Hello, and welcome to World Today!
I'm Dinh han in Beijing.
Coming up, Canada -US trade war intensifies as President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs taking effect.
US equities lost trillions of dollars in value as Trump plows ahead on tariffs.
Ukraine is ready to accept a U .S.
proposed plan for a 30 -day ceasefire with Russia, and Angola is going to act as a mediator for peace negotiations between Congo and M23 rebels.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
U .S. President Donald Trump's additional tariffs on steel and aluminum have taken effect after previous exemptions and duty -free quotas expired.
President Donald Trump has restored effective global tariffs of 25 percent on all steel and aluminum imports.
The duties are also being extended to hundreds of downstream products made from these two metals.
On Tuesday, Trump threatened Canada with doubling the duties on steel and aluminum from the country up to 50%.
He later backed off on that plan after the Canadian province of Ontario agreed to suspend a decision to impose additional charges regarding electricity supply to 3 American states.
Canada is exporting more steel and aluminum to the United States than any other country.
So joining us now underlying is Professor Zhu Jiang from Mingzhou University of China.
Thank you very much for joining us professor.
Thank you. So of course the logic of Trump's tariffs here is aimed at protecting those steel or aluminum factories or workers domestically in America.
Is that a wishful thinking or would you say tariffs can actually work in this particular regard?
Well, I think he has been over idealistic.
I don't think it's very, very easy to make it feasible.
In a short term, yes, I think indeed they will see this kind of a policy coming into effect.
Actually, he will make it very easy to deliver his commitment towards all those voters, especially those voters from the Workers Union.
in. And well, in the short term, well, people will say, okay, they're he's actually doing something to, you know, get out of the competitors of American industry.
But actually, in a longer term, we're going to see probably they're going to be backfired towards American industry.
For example, back in the 2020, 2002, you know, little Bush, the President actually used to force some you know, iron and steel tariff towards the whole competitor side of America.
Well, they truly improved the job ratio by 3 .3%, but actually the whole industrial chain over the five years lost about 200 ,000 jobs.
And also talking about the cost, well, because of this kind of the tariff, actually in America, their hotcoil prices is actually more 15 % higher than the competitive for example then European Union and also for the Alumni and Industry same thing happened because from time to time they got the tariff towards the outside you know competitors so actually in order to protect him nearly about a quarter million about Alumni and iron and steel workers actually they've been losing about, you know, about 10 million jobs over the whole value chain.
So actually you're like picking up the little, you know, grape but losing the whole watermelon.
Sure, I take your point.
So when we are talking about a scenario in which those, all those imported a steel and aluminum including many of their downstream products like bolts, bulldozer blades or soda cans even when all these products become more expensive because of the tariff.
What would that mean for another key agenda for President Trump, namely, revitalizing America's manufacturing?
You see, here is a major conflict in the theory and in practice of Trump's announcement.
So basically 25 % of the tariff and also plus another 25 % of the actual tariff will make the IRON and alumna, which is two very most important material in the car industry.
Basically, looking at at least a $200 per vehicle increase in the original cost and also for the pickup trucks, they are going to be even more expensive.
So basically, those cars are going to be more expensive and be sell less.
So they're going to affect the voters, a core interest, which is the workers union in the automobile industry.
Well, they could take a look at the history.
Well, previously in 2018, because of the tariff conflict.
So the Harley -Davidson, which is an American brand name factory, in a motorcycle, actually move the whole value chain to Thailand.
So which means a lot of the value chain, lots of the jobs has to move outside of America.
And also, because it get more expensive and also sell less, American car factories, American and other heavy industry factories and probably it's going to save the money from the you know investment on the research or development of a new product which means instead of you know upgrades the local industry and a localized solid find local industry, lots of industry will actually move outside of America and also their competitiveness of will also be losing.
Hmm, so talking about Canada, why do you think the primary aluminum production in Canada Canada is actually more cost -effective than their peers.
They're the same kind of production in America.
And do you think Canada is going to lose its advantages over the United States in this particular field because of a 25 % American tariff?
No, not at all. I think the government of Canada actually got all they got.
They got the Blast of God, or what we'll call the natural endowment.
equipment. Just take a look from the Quebec.
Actually, their hydropower price is only $0 .03 per kilowatt -hour.
This is basically like 150s of a American industrial power prices.
That cheap price is in the power generation.
They're probably going to very, very much lower the price in the Alarmian industry because Alarmian industry requires lots of the consumption functions of the powers, right, and also talking about the shipment or the logistics.
The Canada Alominate industry actually has been bonded with all the shipment industry or the river network near the St. Lawrence River.
So they've got the mining hills around the rivers, and also, they've got the refineries, they've got the processing industry, they're all around the 50 miles radius around those transportation river networks.
So their logistics cost is also very much lower than the United States.
So, basically for producing every ton of the alumni, Canada basically spent like $1 ,800 to make just one ton of alumni.
Even if you would add up another 25 % of the tariff, which means you're still lower than American cost, which is like $2 ,500 per ton.
For that kind of the competition, even though it was another 25 % of the tariff, Americans They're still losing the price war.
Probably they were going to add up to another extra cost to America itself, and also not hurting Canada at all.
So Canada energy minister Jonathan Wilkinson has suggested that Canada might impose non -tariff measures like restricting oil exports to the United States or leveling in export duties on minerals if the tariffs on the American side persist.
Do you think these measures being mulled over by the Canadian side are going to have peace?
When Canada is faced with a trade bully to its south, what can be the ultimate way out for this country?
I think the new Prime Minister in Canada just announced the retaliation, right?
I think they still got the card to play.
They are not the country without anti -car's to play.
They're not like Ukraine.
Well, number one, Canada actually produces or provided a 48 percent of the uranium and 15 percent of their crude oil towards the United States, especially towards the New England area and in America.
So I think this power cards can be really powerful.
If the United States don't want to have the inflation going on, they have to talk to Canada.
in Canada and also talk about a rare earth.
If America wanted to develop a higher grade of the manufacturing industry, for example, like the defense industry, for example, like semiconductors, they will definitely need the rare earth.
They used to import from China and now they're putting a trade conflict with China.
So the only other resort they have is Canada and now they're waging the war toward Canada, another important rare earth importer to them.
I think this is a dead end.
Ultimately, I think they can cooperate with the European Union.
For example, if Americans give them like 25 % of tariff, Canada can lower 10 % or even 20 % of the price and increase their imports or export towards Asian markets, European markets, so that they can still make a balance to isolate American markets but also make some other gain towards some other market.
I guess apart from Canada, other most affected countries this time around would include Brazil, Moscow, and South Korea, these countries have previously also enjoyed some level of exemptions or duty -free quotas.
So I guess most likely they are expected to respond to Donald Trump's tariffs this time around as well.
Now immediately after Trump's election victory last year in November there was actually a confidence boost among investors and consumers in America.
Now according to some business surveys Trump's hyper focus on tariffs has rattled confidence among investors for example.
So with that in mind, what is your take regarding to what extent the Trump and administration genuinely cares about the American economy.
I don't think he cares about economy at all.
It's all for politics.
It's all for the election.
Look, back in 2020, basically the Rust Belt contributed to most of the electoral vote for Trump.
So Trump need to deliver what he promised.
So, that's the original reason for they have all this tariff war or tariff fuss in the first place.
But also if you take a look at how it acts out, you will find out that tariff is not acting out like what Trump is expecting, not what those voters expected.
They're adding into more of the cost.
They're making the inflation worse and longer lasting.
They're actually making the whole life even harder for those voters.
Just take a look at the ag prices and the cost.
It's just $1 per ag.
This is like unimaginable.
So basically with more of this kind of policy being spent.
For example, like the technology sanctions, more of the tariff with the alliances.
And I think most of the, even so they're trying to relocate most of the manufacturers back in the United States.
But eventually, a lot of nations will find a loophole to bypass this kind of control.
For example, like you just mentioned, Brazil, probably going to sell more to China and to the Middle East, rather than to America, Mexico.
They probably will use the loophole of the USMCA protocols, try to bypass these tariffs, and still produce inside of America.
So I don't think Trump gets to anywhere with those tariffs.
But only put on more of the burden on its own people and on its own voters.
Well, that will be pathetic.
Thank you very much for joining us, anyway.
Professor Chu -Chiang joining us from Mingzhu University of China.
Coming up, US equities have lost trillions of dollars in value, as Donald Trump blows the hat on tariffs.
Stay tuned. Hello, my name is Alessandro Goulambieff Stay shaded.
I am a professor of Public Policy Management at Xinhua 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.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Dean Hon in Beijing.
The U .S. stock market has been experiencing much volatility these days.
JPMorgan Chase, the biggest banking company in the United States, said in a recent report that there was a, quote, materially higher risk of a global recession this year because of U .S.
policies, unquote. Goldman Sachs in the meantime has also estimated the chance for a recession to be around 20 % for the United States over the course of this year.
So what is ultimately and really causing all this?
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Yang Liang, Professor of Economics with William Mott University So Yang, first, why are the U .S.
stock markets experiencing so much volatility these days?
Well the main reason is because Trump's policies and uncertainties were his flurry of policy announcements regarding tariffs and other matters what happened, I think, this typical Monday stock market decline, the tumble was because Donald Trump had a Sunday morning interview when the host was asking about it's possible that the U .S.
is going to hit the recession, Donald Trump basically didn't deny the possibility and said he hated to make any prediction like that.
And so I think that really got the market nervous.
And so on Monday, when you look at all three different indicators of the stock market, they were all sliding down, and for the S &P500, basically it went down from its February 19 peak and it's down by about 10 % at the worst time, and it shed about 4 trillion dollars market value, so that was a pretty significant change due to these kinds of policy and uncertainties.
And tell us what is the worst -risk view on Trump's economic policies?
Well, I think Wall Street is not convinced that the tariff is going to help the US economy, especially Trump's tariff is not just imposed on China, which was considered as a competitor, but also in very close allies like Canada and Mexico, and these countries also prepare to retaliate.
So, I think that, in a way, really creates a lot of disturbances in these corporations because they have a lot of businesses that are in Mexico and Canada.
And then with the retaliations, it would also hurt their export business.
Not to mention, again, the tariff with China, it's already put in place.
So all of these, I think, in a way undercut the business prospect.
Not to mention, Donald Trump has been really going back and forth.
So, initially, he talked about there will be a tariff on Mexico and Canada, and then he had a one month truce.
And then he's saying, he's going to put it back on, and then he's paused again.
So there are just all these back and forths.
The tariffs on steel and aluminum is the same thing.
Donald Trump said he's going to put a tariff rate of 25%, but then very recently he said it's going to be 50%.
So it's just a lot of these kinds of back and forth.
And uncertainty is what makes businesses very difficult to do their planning when it comes to hiring, when it comes to investments.
So I think that's the reason that I think the business community does not really like these kinds of policies and polity uncertainties.
And as you mentioned, the biggest reason perhaps is this uncertainty over Trump's on and off the implementation of tariffs.
And how will Trump's tariffs impact the U .S.
consumers and the inflation?
Well, obviously that tariff is a regressive tax.
It's basically testing the products that cross the borders.
So for American households, I think what that means is that when the import costs rise, the importers will basically pass these increased costs onto prices.
And so eventually, the US businesses and consumers would have to foot the bill.
Not to mention with all these tariffs, it disrupts the supply chain.
It could also in some ways protect the domestic inefficient production.
So all of these could be very inflationary.
So according to some of the estimates by, for example, the Peterson Institute of International Economics, the tariffs the 25 % on Mexico and Canada, and then the 10 additional tariff on China would have caused the households more than $1 ,200 extra per year.
Now, we know that the tariffs on Mexico and Canada are still on pause, but China is now having 20 percent of tariffs.
So that definitely, again, undermines the bottom line of the households.
They would have to pay more on the range, wide range of consumer goods, from home appliances to electronics, to sporting equipment, to toys, you name it.
Because China does export a lot of these consumer goods to the United States, and so the households would take a direct hit due to these consumer goods' price increases.
And of course, the lower income families are going to be the ones that are hit the most, because those are the ones who have to spend a lot more, their share of income on these consumer goods and on the necessities.
So, we're going to see also widening in terms of the consumption gap and income gap between the among the American households.
And Federal Reserve chairman, Gerald Powell, also warned that the inflation pressures will likely persist.
So how will that affect the Federal Reserve's monetary policy?
Well, I think that's a great question.
So the next Fed meeting is going to be next week actually, so it remains to be seen.
these days, I think Fed's policy also become difficult with all the uncertainties, right?
So they always trying to balance in terms of how the job market look like and then what inflationary prospect it's going to be.
So at this point the unemployment rate is still relatively low at 4 .1%.
But because of Elon Musk's Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency has laid off over 63 ,000 employees, federal employees, from 17 government agencies back in February, and that actually triggered, I think, one of the, you know, largest layoffs in the first two months of this year, and there were about 221 ,000 layoffs in the U .S.
economy. That is a 33 percent jump from the So even though the labor market is holding up right now it doesn't mean these job.
Will continue to be created and stayed so I think again there is a.
Concern about job market.
So weekend and the economy not doing well the atlanta fed has projected that the first quarter of this year is going to see the economy contract.
impact by 2 .4%. So if the economy is really sliding into a recession, the Fed is supposed to lower the interest rate.
But on the other hand, as we just talked about, there are all this inflationary pressure that's building up due to tariffs and other reasons.
So that would have to prompt the Fed keep the current rate.
So I think that would be very interesting to see how the Fed is going to look at the most recent data and decide on their next moves.
And Goldman Sachs' economists raised the chances of a recession over the next 12 months, from 15 % to 20%, naming Trump's economic policy as a key risk.
So could you elaborate more on that?
And is the U .S. economy heading for a recession, or what are the major signs to keep an eye on?
Well, I think the Goldman Sachs' their probability is basically, again, hinges on how Trump's policy is going to change.
So according to Dem, the White House has the option to pull back if the downside risk becomes a lot more serious.
But if the policy direction is continued the way it is now, then I think they think the recession risk will rise even further.
So in other words, depending on if Donald Trump is going to continue to play his tar off card and really create a lot more disruptions and uncertainties in the domestic economy and hurting the consumer sentiment, business confidence, then I think the probability of having a recession is going to be higher.
So Trump is hoping or wishing to use a tariff to achieve several policy objectives, right?
So for one, he wants to use tariff to gain a lot of revenues, for two, he wants to reduce the US trade deficit.
Then he also wants to use tariff to bring back manufacturing jobs and revitalize the manufacturing sector in the US.
And then, last but not the least, he wants to use tariff as almost a bargaining chip to get some of the non -economic objectives.
So it's very clear that tariff cannot do all these different objectives.
If you wanted to collect revenues, then you need to import a lot to be able to tax those imports.
But at the same time, you wanted to reduce the trade deficit.
So you can see there's a lot of contradictions in all these policy objectives.
So I don't think the tariff can achieve any of these goals that Donald Trump set up to achieve.
The only thing that could bat fire is also that it undercuts the US's credibility, right?
Because one day you see you're going to tariff, the next day you say, I'm going to remove it.
So this is going to reduce the US's credibility among the allies.
but it could also trigger retaliations.
So that is going to be bad for the US economy, for these other economies, for the global economies as well.
Dr. Yan Liang, Professor of Economics with William S.
University, talking to my colleague, Zhao Yang.
Boc Cang, Ukraine is ready to accept a US proposed plan for 30 day ceasefire with Russia, and Angola is going to act as a mediator in peace talks between Congo and M23 rebels.
You are listening to World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Din Hun in Beijing.
The United States has agreed to resume military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine after Kiev showed readiness to accept a 30 -day ceasefire with Russia.
The two countries issued a joint statement following a Tuesday meeting in Saudi Arabia.
Ukrainian president Volodymy Zelensky says the US proposal would establish a complete ceasefire along the entire frontline.
US president Donald Trump in the meantime has also said that he hopes Russia would agree to this ceasefire plan.
Washington suspended intelligence sharing and security assistance to Kiev last week, effectively hobbling Ukraine's military capabilities in battlefields.
So joining us now underlying is Dr. Timo Kibimaki, professor of international relations with the University of Bath.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
So, Professor, first of all, why do you think the Ukrainian sides have shown readiness to accept this U .S.
proposal for ceasefire?
Actually, according to Trump and administration officials, for example, national security advisor, Michael Walts, the Ukrainian delegation made something clear in Saudi Arabia this time, that they share President Donald Trump's vision for peace.
What do you make of this message from Washington?
I think it was necessary for Trump administration to signal that their vision of the conflict is the one that Ukraine must accept.
This was especially after the disastrous meeting in White House on the 28th of February.
In that meeting, President Zelensky argued for this kind of a framing of good guys, bad guys, in which the conflict can only be stopped if Russia was stopped.
There, Trump insisted that the situation was more relational in in the sense that the conflict was between, was about a dispute between two countries.
And disputes must always be resolved assuming a realistic bargaining strategy.
Now, there Ukraine was, I mean, Trump said that Ukraine had a bad hand of cards and thus it had to yield.
and Trump team is now convincing us that Ukraine has now yielded to this view.
I'm not sure if this is the case or if Ukraine simply needs this temporary ceasefire to recoup its troops that will following months will tell.
So US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the ball is now in the courts of Russia.
In your opinion, is that really the case?
And do you think Moscow is going to accept this proposal by the United States?
I think it depends on certain details.
I'm not a specialist of military affairs on a tactical level, I'm a specialist of conflicts.
But it seems that some of the military experts suggests that at this time when the Russian advance has shattered Ukrainian military formations, a temporary ceasefire, especially if it comes with US assistance and intelligence help, would enable Ukraine to regroup their troops and stop the Russian advantage gained in the battlefield.
if the details of the ceasefire are two disadvantages for Russia, it's unlikely that Russia will accept them.
After all, they are in a more advantageous position militarily right now.
Hmm, I'm taking a point.
From a military perspective, Russia is indeed in a more advanced position.
There is no doubt about that.
So let's talk about this rare earth mineral deal that is being planned betraying Washington and Kyiv.
It was previously shelved due to this open blow -up between Mr. Trump and President Zelensky at the White House, like you mentioned earlier.
Now, it seems this deal is back on the table.
So do you believe such a deal will really as Tuesday's joint statement between the two sides, are suggesting expand Ukraine's economy and guarantee Ukraine's long -term prosperity and security.
I think this deal with rare minerals is part of Trump's team's vision of the conflict.
It is a way for the U .S.
to get something back from the U .S.
help to Ukraine. Now, if we think of Ukraine's fight as something like fight for the defense of democracy in the world, or fight against a bad country, Russia, then surely they do not need to compensate for the help they have received from the U .S.
This is not how Trump's team thinks, though.
I mean, they think that Ukraine has been stubborn in the coercive bargaining, even though they have a weak hand or a weak bargaining position, and thus they should have yielded already before.
They should not have gambled with the World War III, as Trump said.
Thus, they have not fought for the US interest, according to this Trump vision.
And as a result, they need to make a deal that kind of is giving back something for the U .S., because they have fought for their own right to join NATO and their own treatment of Ukrainian language and culture as the only official language and culture in the country.
So, in that sense, if this is the starting point, it's not likely that this deal intends to be tremendously to be equally useful for both it is likely to be intended to be more useful for the right for the U .S.
at the same time economic cooperation get to get these minerals into use will normally be useful for all so I think here also the devil issues is in the details if it is just to pay Back US military and other assistance to Ukraine then is based that basically just useful and beneficial for the US and perhaps not so much for Ukraine.
Hmm the final question before we let you go we know Zelensky has been seeking a kind of explicit security guarantee from the United States so with that in mind why do you think this this Tuesday joint statement issued in Saudi Arabia didn't include any content in this particular regard?
I think I think it's not very realistic to assume that Ukraine would get a full guarantee in the sense that whatever Ukraine does that US will them.
So if Ukraine wants to receive the advanced U .S.
missiles that could then be launched with just a couple of minutes warning time against Moscow.
I don't think that kind of military guarantees can be expected.
At the At the same time, in post -conflict situations, normally they do have agreements on how to secure both parties' security.
So it would basically not mean that Ukraine gets full guarantees and those guarantees will be threatening for Russia.
Ukraine may get some guarantees that are the type of kind of defensive guarantees that nevertheless would not antagonize or harm the security, the defensive security interest of Russia.
So that I can imagine.
So because of the fact that what kind of guarantees cannot be decided upon between the US and and Ukraine, it's not useful to discuss them at this stage.
It is when the political solution is being sort together with Russia.
That's when negotiations will take place about what kind of guarantees can both parties get so that they can be safe after the agreement on peace.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Dr. Timo Kivimaki, professor of international relations with the University of Bath.
Coming up, independence and Donald Trump's interests dominate Greenland's elections.
We'll be back. You are listening to World Today, I'm DINGHAN in Beijing.
In Greenland, the center -right Democratic Party has warned most votes in the territory's parliamentary elections, upending two other parties that have long dominated the local politics in most recent years.
Both the Democratic Party and the second -place party actually favor independence from Denmark, but they disagree regarding when and how.
The self -governing region of Denmark has been on the path towards independence since at least in 2009, the territory went to the polls in the shadow of US President Donald Trump.
Trump has been quite outspoken about his desire to control Greenland, saying the United States is going to get the island one way or another.
So joining us now on the line is Harvey Zoldan, senior fellow with the Center for China, and with the Center for China and the globalization.
So thank you very much for joining us, Harvey.
First of all, four of the 5 main political parties in the race in Greenland, this time, seek independence.
Nala Rakh, namely the second place political party, is seen as the most aggressively pro -independence, while Democratic favors a more moderate pace of change.
What do you think the election result here tells us?
Well, the election results had a record turnout, and I think it indicates that the 57 ,000 Greenlanders prefer a gradual approach to independence.
The Democratic victory suggests to me that voters want to move carefully into their future.
In fact, they're sitting on an economic gold mine, but they want to ensure economic stability before full separation from Denmark.
And I think this reflects a pragmatic view of sovereignty that acknowledges Greenland's current dependence on the very substantial Danish subsidies, and the voters seem to be concerned about maintaining social services and building economic self sufficiently as steps towards independence.
The outcome also shows that domestic issues like health care and education are priorities and they're seen as foundations for future autonomy rather than recklessly rushing into geopolitical changes.
So to people in Greenland who favor ultimate independence from Denmark.
How do you think this very idea that somehow their their home soil is to become a piece of US territory might sound like?
Well, to pro -independence Greenlanders becoming a US territory probably sounds deeply offensive and reminiscent of colonialism.
It would be seen as trading Danish control for American.
And I think it really undermines Greenlanders aspirations for self -determination.
This idea actually contradicts the core principle that Greenland should be governed by Greenlanders.
While there might see potential economic benefits in closer U .S.
ties, the concept of U .S.
control would face very strong resistance and be viewed as a threat to Greenlandic identity and Greenlandic autonomy.
So Denmark is currently supporting the local economy of Greenland with more than half a billion US dollars each year in terms of direct subsidies to the territory.
These subsidies would be, of course, would be gone once this region really became independent sometime in the future.
I guess that's why many of those political parties that are seeking independence, ultimately, they are also looking forward to, or they're also favoring closer cooperation with the United States, right?
So do you think Greenland can somehow strike a fine balance here, between seeking closer ties with the United States on one hand, while at the same time avoiding seen being taken over by the United States territorially?
That's an important question, but I'd say probably not with President Trump, but with a more rational U .S.
President. Balancing closer U .S.
ties while avoiding takeover would be very challenging, but it would be possible.
I think that Greenland could pursue strategic partnerships in trade, defense and resource development without giving up its sovereignty.
This might involve allowing limited U .S.
investment or limited military presence or economic benefits while maintaining political independence.
It does require though careful negotiation, strong safeguards to prevent overdependence on one colonial master traded for another.
And I also think that diversifying international relationships such as engaging with the EU or Canada could help counterbalance US influence.
But the bottom line is I don't think the deal could be done with President Trump.
So one observation and I guess you talk about this briefly as well previously is that people in Greenland care more much more about their local health care their local education services for example their own cultural heritage and its protection and other social issues social policies than geopolitical issues so if that is the case what kind of respect do you think outsiders need to need to show to these local people in this territory?
I think that you have to look at this very interesting situation in Greenland.
It's a very small territory with 57 ,000 people, and those people are Inuit natives who've been there for generations.
And so they have a very strong culture, but that culture has been intermingled with Denmark's culture.
And I believe that the people there want to preserve their own way of life, their own cultural identity, and that it's very important that any countries that deal with Greenland on whatever basis have to be fully supportive of that cultural identity.
I don't think President Trump is the right person to honor that cultural identity and I think that they would be strong resistance from the Greenlanders to making any kind of a deal with him based on the fact that he doesn't keep his promises.
So do you think Donald Trump's open desire to control Greenland one way or another is breaking any international norms and ultimately what do you think he is looking for by showcasing this desire for this piece of land?
Are we talking about strategic interests or simply to show this image about the US might on the international stage?
Yes, I do think that it breaks international norms.
And I think that Trump has a warped 19th century colonial sense of American power.
He's thinking, it's from a bygone era.
His desire to control Greenland breaks international norms clearly, violates United Nations Charters principles of self determination, and that affirms people's rights to choose their own political status.
I think that Trump's statements also disregard Greenland's autonomy within Denmark and the established process for potential independence.
And Trump's rhetoric challenges the post -World War II norms against territorial acquisition by force or coercion.
So while not a direct invasion threat, Trump's comments imply a willingness to override Greenlanders and Danish sovereignty and this contradicts diplomatic norms of respecting territorial integrity and population rights to self -determination.
Thank you very much for joining us, Harvey Zoldan, senior fellow with the Center for China and Globalization.
You are listening to World Today, we'll be back.
Angola has announced a plan to act as a mediator in the conflict between Congo and rebel group M23.
Congolese president Mr. Felix Tachisaketi was in Angola on Tuesday to discuss a potential peace process.
Angola is going to begin to establish communications with the both the Congolese government and M -23.
Direct negotiations are said to be carried out in the coming days.
The M -23 group has taken control of eastern Congo's main city of Goma and it sees the second largest city of Bucavu.
So joining us now on the line is Dr. He Wenping, African expert and a senior research fellow with Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you. Thank you for taking me.
So this is actually not the first time that Angola has tried to mediate in this ongoing conflict.
Why do you think all those previous investors' efforts have ended up in a kind of canceled peace negotiations?
Well, the basic obstacle, I think—no matter who is serving as the mediator, that is the conflicting of those two parties, actually maybe not just two parties, because behind the one party and then there is another, even outside those players.
years. So they are, they have definitely been short off this mutual trust.
So that is why this, you know, the meeting point happened to reach until now, actually, it's very, very far.
So that is why those mediation now all ended in failure.
Actually this is the part of the Congo, the Tech Co -DRC this conflict with this M23, and it can be traced back to many, many, many years ago.
So during all those past credit, actually all those peace talks.
Today you signed agreement, maybe just the last thing for a couple of weeks and then a failure again.
So this has been proved by this previous try and all those efforts.
So by the way, what do you think is at stake for Angola when we talk about this conflict and what leverage does Angola hold that can somehow enable Angola to to become a trustworthy or credible mediator?
Well the leverage that Angola may hold I think one is the past those tradition and all those past years ever since 2023 in the recent years, Angola has been serving as the mediator for all the time Whenever the tension was building on, then DRC will turn to Angola trying to get some help.
And this is the past, those kind of traditions and the heritage.
And then the current city, in the year 2025, Angola now serving as the AU, now the chair country.
So serving as the chairman country, of course this is a duty to play this responsibility to do the mediation job.
So I think both past and the current all those leveraged now and Gola Sims is holding quite strong Okay.
So earlier you were giving your thoughts and elaboration with regard to those main Thorny issues the main difficult point or the main barriers for Every effort to try to bring peace to Congo So with that in mind was what you have elaborated on our minds What do you see as the fundamental solution for these barriers or difficulties?
Well, the fundamental solution of course is not the war, it's the talk.
We can see this not only from those conflicts in Africa, also those big conflicts now around talking about Ukraine, Russia, and also like Gaza, this war between Israel and the Palestinians.
So, there's no other solution except the peace talk.
But now the peace talk, also based on what is the current situation in the eastern part of DRC.
That's why we see the M23 now make quite a big move on the ground.
To sum, the data has shown in the recent even half years, M23, history, and also backed up by the Rwanda, a lot of information that's been said that even though the Rwanda government has delight, but you see many EU, even Germany, all ceased their assistance to Rwanda, so there are some facts that has shown that even the United Nations also gives warning to Rwanda government, so that's why all those conflicts, if we want to end it, that will bring in lots of stakeholders.
So it's not that easy just taken between the CIA government and the M23.
Plus, not by the— even though my point is, even though it's very hard, but this is the only way to make an internal piece.
I think those M23, now they want to conquer more territory.
So, as for the information have been already taken now expunting 17 percent of those land grants that they have been taken.
So with this book have more capital city actually I have been there before.
So it's quite big and very important strategic this city.
They think they are now in control.
Some mineral resources in their hand and also transportation, those are half.
And now they have their cart in their hands to now sitting on the negotiation table.
This is what they want.
But another way we look about DRC government.
DRC government, of course, control much, much more territory in DRC, but they regard it as m23 is a terrorist group.
So even not deserve to talk with the government.
So this is one thing, the first thing you need to get through.
Now, maybe, I think, Angola serving as a mediator, maybe give some persuasion to the DC government saying better to talk.
If you see no talk, and then how come you can end this conflict.
So Professor Ha, we still have about one minute before we need to let you go.
So the final question before we let you go, another reason to development, recent headline I saw is that the Trump administration has suggested that the United States is open to providing security to the Congolese government in exchange for getting access to this country's mineral resources does that sound like a good idea?
Well that's totally not a good idea at all you see you make a United States step in and even say exchange for resources.
Mineral resources sounds like Exactly like his way to mediate the Ukraine and the Russians, that conflict.
Same thing, based on Donald Trump, he's a business person.
Everything gets through from so -called deal.
This deal, DRC gives me I'm in control, all your mineral resources, and then I bring your security.
But this security, how come he can bring in?
even if his short half does leverage, he can't do that slow in Ukraine -Russian conflict.
Mmmm, I definitely take your point.
So thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Hewen Ping, African experts and a senior research fellow with Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again, or to catch upon our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
I'm Dean Honey Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now
