What is driving the rice prices in Japan to skyrocket?
52:58 Share

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

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing. Coming up: Vladimir Putin calls on China and Russia to further strengthen strategic cooperation. The United States is sending more warplanes to reinforce its military capability in the Middle East as Iran tensions build. Denmark's Prime Minister is visiting Greenland amid mounting pressure from US President Donald Trump to control the island.

and we're going to explore what's behind the skyrocketing rice prices in Japan. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.

First up, Russian President Vladimir Putin has called on China and Russia to enhance their strategic cooperation amid global turbulence. The Russian leader made a remark in a meeting with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in the Kremlin. Putin emphasized deepening China-Russia cooperation in various fields.

Wang Yi said bilateral ties have become a resilient partnership featuring deepening political trust, closer strategic alignment and sustained cooperation. The senior Chinese diplomat has also held talks with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, to discuss bilateral and international issues.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhang Xing, Deputy Director of the Center for Russian Studies, West East China Normal University. Thank you very much for joining us. So first of all, Dr. Zhang, do you agree that by working together and enhancing their strategic coordination and cooperation, China and Russia can jointly deliver more stability to a world of turbulence?

Overall, I think that's a true statement of reality. We have been witnessing, as you correctly called, an increasing deterrent to the world, and several major political forces in the world are trying to destabilize the status quo of the international system, both in terms of...

the political stability and stability in the field of international law. I think the recent performance of the Trump administration is particularly illustrative in this regard. The call by the Trump administration to either claim territory of another Soviet state as potentially its own, or the call to retake

certain territory under its control, whether it's the Panama Canal or the purchase of the Greenland, et cetera. So all of these are very illustrative of a significant attempt to destabilize the world in both its political and the legal structure. So in that regard, I think China and Russia jointly, particularly as two UN Security Council permanent member,

to big countries, both in terms of economic, political, and the military sizes, are going to be an important joint force to counter those efforts to destabilize the status quo. When the political structure on the global scale rapidly drifting from a stable

stable equilibrium, as we see again from the U.S. side in particular. I think that China and Russia jointly are becoming even more of the center of the political spectrum. So in that sense, I think their joint efforts can bring more stability to this increasingly turbulent world.

So Mr. Putin has told Wang Yi that he is looking forward to a Chinese delegation attending the Victory Day in Moscow later this year. When we talk about this year's key anniversary of humanity's victory against the fascism in history, what do you make of the meaning of China and Russia celebrating this key anniversary together?

the 80 years anniversary of the end of Second World War, or in the Russian context, often called the Great Patriotic War, or in the Chinese context, often called the Anti-Japanese War.

are a significant historical event on a global scale. Most importantly, today's international system, the foundation of today's international system was primarily established as a result of the end of the Second World War, including all the major political and legal systems that served as the foundation of a stable world.

Almost all of them were established, gained its legitimacy, gained its functional efficiency as a result of the Second World War. So at this particular moment, China and Russia jointly, officially jointly celebrate this anniversary, serve, I think, a few goals or a few different purposes. One is to

commemorate the importance of World War II, remind the world

including those who want to change the status quo, reminding the world that the victory over the fascist forces, the victory in World War II, is the foundation of today's international system. Secondly, I think the joint commemoration also serves as an important, powerful counterforce against

those forces that are in different ways trying to reframe, rewrite the history about World War II, even including those forces that are trying to glorify

Nazis glorify certain aspects of the behavior of Nazi Germany or Japanese fascists. So I think that's another major purpose and significance of this joint commemoration of the 80th anniversary of World War II.

In the meantime, during his meeting with Mr. Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China stood ready to work more closely with Russia to create a multipolar world order.

In this regard, we can of course think about platforms like the BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in which both Beijing and Moscow are very very fundamentally involved here. So fundamentally, why is a multi-polar world order in the interests of both Russia and China?

So I would even go beyond that to say a multiple world order is in the interest of most countries or most peoples in the world.

Particularly given the devastating consequence of a unipolar vote that we see since the end of Cold War, that statement becomes even more relevant. The past three decades, particularly the first two, two and a half decades since early 1990s, we all agree this is a U.S.-led problem.

unipolar world, but the problem with that kind of international structure is a single, we might call it a hydromonic power, can do whatever it likes and can impose its will on all other members of international society. And we have seen really devastating effects in terms of both

In the field of, for example, protecting of state sovereignty, also maintaining a fair justice internal system of economic relations. You see devastating impact of this unipolar world on these fields. And I think that this negative consequence was felt not only by countries like China and Russia, as I just mentioned.

It's deeply felt by many other countries in the world, like the common negative response to the recent unilateral financial sanctions levied by U.S. against other sovereign states. So I think in that sense, a multipolar world is going to serve much better the interest of, again, not only China and Russia, but most sovereign states in the world as well as most peoples in the world.

I take your point. So the Chinese foreign minister has openly welcomed those recent measures or recent steps taken by both Russian and the U.S. side to try to improve their ties.

What do you think a better Russia-U.S. relationship might mean to China? Dr. Zhang, I'm asking this question because, you know, you know better than I do, because U.S. officials and some U.S. analysts, political analysts say,

They sometimes tend to describe ties between China and Russia as a so-called marriage of convenience in the face of joint Western pressure. Some have even suggested or proposed a so-called reverse Nixon strategy, referring to former American President Richard Nixon's 1972 Cold War period policy to contain the former president

USSR by engaging with by engaging with Beijing. What is your take on this in general? Yes, I think the reverse Nixon effect has been a really flare-up in International media particularly in the anglophone world. I think there is even in terms of basic

There is a fundamental difference between the late Soviet period, the so-called Nixon visit to China has played out, and the current trilateral relation between U.S., China, and Russia.

managed to sort of utilize the existing tensions between Soviet Union and China at that time. That's how Nixon was successful, because there was already a very serious tension between Soviet Union and Russia, Soviet Union and China since late 60s in early 70s.

But that was not the case. That is not the case right now between China and Russia. So I don't think the reverse Nixon effect will be easily played out or will be easily replicated. And also, I think the current bilateral relation between China and Russia has its own logic beyond this trilateral framework.

has its own logic for maintaining a stable, long-term relationship beyond its potential impact on China-US or Russia-US relations. And that has been stated many times by Chinese leaders and top officials too. And I think that's also the message we see from Mr Wang, his ongoing visit to Moscow,

from the Chinese readout and the Russian readout, I think it's very clear that both sides emphasize the so-called independent or indigenous knowledge of bilateral relations between China and Russia beyond any other

possible impact on the relative bilateral relation with the United States. And on the Russia-U.S. relation in terms of possible possibility that these two sides may be able to work out a peace deal regarding the war in Ukraine, I think overall Chinese states is open for that and welcome any possible means to end the military conflict.

as soon as possible. So I think that's not going to be a barrier on maintaining a reasonable Russia-China relationship overall. Thank you very much for joining us today. Dr. Zhang Xin from East China Normal University. Coming up, we're going to explore how the new tariffs being imposed by the Trump administration might erode consumer and business confidence. Stay tuned.

You are listening to World Today. U.S. President Donald Trump is imposing new tariffs targeting all American trading partners, including traditional allies such as Canada, South Korea, and the European Union.

The latest action is coming just a week after Donald Trump announced a 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars entering the U.S. market, effective on Thursday. Economists are warning that Trump's tariffs, which will tax on imports paid by American businesses and consumers, are eroding consumer and business confidence.

So for more, my colleague Xu Yaowen earlier spoke with Andy Mock, tech analyst and a senior fellow with the Center for China and Globalization. Andy, so first of all, White House spokesperson Carolyn Leavitt used the term reciprocal to describe President Donald Trump's new tariffs. But is that the correct term to use? Because from any perspective, this is a unilateral one, right? What's your take on that?

Well, Yawen, that is a great question. And I think certainly many countries, many companies around the world would interpret this as unilateral. But I think in order to formulate effective responses, I think it's important to understand also why the Trump administration would consider this to be reciprocal.

The only way you can change people's behavior is if you understand what their assumptions are and what's motivating them. So I think from the Trump administration's perspective, they may not see it as unilateral because in their view, the U.S. has been taken advantage of by countries in Europe, even countries like Canada and Mexico.

And there is a sense of crisis and a sense of threat that something has to be done urgently. So it's easy to understand why many interpret this as unilateral. But I think at the same time, we can hold on.

Another truth, which is the Trump administration may not agree. And they're acting this way again to address what they see as an urgent and very important threat facing the United States.

Cindy, President Donald Trump's new tariffs target all trade partners, including traditional allies like Canada, Mexico and European Union. And these countries have expressed strong dissatisfaction and also they're planning to take retaliatory measures. So in your view, how might Trump's trade approach harm America's trade relationships with his allies?

Well, I think certainly given the size of the U.S. economy and the market, especially for European countries like Germany and countries like Canada that are extremely reliant on the American market, this has the potential to be catastrophic.

And I think while no one really knows, and perhaps even Trump himself might not know why these actions are being pursued, one certainly is a widespread recognition

in the United States and among financial professionals around the world, that the U.S. budget deficit is not sustainable and something must be done. And that something, again, according to President Trump, is universal tariffs that can bring in new sources of revenue. Now, whether this will really work or not remains to be seen. But again, this is one reason.

Another, again, is this notion of equity or fairness, whatever the objective reality might be from the American perspective. Some, certainly President Trump, believe that the United States has not

been treated fairly by its, what he would call their so-called allies, in that they have been free riders, taking advantage of the American security guarantee, while at the same time, again, in his words, eviscerating American businesses with unfair trade terms. So again, whether this is true or not,

matters less than this is what the U.S. or what Trump believes and is motivating his actions. So I think what we can say is that this could be enormously disruptive. Countries that are prepared and have the resilience to face these challenges, and I would certainly put China in this category, may stand to benefit in the long run despite any short-term pain. Do you think...

like US allies, they could unite together, maybe put some pressure on America to revise these policies. Any possibility on that? Oh, I think there absolutely is this possibility, Yawen. And I would say it's not even a possibility, but it is a strategic necessity. And, you know, this is in a way we could think of as a

The tragedy of this situation in that the U.S. perception of threat is causing it to take actions that, of course, very damaging to some of its most important trade partners that are also outlawed.

allies, but at the same time also damaging itself in the long run. So I think that this is the tragedy. Now, the strategic necessity would be, of course, for countries in Europe to find ways to partner with Canada, with Mexico, other countries to formulate a

a united front that can change the economic and political calculus. Now, of course, we are also seeing this potential with China, South Korea and Japan as well, which I believe Foreign Minister Wang Yi has raised this as a topic. And again, I don't see it just as a possibility, but probably a strategic necessity.

Well, in the case of China, we know previously President Donald Trump has enacted new tariffs of around 20% on top of existing 10% duties that went into place during Trump's first term. And also China has responded. So do you think these actions mark a full-scale escalation of the U.S.-China trade war? And how might U.S. new tariffs affect global supply chains?

Well, I think this is very hard to say, Yawa. And I think the biggest challenge here is really trying to understand what the U.S. actually wants to accomplish. And the U.S., well, the Trump administration is probably more accurate to say, perceives an urgent, perhaps even existential threat. Now, whether that threat is the fiscal deficit,

whether it's the rise of China, it's important to understand and then formulate the most effective responses. So for example, if the budget deficit is considered the most important threat facing the United States and the Trump administration,

Countries, including China, can find ways to work with the U.S. in a mutually collaborative win-win way to address that challenge. But as Wang Yi has said, Foreign Minister Wang Yi has said, if these are just excuses for other objectives that are not articulated, and of course this was, I think, one

Foreign Minister Wang Yi's comments were in regard to fentanyl as the reason why the U.S. is imposing these tariffs. But the behavior does not match the words. So that makes it very hard for countries like China to work productively with the United States to solve whatever the real issues the U.S. has. And I think this is probably the bigger challenge versus any specific issue.

economic or societal, even political issue is whether the U.S. can accurately and faithfully share what its real concerns are. Andy, some economists estimate that if President Donald Trump's tariffs policies continue for a year, U.S. GDP growth could slow by 1%.

And also American consumers would face higher prices with inflation expectations reaching levels not seen since 1993. What do you make of these numbers? How does this policy contradict with Trump's Make America Great Again and also America First agenda?

Yeah, so that's another great question, Yawa. And so I would make two points here. So one is that I think we should, and I'm saying this as someone who has been trained in economics, that we should take economic forecasts with a grain of salt. And I'll share a couple of humorous quotes along these lines. So Paul Samuelson, famous economist, has said, economists have predicted nine

of the last five recessions. And Lawrence Peter, who wrote the book, The Peter Principle, has said, an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. So I think that economics is not quite the predictive science that many people hope it is and really need it to be.

So that being said, and I say this because we often really don't know what the economic impact will be. Now, I think also what Trump has said is that the country needs to endure short-term pain for longer-term gain. And again, if we say that the budget deficit is a problem—

U.S. government efficiency and bureaucracy is a problem, that some painful, extreme, short-term things need to happen for long-term gain. We have to see. I think no one really knows. But again, I think the key for other countries around the world is they must understand

have the resilience, the courage and the resources to be prepared to deal with a much more uncertain political environment. And I go back to what President Xi has said multiple times, that these are changes unseen in a century. And I think what we've seen, at least as clear to me, is that China has prepared itself many ways for dealing with exactly these kinds of uncertainties.

Andy Mock, Senior Fellow with the Center for China and Globalization, talking to my colleague Xu Yaowen. You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing. We'll be back after a short break. Welcome back. You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing.

U.S. Defense Secretary Peter Haxas has deployed more warplanes to reinforce U.S. military capability in the Middle East. Pentagon's announcement came a few days after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Iran with bombing and secondary tariffs if Tehran didn't come to a deal with Washington over its nuclear program. No detail was given with regard to which type of aircraft were being deployed or where exactly they were sent.

And the United States has been carrying out a bombing campaign in Yemen for more than two weeks. Joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, West Fudan University. Thank you very much for joining us. Welcome back.

So already there seems to be considerable amounts of American firepower in the Middle East. For example, the United States military will soon have two aircraft carriers in that particular region. So with that in mind, what do you think could be the intention, could be the intent of deploying more warplanes to the region?

Well, actually, if we look at what is going on, I think it is worth noting that warplanes provide flexibility as they can be used both for defensive and offensive objectives. So obviously, I think Strong wants to leave more space for his strategies and to have more flexible, you know,

And I think right now there are at least three purposes. The first purpose is to give quick response and strong counteract, counterattack towards the United States perceived as threats from the Houthi rebels.

And I think right now it tries to deter regional adversaries such as Iran and its allies. So this kind of buildup could be a precaution against a worsening situation. And I think the second purpose is to reassure partners like Israel and to show that the United States will continue providing unconditional support for them.

But I think there is another important purpose of Trump that is to demonstrate that he's still interested and capable of maintaining the United States' influence in the Middle East. Because in the past, people often say that maybe Trump wants to sort of launch a retreat. But right now, he wants to show that he will not leave a political vacuum for the other powers to fill in.

So specifically with regard to Iran-related issues, we know the U.S. killing of General Qasem Soleimani in late 2019 and early 2020 was seen by many observers as the only foreign war action taken by Trump during his first term in office. So do you think Trump made it?

when he on Sunday over the past weekend threatened Iran with bombing and secondary tariffs as well.

So we know that the United States killing of General Soleimani suggests that Trump is not afraid to use force. As Soleimani just proved, Trump is a hardline figure. And Trump's current rhetoric aligns with his maximum pressure approach towards Iran, which means that he would blend different ideas.

Thank you very much.

So for him, threats are like his negotiating tool. So on the one hand, I think Trump has taken the maximum pressure before, but this has not gained what he wanted. And right now we can see that actually Iran does not want to probe the United States. So he doesn't have a lot of excuses. And now his priority is actually to sign a new agreement.

nuclear deal with iran compromising a lot um so that is further to escalate the situation is not what he wants and on the other hand i think trump wants to reduce its diplomatic and military investment in the middle east so threatening iran with bombing can only make things complicated and drag the nice days deeper in the region i think that doesn't fit into his interest um

realistically speaking, is the United States right now capable of launching strikes on Iran's nuclear program? Well, in fact, the United States has the military muscle to hit Iran's nuclear program. Also,

Also, we have to take into mind that he has very strong capability in terms of intelligence, and it has long been tracking Iran's nuclear sites via diverse means. But for the part of the United States, I think it might not want to act on its own, but it might ask Israel to take action. But right now, I think there are still two points worth noting. On the one hand, Iran has

dispersed in a sense, some of them are deep underground. So it is very hard for the United States or Israel to launch all of them and to attack and destroy all of them. And secondly, the United States is implementing a strategy of balancing various forces in the Middle East

So let's say if any very strong force is completely destroyed in the region, it's actually not in the interest of the United States. Therefore, I think it may not easily choose to attack a vast nuclear facility.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has, on Monday, he responded that the United States would receive a strong blow if Trump followed through with his threats against Iran. So what kind of cards do you think the Iranian side is holding right now in terms of giving the United States a strong blow?

While Khamenei has warned of a strong blow in response to potential United States military action, and that signals that Iran possesses a range of capabilities to retaliate. But to be honest, right now, Iran has very few cars.

As we know, Iran's asymmetric warfare capabilities, particularly through its alliance network, have been heavily hit by Israel during the last year. And right now we can see that Hezbollah and Hamas have already been hit heavily and also

Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime has collapsed. And right now, in the network, it seems that only Houthi rebels still have quite strong capabilities, but it's still very limited in terms of confronting the United States or Israel. And also Iran attempts to carry out nuclear deterrence. But the tricky thing is that when it comes to nuclear deterrence,

You cannot actually use the nuclear weapons. So right now, I think both Iran and the United States have the intention to negotiate with each other, but they both hope that the other side can make more concession and show more sincerity. So both sides are currently adopting the deterring tactics towards each other.

So if we put away the tensions between the United States and Iran, including Iran's regional allies over there, for example, the Houthis in Yemen, et cetera, from an overall perspective, Dr. Zhang, do you think increased American military presence and capability in the Middle East will be something conducive for the region? Well,

Well, from my observation, I think the increase of the United States military presence may have various impacts on the region. But in general, it doesn't help in resolving the Middle Eastern conflict, because in fact, more of the United States weapons and military bases there are

often feel resentment from both the government and local populations who view it as overreach or occupation or a damage to their sovereignty. And moreover, such kinds of actions might actually trigger an arms race in the region because local actors, they would all want to strengthen their military capacity.

due to the security anxiety, which can lead to even more tensions in the region. And I think there is another very important point is that let's say if the United States military presence stresses, then other extra regional powers may also follow suit and increase their own military presence or arms sales to regional actors. And that could lead to escalating proxy wars in the region.

Thank you very much for joining us and for your analysis. Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Fudan University. Coming up, the Danish Prime Minister is visiting Greenland for a three-day visit amid mounting pressure from Donald Trump to control the island. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back.

Shanghai has made history, becoming the first Chinese city to ban smoking in outdoor public spaces. Could this be the start of a nationwide shift? China aims to cut adult smoking from 24% to 20% by 2030. But with cigarette sales still climbing, is that goal realistic?

Can this policy genuinely make an impact, or will deep-rooted smoking culture stand in the way? Find out wherever you listen to podcasts and on CGTN Radio. You are listening to World Today. I'm Ding Hen in Beijing. Danish Prime Minister Meit Fredrikensson is paying a three-day visit to Greenland for talks with the semi-autonomous region's incoming government.

His trip comes less than a week after Denmark and Greenland actually gave a very cool reception to a visit to the island by US Vice President J.D. Vance. Greenland's incoming leader Jens Fredrik Nelson says he welcomes Danish Prime Minister's trip, noting that Denmark remains the closest partner for Greenland. US President Donald Trump's interest in terms of controlling Greenland has prompted Denmark to do more to improve ties with the island.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Kamal Makili-Aliyev, Associate Professor with the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg. Thank you very much for joining us today, Kamal. First of all, in your observation, what could be on the agenda of Prime Minister May's Frederikensen's trip this time?

I think that because Greenland's incoming leader, Jens-Fredrik Nilsson, has welcomed the trip, it seems like Greenland is open to the discussions of deepening economic, social and cultural cooperation to ensure that Denmark remains Greenland's closest partner, if not more, because we tend to forget that Denmark is actually Greenland's sovereign. And even if Greenland is an autonomous country,

land, it still belongs to Denmark. I think also there's going to be a lot of talk about how to boost the local economy of Greenland and its infrastructure.

and this may include the questions of how Denmark can support the efforts of Greenland to establish a sustainable resource development but also the questions of how to improve connectivity between Denmark and Greenland because there is a lot of distance between the

Denmark and Greenland just geographically. But also it's going to be a question of, you know, addressing challenges that are unique to the Arctic region. And this is highlighted by the now pronounced U.S. strategic interest in the Arctic and primarily, you know, the sights of President Trump on Greenland. So Denmark and Greenland are going to discuss on how to best

to balance external pressures while also safeguarding Greenland's autonomy and security. And this would also mean counterbalancing US ambitions in the region and ensuring that Greenland's future decisions are going to remain in the Greenland's autonomy within its parameters, yes. So as we know, Greenland has been on a path to pursue independence from Denmark since at least 2009.

If the island really became independent one day, how do you think its relations with Denmark would look like under that kind of circumstance?

Well, we are assuming that there is going to be a non-conflict type of independence and this is going to be a democratic process of Greenland using its right to self-determination. In that scenario, of course, I think even despite Greenland's formal independence, it would likely maintain a very close economic culture and security ties with Denmark. The relationship

can evolve into, you know, more into the partnership based on mutual interests. Very much similar to other cases that happened with former colonial administrative territories, you know, that then, you know, when separated, transformed into quite robust bilateral relationship.

I think Denmark's role in supporting Greenland's infrastructure, education, public services, everything, it's not just going to disappear and go away. It's going to, you know, transform into bilateral arrangements and agreements. And then Greenland would continue to benefit from Denmark's diplomatic cloud, ensuring that it's transparent.

safeguard internationally even after independence. We have to remember that it's a huge piece of land but populated by a very tiny population compared to its territory, right? Somewhere around 50,000 people. So I think there is quite an agreement that this is, you know, negotiated independence would still be on the path to friendly relationship

after its pronunciation rather than the severance between Denmark and Greenland. I take your point. So how do you think the interest of US President Donald Trump in terms of controlling Greenland might have an impact on this territory's pace and path towards seeking independence?

I think this is a very interesting question because on one side, the Trump's ambitions in the Arctic have in many ways, you know, kind of spurred this part of Greenlanders that are more assertive in terms of their independence and want to want it to happen sooner rather than later. And of course, you know, concerns of external interference, they can serve as a rallying point for those who favor full sovereignty and already have done so politically.

But there is the other side of this, right? The other side of external pressure. You know, this past Trump statements, they raised alarms and also underscored Greenland's kind of strategic importance. And that means that the Greenland may opt for a more cautious approach

And we've seen the kind of science, we're seeing this kind of science in the upcoming talks with Denmark, right? And pursuing greater autonomy, but while maintaining strong ties with Denmark as its sovereign protector to kind of counterbalance United States and other powers that might be seeking an edge in the Arctic race further. So it might produce the opposite effect of what United States is actually doing.

expecting and you know this kind of create a situation where Greenland is going to be more cautious with independence in the long term. Actually during his visit to a US military base in northern part of Greenland last week, last Friday I guess, JD Vance accused Denmark of not doing a good job in terms of keeping this island safe, suggesting that the United States would do a better job in this regard.

How would you look at his comments here? And we understand Greenland's incoming leader says Greenland wishes to establish a kind of respectful relationship with the United States. So do you think a respectful relationship is on the minds of the Trump administration?

Well, it has to be taken into the context, this politically charged rhetoric of J.D. Vance. They appear to be undermining the Danish influence and boosting the U.S. to extend the strategic narrative. But they also play into broader partisan debates that the U.S. has internally. And, you know, this kind of political posturing more than an objective assessment of Greenland security needs, right?

Greenland's incoming leader has clearly expressed a desire to have a respectful and balanced relationship with the United States. So that suggests that while the Trump administration is going to be pursuing the aggressive stance like this, and especially in terms of statements, the current and future U.S. policy is likely to focus more on the partnership and support, especially given this kind of shifting dynamics in the Arctic. They also don't want to scare the Greenlanders away completely.

And although the US has significant military capabilities, its ability to unilaterally dictate Greenland security arrangements is very limited, you know, because there is also Denmark in the picture and the Greenland strategic goals are not really yet aligned with, you know, completely with the United States. So the posturing is one thing, the reality on the ground is very different. And I think overall, while, you know, J.D. Vance's remarks are designed to highlight US capability,

they're unlikely to translate into a full-scale shift away from Danish stewardship over the Greenland security, at least not in any time soon. Thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Kamal Makili-Aliyev, joining us from University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Coming up, we're going to explore what's behind the skyrocketing rice prices in Japan. You're listening to World Today. 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 World Today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world. So please, come to join us. You're back with World Today. I'm Ding Han in Beijing.

Japan has adopted new emergency measures to tackle its rice shortage problem. Under a new law put in place on Tuesday, the Japanese government will be able to ask farmers for plans to increase production of key foods like rice if domestic supply shrink and prices drop.

The law is aiming to stabilize food availability amid rising domestic inflation and climate change, ensuring a more resilient supply of key crops. In Japan, food prices are continuing to rise. The cost of rice, for example, skyrocketed by over 80% in February this year from a year earlier, the steepest decline since the year 1971.

So joining us now in the studio is my colleague Ge'Anna. Thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for having me. So in your observation, Ina, what are some of the key factors driving this increase in terms of the rice prices that we see in Japan?

According to research, the rising rice cost in Japan is due to a combination of factors, but extreme weather and the longstanding reduction policy on rice production have been the major contributors.

We know that Japan has been hit by frequent typhoons and heavy rain. These natural disasters and record summer heat back in 2023 have damaged the harvest, causing a drop in supply. On top of that, rumors about earthquakes recently also led to panic buying, making the situation even worse. But to experts,

These are not the main reasons. They believe that Japan's reduction policy is the root of the problem. The policy is that the government is paying farmers to limit how much they grow. This decade-old policy has been in place for about more than half a century, costing billions of dollars a year in public spending. It meant to stabilize prices, but actually led to less

rice being grown and making it harder to respond to changes in demand today. And this has played a big part in driving prices up. Farmers are protesting with the latest round was happened last Sunday, saying that the policy is not working and if this continues, their farms will disappear eventually. Well, so governments providing subsidies to

to limit the farmers' production. Well, that's the first time I have heard about situations like this. It's a very rare case for sure. So when we talk about daily life over there in Japan, how do you think this hike in terms of the rice prices have impacted average Japanese households and some of the relevant industries?

You know, like in the United States, the affordability of the eggs has prompted a national discussion recently, right? Highlights anxieties about the economy and the government's role in addressing such a problem. In Japan, there is an equivalent that is the rice. In March, core consumer inflation in Tokyo accelerated, primarily driven by rising food costs, which increased.

With the rise prices increasing by over 80% year on year, the highest since 2017.

1971, as you correctly pointed out in your introduction piece, the situation become so dire that the government had to tap its emergency rice reserves and roll out new laws. And as to your question, the sharp surge in rice prices has strained household budgets and leading consumers to seek alternatives or reduce rice consumption. Some have turned to home gardening to offset costs.

And to related industries such as sushi restaurants and other food businesses reliant on rice, rising costs are creating operational challenges. For example, the increase in rice prices adds ingrained costs.

And if sushi prices are not adjusted, profit margin shrinks. If increasing prices, then that could lead to losing customers. So that's the dilemma they are facing today. And many sushi shops are responding by adjusting their menu, reducing portion sizes or seeking cheaper rice suppliers. But these changes might affect the quality and taste of their products and potentially causing a ripple effect

across the entire dining industry in Japan. And smaller sushi shops are already facing financial strains. There are also the forefront, you know, getting targeted by the rise of the food cost. At the same time, another issue is steering public reaction recently is that Japan has just passed its 2025 fiscal budget, which sets a record high in total. What's the sparkling debate is the defense budget.

which has surged to a new record about 8.7 trillion yen, over 60 billion US dollars, breaking last year's record. But meanwhile, social security and education budgets are showing negative growth in the planning. This large-scale military expansion, seen as undermining peace and squeezing budgets for people's livelihoods, is making citizens very angry.

In a time of high inflation, right? I think the Japanese people clearly need relief, not more weapons. Yeah, that's for sure. So this new law, it is trying to address food supply shortages. It has already taken effect. How does this law work in terms of tackling the problems we're talking about here?

Under this new law, 12 agricultural products, including rice, soybeans, wheat, eggs, beef, and pork, along with seven processed goods like flour, sugar, vegetable oil, and dairy products, are classified as designated foods.

Essential supplies like fertilizers and animal feed are also included. If a major natural disaster or other disruptions signal potential shortages in the country, the Prime Minister will decide whether to establish a response agency.

If supply jobs buy at least 20% from the average level, or if prices spike, the government can require farmers and food-related businesses to submit plans to increase production, boost imports, or expand market supply. And non-compliance can also result in fines up to 200,000 yen, about 1,300 U.S. dollars.

In addition, if the supply of these goods become critically low, farmers may be required to switch to alternative crops such as taro with government oversight on food distribution. But it's also stated that if imports can stop,

sufficiently make up for domestic shortfalls, the government will not enforce production increases on farmers. So we understand the Japanese government has actually implemented measures like releasing the reserve rice, right? So what do you make of the advantages as well as the potential limitations of these measures? And how do you think they might impact the long-term stability of the rice market?

This law, clearly aimed at addressing food supply shortages, definitely has some advantages. For example, it clearly sets out the goal of increasing production of key crops like rice, which can help elevate supply shortages in the long run by using legal measures to boost agricultural output. It can encourage more resources to be allocated to rice farming. But there are limitations, as you said.

As you pointed out, the law primarily asks farmers to submit plans and there would be a delay in implementation. Additionally, practical issues like limited land and labor shortages may hinder efforts to meet production goals and making it difficult to achieve short-term results. Thank you very much for joining us. That was my colleague Ge'an Na.

That's all the time for this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.