Why China is an increasingly important partner of Azerbaijan
53:12 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing. Coming up: China and Azerbaijan have established a bilateral comprehensive strategic partnership. China is calling for equality and mutual respect in response to US President Donald Trump's comment that tariffs will ultimately come down.

the IMF has slashed the global growth outlook as Donald Trump's tariffs are resetting the global economy. Marco Rubio shares plan for overhaul of the American State Department. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.

China and Azerbaijan have issued a joint statement to establish a comprehensive strategic partnership. The announcement came after a Wednesday meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilyam Aliyev here in Beijing. Xi Jinping said China-Azerbaijan ties have grown stronger over time despite the ever-changing international situation.

The top Chinese leader called on the two sides to jointly safeguard a UN-centered international system as well as a global order based on international law.

And for his part, President Aliyev said Baku is willing to extend cooperation with Beijing. The two leaders witnessed the signing of more than 20 cooperation agreements in fields including green development, the digital economy, and aerospace. So, for more, joining us now on the line is Dr. Kamal Makini Aliyev, Associate Professor with the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg.

So thank you very much for joining us today, Kamau. First of all, what is your understanding of a comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Azerbaijan? And in a geopolitical sense, why is China an increasingly important partner for Azerbaijan?

Well, thank you for having me again. And to answer your questions, Azerbaijan is a middle power on the rise, especially in the region of the smaller one, the South Caucasus and the broader region of Eastern Europe.

It has been developing very rapidly since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and is already a leader in its own small region surrounded by, you know, very large geopolitical players such as Russia, Iran and Turkey.

In this sense, Azerbaijan was trying to establish as many geopolitical connections as it could with the different centers of power. And through the last three decades of the development, Azerbaijan has been successful in establishing strategic partnerships to the West with the European Union and by extension with the United States.

to the south with the centers of power in Gulf states, countries, and for example, such large states as Saudi Arabia there, but also to the north with Russia. And that is why to the east, the most important geopolitical player being China is very important for Azerbaijan to kind of complete this geostrategic positioning as a mid-range power.

So last year, we saw a 20.7% growth in terms of the two-way trade between China and Azerbaijan. That's an increase compared to the previous year's trade volume. What do you think is really driving this momentum?

I think what drives this momentum is this realization or we're seeing the beginning of the realization of the idea that Azerbaijan actually together with China had for some time is to sort of reestablish this link on the ancient Silk Road connection, which is in modern interpretation is China's Belt and Road Initiative.

to which Azerbaijan have joined. But Azerbaijan played for centuries and centuries this kind of role of a link between China and the European continent historically. And this reestablishment of this kind of connections, this trade connections, transportation routes that pass all the way from China,

across the Central Asia and to Azerbaijan and then later to Europe, is this one of the strategic goals in making this, you know,

connection whole and profitable for both eastern and western partners, but also for the transit countries such as Azerbaijan. And with the development of this link, we see the increased growth in trade. And of course, this is going to also impact the bilateral trade between Azerbaijan and China. And I think that the prognosis is it's only going to be growing steadily in the coming years.

Now, for a long time, Azerbaijan has held a very key position when we talk about supplying energy to the European Union countries,

Now, when we talk about, say, green development or the development of the renewable energy sector, where China seems to be globally advanced in terms of size, in terms of technologies, for example, in what ways do you think China and Azerbaijan could possibly pursue cooperation?

on the strategic level, this is very important for Azerbaijan because what Azerbaijan's strategy was in terms of energy is to being, you know, is kind of strategically useful as an exporter of the, the,

Resources that can be then translate into energy such as hydrocarbons, for example, right gas and oil our primary exports of Azerbaijan, but at the same time Azerbaijan wanted to substitute the The energy needs in Azerbaijan with renewables right to fulfill these needs and

and with green energy. In that sense, as you rightfully suggest, China's one of the leaders in the renewable energy sector is very important as a partner for Azerbaijan to import technologies, to import the know-how of implementation of these technologies and the effective use of them, to then reduce the amount of hydrocarbons that Azerbaijan uses internally for energy so that they will be available for

export and thus create more connections in terms of exports with, for example, European Union, European countries or any other partners that are interested in this, because Azerbaijan has also

a huge connection in terms of energy with Middle Eastern countries. It has energy cooperation with Russia. And I think energy cooperation with China is going to be, as you said, in line with this strategy, but also aiming mostly at the renewable energy sector and the green technologies. On the micro level, we already see this growth in terms of imports of energy

EV cars, electric vehicles that Azerbaijan started importing from China, which are taking a big share of Azerbaijan's automobile market right now and increasingly growing in terms of the market share in Azerbaijan, which is a very recent development, but it's also an indicator of where it is going in cooperation with China, for example. So

So as we can tell from President Aliyev's visit this time, China and Azerbaijan are also in a very active manner seeking collaboration and cooperation in aerospace. For example, Azerbaijan has already joined a Chinese project that aims to establish a permanent lunar base in the 2030s, for example.

So with that in mind, what do you think the two sides can really bring to each other by choosing to cooperate on space programs? Azerbaijan and its development in terms of mid-range power included the innovations and the technologies of aerospace use. Azerbaijan has launched

free satellites into space which is for such a small country's very impressive effort. It maintains a quite steady and robust base of astronomical and astrophysical scientists that have been used to develop the satellites and satellite communications.

And of course, with the cooperation with a much larger partner, with, you know, established and robust space program, this can only be, you know, productive cooperation for Azerbaijan in terms of development of its technologies and increasing its potential in development of space technologies. But for China, it also brings access to Azerbaijan's capabilities.

know how in terms of its scientific base. And it's just another, you know, even even small, but still a very good partner to enlarge its presence in term of the big projects that unite countries outside of China's region, for example, in development and exploration of space.

Hmm, I see. So in the meantime, we understand Azerbaijan is also looking to secure an observer status within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

President Aliyev actually attended last year's SCO Plus summit held in Kazakhstan. And in a media interview, in an interview with China's Xinhua News Agency ahead of his trip to China this time, he once again reaffirmed his personal support and Azerbaijan's support for the SCO.

What do you think Azerbaijan is looking for through its engagement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? And how do you think China and Azerbaijan can possibly cooperate under the SCO's framework? Well, if we return to the first question on how Azerbaijan positioned itself in terms of creating strategic partnerships to all the geographical directions with the key

key regional and global players. I think that fits exactly into this kind of logic, because Azerbaijan sees that to the east there is very much a room for the development of this close connection, strategic partnerships, and the membership status in Shanghai cooperation organization is not actively sought yet, but an observer status can maintain this kind of

neutrality that Azerbaijan has while establishing the strategic links in the organization that is led by China as a key regional player and global player lying to the east of Azerbaijan. For example, the initiatives of Azerbaijan to join

different frameworks to the north with Russia, to the, for example, Organization of Islamic States, to the south, and to the European Union and Council of Europe initiatives. They also signal this kind of a strategic positioning. And the Abdurrahmanistan High Cooperation Organization can make the same advancement for Azerbaijan, but with the regions that lie to the east.

Thank you very much for putting this into perspective. Dr. Kamal Makili-Aliyev, Associate Professor with the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg. Coming up, China calls for equality and mutual respect and mutual benefits in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's comment that tariffs might come down. This is World Today. Stay tuned.

From X to Hollywood and global trust to monetary stability, America's tariff war against the rest of the world is dearly backfiring on its own people and economy. What are Americans losing due to the U.S. tariff war? U.S. officials have indicated tariffs on China could drop substantially. But how reliable is such a statement? And can it reverse the damage already made?

Check out this week's chat lounge, wherever you listen to podcasts and CGTN radio. You're back with World Today. I'm Dean Honey by Gene.

China is urging the United States to cease coercive practices in trade and talk to China based on equality, mutual respect, and mutual benefits. China has reiterated that a trade war has no winner. China's foreign ministry made a comment on Wednesday after U.S. President Donald Trump signaled a potential U-turn in terms of his trade war with China.

Trump said on Tuesday that the high tariffs on Chinese goods will calm down substantially, but they won't be at zero. Earlier, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Benson also told a private investment conference that a trade war with China is unsustainable. So joining us now on the line is Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics with the University of International Business and Economics. Thank you very much for joining us.

So, of course, I mean, President Donald Trump is unpredictable. But if we are to make a guess here, what do you think could have prompted the U.S. president to suggest openly that tariffs on Chinese goods might come down substantially?

Are we talking about, say, because of market volatility or because of domestically incubated political pressure or because of China's foreign stance on this particular issue or anything else?

Well, the announcements of such a sort of lunatic tariff has been unrealistic anyway. They are against the basic law of comparative advantage in international exchange, and they are also against the basic reality of the interdependence between major trading partners, particularly between China and the United States.

And now seeing...

that the U.S. has been highly reliant on the critical supply of many products. So they first lifted a number of electronic products out of the tariff scheme, and then now they have to consider more over the broad picture. So therefore, he knows that this is really a bluffing

and trying to exercise the extreme pressure on the world, and particularly over China. And now, facing such a reality, he sees that China does not come to his bait. So therefore, he's now trying to send more signals for China to come to the negotiation table and

then trying to solicit China to come up with some terms to meet him halfway or a quarter way. And this is a way, a typical approach for his art of the view. And so therefore, I

I think it is really not really China that's winning, but it's really the reality. It is the law of exchange that is winning over his class. So one message we have heard from Treasury Secretary of the United States, Scott Benson, is that instead of a heartbreak or a complete decoupling between the U.S. and China, the goal is to have a rebalancing of trade.

So, I mean, if rebalancing of trade is the goal of the Trump administration, what do you think are some of the issues that might be negotiable to China and what issues are not negotiable at all to China? Both.

If you look at the war that was launched by Donald Trump during his first term since 2018, and he was aiming at pressurizing China to purchase more to fill or at least to narrow the gap of the electric freight. However, the reality is that the trade

trade deficit by the United States was due to the real, the structural differences with Chinese production and Chinese supply. And it is not really China that is really imposing on him that he's got to buy meat in China. So such a trade imbalance is there. But, you know, Vincent mentioned about the rebalance. It does not mean that the, you know,

China will buy the same amount as the United States. Otherwise, the situation will be reduced to the border fight.

So, you know, here you're seeing that, you know, whether selectively China can purchase more of the United States, particularly when they have more of the excessive capacity. And also that China can also streamline some of what he termed as hidden barriers against the penetration of the U.S. products into Chinese market.

Now, of course, a key gamble on the part of the Trump administration is that its tariff war, its trade war, particularly its trade war with China, could pressure those companies, either U.S. multinational companies or foreign companies or Chinese companies even, somehow into shifting their production line to America or back to America.

So why do you think this gamble is overwhelmingly seen by economists or other observers as something that stands little chance to succeed? That's right, because I'm also one of the economists who thinks that this is going to end up in total frugality, because the

The U.S. companies and global companies, they make investment based on their rational calculation where they can make the better return on their investment, where they can feel safer, and where they can take best advantage of the local resources, of the local market, be it labor, be it other regulatory environment, and profit.

The U.S. companies, particularly since the 80s of last century, they decided to leave the United States, particularly in the major operations in the manufacturing sector. So they have a good reason to do that.

You know, the world are really competing for modern national investment. So it's whether the U.S. does really offer the right type of economic factors that are attractive to global companies, even to Chinese companies. So, therefore...

Simply by setting up a tariff wall, it won't really satisfy the real need of those global companies. So they need really to provide the cost-efficient infrastructure

type of environment, be it policy-wise, be it labor force, and be it the penetration of internal market sector. So, you know, the world are really on a level playing field to compete over the attractiveness to global investment

And now, so the U.S., on one hand, is they are welcoming more global investment. On the other, they are tightening on the security scrutiny and extend all the pressures over other countries and over their companies. So this is not the way to really, to sincerely inviting on a voluntary basis of global investments.

So a clear and a consistent message that we have heard from the Chinese government is that China is open to trade negotiations with the United States. But any talk, any negotiations should really based on mutual respects, based on respects or mutual benefits and or equality, equal basis. At the moment, do you think conditions are ripe for

so to speak, for any kind of negotiation? Well, yes. For any negotiation, there's got to be equality over the status of each other and respect of each other's positions. And so that's the way to negotiate. Otherwise, it's a matter of surrender or capitulation.

or coercion. So now Donald Trump realizes this coercive approach to China has not really worked to his desired effect. And so, you know, now he's sending out a lot of more signals, you know, to, to,

to bring China to the negotiation table. However, I do not think this is really the right time to sit down because one, who is really making the right type of decisions apart from Donald Trump? This is not very clear whether it's Benson, whether it's Deere. It's not really highly clear.

And the other is that over the past performance, particularly over his second term in the last 100 days, he's not really highly accountable. He changes his mind.

you know, almost every moment. So therefore, you know, the result of negotiation is something that is of a commitment, that is something that people can rely on, the rights and obligations that is over there. And then another reason is that a

You know, he thinks that China will come to his terms at this moment. And then, you know, he does not really treat China as an equal, but rather a bully at the moment. So I would rather say China will take a strategic patience and wait until another time when both parties are ready and particularly when he is more predictable.

Your point's well taken, but thank you very much for joining us today. Professor Liu Baocheng from University of International Business and Economics. Coming up, the IMF has slashed the global growth outlook as President Donald Trump's tariffs are resetting the global economy. You are listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. We'll be back after a short break.

You are back with World Today, I'm Dinghan in Beijing. The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its global growth forecast this year to 2.8%. That's down by half a point from its January projection. The IMF is also predicting that global growth will be 3% for the year 2026.

The downward revision comes as the U.S. tariff announcement earlier last month pushed global tariff rates to century-high levels, creating what the IMF report says is a major negative shock. The IMF also says the growth in the United States will slow to 1.8% for this year, while the Eurozone growth is projected at 0.8%.

So for more, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Yan Liang, professor of economics with William M. University.

So, Yan, thank you very much for joining us. The IMF has lowered its forecast for global economic growth this year and the next. So how do you view the 2.8% figure for this year? What are the main factors behind it? Well, I think the main factor for this growth forecast downgrade has to do with tariffs that the Trump administration initiated.

So in the opening speech, the managing director of the IMF, Gea Geava, basically talked about there are three levels from the tariff. One is that the tariff, especially the way it's rolled out, the on-off, you know, the increase, then pause, then escalate, then exempt.

All of these create a lot of uncertainty in the market. So uncertainty means that business investment is going to stall, consumer spending is going to decline, and also a lot of the supply chain managements will become very difficult. And so all of this will put a sort of brake on the economic growth.

And the second level of impact has to do with the direct impact of these tariffs, which basically raised import costs and increased production costs and increased prices and reduces spending. So all of this would directly disrupt the supply chain, the supply side, but also dampen the demand side.

And then the last but not the least, as you ever talked about, these tariffs are meant to protect domestic market for domestic producers and it reduces competition. And when you reduce competition, this kind of protective policy, what it does is it really reduces incentives for businesses to innovate and to improve efficiency.

So over the medium-long term, this is going to reduce the economic growth prospect. So I think given all this, the three levels of very negative impacts of tariffs will drag down the global economic growth. That is the main reason for the downgrade. Mm.

And according to the latest forecast, the U.S. economic growth will come in at just 1.8% this year. And JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs said the chances of a recession in the U.S. have spiked. So what do you make of that?

Well, I think that is a sensible assessment. I think when you look at the U.S.'s growth downgrade, it has gone down from the earlier forecast of 2.7 percent to now only 1.8 percent. That's a whopping 33 percent downgrade. So what it means is that this trade war is basically a self-inflicted chaos and also economic woom on the U.S.'s part.

There's definitely the supply side shock because the US has been relying on a lot of the Chinese exports and also global exports like from Canada and from Mexico. But now imposing tariffs on all these trade partners are going to create a lot of disruptions on the US's supply chain, right? The Chinese export to the United States

has 40% the intermediate and machinery capital goods. So what that means is that if the United States are not able to import these materials, machineries and capital goods at a reasonable cost, then this is going to create some supply side disruption within the U.S.

And it would also have the demand side shock because with the increased import cost, with the increase in the prices, consumer spending is going to go down. Business sentiment and confidence and all of these are going to be affected in a negative way.

So that means the U.S. is going to really suffer from the negative consequences. Recently, there was also argument that by cutting off the U.S.'s high tech exports to China, for example, NVIDIA's H20 chip exports will be also restricted. And that led to Jensen Wang, the CEO of NVIDIA, to basically lament about the $5.5 billion loss for his company.

And so I think this is substantial because what that means is that with all of the high tech companies not able to do business with China, they will lose a lot of their revenues and that will not allow them to continue to invest in R&D.

So taking a long sort of view, this is what undermined the U.S.'s funding sources for the R&D. And the U.S. has been boasting itself as a technological leader. But I think this trade war is going to really make that a lot more difficult for the companies to continue to fund their R&D to keep the technological leadership. So all of these, I think, are undermining the U.S.'s own economic prospect.

And reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing is one of the key motivations for the White House to have this kind of tariff policies. But have they achieved any success in revitalizing the U.S. manufacturing? Well, I think not. I think if history tells any lesson, right, if you look at Trump 1.0, he imposed 25 percent tariff on China's exports to the U.S.,

And that didn't really help to revitalize the manufacturing sector in the U.S. As a matter of fact, after Trump's four year in office, the U.S. manufacturing job suffered from a net loss of 2.7 percent. And this is according to a Federal Reserve Board study. So in other words, the tariff didn't really help to strengthen the manufacturing sector in the U.S.,

And if you look at the current situation, it's also very telling. I mean, in the short term, you definitely see because of lost confidence, because the consumer sentiment has already gone down by, I think, 30% from the December 2024 reading. So with all this,

companies will buckle. They are not going to continue to invest, right? If they face uncertainty, they're also facing consumer confidence being so shaken. So that's why you see companies like Statlantis, right, had just temporarily laid off 800 workers. And this is really in contradiction with Trump's desire to revitalize auto industry.

Now, in the medium and long term, I also think that this approach is not going to work because we're talking about very sweeping tariffs, not really targeted, and it's not really supplemented by comprehensive industrial policies that would invest in infrastructure, that would train workers, that would provide some supply chain sort of boosts.

And just by protecting the domestic market, like I said earlier, it's not going to be conducive for companies to continue to innovate or to have the incentives to expand the production to provide more products at lower prices. Because once producers are protected, they can enjoy the market. They can just continue to produce less and charge higher prices. And so all of this, I think, it's not going to help

to revitalize manufacturing sector in the US. And there's also the question about, you know, why? Why Trump wants to revitalize manufacturing, right? I think for some sort of national security concerns, it makes sense to maybe strengthen some industries

You know, like airplanes, automobiles. Maybe there are some arguments for that or pharmaceuticals for that matter. But textiles, footwear, furniture, toys, it just doesn't make sense that for strategic reasons the U.S. needs to bring all this manufacturing back.

back home, let alone, you know, American workers actually don't want to work in those factories. So I just don't see first the point of so-called bringing the manufacturing back to the U.S. And second, I don't see tariffs as being an effective tool of achieving that goal. And I

And we are also recently seeing the U.S. stock market suffered from big volatility. And besides that, the dollar index slid while the gold value reached record high. And this movement coupled with the rise of long-term treasury yields signal investors are increasingly concerned about the safety of U.S. assets. So why did this happen? And what do you think about this financial market turmoil?

Well, I think this happened for two reasons. One is that clearly this tariff is a very mistaken, very sort of

wrong-headed policy. And as I mentioned earlier, this will undercut the U.S. economy, right? Not only in terms of general GDP growth rate, inflation, but also its technological prowess. So I think investors are losing confidence in

in the economy, especially under the control of the current White House. And so that's why I think you see these dollar assets, right, has plummeted and then lifted by some of the positive news. But still, I think the market volatility is exactly what is characterizing the current situation. And the second reason, I think, is, again, because of Donald Trump's very erratic implementation of this policy, I think this also

made the market, made the rest of the world really sort of doubt the U.S.'s credibility, right? If the U.S. is going to honor any of the agreements, any of the policies, any of the promises that the administration has made. And so I think that also in a way really undermined the confidence of the global investors in the U.S.'s economy, in its policymaking, in its assets.

So I think that's why you see, you know, the stock has been very volatile, but the dollar value is sliding as the U.S. is sort of retreating itself, isolating itself from the global economy. And so I think that's the reason. And the Treasury yields is also, I think, very interesting because Treasury's

used to be considered as the safest asset, right? Whenever there were market volatility, you like to see demand for treasury rises and the yield for treasuries falls. But this time around is the opposite. So again, it shows that there is the lack of confidence in the U.S.,

Yan Liang, professor of economics with William M. University, talking to my colleague Zhao Yang. Coming up, Marco Rubio shares plans for overhaul of the U.S. State Department. This is World Today. We'll be back. You're listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has unveiled a sweeping plan to overhaul the State Department in a move aimed at aligning with President Donald Trump's America-first foreign policy agenda. And as part of this particular restructuring plan, the department is going to cut its domestic workforce by 15% and shut down over 130 offices across the United States.

The plan, according to Marco Rubio, is designed to streamline operations, eliminate redundancy, and refocus America's diplomacy on what he calls "core national interests."

So for more joining us now in the studio is my colleague Ge'Anna. Thank you very much for joining us. My pleasure. So what specific reasons have we heard from Marco Rubio regarding why he is pushing for this reorganization, so to speak?

According to Rubio, the world is facing serious challenges right now. And in his view, the State Department just isn't built to handle these challenges anymore. He described it as bloated and overly bureaucratic, essentially saying it's

too big, too slow and out of touch with today's diplomatic needs, especially in this era of great power competition. He pointed out that over the past 15 years, the department has grown massively in size and cost, but without delivering better results. In fact, he argued the taxpayers are getting less effective diplomacy in return, and the system has become more focused on political agendas than on truly advancing U.S. national interests.

That's why he's pushing for this major overhaul. And Rubio says the goal is to modernize the department from the ground up, streamline its functions and cut redundant offices and shut down programs that don't align with what he calls Americans' core interests, as you pointed out.

It's all about as he puts it, bring the department into the 21st century. So how does or what does the first phase of this restructuring plan look like? Which part of the State Department are going to be affected the most?

Sure. So in the first phase of this reorganization, the State Department is planning to cut about 15% of its U.S.-based workforce. Some reports say that means over 2,000 jobs would be lost.

Employees who are affected are expected to receive layoff notices by July 1st. And that was just a phase one. It was not clear how many people would be laid off eventually. And one of the biggest changes will happen in the office

that handles civil security, democracy, and human rights is being restructured into a new entity focused more narrowly on foreign aid and human rights. Some key offices under the umbrella like the

Office of Global Criminal Justice, the Trafficking in Persons Office, and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations are missing from the new chart. Other offices said to be eliminated include the Office of Global Women's Issues, the Bureau of Energy Resources, which will be merged

into the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs to put more focus on energy exports, and the Global Partnerships Office, which works with the private sector to support the so-called U.S. interests overseas, will also be eliminated.

At the same time, the State Department plans to create some new structures, including a bureau to deal with the so-called emerging threats, things like cybersecurity and the spread of artificial intelligence. There are also going to be new office facilities.

for diplomacy and humanitarian affairs, which will coordinate foreign aid programs that remain under the State Department's control. So in short, we are looking at a pretty sweeping transformation, not just in structure, but in the way American diplomacy defines its priorities. So, I mean, in addition to all those domestically based offices or bureaus or organizations under the State Department's

A very key function of the State Department is actually about those overseas organizations, right? All those embassies, missions. So do you think they will be affected as well? What kind of changes can we expect when we talk about the international front?

So far, it looks like the reorganization won't have a big impact on U.S. embassies or overseas operations. But as I said, this is just the phase one plan. And according to Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, the current plan does not affect any overseas posts or activities.

That being said, not everyone is on board because Republicans on Capitol Hill have given the plan some early support. But Democrats are warning it would awaken Americans' global influence, especially if soft power tools continue to be cut back, because there are already signs that

saying that things could go further because according to CNN, internal State Department memo reviews that Trump administration is considering closing nearly 30 overseas consulates.

This follows earlier media reports that the White House might push to shrink the department dramatically by shutting down public diplomacy offices and focusing more on short-term U.S. interests abroad. So the specific information still needs to be further confirmed, but people in related sectors are indeed in a state of anxiety today. Mm-hmm.

So after going through all these details with regard to, you know, all these details unveiled or suggested by Marco Rubio, what do you think this reorganization plan is really telling us about the current direction of America's foreign policy under this so-called America First banner?

I think this reorganization plan is a clear reflection of how the American first policy is continuing to reshape U.S. international standing. It's just a shift away from traditional diplomacy, alliance building and multilateral engagement, but toward a more transactional and interest-driven approach.

The focus is no longer on projecting American influence globally through soft power, but rather on streamlining the system to serve more immediate and domestic priorities. At a deeper level, some experts believe this move represents not just a bureaucratic overhaul, but an extension and even an upgrade of

of U.S. increasingly unilateral and self-centered thinking, maximizing U.S. interests at the expense of global stability and cooperation. Thank you very much for putting this into perspective. That was my colleague Ge'an Na. Coming up, we will take a look at how competition is really heating up in China's food delivery sector. 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 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. Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com has highlighted anti-competition pressures on food delivery riders, alleging that other platforms are coercing riders not to work with JD takeaway. In a social media post addressed to riders, the company said it was well aware of the pressures on them not to accept orders from JD.com.

The company added that it sympathizes with the plight of having to choose between platforms. JD.com began onboarding restaurants in February, marking its entrance into China's food delivery sector. This market has long been dominated by Meituan, while the Alibaba-backed Elema is the second biggest player.

So joining us now on the line is Professor Qu Qiang from Minzu University of China. Thank you very much for joining us. Hello, Professor Qu. Thank you very much for joining us. Sorry. Hello. Okay. So thank you very much. Now, of course, Professor, I mean, we are not here to judge who has placed anti-competitive pressures on writers working with JD Takeaway. But if JD's open complaint here is true,

What do you make of the potential impact of this "pick one from two" practice on the whole on-demand food delivery sector in China?

Well, I think this is actually a very important catfish effect of when a JD group is coming into the game. Well, previously, we only have two monopoly player in this whole sector, Meituan and Olimar. And basically, most of the riders or delivery service providers are choosing for those two platforms. And people are complaining that these two platforms are so-called sucking blood or having such a high commission fee towards every site. For example, the restaurant have to pay this amount.

commission fee, the writers have to pay the commission fee, then the consumers also need to pay the commission fee. So it actually has been setting up all these, both of these kind of players. So JD right now coming into the game because they think this can be a really good chance to, you know, improve the whole industry.

So here comes another dilemma we're facing here, that is in China, basically the online or e-commerce customer base has already been hitting a limit. Right now we have more than 400 million of the middle income class in China and also the registered online shoppers also has been hitting the ceiling of the MAU and also all kinds of academic array for all kinds of platform has also been hitting the ceiling.

So which means when there's a newcomer coming into the game, you will cut an extra cake out of the existing cake. That would be the bad news for the FOS monopoliers. And also, like JD has also made the complaint that you're sucking too much of the blood, and we're going to change the game. We're going to lower the commission fee.

We're going to improve the social benefit for all the riders. And that means the gross profit for a Le Mans or Meituan is going to be much, much lower. Hence, it can be translated to the lower stock prices, lower capitalization. So brutal competition is what will come into it again. But I guess the restaurant, the riders or the consumers will be eventually benefiting from it.

JD.com has now promised to offer additional benefits to those part-time writers working for its platform, including a guarantee here that somehow workers who are barred from other platforms would not lose income. Also, the spouses of the delivery personnel would have a bigger chance in terms of getting hired as, say, delivery writers or cleaners under JD's various platforms.

But given the fact that the profit margin of food delivery sector is quite low, that's no secret, right? Why do you think JD is still making such a huge bet on food delivery now?

yes i think jd is really smart and you have to give them that um a lot of people were asking which side actually decided the whole market and the delivery service or takeaway services because consumers know actually i can tell you that it's the supply deciding the demand even though it looks like the demand is limited but actually supply decide the demand just take a take a consideration

If all the riders just work for one platform, then where does the customer choose to deliver services or take away? Basically, if this platform A can provide an immediate response to your takeaway services

So everyone probably would just take orders from your platform. So supply decided demand. That's the reason why JD actually wants to, you know, attract all the riders or delivery service providers from those existing two platforms to their own. And they, uh,

They actually pledge that they will have a very low commission fee and also provide a full security and social benefit package towards all these riders to track them to come. And also, they allow those riders to work double or triple for different platforms if they can manage the time and their own time.

physical strengths so they can earn extra money. So I think through all these ways, JD can attract as much as of the riders to come to their platform and also have a quicker responding to the customers and then can be translated to the higher MAU and a gross profit. And a lot of people say, is JD trying to lose money to attract more of the riders to come to the platform? I don't think so because they don't understand JD. JD actually have probably the

best and the largest logistic infrastructure is all over China. In each and every street, you will have the delivery stations.

for the regular delivery services and they can just use them as outlet for the takeaway riders. You know, have much much lower the cost and improve the efficiencies to compete with JV, to compete with Meituan and also Olima. So they can afford to, you know, lower the commission fees and improve the service qualities. So what do you think this latest episode we're talking about here

really tells us about the degree of competition in this market space. And in the future, what do you think could be some of the key factors that will somehow determine which player will ultimately win out in this particular market space?

Okay, the conclusion is very simple. Number one, it's going to be bloody market. It's going to be dogfight. Very, very brutal. And secondly, in the future, who's going to be the winner? Number one, who will provide the best, what we call the price slash performance or quality ratio, who's going to be the winner?

you can provide very low price slash best quality and you're going to win and also plus and you can if you can provide a very much differentiated or specialized services for example like drug delivery for example like other service delivery and then you probably can win an extra dough in this whole market and also plus that if you will have a better you know digital services or digital you know technology to back you up for example the better planned route

or the better plan, optimize the ordering system, or the good algorithm to help those riders and the consumers to earn more money and to save more money, and then probably you will win. So this is a new three kingdom situation, and we're going to look at a very brutal competition, but more of this kind of competition means more of the utility for the customers and also improvement for the market. So overall, this is a good thing.

Yes, this is going to be great competition. Market economy. Yeah. Thank you very much for joining us. Professor Qu Qiang joining us from Mingzhu University.

Unfortunately, that's all the time for this edition of World Today. A quick recap of today's headline news: China and Azerbaijan have established a comprehensive strategic partnership. China calls for equality and mutual respect in response to President Donald Trump's comment that tariffs will eventually come down. The IMF has slashed the global growth outlook as Trump's tariffs are resetting the global economy.

To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast. For further discussion, please follow us on X at CGTN Radio. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.