, food, vaccines for children and fuel included. The siege on Gaza is the silent killer. It's a silent killer of children, of older people, of the most vulnerable in the community.

Toma says Israel has blocked thousands of aid trucks from entering the territory. In the southern city of Rafah, the agency reports that recent attacks have devastated the area, while forced evacuation orders have displaced more than 150,000 people impacted.

over 90% of the city's population. So for more on this, we are joined now by Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University. Thanks for joining us, Professor. Thank you for having me. Professor, the UN aid agency has described the blockade on Gaza as a silent killer. From a humanitarian perspective, what concrete and possibly irreversible damage had this blockade have

on people in the region? Well, actually, the blockade on Gaza has already caused very severe and potentially irreversible harm to its residents there. And as we know, at the moment, there are over 2 million people living there in Gaza. So this is truly a humanitarian crisis.

For instance, the total aid blockade has halted food, medicine and fuel supplies, leaving most residents in Gaza surviving on only one meal or even less daily. And also at the moment, lots of children are starving and suffer from long term malnutrition.

Also, meanwhile, lack of medical supplies has also damaged the health care system in general. As we know, a lot of women are facing deadly complications in pregnancy and childbirth due to restricted access. And also so far, the destruction of business and farms and infrastructure in Gaza can also lead to very long term poverty.

Professor, despite condemnation from UN agencies, Israel continues to enforce the blockade. What deeper political and strategic considerations are driving this persistent policy? From my own observation, I think one important driver of this blockade is to impose the so-called extreme pressure tactic in order to force Hamas into concessions.

Now, as we know, Netanyahu tries to use humanitarian suffering as a bargaining chip. Also, he thinks that by doing so, he might be able to cut off the connections between Hamas and the outside world in order to prevent Hamas from gaining aid from the outside world.

And moreover, deterioration of the living conditions in Gaza would also lead to a decrease of population in Gaza, as many civilians may flee to other countries, which is in line with a certain far-right coalition members. And additionally, it is very important to take into consideration Netanyahu's coordination with the Trump administration, which provides him with very firm support and thus emboldens his very hardline stance.

Professor, recently, Egyptian and Israeli officials held talks in Cairo to discuss a new proposal aimed at achieving a ceasefire in Gaza. Egyptian security sources have suggested the talks are close to a major breakthrough.

but Israeli officials appear to be downplaying the progress, claiming no substantial results have been achieved. How do you interpret these two sharply contrasting assessments from the negotiation sides?

Well, I think this is a very important point. And actually these contrasting assessments show very different strategic priorities and concerns between these two countries. For example, Egypt has been acting as a mediator during this round of Gaza war. So right now, Egypt considers that a breakthrough would ease pressures from Gaza's humanitarian crisis, which threatens refugee inflows into Sinai.

Also, Egypt expects that its claim may pressure Israel and Hamas to commit leveraging the so-called public expectations

But at the same time for Israel, I think it's denial signals its sense of reluctance to concede on very key demands, such as Hamas's disarmament or permanent withdrawal from Gaza. So for Israel, downplaying progress preserves negotiating leverage and appease domestic hotliners who oppose reaching deals with Hamas.

Speaking of sticking points, Israel continues to seek a military solution to the Gaza Strip, and key issues such as the disarmament of Hamas remained unresolved. How might these divisions affect the future direction of ceasefire negotiations?

Well, right. There are certain a lot of obstacles at the moment. Indeed, what we have seen so far is that without agreement on this armament, the phase two talks remain stalled.

which may lead to ceasefire collapse and renewed violence. Meanwhile, as we know, Israel has already resumed airstrikes and blockade, which shows a preference of Netanyahu for weakening Hamas militarily rather than through negotiated deals.

But I think we also have to note that while this type of hotline tactic exacerbates Gaza's crisis with aid blocked and starvation worsening, I think potentially, yes, it might force Hamas to concede under public pressure.

But a more dangerous point is that it can also radicalize the base of Hamas. So this unfortunately may prevent Palestine and Israel from breaking the cycle of violence at the moment. Professor, one last question. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has warned that the prospects of Tuesday solution is fading away as the fighting drags on. So given all the previous reports,

international efforts made to promote this vision. What new strategies or actions could the global community consider now to prevent that vision from fading entirely? Well, I think right now we have already entered into a very difficult situation. And as you have already mentioned, there are certainly a lot of challenges.

And I mean, new strategies are definitely needed to revive this vision amidst ongoing conflict, of course, but I think it needs efforts from very different, from like different dimensions. First of all, I think it is very important to emphasize the necessity of respecting international law and also multilateral mechanisms such as the United Nations,

Also, secondly, efforts need to be made to empower the mediation roles of regional actors such as Egypt and Qatar. Also, it's very crucial to advance the democratization of international relations by creating more channels to amplify marginalized voice on the global stage.

Thanks, Professor, for your insightful analysis. That's Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fuzhen University. That's all the time for this edition of World Today. I'm Ge'anna in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.