Why the world is watching closely: China-U.S. trade talks in London
55:00 Share

Chinese President Xi Jinping hosts phone talks with South Korea's newly elected President Li Jieming. The first China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism meeting is underway in London, and about 700 U.S. Marines are being mobilized in response to protests in Los Angeles.

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

We begin today's program with a phone conversation that could shape the future of Northeast Asia. Chinese President Xi Jinping says China and South Korea should elevate their strategic partnership to a higher level. During a phone conversation with South Korea's newly elected President Li Jianmin, Xi Jinping called for deeper cooperation to bring more certainty to both regional and global affairs.

He also urged stronger cooperation on multilateralism and free trade, and stressed the importance of safeguarding regional and global supply chains.

The call comes just days after Li Jieming's inauguration as South Korea's new president. So what could closer ties between China and South Korea mean for regional stability and cooperation? So for more on this, let's have Dr. Rong Ying, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies at Sichuan University. Thanks for joining us, Professor.

Thank you very much for having me. Professor, President Xi called China and South Korea "neighbors who cannot be moved" and said the two countries have gone beyond ideological differences to achieve success together. What do you make of this way of describing their relationship, especially now with the road being so complicated? What kind of message does this send about where China and South Korea are headed?

Well, I think President Xi's remarks characterizing the relationship in a way that not only highlights the reality where China and Korea are neighbors that cannot move away, but also I think provides a kind of

policy framework in which tells how China highlights how China manage and promote a stable relationship, healthy and stable relationship with its neighbors. I mean, with Korea in general, in specific, in particular, but I think neighborhood in general. As we know that the relationship between China and South Korea

has everything since the establishment diplomatic relations has seen in general upward sort of a trend, but there's some downwards and setbacks. But in general, I think the past 30 years and more have tell us that as long as

the two sides taking into account the reality and also with the view that to go beyond the differences rather and in the meantime working together to promote the relationship or viewpoint of a good neighborhood and also I think manage

there are differences in the context where the changing regional and global situation that would be should be the future that should i think the lessons or experience we can draw from the past

years of since the establishment of relationship, diplomatic relations. Speaking of that, with the South Korea's current political scene and debates over its ties with China and the United States. So how do you think President Lee Jae-myung will approach the relationship with China? Because he talks about an independent foreign policy. What might that actually look like in practice when it comes to China-South Korea relations?

Well, it is quite, I think, natural and – for Koreans to debate. And it is quite a kind of normal whenever there's a new government taking – takeover that would be always a debate how the two – I mean, Korea should manage its relationship with the United States.

and China. But I think the fact that President Li Jieming came up with a kind of a vision or thinking that it would be deal with this relationship with, in general, I think, I mean, with China and the United States from pragmatic and also, I think, focusing on national interest is quite, I think, sensible and also, I think, practical.

For China, as I said that China views South Korea as a close neighbor and also partner. So the light see that its relationship stable and healthy. And then in the meantime, I think China also made it very clear that there are some issues mutually sort of important to the other side, core interests,

major concern that would have to be I think managed and respect in a way that prepare the ground for strategic and the trust so it is all depend whether up to South Korea and in particularly in this case the new government who not only man properly manage the relationship difficult relations complex relationship

but more importantly from the viewpoint of its own interest which means i i would argue that it would be best served in a way that in an independent or autonomous way i think that's what should be the theme of debate in korea that how to achieve strategic autonomy or strategic in independence uh

in light with the complex geopolitical situation in the region and beyond. That's a very good point. Professor, on economic front, both leaders also talked about supporting multilateralism. So beyond just saying that they support multilateralism, where do you think China and South Korea could actually work

more closely together? And what kind of new changes might there be, you know, for trade and economic cooperation with these new governments coming in?

That's a great question. I think given the complexity, complex and I mean sort of challenges facing President Lee and his new government, particularly in the field of economy, I think China and South Korea's economic and trade relationship should and could provide a kind of

sort of new ideas or new sort of thinkings for further how to push for cooperation based on mutual respect and win-win cooperation. And that is very much based on the fact that China has the largest trading partner. And I think there are huge

and sort of tapped potential despite the fact that this has been already the trade and the economic rating is very sort of high level. But actually I would assume that the free trade agreement, the second phase free trade agreement which has been launched in 2018 and should be continued and in the hope that there were some early conclusions

And at the regional levels, of course, I think China and Korea and Japan, the so-called trilateral cooperation has also been on very solid, quite a solid shape. And also in the context of China, I mean ASEAN plus sort of a trial, I mean three framework

And it would be very much interesting to see that as China and Korea are going to host, play the host of the APEC

sort of meetings this year for Korea and next year for China. How the two countries can coordinate, not only by supporting each other, but more importantly, I think shape the agenda for regional economic cooperation, regional integrations.

for implementing the initiative like Asia, I mean, free trade agreement in the region. And of course, there are other issues like talking about the global supply chain, I mean, the stable and secure supply chain in the context of the

the riding trend of unilateral and protected can be also a very important area. So, calling all, I think economic trade areas should be and can be a very important area where the two sides can work together.

together, not only for the sake of its own development, addressing its own challenge, but more importantly, I think provide more sense of stability and predictability for the region and the world at large. Professor, one last question. Another thing they talked about was boosting cultural and people-to-people exchanges, you know, to help both sides understand each other better and

build a stronger public support for their relationship. Why do you think these cultural connections are, you know, so important and crucial for the overall relationship between the two countries?

I think this is again a very important question for China and South Korea because obviously I think the two sides, two countries have shared close historical and cultural ties, which I think make the two sides, I mean,

not only culturally, historically closely related, but more importantly, I think the foundation where the two sides and the two people should cultivate. But that does not mean being neighbors, that means that the two sides know each other.

as it is supposed to be. Rather, there are quite a lot of misunderstandings, which I think to clear. And in this regard, I think based on what the two sides have achieved over the past three decades and more, the emphasis should be focused on people-to-people interaction, particularly in terms of trade, I mean, tourism, but more importantly, the younger generations, the youth,

sports and others. And last but not least, I think this year marks the 80th anniversary of the, in the case of China, the victory of Chinese war resistance against Japanese. And also, I think in the case of Korea is the national liberation, the victory of national liberation. That gives them the very opportunity for the two sides to go back

the shared history, the shared supporting solidarity in achieving their national solidarity, national sort of liberation. And based on that for future and better

understanding and cooperation. That would not only serve, help the better understanding, but most importantly, I think, consolidate the foundation at the societal level for the stable relationship between the two countries. Thanks, Professor, for those valuable insights. That was Dr. Rongyin, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies at Sichuan University. This is World Today. Stay with us.

Let's turn to a major focus in international headlines, the first meeting of the China-U.S. Economic and Trade Consultation Mechanism formed in response to the U.S.-launched tariff war. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng has held talks with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant in London. The two sides are seeking a path forward in a dispute that began when Washington imposed tariffs of 145 percent on Chinese goods

prompting Beijing to retaliate with 125% duties on U.S. products. To delve into this, joining us on the line is Dr. Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

Let's start on a lighter note. In recent days, global tension has turned to London for this highly anticipated meeting. So why do you think the first session was held in London? And what does it say about the international community's expectations for easing economic and trade tensions?

Well, when we are trying to put a place of negotiation, I think that London is a very good place for the choices, first of all. London do have enough facilitation to support the negotiation. I think that it has a little bit more connections with the United States and together with China. So we have a much more convenient way of reaching that place. And secondly, it is almost as a

center between China and the United States. If you are taking for another angle, maybe we have to choose one island on the Pacific. So I think that for London, it is one of the very good choices for both countries to discuss and make some negotiations. Well, from another level, I would say that the United

The United Kingdom is very active in trying to encourage both sides to negotiate or talk in that place because the United Kingdom is one of the countries who are supporting the freedom of trade collaboration and trade liberalization. And it is also the first country who has signed a premier agreement

agreements or deal with the United States after Donald Trump has put the reciprocal tariffs on all the trading partners. So they want to support this kind of talk and trying to benefit the world with better abilities. So according to the world's expectation, I think that for this kind of discussion, maybe China and the United States can

and still trying to push forward for some kind of collaboration and trying to give more positive messages to the market.

We know just under a month ago, senior Chinese and US officials met in Geneva and issued a joint statement agreeing to establish this new dialogue mechanism. Now from Geneva to London, face-to-face talks are taking place again in quick succession. So why do you think this pace of engagement review about the strategic thinking and needs on both sides?

Well, we know that trade tensions are really affecting the world. It's not only about the supply chain, but also about the people. The people's employment are really affected, especially when they're exposed too much on the international trade.

So after the Geneva talk, I think that both sides of China and the United States are really trying to continue with the positive trend of the bilateral collaboration instead of just trying to increase the tariffs on the other countries' exports.

So we think that it's a really important thing for the face-to-face discussion and also a way to exchange our understanding and the messages. Before that, we cannot just say what kind of things that has happened.

based on their expectation from only one side. So from this side, I think this mechanism need to have some very solid outcome after the Geneva deal or Geneva agreements based on the good

some of these gestures. So we have to give the market a real measurement. But when we're looking back, after we have signed some of the agreements in Geneva, the United States has put so many new measurements in restricting China's exports or some kind of collaboration with Chinese people. So I don't think that is really a good message.

So if you are looking at the market response, I think that after the United States has put those measurements, we have seen that markets are not so welcoming those measurements and they are also going into even more tense of afraid or some kind of worrying mode. So that is not the market it would like. So I would hope that based on this kind of talk,

both sides can really giving that the market is some good news instead of just trying to put more and more restrictive measurements on, you know, dealing with the bilateral trade between our two countries. Building on that, many media outlets have pointed to America's current economic challenges

slowing macroeconomic growth, a contracting manufacturing sector and a sluggish trade performance. So what's your assessment on this and what specific issues might the U.S. hope to resolve through these negotiations with China? Well, the United States is a country that depends a lot on global collaboration and globalization is one of its key messages that the market of the United States really wants to have.

Well, because of the reciprocal tariffs, many countries are not so willing to do business with the United States. They have to increase their prices and also they have to pay more for the tariffs. And because of that, I think that the supply chain is connecting with the United States

or suffered a lot by so many uncertainties. Well, that also brings many impacts on the inflation, as you have just explained, the outcome of the manufacturing in the United States are suffering too much because a lot of intermediate and also the raw materials of making the final products are coming from the countries outside of the United States.

So when these kind of supply chains are disrupted or have been affected too much, I think that the U.S. company is suffering a lot and it's also having too much on the people's employment. So we have seen this happening in the United States, especially for the first quarter of this year. And I would say that is also the pressure why United States want to

have some achievements based on the so-called negotiations with its trading partners. And among all of the United States trading partners, China is definitely one of the most important ones because we have so many areas of international trade covering almost everything from agricultural products to the manufacturing products.

So the stability of the trade between our two countries are really crucial for the stabilization of the supply chains in the United States. Speaking of China's stance, as he says, it opposes any deal that comes at the expense of Chinese interests.

Beijing has made it clear that appeasement does not bring peace and compromise won't earn respect. So how would you characterize China's approach to these talks and the trade overall with the United States?

Well, as you explained that for China, I think the principles are always there. We're trying to stick to the multilateral systems and we are going to respect the market. So if there are some kind of practices trying to distort the supply chains or cooperation between our two countries, we do not want these things happen.

And according to the messages coming from the governments repeatedly, I would say that China is always willing to cooperate with our counterpart. And I think that is also a good message that if you are trying to expand the cooperation areas or improve the cooperation abilities, we would like to have that.

So for this talk, I think that for both sides, especially from China side, we stick to the principle and then it hasn't changed. Even in the future, I don't think that it will change. So based on this kind of principles, we will continue to discuss about the possible ways of addressing the concerns of both sides and trying to make some improvements based on our research.

requirements by both sides. Indeed, we've seen observers worldwide say this dialogue carries broad implications, not just for easing US-China trade tensions, but for the global economy. So if meaningful progress is made, what kind of signal would that send for restoring multilateralism and stabilizing global supply chains?

And on the other hand, if talks stall, what ripple effect might that have on the already fragile world economy? Well,

Well, it's really our worry about the chaos in the international trade, as we can find from the general secretary of WTO. She also mentioned that the kind of decoupling will harm the world a lot. The GDP growth will drop at most to 7% annually. So it's a really big shock if China and the United States cannot continue with our trade as normally.

But I would say that no matter what happens, it's always our principles and also most of the countries in the world have this similar understanding that we should respect the multilateral system. So based on this kind of principles, I think that collaboration, no matter with the United States or without the United States, will continue.

So, we can try to say that with the United States willingness to cooperate with China and other countries, we can do it better and faster and more efficient. Without the United States, we can still do that, but maybe in different ways. So, actually, in my understanding, that talk is just the first talk after we have reached the deal in Geneva, but it's not the last one.

between these two countries, we have so many things to discuss about the previous challenges and opportunities and also about the futures. So we cannot just stop in just one talk. We can expect some good things happened, but we will not count everything on this kind of talk. We can still try to elaborate or expand our cooperation with our trading partners. And I think that cooperation can still

happen even if we have some agreements with the United States. Finally, over the past month, orders from U.S. buyers for Chinese products have surged, and the shipping routes between China and the U.S. are reportedly fully booked.

So from these market signals to growing calls for cooperation from the business community, we're seeing strong bilateral demand in sharp contrast with ongoing tensions. So does this suggest that there remains a significant untapped potential for China-U.S. cooperation?

Well, it is true that both sides, I mean from the market side, that they really want to cooperate with each other side. So because of this tariff, they have suspended it for some time, but they suffered a lot by this kind of, you know, suspend. So I think that from the market side, they really want to continue with the cooperation in a freer, in the, you know, lower tariff and better connections with

So I think there is a really a base for the complimentary collaboration between our two countries from the markets, from the different states of United States. I think that the cooperation we can see also in the forum between China, I mean, some of the provinces with California, you know, last seven years,

years continuously they have expanded so many new areas of collaboration so i would say that based on this kind of messages we have to respect the market we have to give them better support instead of just trying to interrupt of you know the cooperation uh again and again that is a message i want to you know discuss also with our counterparts of united states

Thanks, Dr. Zhou. Appreciate your take on this. That was Dr. Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. You are listening to REO Today. We'll be back after a short break.

Welcome back to World Today with me, Guiana in Beijing. About 700 US Marines are heading to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops. Reports say the Marines from a base in 29 Palms will protect federal property but cannot arrest protesters unless President Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.

Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops over the weekend without California's approval, sparking clashes with over 1,000 protesters.

Governor Gavin Mewsum opposed the move. The California governor and Attorney General Bob Bonta have announced they filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. So for more on this, Zhao Ying joins us in the studio. Welcome. Hi. First of all, why has Trump administration decided to send in the Marines to Los Angeles at this moment? And how did this escalation differ from the earlier deployment of the National Guard?

While this is like a significant escalation in response to the ongoing protests against immigration enforcement, the Pentagon cites the need to protect federal personnel and property as the primary justification, with Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth pointing to increased threats to federal law enforcement and buildings.

However, reports from the ground indicate that protests have been mostly peaceful, which raises questions about the necessity of this move. And this deployment of Marines differs a lot from the earlier activation of the National Guard because the National Guard is typically a state-controlled force of part-time reserves. It was tasked with guarding federal buildings but played a minimal role in engaging protesters.

And the Marines, however, are active duty combat oriented forces under federal control. And they are traditionally deployed for overseas missions rather than domestic policing. So their involvement signals a more aggressive federal posture and bypasses of the state authority.

And unlike the Guard, the Marines deployment raises concerns about potential violations of the Posse Commutatus Act, which restricts active duty military from domestic law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked, which Trump has not yet done. So this move appears to be as much about projecting federal power as addressing any immediate security need.

As you said, the president hasn't invoked the Insurrection Act, but why not? And under what legal authorities are these Marines being deployed?

Well, I think it's likely because doing so would be a highly controversial step that could escalate political and legal tensions further. The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to surpass rebellions or enforce federal law when local authorities cannot or will not act.

And given that the protests in Los Angeles have largely been peaceful and local law enforcement has managed the situation, there's no clear justification for such a drastic measure. And invoking the act could also alienate the moderates and intensify California's legal challenges.

and it may also risk broader public backlash, especially since Trump has claimed the situation is under control. So instead, the administration is deploying the 700 Marines under the Title 10 of the United States Code, which governs the use of federal military forces.

The Pentagon, through U.S. Northern Command, states the Marines are supporting Task Force 51 to protect federal personnel and property in Los Angeles. And this authority allows limited military involvement in a support role and avoids direct law enforcement actions that would trigger the posse commutators' violations.

However, the deployment's legal grounding is kind of murky, and Trump's order also vaguely cites his authority as president by the Constitution. So I think the Trump administration seems to be testing a novel legal approach to expand the executive power without crossing the Insurrection Act's threshold.

Governor Gavin Newsom has called this a manufactured crisis and filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. What are the key arguments in California's legal challenge?

Yeah, Governor Newsom and California's legal team argue the Trump administration's deployment of this active duty troops to Los Angeles is unconstitutional and politically motivated. First, the states argue that the state argues that Trump failed to follow the procedure required by Section 12406 of Title 10, which says National Guard call up orders must be issued through the state governor.

The administration bypassed Newsom and notified the California National Guard's commanding general directly, which the lawsuit argues is a procedural violation. And second, California asserts that the deployment infringes on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the state.

And by overriding Newsom's authority over the state's National Guard and deploying federal forces without his consent, Trump is accused of undermining federalism. And third, the lawsuit argues that the federal intervention is unnecessary because local law enforcement, including the Los Angeles Police Department, was fully capable of managing the largely peaceful protests themselves.

against ICE raids. And Newsom has emphasized that the initial 2,000 guard troops were kind of underutilized, which means the additional forces, including the Marines, are a political maneuver to sow fear rather than address a genuine emergency.

And California's legal team argues this sets a dangerous precedent as it potentially allows the president to deploy federal forces in any state for political reasons. And so the state is asking the courts to halt what they call an unlawful, unprecedented order to protect California's authority and prevent further escalation. But also, as the events unfold, there could

be also be lawsuits on behalf of the protesters. They may invoke individual rights like First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and assembly. Could you elaborate more on President Trump's deployment of federal forces in California? How unusual is it, you know, beat National Guard or Marines without the state governor's consent?

Well, typically the National Guard operates under state control with governors directing their use for disasters or civil unrest. And as we discussed earlier, federalizing the Guard or deploying active duty troops requires specific legal authority. And these actions almost always involve coordination with state officials. The last time a president deployed federal forces without a governor's consent

It was in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson sent National Guard troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama against the wishes of the state's governor. And that was a rare exception driven by a clear federal interest in enforcing constitutional rights.

But Trump's deployment to address the protests over ICE raids, which local officials say were manageable, lacks a comparable justification. And the use of active duty Marines is particularly unprecedented because they are typically reserved for overseas combat, not domestic settings.

And it sets a rare and alarming precedent because it suggests the president could deploy federal forces in any state without local approval, which may further escalate tensions and challenge state sovereignty. One last question. Critics are calling this a politically motivated move. What political advantages are they talking about with this Shona force?

Yes, this is widely seen as a politically calculated move. And I think first, Trump may hope to reinforce his image as a heartline leader on immigration and energize his core supporters by portraying the protesters against ICE raids as chaotic and dangerous so that he can justify a strong federal response.

And second, he is projecting dominance over democratic-led states, like he's sending a message that resistance to his policies could trigger similar interventions elsewhere. And third, this dramatic deployment grabs public attention, and he may hope to keep the focus on his leadership and away from other political vulnerabilities like economic concerns or divisive policies.

And moreover, I think he is testing the boundaries of presidential power and potentially setting a precedent for deploying federal forces without state consent, which could strengthen his hand in future conflicts with states or cities. However, these moves also carry substantial risks.

that could undermine Trump's political standing. For instance, a deployment may alienate those moderate and independent voters, and it may lead to larger protests or violent clashes that can damage his narrative of restoring order. And also, California's lawsuit may embolden other states to resist its policies.

And moreover, I think this move may strain the civil military relations by drawing the military into domestic politics. And this could erode the public trust in the armed forces, which is a traditionally nonpartisan institution and could harm Trump's credibility with military communities and veterans. So I believe these risks could outweigh the short-term gains that he is looking for.

We'll stay on top of this with the latest updates. That was Zhao Ying in the studio. This is World Today. We'll be back. As China accelerates its digital transformation, major Internet companies like Alibaba, Huawei and Kuaishou ramp up efforts to recruit and train AI talent. Since earlier this year, these tech giants have significantly expanded their hiring initiatives.

especially in cutting-edge fields such as AI. For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, professor of economics, Willamette University. So Yan, all these Chinese tech giants like Alibaba, like Huawei have significantly expanded their hiring initiatives, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence. So how do you explain it? And what does it tell us about China's AI development?

Well, I think AI is really the next generation all-purpose technologies. And so tech companies now are all putting AI development as part of their core businesses. And China, of course, is home to over 4,500 AI companies. And so that's why you're seeing this core AI industry right now is valued at about 600 billion yuan. And it is...

expected to continue to grow and by 2030, according to McKinsey, China's AI industry would constitute or contribute $1 trillion in potential value within the economy. And so that means this industry is growing very rapidly and it's also being really widespread across all different sectors within the tech industry. And so there's really a high demand for AI talents

And that's why you're seeing a lot of these tech giants are recruiting AI talents. And some AI researchers say much of the world's AI top talent will come from China. So how do you view it and how to better attract and nurture the talents in this field?

Well, I think, you know, according to Jensen Wang, he said basically China has half of the AI engineers of the world. So I think to say that much of the AI top talents will come from China is not an overstatement.

But that said, because the AI industry is growing so rapidly and there's definitely a high demand for talent. And so it means that China and also other countries as well are really putting a lot of efforts to, as you said, nurture talents and also for these different companies to try to attract these AI talents. And so for China, I think we're seeing really a whole list of measures to try to

you know, improve the AI education and to nurture more AI talents. And so when you look at the education system now, over 500 universities in China offer AI related majors, and they also have established dedicated AI schools.

So the entire education system is really gearing up to cultivate more AI talents. And we know China is already producing 1.4 million STEM graduates every year. And so I think now the matter is to kind of up the game.

And second, we're seeing a lot of the industry education collaboration. So tech companies, they already partner with universities and provide training programs and so on to really co-educate these AI talents.

And then the third is we're seeing the government is also putting a lot of efforts in terms of developing the national plan to really put AI as the main driving force as sort of the initiative and provides a lot of financial support

uh through grants public private partnerships of funding you know for research institutions and so on and so forth and so all of these i think are very helpful not to mention also local governments are also ratcheting up their efforts to recruit talents places like hong kong and guangzhou they're really trying to provide very good conditions very good benefits to attract these ai other tech talents

And as you mentioned, the government has continued to ramp up the fiscal support for scientific and technological innovation. So are we seeing a focus more on frontier technologies like AI, like semiconductors?

Absolutely. I think first of all, there has been really very visible, noticeable efforts by the central government trying to increase, for example, R&D spending. I think the target for this year is to increase that by 8%. So this R&D is going to help with the basic research and development, and those are really helpful to provide a foundational knowledge for some of these more applied technologies.

But moreover, I think just this March, the central government has announced the establishment of the so-called national venture capital funds to provide one trillion yuan worth of funds to support some of the cutting edge technologies, like you mentioned, AI semiconductor, cloud computing.

and so on. And that is on top of the previous, as we talked about, some of the national government guidance funds, such as the so-called big fund, the National Integrated Circuit Investment Funds. And so all of these are really the financial support the government is providing to develop these cutting edge frontier technologies.

How are the local governments translating the national level priority into the regional action on the ground? And what types of fiscal tools or incentives are being prioritized?

Right. So I think the local governments, first of all, they're trying to find their own kind of niche, right? So we know cities like Hangzhou, they already have a lot of AI companies, a lot of high-tech companies. They are also gearing up the game, putting more fiscal spending and also tax incentives to attract some of these tech companies.

and they're also providing as i mentioned earlier uh good benefits you know streamline of uh you know residents applications and things like that to recruit uh talents and we also see you know other uh provinces like xi'an like hefei like guangzhou they all try to develop certain industries and they're using their physical support

tax incentives and also concessionary loans or land uses, many traditional and also I would say innovative ways to bring in companies and nurture their local tech companies.

And I think it's important that local governments are doing this. At the same time, they're also not to duplicate and really, redundantly develop the same technologies as other cities or other provinces. So I think that's the key that companies, other cities would need to know what are their competitive advantages, so to speak. If they're very strong in manufacturing, if they're very good in traditional heavy industries or the aerospace,

or AI, I think it makes sense for them to really focus on their strengths and focus on their physical support in those industries, in their areas. And China has private companies like DeepSeek, which made great success in AI. And according to the International Data Corporation and Inspire Information, China saw a 36% increase in the AI markets last year,

while the debut of DeepSeq generated further enthusiasm. So how do you view China's AI development, its market and applications? And why can they develop so quickly, even when the US put various actual restrictions on the AI-related chips?

I think this is an excellent question. First of all, we know that Deep Sea really symbolizes China's breakthrough in some of these foundational model building. But more importantly, I think from this point on, Deep Sea is definitely continuously innovating. They just put up their second sort of diversion and it also improves significantly on a lot of the computing capabilities.

And we know DeepSea has been really cost-effective. It took only 55 days to train the first model, and it's only costing them about $5.5 million. So this makes them very easy to be able to cash in their innovation and their development costs. So it's very easy for them to recoup the costs.

And it's also very easy for other companies to adopt the technology because it is open sourced. And it's also compatible with, for example, the JavaScript, the object notations. And so that means and other, you know, platforms. And so that means, you know, other companies or other applications can very easily integrate DeepSeq on their own platforms and continue to build and tailor the applications.

based on the DPC foundational model. So what that means is that China is not only making a breakthrough in the foundational models, but it's also making really great and rapid progress in terms of the applications and adoption of AI. And so I think that is really where China is standing out right now. You mentioned the US tech restrictions, and I think that in some ways will create some short-term headwinds for the Chinese AI industries.

But at the same time, I think it simply just galvanized companies like Huawei and others to really develop their own ecosystem. I think China will continue to try to cultivate their domestic capabilities to develop the AI industries. That was Yan Liang, professor of economics at Willamette University. This is Road Today. Stay tuned.

You've been listening to Road Today. Iran says it's sending a counter-proposal to the U.S. after rejecting Washington's latest offer as unacceptable. Speaking at a regular press briefing on Monday, Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson reiterated that any deal must respect Iran's nuclear rights and include effective sanctions relief.

A formal response from Washington is expected within days, following five rounds of talks mediated by Oman. So for more on this, let's have Dr. Wang Jing, associate professor from Northwest University in Xi'an, China. Thanks for joining us, Professor. It's my pleasure.

Professor Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson recently said that U.S. proposal does not reflect previous negotiation outcomes and is unacceptable to Tehran. From your perspective, what are the core issues driving this impasse?

I think the problem is that from Iran's perspective, the United States, we saw some of the terms that offered during the past five rounds of talks, particularly, I mean, the first three rounds of talks. And during the past days, the United States still maintained a very assertive and very aggressive stance over the

Iran nuclear issue and for example asking Iran to transfer all the uraniums that it had already enriched and also asking Iran to decrease and to give up its capabilities for the nuclear

construction and nuclear capabilities that would not be accepted by Iran. So that's why from Iran's perspective, the United States is actually trying to withdraw his proposal from the previous rounds of talks and the United States terms become more and more unacceptable to Tehran. That's kind of the stalemate in past for Iran and United States to continue the talks with each other.

Related to that, Tehran insists on securing real economic benefits and the lifting of sanctions before any deal can be finalized. How critical is Iran's demand that sanctions relief must be effective and tangible? What impact do these sanctions have on Iran's willingness to negotiate?

I think the sanctions, particularly the lifting sanctions, should be considered as the most important motivation for Iran to start talks with the United States. Because we know that under the sanctions from the United States, particularly imposing and gearing up sanctions against Iran from Washington after Donald Trump's administration started,

So more and more pressure has already been given to the economic scenarios inside Tehran, and Iran feels more and more economic difficulties during the past several months. For example, according to some Iranian scholars and Iranian friends, they believe that Iran now is facing a very critically difficult moment.

that Iran's economy might face the challenge of total collapse. So that's why lifting sanctions has become the major important motivation for Iran to start negotiation with the United States. If the United States continues its sanctions against Iran, if the United States turns for Iran nuclear, it should become still

so very aggressive, so assertive, it could become more very, very unacceptable for Iran to continue the talks with the United States. And then in turn, that would further worsen the situation in the Middle East and worsen the issues around the Iran nuclear issue and then endanger everybody in this region. So that's why we have to know that the sanctions issues are the very priority. And I think the United States should reconsider its policy right now against Iran. Professor, speaking of that, the

The impasse between the United States and Iran over uranium enrichment rights and the lifting of sanctions is essentially a game between technological sovereignty and economic lifeblood. Iran insists on lifting sanctions first and then talking about restrictions.

while the United States demanded freezing nuclear activities first and then gradually easing. So from a historical perspective, is there a compromise path for this kind of chicken and egg type of disagreement?

of course some kind of the possible solutions to end this so-called kind of the chicken and egg type of disagreement or the kind of the conflicting statement because we know that when we are talking about so-called chicken and egg problem, we are talking about some kind of issue that lack of trust between each other. Iran does not trust the United States. Iran maintains that the United States could withdraw its terms that Washington offers

by themselves. So that's why they want the sanctions lifted first and then decrease the capabilities for the uranium enrichment second. But from United States perspective, they don't trust Iran. So that's why they want Iran to stop their uranium capability and then transfer the uranium that it has already enriched to the international community. And then sanctions should be lifted gradually according to Iran's behaviors and policies.

So this kind of conflicting views represents the distrust between each other and then further worsen the situation between each other, particularly on the negotiation table. The only way I think that could solve is that the two sides should work with each other hand in hand. I mean, on the one hand, the United States may, for example, withdraw some kind of sanctions against Iran. Then on the other hand, Iran also makes some concessions over the Iranians

enrich the capabilities, for example, transform some parts of the Iranian nuclear ability, then also increase the transparency of its nuclear capabilities to the international community. So this kind of the two ways, two track activities should go at the same time and between United States and Iran, then further would consolidate the trust between each other on the negotiation table, would create a kind of a very positive atmosphere for each other.

Professor, although Israel isn't directly involved in the talks, President Trump's phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized the Iran issue, and Iran threatened to review evidence of Israel's nuclear activities.

How might this external pressure impact the ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations? Well, there was always kind of a third party pressure, I mean, towards Iran and United States negotiation table, because actually, as you mentioned, Israel played a very important role, given the fact that Israel now is kind of a very important player with the concentration upon the negotiations.

ongoing negotiation between the United States and Iran. And Israel wants the United States and other allies in the Middle East to give the most serious challenge to Iran, to give the most serious pressure to Iran, to force Iran to give up. So that's why Israel's

given that it is really a very close relation to the United States, the United States cannot ignore the concern from Israel. But on the other hand, I think there were some other players in this region also can play the role. For example, Hossi from Yemen, who has close relations with Israel,

Iran and maybe some other original states, for example, Saudi Arabia, such as Oman, they all have kind of the role in the negotiation process between the United States and Iran. So that's why the only way that the only thing I think that determines the process in the future should be the willingness between Iran and the United States themselves. They are

willing to make concessions, they are willing to continue the peace talks. I think everything will go well. So that's why in the future I think we should continue to watch what kind of terms the United States offer and what kind of terms Iran will offer. And we will continue to encourage the possible negotiation between the two sides with the aim to reach a kind of comprehensive and long-standing agreement for facilitating peace in this region.

Professor, briefly, five rounds of indirect talks haven't closed the gap between the two sides, and the upcoming sixth round may take place in Norway. Compared with traditional face-to-face negotiations, does this indirect nature of these negotiations help or hinder the progress?

Of course, when we are comparing to the very direct talks, the indirect talks should also face some kind of challenges because it means that they do not trust each other. It means that the efficiency of the talks will not be enough. But when we are talking about talks, then talks are the hopes and the bridges for the future possible breakthroughs. So no matter kind of the indirect or direct talks,

I mean, all these kind of talks, if happened, should be very strongly encouraged. So in the future, we will say good luck to United States and Iran on their negotiation process with each other. Thanks, Professor. That was Wang Jing, Associate Professor at Northwest University in Xi'an, China. That's all the time for this edition of Road Today with me, Guiana. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.