What’s at stake in the first China-Indonesia foreign and defense ministerial dialogue?
53:44 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing. Coming up, China and Indonesia have held the first meeting of a joint bilateral foreign and defense ministerial dialogue.

China rolls out guidelines regarding upgrading Free Trade Zone's pilot program. Harvard is suing the Trump administration to stop a freeze of more than US$2 billion in grants. And China has added 29 new undergraduate university majors covering cutting-edge technologies. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching "World Today".

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called on China and Indonesia to push bilateral ties to a higher level. The senior Chinese diplomat made a remark in a meeting with his Indonesian counterpart Sugiyano here in Beijing. Wang Yi called for jointly developing emerging industries like green energy and digital economy, saying that both sides should uphold the spirit of free trade and promote two-way investment.

And for his part, Sugiyano said Indonesia is deeply committed to deepening ties with China, adding China represents Indonesia's largest trading partner. China and Indonesia held the first meeting of a joint foreign and defense ministerial dialogue on Monday. The two sides agreed to strengthen maritime cooperation to promote regional safety and security.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Rong Ying, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies, Sichuan University. Thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you for having me. So, Professor Rong, we know this is actually China's first ever 2+2 foreign and defense ministerial dialogue with another country. So why do you think Indonesia is actually the first country with which China has built such a dialogue mechanism?

Well, first of all, I think the idea to have a kind of such a high level, high quality strategic dialogue and communication, so-called two plus two between the two foreign ministers and the defense minister of the two countries is being the consensus reached by the top leadership, President Xi, President Xi.

In other words, that mechanism represents the consensus and it is meant to implement a strategic sort of agreement between the two leaders. Secondly, I believe that if we look at the result, the outcome of this dialogue, I think it is fair to say it is very much lived up to the kind of understanding.

as we have seen that the dialogue of the two countries, of the four ministers, not only in depth but also I think substantial, very much helped in further deepening the strategic political trust and security issues. And last but not least, I think the two sides

the two countries also signed a kind of MOU to establish that mechanism. In other words, it becomes institutionalized. And also, an announcement has been made that this mechanism will be held. I mean, the second round will be held. So all in all, I think that the 2 plus 2 mechanism between China and Indonesia represents a new mechanism

efforts, new major sort of development in the bilateral relationship between China and Indonesia aimed at further deepening, expanding to the strategic partnership to a higher level and high quality level so that the vision of building a community of shared future between China and Indonesia will be put in

into real practice, making sort of impact not only for the region, and I think the world at large. So against the backdrop of Washington's unilateral bullying practices in terms of trade, for example, what do you think China and Indonesia can do together to safeguard the spirit of free trade?

safeguarding the free trade and also the multilateral trading system has been one of the major sort of issues, the major topics of that the two plus two dialogue. As a matter of fact, I think the two sides, the two countries,

has been reached a wide range of understanding on that issue. Now, they're only in terms of, I think, condemning and opposing unilateralism, the abuse of tariffs by Trump administration. But also, I think that they pledged that they, bilaterally, they work together to deepen their trade and investment. This is, I think, a very important area.

And related to that is of course the two sides also very much I think reiterate their commitment for open and regional cooperation in the context where RCEP and others. So all in all I think China and Indonesia are very important partners.

sort of economies, developing economies, emerging economies, you just name it. And also, of course, with the joining of Indonesia in the BRICS. Yes. I take your point. So,

In the meantime, the two sides have also agreed to cooperate in infrastructure, construction, minerals development, and joint security in the South China Sea, for example. So how do you think China and Indonesia can cooperate in the South China Sea in a kind of comprehensive and sustainable manner?

Well, the South China Sea issue has also been a very important subject of this dialogue, and also, I think, between China and Indonesia, bilaterally. As we know, China does not have a territorial dispute with Indonesia, but I think the two countries have some overlapping claims in certain waters of the South China Sea,

I think efforts have been made in the past and agreement has reached that the two sides will work for a joint development of these waters and the documents have also been signed and during this round of meeting a dialogue I think that the important one of the important outcome is that the two coastal guards would work together and

I mean for peace and stability. And most importantly, I think there's also commitment by the two sides for joint development of those areas we are talking about. So that is a very positive development in the question of South China Sea. And I think it would set a very good example for building together, I mean working together with all the countries concerned

for making South China Sea a sea of friendship, peace and cooperation. So when we talk about Indonesia and look at this whole issue from a sort of historical perspective, we know exactly 70 years ago, between April the 18th and April the 24th in the year 1955,

This historic Bandung Conference was held in Indonesia's Bandung, where the newly independent Asian and African countries at the time envisioned a new world order,

Now, fast forward to the present day, how do you think China and Indonesia today can jointly, you know, work together and to try to carry forward a spirit represented by the Bandung spirit, represented by the Bandung Conference? What is your understanding about the Bandung spirit in the context of today's, you know, international order?

Yeah, that's a great question. I think in today's fast changing and uncertain world, many changes, many transformations and challenges very much, I think, become an issue for developing countries, for global south like China and Indonesia.

And this year marks the 70th anniversary of the convening of the Bandung Conference and the spirit of Bandung Conference featuring friendship,

Solidarity, friendship, and cooperation remains very much relevant, and I would say even more important in this context. So during the dialogue, and also I think as far as China is concerned, where the symposium was held a week ago, and also I think reception was also being held in Beijing to commemorate that.

And that becomes, I think, dialogue between the two sides, China and Indonesia. Again, as we work together to pledge that the Bandung spirit, the Bandung conference, and together with, I think, the five principles of civil co-existence, becomes kind of a norm of international relations and playing a very important role as a principle guide

guiding building of new international relations. And very much important for developing countries and global south. China and Indonesia are all members of that. I think the commitment or the recommitment to that spirit helps a lot in terms of how to ensure the solidarity,

cooperation and the friendship will remain important for not only for the diplomacy, for foreign policy of the two countries and the global side as a whole, but more importantly, I think certainly

good example, making sharp contrast with the unilateralism, hegemonism, and the divide and the confrontation that they're now facing in this world. So very briefly, in a sentence or two, why do you think unilateralism is detrimental to the world of global sales today?

I think the major sort of challenges or risks threat that posed by unilateralism is the fact that major country or big power like the United States tend to impose their views, their ideas on more or weaker developed or less developed countries. So the world today has become so poorer

The challenges we are facing are of global nature, so that no single country can handle or manage themselves. And there's no way for them to either go back, like President Xi said, not into the dark room of unilateralism. So we are living in a globalized world, so we need global solutions, global efforts.

for global challenges. We really can't go back to isolationism. I think that's a clear message from China and from Indonesia as well. But thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Rongying, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies, Sichuan University. Coming up, China rolls out guidelines regarding upgrading of the country's pilot free trade zones. You're listening to World Today. Stay tuned.

You are listening to World Today. China has issued new guidelines to enhance reforms for the country's pilot free trade zones. China is looking to make them key hubs with regard to a dual circulation strategy of the country which balances domestic and international markets. The plan has outlined measures to boost the competitiveness of domestic companies in global trade with a greater role for digital tools.

It also seeks to attract more companies to the pilot free trade zones for innovation and supply chain collaboration, encouraging some particular zones to serve as testbeds for internet-connected vehicles and autonomous aviation. In the meantime, China's Commerce Ministry has also announced a new round of pilot programs to further open up the service industry.

China is going to launch more than 150 pilot projects in key industries including telecommunications, finance and healthcare. For more, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

So, Dr. Zhongmi, thank you very much for joining us. China's State Council issued guidelines to enhance reforms for the country's pilot free trade zones. So tell us more details of this and why is it now? Well, we know that free trade zone is a kind of a very innovative practices of China. We are trying to give some authorization to the local government and trying to make some of a very special

discoveries of the new methods of development. So for the past maybe more than 10 years, we have seen that free trade zones has already covered almost all the coastal areas and the provinces in the borders and also some of these inland provinces. So we are seeing that they are already having some of the experiences of doing something to do with opening up and trying to benefit the foreign investment.

And now I think that it is the time for us to try to upgrade to the free trade zones, trying to give their more, you know, authorities to open and trying to be better interconnected between different regions and the different sectors.

So it's very important that right now, because we are seeing the world under pressure with a lot of uncertainty, for the better opening up, we should try to find some suitable way, not just trying to open the door, but also trying to give some more strength for the specific sectors and trying to benefit the Chinese people. So it's a really important time.

And the free trade zones, the country is aiming to make them key hubs in China's dual circulation strategy. So how significant is dual circulation for China right now?

Well, we know that is always our strategy. In this regard, I would say that for Chinese domestic market, we are going to support the integration among the different provinces and regions. So for the free trade zones, there are just a window, not only the window for the outside world, but also the windows between different provinces.

So like for China, we see that so many regions are trying to have a better integration. They are giving more strength for the flow of different resources. So for the dual circulation, first, we have to strengthen our own abilities. Well, for the other side, I would say that is also important. We are going to give the foreign investment and the flow of the trade, I mean, the

goods, services, technology, capital, and also the talents. I think it's really important for us to keep those two sides connected with each other, the domestic one and the foreign one. So free trade zones could be the windows and also the doors. And it also seeks to attract more companies to the zones for innovation and supply chain collaboration. So could you elaborate more on that?

Well, it is true that FDI are trying to get better benefits from China. So in the past, many of them are using their own technology to commercialize that in China's market. And some of these markets, I mean, the products are then sold to the foreign market.

But now they are seeing the Chinese market is growing very quickly. So they want to make the better use of Chinese domestic market. Well, on the other side, I think those FDIs are going to have a better support from China's local sectors and the supply chains.

So when we're trying to give them this authorization in the free trade zones, I think they can enjoy a better support. And they know our directions for attracting the sectors like the medical care, something to do with telecommunication, artificial intelligence. So they know our targets and it's better for the complementary cooperation by both sides.

And meanwhile, China has announced a new round of pilot programs to reform and further open up the service sector. So why expanding the opening up of the service sector is crucial for China's development right now?

We know that service is a little bit more, I don't want to use the word of advanced, but it's in the next stage of most of the countries. So they started from the manufacturing and they move on to the service sectors. So for China, many of these leading cities like Beijing, Shanghai and also Guangzhou, they are having a

much stronger that you know the service industries if you are looking at the GDP they may they may contribute to about 80 or even higher of the GDP so they are going to make the better use of their advantages and when we are trying to enable

of this development for the opening up for the international trade. I think the FDI can play a very important role. So for us to attract the foreign FDI in these regions are very important for them to improve China's abilities being involved in the global service trade and also benefit themselves also. So what are the highlights of this pilot work plan for accelerating the service industry opening up?

I think there are several characteristics. First of all, we are giving authorization to the local cities. They can do a very advanced development and trying to open the door and also to make it easier for the FBI to come to China and stay here. And second, I think it's more complex

uh complicated by the integration of different regions and sectors like we're going to support the trade in services to support the manufacturing so these are really important and the third one i think it's uh not only uh just limited in very limited area like the free trade zone there are only uh several uh or dozens uh square kilometers

For these pilot zones, they are much larger. So it is even easier for the development and experiments to be done to attract the FDIs from other countries. And for this services opening up, the country will launch over 150 pilot projects in key sectors, including telecommunications, finance and healthcare. So Dr. Zhou, why are these sectors focused?

Well, we know that it is one of our very certain directions for attracting FDIs. In the past almost 10 years, we have, you know, showed that directions that we want to open, like the healthcare, the telecommunication, the finance, because we really think that these sectors are really important for our economy. Well, as you may find that from WTO commitments by all the members,

there are several specific annexes to the agreements of the trading services and includes the telecommunication, finance and other things. So it means that these sectors are really important to the members and it is also very sensitive.

So it's not just a task we can do just overnight. We are having better opportunities and more longer term to try to do more experiments. And for example, the medical and healthcare sector opening up, how will this benefit Chinese healthcare industry and consumers?

Well, we know that many countries, I mean the enterprises in the United States, in the European Union, they are having very good abilities to develop the new medicines and the pharmaceutical industries in many countries are very advanced.

So with the cooperation, I think that the speed of new medicines to enter the market will be shortened. And I think that is really helpful for us to deal with the health-related problems. And on the other hand, I think those companies really want to give more profits by investing in China because they have put so much money in the previous years. They want the returns. And so the medicines will also give them

a very important market support. So why are these financial sector opening up so important?

Financial is crucial for the development of the trade and the real economy. But financial sectors are also very risky because we can find that for the global financial crisis started from the financial sectors. So how can we balance these two things for the development and for the risk control? It's really critical things. I think that for the better development, we are trying to have

stronger abilities to balance these two targets and have more important support for the development of the real economy in China.

And China has approved the 11 provinces and cities for service sector liberalization trials since the year 2015. And now we add up another nine cities like Ningbo, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Xiamen, etc., etc. So why adding those cities into this categories that were opening up?

Well, first of all, we have more experiences after we have, you know, almost 10 years of the experiment. And the second, I think that for those cities that you have mentioned, they are developing very quickly. Like, you know, Hefei as one example, they are developing a very strong automobile industries. For this new industry, they really need more financial resources. So the, you know, more experiment of these areas can support these sectors and the cities

developed, which is a very important part of the integrated domestic market of China. And I believe that is also will contribute to our experiences for better opening in the pilot cities that already opened in the past 10 years. And the initiatives also include visa-free transit, permanent residency and payment convenience. So how will those policy benefit the foreign investors in China?

First, I think that they can come here to China much more easier. They don't have to prepare for such a long term. So it is easier for them to make a deal with the Chinese counterparties and we can reach commercial activities much easier. Second, I think that is also helpful for them to look at China's

situation and know more about China. So the better understanding will reduce, you know, the information symmetry. I think that is also very important for them to make the decision. They can come here to look at China's development and they will have more confidence. So the facilitation is really important for both sides of Chinese stakeholders and the foreign counterparties. We can build up more trust in even shorter term.

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

You're listening to World Today. I'm Ding Hen in Beijing. In the United States, dozens of leading economists have signed a public declaration warning that President Donald Trump's increasing use of tariffs could trigger a self-inflicted recession. The letter says the Trump administration's so-called reciprocal tariffs are calculated using an erroneous and improvised formula with no basis in terms of economic reality.

The declaration had gathered more than 1,300 signatures as of Monday afternoon. And the signatories include Nobel laureates Dr. James Huckman and Dr. Vernon Smith, as well as Harvard professor Greg McQueen, who once served as the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics with Chongqing University.

So thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Yao Shujie. In this letter, these economists emphasize that trade deficits are widely misunderstood by the Trump administration. They say, quote, contrary to widespread fears, U.S. trade deficits are not evidence of U.S. economic decline or evidence pointing to unfair trade practices abroad.

nor do these deficits inflict damage on the U.S. economy. Quite the opposite is true." What is your take on this point? I think the Trump administration's 2.0 is very erotic in a sense. Not many people follow the logic.

international trade is to exploit the comparative advantage of different nations. So I think Donald Trump had quite a few points that misleading the public.

Number one, I think the lexical teleth is a very strange idea because the percentage of the teleth calculated is mainly quite artificially by Donald Trump rather than based on very scientific figures.

number two i think the merchandise trade imbalances is only one of the imbalances in the u.s economy the u.s service trade with the rest of the world actually have a significant surplus another factor is that the u.s multinational company have invested heavily in the global market they generated a lot of you know

surplus which are plowed back into the US economy, which are not calculated in the official trade deficit.

the amount of deficit in absolute term is large, but in relative term, relative to the US economy, it is actually a fairly small percentage. This means that the US can quite easily bear a certain level of trading balances, especially the US dollar is the dominant multinational currency.

And the second problem is that it actually integrated the political and personal emotion into the telephore, because he's saying that the United States has a very dominant position in the global markets. So whatever the U.S. does, it actually hurts other people, not the U.S. economy itself.

And this calculation, I think, is probably mistaken. And this is why there are lots of signatories you see in the letter. This means that the people, not only just the economists, but I think the ordinary public in the United States, is already very concerned that these kinds of trade wars could actually fire back to hurt the domestic economy of the United States.

Hmm. So talking about the ways in which this trade war might backfire for the United States domestically, would you agree with this particular point in this particular letter we are talking about that average American workers will incur the brunt of these misguided policies in the form of increased prices and the risk of economic contraction?

Yes, I think the immediate effect is the hiking of domestic prices because imagine that you suddenly raise the tariff by 20%, 35%, it's now over 100% to China.

I mean, China is the third largest exporter to the United States. But the US also imposed very high tariff on the first and the second largest exporter to the US, Canada and Mexico also. Immediately, the domestic price would increase by the same or even double the amount shown by the tariff rate, and the consumer is going to suffer.

And the people who import the goods, they will also suffer. That means a loss of employment will be damaged. And certainly, I think if the consumer suffered, the consumption will suffer in a repercussion effect. The whole domestic economy would have a very strong impulse effect, negative effect from the border to the production line in the United States.

So in the meantime, some U.S. economists are warning that the Trump administration is somewhat repeating the mistakes made by the United States in the 1930s. We understand back then there was a protectionist trade act called Smooth-Hawley Tariff Act,

which many economists argue was one of the triggers for the Great Recession at the time. So to you, Professor Yao, do you think it is making sense to draw a parallel between what's going on nowadays and what was going on surrounding the situation in the 1930s?

I think there are some similarities, but there are also some differences. We refer back to the 1930s. There is a great depression in the capitalist countries represented by the United States, Europe. I think the main economic engines in the 1930s is basically North America and Western Europe.

Now, because in the early stage, after the First World War, there is a fairly strong recovery of economy toward the 1920s, the end of the 1920s.

But as a subject, because of the incoming quality, because of over capacity, there is a signs of economic recession purely due to the Western economy, you know, running into an economic bubble. Now, the adjustment was very painful.

and there were two Senates in the United States at the time, Mr. Smoot and also Mr. Hawley, who recommended to the US government saying that we have to increase the trade tariff against Western Europe to protect the domestic productions. So they adopted a very strong tariff rate at the time.

But the outcome was disastrous. I think the global trade system was totally disrupted.

and the trade policy erected by the United States didn't actually achieve the design objective. So the world economy went into a serious depression in modern history, the most serious depression in modern history. One third of the labor was laid off. They become redundant and production plunged, the stock market plunged by one third or even more.

Now this time, the US economy in different respect, it turned out to be quite healthy to me. Although there are some potential danger because of the trade imbalances, because of high debts. I think Donald Trump, he's actually taking a method to contain the debt level, to contain the domestic inflation and create macroeconomic stability.

I think he's probably bugging the wrong tree. He's actually thinking that the potential risk of the United States is because of the declining of manufacturing, which is due to the integration, the globalization. So the so-called American first in manufacturing going back to the United States is something deeply going into Donald Trump's mind. But the way he's doing

is actually highly counterproductive. Whether it is going to trigger another global Great Depression is debatable. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it will certainly.

have some sort of a mild crisis or medium crisis, not only in the United States, but the global economy. Certainly the global economy is going to slow down. The final question before we let you go, and briefly, what could be the consequences if a government doesn't listen to the voices from serious mainstream economists?

Yeah, I think the consequences are one issue. Supervisory, I think the U.S. democracy is facing significant challenges. I mean, the president is elected by the people, but the president doesn't actually care too much about the electorate and about the public voice. This is the limitation of the so-called democracy represented by Donald Trump.

And by not listening to the voice of the economists, I think sooner or later, I think the U.S. economy will have a backfire and there will be some sort of price to pay, fairly heavy price to pay.

Thank you very much for joining us. Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics with Chongqing University. Coming up, Harvard University is suing the federal government to stop a freeze of more than $2 billion in grants. This is World Today. We'll be back. You're back with World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing.

In the United States, Harvard University is suing the Trump administration in order to prevent the federal government from freezing more than $2 billion in grants. In a letter to Harvard earlier this month, the federal government called for broader government and leadership reforms within the university, as well as changes to its ongoing admissions policies.

It also demanded auditing views of diversity on campus and stopping recognizing some particular student clubs. Harvard refused to bend to those particular demands. And hours later, the federal government froze billions of dollars in terms of the federal funding.

and Harvard is actually the fifth Ivy League school targeted in a particular pressure campaign by the Trump administration. The federal government has also paused the funding for the University of Pennsylvania, University of Brown, and University of Princeton to force compliance with its particular agenda. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Joseph Siracusa, professor of global futures with Curtin University. Thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you. So why do you think the federal government is attempting to limit activism on campus in America? And by the way, do you buy this narrative or this rhetoric from the government that somehow Harvard has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculties from anti-Semitic violence and harassment, quote-unquote?

No, I'm not buying that whole thing. The Trump government or his administration has decided to go after Harvard because it detests the criticism that comes from higher education. And nobody really does it better than Harvard University. And they're using this anti-Semitism, this anti-Semitism.

case that Harvard failed to protect its students from anti-Semitism. That's ridiculous. I mean, probably 40% of the students at Harvard are Jewish anyway. So it doesn't make any sense. And so, and this is the interesting thing. The government threatens Harvard

And then the Trump government on last Friday or so sends a list of demands. Now, the Trump government argues on Monday morning that it was mistiming. They weren't supposed to send those. But by Friday night, Harvard had taken the demands.

and published them. So, you know, these starting points about how they were going to negotiate were published. And then very shortly after that, Harvard University, so is the Trump administration, as well as Robert Kennedy Jr. and other people,

arguing that the attack on Harvard is an attack against their freedom of First Amendment, that is the freedom of expression, what they can teach on campus and the like, and that it has no connection to do with holding billions of dollars

And funding now Harvard has over 60, I don't know, 60 billion dollars in endowment, but they're across 14000 accounts. They can't exactly pick up the bill. And of course, Trump administration has threatened to up the ante here. That is to take away Harvard's tax status. That is, it doesn't pay taxes right now because it's it's a university or school.

And so he can make life very, very difficult for these people. But look, Harvard regards this as an attack on their operating principles, on their integrity, on the First Amendment. And the Trump people are arguing that Harvard has failed to protect its students.

And they're also arguing that they want a greater say about whom Harvard hires, about diversity, exclusion. They want those things eliminated. They want the professors investigated for plagiarism, that old thing. And so, you know, they want to get involved in the day-to-day operations of Harvard.

And of course, no organization worth its salt can allow the U.S. government to come in and tell them how to do business because pretty soon they would be giving the lectures too. So Harvard is doing the right thing. They're fighting back. And Trump's attack on higher education is just frankly, to me, slightly out of hand.

So back to this lawsuit filed by Harvard University, how do you think this particular case might proceed in the foreseeable future?

Well, you see the thing here is that it may take a long time to get through the courts. It goes through the appeals courts and then it goes through regional courts and then it goes to the Supreme Court of the United States. I mean, these things can take two or three years to get their way to the top. I mean, Harvard would like to settle this. That is, they'd like the Trump administration to get off their backs. But Trump is already committed on this.

And, you know, so both of them have very, very bad starting points here. But it could take years and years. And, you know, we'll have a...

It will have an impact on Harvard's balance sheet one way or the other. So how would you view this idea that American universities' autonomy, which arguably has been granted by the Supreme Court in America, is under threat because of the existing government's

the existing federal government action. I mean, when we talk about, say, university autonomy, there is a limit with regard to how far, like how free is free, right?

Yes. Well, you see, I'm old enough to remember that in the 1950s, the American government went after universities, particularly Ivy League universities, because they thought they were too pro-Chinese. You know, it was all about who lost China and Yalta and things like that. So, you know, the government has tried this in the past, but they haven't tried it in recent years. And they try, I guess, in the 60s during the Vietnam War when I was at university, they tried to interfere with campuses or with universities. But look, I

I believe, and I've been a staunch critic of the United States all my life as a scholar, there are two things you don't touch. You don't touch the Olympics, and you don't touch higher education in America, because then you're mixing politics with sports and politics with higher education, and it's a very, very bad mix. In fact, it's a deadly brew at the end of the day. Hmm.

So in a bigger picture sense, Professor, what do you think this episode regarding elite universities versus the federal government tells us about the broader ideological or political or social divide in America?

Well, I mean, half of Americans have never stepped foot on a campus. It was part of the American dream to get a university degree and then, you know, get a good job and buy a house and have a family and all that. So half of America resents the other half that may have gone to university. I understand that. They don't want to pick up the bills for other people. So there's that kind of...

natural divide, but you know, it hasn't reached anything like the temperature it has under the Trump administration. I mean, Trump has appealed to most Americans who vote, and there are a lot who don't vote,

Without a degree, I mean, he got most of the Americans who don't have a university degree in the last election where he got 31% of the vote. Kamala Harris got 30%. But keep in mind, and your listeners should keep in mind that in the last election, 36% of the American people didn't vote at all for a number of reasons. And many of them just reckon that the system is rigged.

And, you know, they started giving up on government. But look, Trump is going after everybody here. He's going after the refugees. He's going after the borders. He's going after individuals. And he's going after higher education. And he's also threatened, by the way, to revoke the status of the visas. And I know a lot of kids from Asia and other places go to the United States looking for a visa.

and experience. And so, you know, it's very dangerous. Yeah, dangerous indeed. And a lot of trouble for them. So what do you have to say to this to these kids? For example, these kids from China or elsewhere in Asian countries who still want to pursue a dream in American higher education institutions? Very, very briefly.

Well, I'd say that try to ignore this right now and apply to these universities in Australia, Britain and the United States, and that this will pass. It is. This is a part of a political phenomenon that's going on. But I think, you know, in America and in other places, the pendulum will swing in the other direction and the soft power afforded by

Children who go to foreign universities is just unbelievably positive. And so, you know, don't give up the dream. Thank you very much for joining us. Joseph Syracuse, Professor of Global Futures with Kerding University. Coming up, China has added 29 new undergraduate university majors covering cutting-edge technologies. We'll be back.

Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski Teixeira. I'm a professor of Public Policy Management at Tsinghua University in Beijing. I am a great listener of The Wall Today. In my opinion, The Wall Today is one of the best China radio programs. In The Wall Today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world. So please, come to join us!

You are listening to World Today, I'm Dinghan in Beijing. China is moving fast to try to reshape its universities, preparing a new generation of talent for the country's high-tech future. This year, undergraduate students in this country can choose from nearly 30 newly added university majors, many of them focused on cutting-edge fields like artificial intelligence and the faster-growing low-altitude economy.

In the meantime, there is also a push to try to meet real-world industry demands. New programs in international cruise management and aviation sports are designed as well with the job market in mind.

So for more, my colleague Ge Anna spoke with Professor Wang Zhengxu from the School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University. Professor Wang, to start with, what's your take on the introduction of these new majors? From your perspective, what do these choices say about China's current social and national priorities?

I think they look quite interesting. Most of them are trying to bring the higher education, university education, to

integrate with the advance in technologies and science in contemporary lifestyle. So I see a lot of them are about AI, about digital technology, about bioscience and biotechnologies. So that's quite telling about

the training in technology and lifestyle in China. Then let's zoom in on the AI-related majors like AI Education and Intelligent Audiovisual Engineering. How do these programs align with the broader push for tech-driven growth and digital transformation in China? And what kind of role will these graduates play across key sectors in the near future?

Yeah, I think AI and digital technology are just like, you know, they are becoming indispensable tools, you should just say. So many fields, many kind of jobs must be able to employ these new technologies and new tools. When I was looking at this new list of majors, I was thinking,

AI and digital technology are just like 20, 30 years ago. When I, when we went to university, everyone has to learn computer. Everyone had to learn computing technologies. I had to somehow learn how to

how to do a little bit programming, how to type on a computer. And I think today the new generation of university students, they must acquire certain literacy in AI, in digital technologies. So that's how I see this new addition of the academic majors. Indeed, each generation faces unique demands shaped by the times.

For example, there are also new majors like international cruise management and aviation sports. What do these choices tell us about changing consumer trends and shifts in industrial development? Yes, you would say like cruise management, it fits quite well in the general field of tourism. So I see this comes out as a new major in tourism under the management field.

So that makes perfect sense because cruise is a potentially very large market for Chinese residents. And China has recently become the latest country that can build cruise ships. So you can see the cruise business will be growing very fast. And same with the aviation sport. Actually, many kinds of sports is growing very fast as Chinese products.

Leaving standards rising, more and more people are going to enjoy various kinds of sports. So I think it's good that Sun University will offer, at the moment, still saying quite fancy academic majors to attract students.

Then professor, compared with how other countries design their university programs, what stands out about China's newly added majors? And in today's globalized world, how can these programs help China cultivate talent that can compete internationally? So this is a very good question because in other countries, especially I think if you compare Chinese universities with American and European universities, you will think

In those countries, universities, major, academic majors mostly emerged from the university themselves.

Here in China, of course, you have university professors and faculty that propose new academic majors, but it eventually is the Ministry of Education. After consultation, after a lot of academic research studies, they eventually make the decision, they make the choices, like what are the promising and what are the important and indispensable new

academic fields for universities to work on to produce new graduates. So in this sense, there is a much stronger government vision involved in directing the universities towards certain areas that the state, the country believe are important. So looking at this list, you do feel

the important field of AI, of digital technologies are in line with the national industrial and manufacturing strategies.

Professor, we are seeing all these exciting new majors being introduced. But let's be honest, some older ones probably are not keeping up with the times, right? What majors do you think are starting to feel outdated or may not fit future development needs?

Well, have a look at what are the remaining list of academic fields. So it will not be surprising if we bring out this current list of the existing major fields.

we will see some of them appear quite outdated. Just out of my head, maybe anything related to traditional coal technology, let's say, because in terms of energy transition, we are quickly moving out of coal era. And I don't know whether there is still a subject field about like

typing typist you know that that is much that must be a skill that is that was necessary 30 years ago but now it's completely out of date professor wang zhenxi from zhejiang university talking to my colleague ge anna that's all the time for this edition of world today i'm dinghan in beijing thank you so much for listening bye for now