Shownotes Transcript
China has stated its position on opposing U.S. abuse of tariffs. EU seeks unity in first strike back at U.S. tariffs targeting 28 billion U.S. dollars of American imports.
South Korea expected to hold a snap election on June 3. 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.
China has accused the United States of undermining global trade rules in the name of fairness. Beijing is calling the sweeping tariffs on global trading partners an act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic coercion. Meanwhile, China has announced a 34% tariff on all U.S. imports and has banned several U.S. companies from trading and investment while placing some others under export control.
Zhao Yunfei explains the Chinese response. The pursuit of so-called fairness is more than just America first, but American exceptionalism. That's the stance that China has taken on U.S. sweeping tariffs against trading partners around the globe.
In a statement on Saturday, Beijing said Washington's move infringes on other countries' legitimate rights, violates World Trade Organization rules, harms the rules-based multilateral trading system and disrupts global economic stability. It also labeled U.S. tariffs as an act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying.
Data from China's General Administration of Customs shows that the United States is China's third largest trading partner in the first two months of this year. But economic experts are worried that the tariffs could further damage bilateral trade. China announced on Friday another 34 percent tariff placed on all imported U.S. products. That's the same amount of additional tariffs that Trump earlier imposed on China.
China's countermeasures clearly demonstrate a zero tolerance stance against actions that seek to undermine the global multilateral trading ecosystem. These harmful moves have far-reaching consequences for the global economy. And China's countermeasures are both well-prepared.
China says it would take resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty and interests. In Saturday's statement, Beijing reiterated China's commitment to high-level opening up and sharing development with the world. It called for global cooperation to reject protectionism and uphold the rules-based international trading system. The statement also called on the international community to value fairness and justice and stand on the right side of the history.
For more on this, my colleague Zhang Yang spoke with Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. So Dr. Zhou Mi, China has announced a 34% tariff on U.S. imports in response to that combined U.S. tariff of 54% on products from China going to the United States. So how do you interpret China's response and what is China's strategy here?
Well, if you're looking at the rate, I think it's just equal to the United States when they are putting the so-called reciprocal tariffs on China. I think that is very clear that we are going to do something to defend our
our businesses and our consumers. Well, we know that international trade are always happening from the two directions. So when the Chinese exports to the United States are facing some unfair practices, I think it's necessary for us to show the attitude
to also the US side, because we know that the United States and China are both very important countries. We are huge countries, so we have a lot of complicated relations. So the attitude of China is trying to give the enterprises and also the peoples of the United States the idea that we should try to respect each other, and if we have some problems, maybe it's not as good as just trying to do something unilaterally. We need to have more negotiation and talk.
And what does Trump's tariff mean for China's economy? And what will China do for the next step for its economy?
Well, we know that the tariffs are really meaning a lot of cost in the cross-border flow of the goods. Well, for China's export, we know that China has exported a lot of things to the United States, machineries, clothing, and also shoes, different kinds of things. Well, the export to the United States seems to have a much higher cost in the borders, but I don't think that is also, you know, Chinese suppliers will bear this extra cost.
So for some of the Chinese enterprises, when we're going to negotiate or trying to talk with our trading partners in the United States, we have to consider these additional tariffs and trying to consider about the possible policies and the solutions. We know that it is even more important for the suppliers to be stable, to have a better quality of supply and trying to meet the diversified demand. So the connections will be strengthened for the
cross-border trade from China to the United States. Well, for the government levels, I mean that we still have a lot of policies in the toolbox, and we are going to defend any of these unfair practices by some other country if they are trying to deal with this
problem unilaterally. On the other hand, I think it is also natural for us to understand that China's economy is getting stronger. If you are looking at PMI and also the inflation and a lot of outputs for different sectors, we are having a much more important space for the Chinese enterprises if they are going to discover a better development with a higher quality. And how do you see the outlook of the exports?
The export seems to be fluctuated in the coming months. I think it's not only about the size of the demand, it is about the structure and also the supply chains. We know the global supply chains are reconstructed in recent years, so the additional tariffs will pose more
impacts on the global supply chains. When the United States is putting different so-called reciprocal tariffs on different trading partners, the global supply chain has to react on that. Well, I mean, there is not only a
It happened in the government, in the national levels. It also happened in the market base. So I hope that the export could continue because if we are looking at the economies in the world except for the United States, I think most of these countries are trying to gain better powers through the international cooperation by the global trade.
And that is definitely some opportunities that we can see for Chinese companies, like in some of the Belt and Road regions, companies and countries are in the process of industrialization and urbanization. And that will improve the demand for the import from other countries and Chinese products definitely will be one of the main choices.
And as the second largest economy and the second largest market for consumer goods, China is committed to opening wider to the world. What does it mean for China and also the world? Well, as you mentioned, China is the second largest consumption market in the world, and it is still in the phase of growing up. So we can have a better expectation for China's consumption in the coming future, the future several years that we are
it definitely will import more things from other countries. I mean, this will provide so many opportunities for the countries all around the world. Maybe today they depend too much on exports to the United States, but in the future, maybe they can also give their very high quality products to Chinese market. And it is even more important for China's consumption market to have
very diversified patterns from the north to the south, from the east to the west. The Chinese people really like to try different things. So the consumption is one of the potentials for the exports of other countries. And on the other hand, the Chinese government is trying to improve the consumption in China so that it will even strengthen and support the development of China's domestic demand and that it will also provide even more opportunities to others.
And on Trump's tariff policy, are you concerned with his potential challenge to the multilateral trading system and globalization?
Definitely. It is one of the most important impacts in my understanding because the globalization are developed based on the multilateral system. Because of the multilateral system, every member of WTO will believe that they can have a very certain environment. And the enterprises also have the confidence that when they are dealing the businesses with other members, they find some very definitely and very certain
ways of doing this. But if the United States is trying to break this rule, they want to be special. I think that is definitely one of the very important violations on the very basic principles of the most favored nations. So how can other countries and other members
be not just like that. So I would think that for the multilateral system, everyone, every member should show their respect. They should be responsible to keeping the rules. There are several very basic rules. So we have to treat each other, economies or members equally. We should not just try to do something unilaterally.
We should respect the rights of the small and medium-sized enterprises, the developing countries and the least developed countries. That is based on very important, you know, the environment and the principles that we can continue with international business, including the global trade.
And talking specifically about Trump's tariff policy, there is across the board 10% of the tariffs on many countries. And also on the list, we find the European Union 20%, Vietnam 46%, Japan 24%, and South Korea 25%. So how might this reshape the U.S. alliance over time?
I don't think that the allies really trust the United States anymore like before. Because in the past they respected the United States not only because it's a military power, but also it's a principle to lead other allies. So now if they are saying that the United States will bully them because of their so-called deficit to the other countries, they may
think about whether they can still trust the United States as before. So we know that for those companies who are doing business among these so-called "alias markets," they believe that they can have better treatment, fair treatment, and also they can enjoy the benefits of doing business in a much wider market. And now if they have to
think about these possibilities. They may try to find some alternative, more stable and certain countries or certain environments to do business, which is not just according to what they are now doing in the United States and also their relations with the US markets.
And what are the possible effects on the U.S. consumer's business and the U.S. economy? Because some say it could push the U.S. economy closer to recession. So what's your view?
Well, we are looking at some of the predictions by the investment bank. I think that is reasonable because when we're discussing the possibilities of this impact, I think they lie on two different ways. The first one is that the cost of the global supply chains will be increased. We know that in the previous years, the inflation is always been one of the main concerns of many of the US stakeholders.
Now they are seeing more costs coming and the costs are distributed among different countries differently. That is really a big impact for the cost, already very high in the United States. And the second impact is coming from the uncertainty because when they are importing the things from other countries, they will not know which would be more sustainable and which can be trusted. We know that the quality and also the amount of support
are always very important. So now they are saying there are so many uncertain sources and how can they justify which source could be more reliable? I think this uncertainty will bring the behavior of the stakeholders more difficult to make a decision and it will continue to have even more impact on the cost of the United States. And that's really a bad thing for the U.S. economy in the coming future, maybe next several months.
And stock markets around the world, they have dropped significantly in the wake of Trump's announcement. On the U.S. stock markets, there have been huge losses. So why the markets are responding in this way? And what's the outlook of the U.S. stocks?
Well, in my understanding that they are showing, I mean, the investors and also the people involved in the stock markets are showing their attitude. They believe that, you know, the uncertainty is overwhelming. Even, you know, when Donald Trump has realized or put their policy of the so-called reciprocal tariffs,
And they still believe that in the coming future there will be more uncertainties. So they just want to retreat from the stock market. And another very important reason is that we know that stock markets are also a very important place for the people to get
the money from. So the stock markets are more fluctuated if they are seeing uncertainties and they want to do more business with certainty. So if you are looking at that, I would say that the people are really concerned about the future behaviors of the multinational corporation listed in the stock markets, because these companies are doing business all around the world. If there are more tariffs, they cannot have
That was Dr. Zhou Mi, senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Top EU officials have voiced their opposition to the U.S. tariff. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc stands ready to defend its interests with proportionate countermeasures if necessary. She expressed her deep concern over the tariff announced by U.S. President Donald Trump last week and the harm they pose to all countries.
Reports say EU countries will seek to present a united front in the coming days, likely approving a first set of targeted countermeasures on up to 28 billion U.S. dollars of American imports from dental floss to diamonds.
The 27-nation bloc faces 25% import tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars and so-called reciprocal tariffs of 20% for almost all other goods. To delve into this and more, let's have Christos Tombazos, Associate Professor at Department of Economics, Monash University. Thanks for your time, Professor.
My pleasure. Professor, first, how do you assess the recent move by US to impose higher tariffs on its European Union allies? What do you think will be the practical consequences for both sides? Thank you for this excellent question. So this is a self-inflicted injury.
A chaotic, economically unjustified, universally damaging, logically incoherent decision by what appears to be an economically illiterate and rather incompetent American administration. It has no upside. Neither is this good, a good negotiating tactic, nor an optimum policy.
According to the Trump administration, the tariffs are retaliatory to foreign tariffs and other trade barriers. But the calculation of these foreign tariffs and non-tariff barriers has no basis in economic theory. The formula that has been announced by the White House involves dividing the bilateral trade balance by imports from the United States.
This expresses the bilateral trade balance as a percentage of imports from the United States. But this figure has nothing to do with the size of trade barriers. The consequences, I think, will be severe as well.
of course, is reflected in the reaction of the stock markets around the world. It is important to recognize that the two-day drop in the New York Stock Exchange was the fourth largest since the Second World War. The other three were the 1987 crash, the 2008 financial crisis, and the recent COVID pandemic.
In practical terms, the tariffs will contribute to inflation by increasing prices for both American consumers and, importantly, American businesses that rely on foreign imported inputs. As a result, the tariffs will decrease overall consumption in the United States as they shift resources from the efficiency
efficient export-oriented sectors. These are the sectors in which the United States has comparative advantage to the import-competing industries that are unable to compete internationally. Though the tariffs have the capacity to increase the scale of production in the protected
import-competing sectors, they will do nothing to promote reindustrialization or a new set of comparative advantages.
They may simply create zombie industries that can compete in the domestic market against imports simply because they insulate or protect them from foreign competition. You know, I've seen the notion floating around that because tariffs are a tax on imports, Americans can avoid the higher prices if they buy domestic goods.
You know, it's important to recognize that this is a fallacy because tariffs make imported goods more expensive. They make it possible for domestic industries that produce commodities that compete with imports to also raise their prices. This is, after all, why we call the implementation of tariffs a form of protection, that is, protection from foreign competition.
So the consequences for Europe will be severe as well, but I'm inclined to think less severe than they will be for the United States. European exporters will simply not be able to export the same volumes to the U.S. than they used to prior to the imposition of the tariffs.
And to the extent that Europe retaliates, European consumers will face higher prices for American products. So to summarize all this up, what the American administration fails to recognize is the first lesson in any international economy.
economics a subject, that trade is not a zero-sum game. The benefits of trade between any two nations are mutual and they outweigh whatever losses might ensue from international trade. If I may give a very brief analogy, the process of trade is not like sharing a pie.
Whereas if one gets more of the pie, the other side gets less. That's not what trade is about. Trade is more akin to the process of jointly baking a pie and creating value out of nothing.
Professor, that's very observant. Based on your analysis, the EU, we know, is considering imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods worth of 28 billion U.S. dollars. Some items likely to be targeted include jeans, peanut butter, and motorcycles.
many of which are exported from Republican-led states. So how do you view these countermeasures? Do you think the EU is strategically targeting specific U.S. products from certain regions as part of a political maneuver? You know, I think this is a brilliant maneuver. And not only because some of these goods are produced in red states,
Republican-led states, but perhaps more importantly, because these are iconic American products with significant lobbying arsenals at their disposal. So the European expectation, which I think is a very reasonable expectation, is that these companies, these iconic American companies, will receive the message from Europe,
and will subsequently lobby the American government for relief. This is not a new approach by Europe. Something like that was used in the previous Trump administration, and there is evidence that the United States backed down in the past. So I would expect this maneuver to be effective again.
Professor, very briefly, what are the specific and effective steps can the EU take to mitigate the impact of these tariffs on its economy? Regardless of what the United States does in the future, through its recent actions, it has proven that it is a rather unreliable partner with very little regard for its traditional allies.
And this is evident not only in the economic setting of trade arrangements, but also in the realm of political and military cooperation.
I would imagine that the current environment can serve as a catalyst for re-evaluating international relations. Europe, with other major partners, notably China and Japan, might be incentivized to consider further liberalizing their already vibrant trade routes. Given that they are taking a firm stand on the side of free trade with the United States,
Why not work towards freer trade between them? So I would expect that Europe will go through a process of negotiating with Europe.
its Asian partners toward liberalizing their international trade. And this might be the only positive thing that comes out of a rather disastrous decision by the American administration.
to impose significant tariffs against all of its trade partners. And what I think will be particularly important in incentivizing closer cooperation between Europe and Asia is the fact that with the United States taking itself out of the equation, there would be gaps
in the markets of both Europe and Asia that can be exploited by each other, that can be fulfilled by each other. To give a very, very basic example, if the tariffs by the United States and the retaliatory measures by China and Europe, if those make electric vehicles coming from the United States prohibitively expensive,
in the rest of the world, then a good alternative for Europe, for example, would be the Chinese electric vehicles, which in any event are far more sophisticated than their American competitors. So this is what I would expect to see happening in the world as a result of the Trump tariffs. Thanks, Professor, for your insightful analysis. This is Ro today. We'll be back.
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.
Welcome back to Road Today with me, Ge'enna, in Beijing. South Korea's top court has voted unanimously to remove President Yun Suk-hyo from office, paving the way for an election to choose a new president within 60 days.
Parliament impeached Jung in December, suspending him from duty following his failed attempt to impose martial law. The country must now hold an election by June 3rd. The end of Jung's presidency doesn't mean the end of his legal trouble. A separate trial on criminal charges began in February and is ongoing. If found guilty, Jung would be imprisoned for life. So for more on this, Zhao Ying joins us in the studio. Thanks for joining us, Zhao. Thank you.
What specific actions did the Constitutional Court name as the basis for Yun Suk-hyo's removal from his office? Well, at the heart of the ruling was Yun's declaration of martial law on December the 3rd.
And the court emphasized that this action disrupted the constitutional order and created widespread chaos across society, the economy, and foreign policy. And specifically, the court cited several actions at the basis of his removal,
First, Yun's mobilization of military forces to storm the National Assembly and obstruct lawmakers from exercising their legislative authority was deemed a direct assault on the separation of powers. And the court highlighted how troops were ordered to break into the assembly with instructions to use force if necessary to prevent lawmakers from voting to lift the martial law decree.
And second, the justices rejected Yun's claim that this was a mere warning to counter anti-state forces or opposition abuses. And they noted that legal avenues existed to address such grievances without resorting to military action. So the court concluded that these acts constituted a serious violation of his constitutional duty to protect democracy and warranted his immediate dismissal from office.
We see that UN supporters continue to rally behind him, fueled by conspiracy theories that a rising far-right movement, while his critics are celebrating the verdict as a victory for democracy. Does this reflect a new level of political division in the country? And what do you believe has been driving this polarization?
Yes, this does signal a significant escalation in South Korea's political division. And I think there are many factors driving this trend. First of all, Yoon himself has played a significant role, like his declaration of martial law and his refusal to back down, claiming that it is a defense against
anti-state forces tied to North Korea and China fueled a narrative that resonates with his base, and his supporters see him as a martyr fighting election fraud and ideological infiltration. And those ideas were heavily amplified by right-wing YouTube channels
And on the other side, Yun's critics view his action as an assault on the democratic institutions, and they view the verdict as a necessary defense against authoritarian overreach.
But beyond Yuan himself, there are some deeper forces that's driving this divide, like the rise of digital platforms has amplified the split of giving far-right voices a powerful way to spread some unproven claims and rally support and
On the other hand, some as influential left-wing YouTubers similarly rally anti-Yun protesters. And in the meantime, there's the distrust of mainstream traditional media. And I think this polarization also reflects some broader anxieties
in South Korea about identity, economic inequality, generational change, and even the country's place in the world. And the current moment is like a stress test for South Korea, not just in terms of institutions, but also in the societal fabric that's holding the country together. Now, the next presidential election must be within 60 days. How is the country preparing for it? And what challenges do you foresee in this process?
Yeah, the timeline is really tight. Acting President Han Duk-soo has until April the 14th to officially set the election date. And the National Election Commission opened preliminary candidate registrations on the very day of the court's ruling. And political parties are scrambling to select their nominees.
The leader of the opposition Democratic Party, Lee Jae-myung, is currently the frontrunner among presidential hopefuls. However, his legal battles over bribery and election law violations might pose a risk. And meanwhile, the ruling People's Power Party faces a more chaotic process to find a successor to Yoon. And campaigning is expected to start very soon, and it will be limited to a tight campaign
23-day window and the election will use the same single round plurality system as before with the winner taking office immediately after the results are certified. But as we discussed earlier, the political atmosphere is deeply polarized in South Korea and tensions between the two major parties are running high. So
The election will likely see both parties trying to rally their bases while also attempting to appeal to some undecided voters. And there may be efforts to stoke fairs or spread misinformation to sway public opinion.
And moreover, this short timeframe means that candidates and political parties may not have enough time to engage in thorough policy debates. And that leaves voters with very limited opportunity to evaluate the candidates beyond their party affiliations.
And this rushed environment could make it difficult for voters to make informed decisions and increase the likelihood of emotional or polarized voting. And also there are logistical challenges such as ensuring security and managing the electoral process amid ongoing political unrest,
and because the election could be disrupted by protests or demonstrations. And of course, there are external pressures like the economic uncertainty under U.S. tariffs.
So, I mean, this is a test not just of South Korea's electoral process, but its ability to unify in the times of crisis. Indeed. As we earlier mentioned, Yun still faces criminal charges of insurrection. What does the legal process ahead look like?
Well, Yoon was formally indicted on charges of leading an insurrection in connection with his imposition of martial law, and the Seoul Central District Court has been assigned to handle the case.
The trial's first arguments are scheduled on April 14th. If convicted, Yoon could face severe penalties including life imprisonment or theoretically the death penalty, although South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997.
And a U.N.'s legal team has denied the charges, and the defense will likely argue that his actions were taken to prevent the country from falling under a legislative dictatorship controlled by political opponents.
And the court's proceedings will be very closely scrutinized. And given the political polarization in South Korea, ensuring a fair and impartial trial will be crucial for maintaining public trust in the judicial system. There is already talk of constitutional reform in the country to prevent this kind of abuse of power in the near future. What kind of changes are being discussed and how realistic are they?
Well, one of the main reforms being discussed is strengthening checks and balances within the executive branch. Proposals include limiting the president's emergency powers, ensuring that decisions like declaring martial law require broader approval from both the National Assembly and the judiciary,
And there are also calls to give the National Assembly greater oversight in areas like military deployments and executive orders to prevent unilateral actions from the president. And another potential reform is making the impeachment process more efficient
and transparent so that leaders who overstep their bounds can be held accountable quickly and decisively. And some have even suggested a more proportional representation system for the National Assembly to prevent the concentration of power in one party. However, these proposed changes face significant challenges because South Korea's political system has historically been built on a strong executive role, and altering this balance could be contentious.
Reform efforts would also need broad support across political parties to succeed, and the current polarization makes it very difficult. And also, any changes will require careful consideration of the balance between effective governance and preventing executive overreach.
But I think still there's is not completely unrealistic, like the public appetite is there. A Gallup Korea poll suggested that 54% support this revising the presidential system. And also both the People Power Party and the opposition leaders like Lee Jae-myung are
at least open to reform, although their priorities differ. So there is a rare window there, but whether they can align on a clear plan, we still need to wait and see. Thanks for the analysis. That was my colleague Zhao Ying. Coming up, Ukraine's president hits U.S. embassy over surprisingly disappointing response to Russian strike. This is Road Today. We'll be back.
Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski Teixeira. I'm a professor of Public Policy and Management at Tsinghua University in Beijing. I am a great listener of The World Today. In my opinion, The World 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!
This is Road Today with Mika Anna in Beijing.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has slammed the U.S. Embassy for what he called a weak statement that did not blame Russia for a missile strike on the country. Reports say in one of the deadliest strikes in recent weeks, a Russian missile struck a residential area in Zelensky's hometown, Klyvya Ria, on Friday. Later, the Ukrainian president said on social media the reaction of the American embassy is unpleasantly spookish.
accusing the embassy of avoiding referring to Russia as the attacker. Russia's defense ministry said it delivered a precise strike in the city where commanders of formations and Western instructors were meeting. Zelenskyy singled out the U.S. for criticism at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing for a partial ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine while seeking a thaw in the ties with Moscow.
So for more on this, joining us on the line is Timo Kivimaki, Professor of International Relations at the University of Bath. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for having me.
Professor, to start, President Zelensky's comments have certainly stirred the pot. What do you think prompted this outburst? Why do you think Zelensky felt the need to publicly criticize the U.S.? And what were his original expectations from the U.S. in terms of support? I think between President Zelensky and President Trump, there is a fundamental difference in how they see conflict.
in general and especially how they see the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This became abundantly clear in the clash
of the two presidents in the Oval Office on the 28th of February. And now I think that this is the main problem that while Zelensky sees conflicts as a result of a bad aggressive actor, Russia in this case, an aggressor that needs to be stopped in order to end the conflict,
Trump sees this differently. Trump is a businessman and he focuses on relationships and deals, not actors, not agents. So if Trump wants to end this conflict, if he wants to improve the relationship between Ukraine and Russia, he must seek acceptance from both of them.
Thus, he cannot start demonizing one of the conflicting parties and attribute all the blame for the conflict on one party only. You cannot make deals doing that. And this is why Trump's framing of the conflict differs from the framing of Zelensky. And I think this is why they often clash.
Trump is relational in his understanding of the world, whereas Zelensky is agent-centric. Let's delve into this further. The U.S. embassy issued a statement expressing shock over the incident, but President Zelensky felt the response was too weak. How would you assess the U.S. handling of this attack?
especially after rounds of talks between President Zelensky and President Trump. I think the U.S. embassy's response reflects the reality that it is Trump who is in power in the U.S. I have done some research on the effectiveness of, I mean, effectiveness in the reduction of conflict fatalities, of different framings of conflict. And in my research, it seems quite clear that this relational framing that Trump has
represents has been quite useful for conflict resolution. So in a way, this opposing view that the previous U.S. president represented and the view that Zelensky currently represents of seeing conflict as something where you have balance
bad guys and you have good guys. That's not particularly useful. It's not very useful for conflict resolution if one considers that conflict is something where only one side is the kind of atrocity criminal who is then fighting against an entirely innocent victim.
Such a framing tends to justify violence as in such framing conflict can only be ended by stopping the atrocity criminal. So in general, I think this relational framing that Trump presidency has taken towards the conflict in Ukraine is useful. And there's some research based evidence of that.
Then Professor, regarding the broader geopolitical context of the Ukraine conflict, President Zelensky's criticism seems to reflect the growing pressure on Western allies, European Union in particular, but many of his European allies are clearly preoccupied with addressing US tariff issues today. What kind of tangible responses do you think European countries might offer in light of this situation at this point?
I mean, first of all, I think your analysis is very correct. Europe has followed this agent-centric understanding of the conflict. Europe has felt that this conflict is only about the bad Russia, bad Putin, and therefore
Europe has represented the same framing of the conflict as Zelensky represents. Yet, I think you're right also that Europe is currently mostly occupied by the tariff question. As a result, I don't think
European countries are particularly important in this phase of the conflict resolution process. I think European countries do eventually follow the US, even now that they generally do not approve with its president.
Some of the European countries have already started talking about the need for flexibility towards Russia. For example, Finland's president, Alexander Stubb, just recently said that we have to be prepared for a new kind of relationship with Russia.
And this is from the same president who used to be very, very oppositional towards Russia. So I think Europe will follow US. It's part of the political reality. I think it seems clear that Europe is already moving towards a more kind of dialogue-friendly attitude towards Russia, away from the stubborn opposition of Russia.
this will happen at some stage. Professor, recently reports suggest that these peace negotiations seem to have hit a deadlock, as Zelenskyy hinted that Russia does not want a ceasefire, and Kremlin said there are no plans for another phone call between President Putin and President Trump after White House warned that their patience is limited, urging Moscow to take real action.
How do you rate Russia's strategic considerations regarding the matter at this juncture? First of all, I think in general, in all conflicts, parties want peace. The problem is that they just want different terms of peace. Russia wants peace, but Russia wants peace at their own terms rather than on Ukraine's terms. So I think this is the starting point, actually.
It is very common in all conflicts that conflicting parties feel that their opponents don't want peace simply because for their idea of peace, the terms are different from the idea of the opponent. So that's a slightly point. But I think there is a general problem between Trump and Putin here.
with regards to time. For Trump, I mean, Trump promised to end this conflict in 24 hours. And that means that time is precious for Trump. Trump loses his credibility with time. So he needs a quick resolution of this conflict. For Putin, though, time is on Russian side.
The terms will get better for Russia the more they have demonstrated their military superiority over Ukraine. And this, I mean, Russia interest may delay the process. Yet I'm sure that Putin feels the need to have
Trump standing between Ukraine and Russia and not so as it has been before Trump's presidency when the U.S. was merely an ally of Ukraine. There is a risk if Putin kind of delays the process too much that the U.S.,
will again become a stronger supporter of Ukraine rather than being a peacemaker between the two countries. Professor, one last question. President Trump has signed an executive order regarding
the so-called reciprocal tariffs, yet the list of tariffs does not include Russia. The White House stated this decision was made to avoid jeopardizing ongoing negotiations to resolve the Russian-Ukraine conflict. How do you view this development and what impact could it have on the ceasefire talks and the situation on the ground?
I don't think this has actually anything to do with the negotiation process. I mean, White House wants to be diplomatic and tries to frame it that way. But I think this is a question of practicality. There's no need for terrorists for Russia anymore.
for as long as almost all economic interaction between the US and Russia is halted by the sanctions. So if you have sanctions that prevent trade, you don't need to define the tariffs because there is no trade to impose those tariffs on. So I think the lack of additional tariffs against Russia is not so much related to the conflict resolution effort
it is related to the practicality. Thanks, Timo Kibimaki, professor of international relations at the University of Bath. China has reported more than 6 million inbound and outbound trips during the three-day Qiming festival holiday, a nearly 20% rise over a year ago. The National Immigration Administration says the holiday saw a daily average of 2 million cross-border trips.
Foreign National made nearly 700,000 trips, surging by nearly 40%. To talk more about this, let's bring in Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University. Thanks for joining us, Professor. Hello. Professor, during the festival holiday, both domestic tourist numbers and revenue saw year-on-year growth. Compared to previous years, what new trends can be observed in tourism consumption this year?
There are probably two new trends in the Chinese inbound and outbound tourism. The first trend is probably more penetrating into a wider spectrum or area of the Chinese tourist spot. Foreign tourists used to spend time in Shanghai and Beijing.
And nowadays, more and more tourists are going to the area outside to metropolitan cities. They even go down to the relatively unknown area, the countryside, the village and the county.
So this is due to the transportation system and due to the establishment of tourist facilities. The second trend is that up to the COVID-19, there is an exemption process of tourism going out and going in.
And particularly China allowed the so-called one-directional visa-free visit for many developed countries to come to China. So this has become a very attractive policy method.
to attract additional incoming tourists. And domestic tourists, I think people nowadays, they have more income and they tend to spend money for leisure and tourism, especially for the people who already reached the retirement age. They have pension,
And their children have grown up so they have more time to travel. And also the information, the tourism information provided to different corner of the countries to attract people's interest to spend time.
in different places, enjoying the scenery, enjoying the different culture and also the food and other things. So this, I think it is a much higher level of tourism development, the level in terms of quality, in terms of the scope, in terms of the depth.
and also the exact contents of tourism sporting different parts of the country. Professor, speaking of travelers coming to China, world-famous influencer Aisho Speed is currently live-streaming his travel in China, and the data has been impressive. This has given young foreign audiences a clear view of what China is really like.
Since China introduced the visa-free policy, many domestic and international influencers have used digital platforms to showcase China. So how do you view such a phenomenon? Do you think it would have a positive effect on future holiday tourism in China?
Yes, of course. I think the digital technology, especially the digital platform, which actually makes the world become one single village. You can just go to WeChat, go to Google or go to Baidu, you see everything just on the handset.
So this is a very significant technological progress, which enables potential consumers to different places. Before you actually go to a place, you already know the
local knowledge, the hotel, the exact place to visit, and also the food and hospitality and so on and so forth. So the digital platform certainly is playing an increasingly important role in providing the knowledge and information to potential tourists.
And another thing I just mentioned because of the transportation system, you know, the high-speed rail, the low transport highway and also the aviation, these are highly different from the past because any part in the country you go is so convenient. You can book your tickets, whether it is a train ticket or whether it is an airplane ticket,
to different parts of the country is so convenient. You can book the hotel as well. So tourism, you know, becomes a fingertips business. Then Professor, speaking of recent tourism trends, there is an increase in hotel bookings among the elderly. You also mentioned this earlier, as well as a rise in bookings for family trips with elderly members.
What does this suggest about the potential of a senior tourism market in China? Yeah, you know, the people who are leeching, you know, 55 for ladies and 60 for men, mostly they are leeching at the retirement age. The people who are leeching the 60s, they were either born in the late 50s or early 60s. There is a significant number of people at this age brackets.
And when these people get retired, they have a much better life and income level than the previous generation. So this is why the elderly, when they get retired, they have more financial flexibility to go out. I just have a classmate who work in the
local government, they have a significant pension each month and they can go out very easily because they have money in their hands. And also the family burden is relatively low because people tend to have fewer children and fewer grandchildren. So the elderly, their financial burden from the family is low.
Thanks, Professor. That's all the time for this edition of World Today with me, Keana. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.