Hello, and welcome to World Today!
I'm Zhao Yang. Coming up, the United States has paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
What immediate impact does that have on the ground?
Arab leaders have approved a US $53 billion plan for Gaza's Reconstruction.
action. Can the plan become reality?
Former World Health Organization chief Margaret Chan has committed China's AI progress, especially in elderly care.
Speaking at the ongoing annual gathering of national political advisors, the CPPCC meeting, Chan called for better services, including small, low -carbon care systems, as rural areas now outnumber cities in the elderly population.
In a talk with The reporter Soorae Sin -Chien also stressed the need for strong monitoring to ensure care reaches everyone.
She said home care and chronic disease management are key to improving Siniers' wellbeing.
Dr. Chan, what are your key proposals for this year, and why have you chosen to focus on elderly care?
Well, let me tell you one thing.
When I was working in Davakso, this is an area that affects all countries in the world.
people, okay, because this is such trend.
Now, this is a natural process.
Aging is not a problem.
If we cannot adjust to aging, that is a big problem.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Can you speak further?
Okay, I'm 77 years old.
How old are you? so I'm experiencing a lot of problems.
So this is the difference between elderly people.
Now, I am afraid to fall, right?
I am also afraid of what I call monthly, monthly diseases.
I'm also afraid of balance.
I'm also afraid of mobility and my visual impairment as well as my hearing impairment.
Now, this is a normal adjustment that we need to make because of the natural process of aging.
For someone who is 25 or even 40, even in my case, when I retired at the age of 70, I'm very happy.
But at the age of 75, I begin to feel that the energy is not the same.
And I need to slow down.
Do you see the adjustment process?
That is the difference between young people and elderly.
Now, okay. That brings home why I am the CPPCC member for the 13th and the 14th time.
Now, this year I'm going to talk about, well, I have two proposals.
One is to improve the rural elderly care service system.
And the second one is building a small, low -carbon elderly care -spatial system.
Now without disclosing the details, now, of course, let's talk about the global context.
the United Nations declare healthy aging 2021 -2030.
So I'm aligning what is the global priority to enhance the quality of life of older people.
That's where I'm coming from now, and we need to shift their narrative.
Why do I say that? Because people, younger people in particular, China, they do not see the valuable contributions to the society of elderly people.
So I need to shift that conversation.
Now if you look at China, China will, I have checked the data, 310 million people age 60.
This is a rapidly aging society.
Okay, now and in China, the rural population of elderly is 23 .8%.
V .V. in the urban area is about 15 .8%.
So, all the more, as a CTP thinking member, I need to contribute to China as a member and talk about elderly services, of course, there are other services which I, because of my experience, I know a bit about that, but in CVBCC, I contribute to elderly at all in the next few years.
Thank you for your data, the world is changing.
or let's say the world is aging, 310 million people, that makes over 20 % of the population in China.
When you talk about elderly service or elderly care, one of the things that comes to my mind is nursing home.
Actually, I recently visited a nursing home where one of the most impressive technologies used was redial monitoring, that is to track daily activities and identify when elderly residents may need assistance.
So, in your opinion, how critical is AI development for elderly care in China, especially when we compare China with Western -developed economies, which became ageing societies earlier but have much smaller populations?
For my perspective, number one I have to congratulate China for its development in AI.
This is really good.
Whoever you know about this week, I'm sure you'll access that.
Now the AI development is very important for the elderly care services, particularly in China.
Because of China's strength in technology and in applications, like you have seen monitoring.
But I would like it to expand further to smart home to health management.
Now, well, I have to say the central government is very good in terms of coming up with initiatives to say internet plus elderly care and subsidize what I call technology adaptation.
So first of all, let me also mention the participation of different levels of government from the city through the communities, even the industry is very interested in AI development.
So you visited this home?
Thank you. That's very good.
Wow. I never had the chance to visit so many homes.
You have written a report on that?
Very good. In your proposals this year, Dr. Chen, you also focused on elderly care in China's vast rural areas.
So how do the elderly care needs in China's rural areas differ from those in urban areas?
I mean, particularly regarding available resources, support systems, and infrastructure.
In China, the village is very important.
Why do we say that?
Remember the figure I showed you in the rural area, it's about 23 .8%.
vis -a -vis compared with 15 .8 % in the urban area.
So, because of the rural area, has a higher percentage of elderly population.
Okay? The size is bigger.
Number two, the family support systems are weakening because many people are going out to urban cities to work, right?
This is the MC next, the elderly.
So, back to the challenge.
Now, in any country, not just in China, this is not unique to China.
And the infrastructure is less than that.
What do I mean by the infrastructure?
That includes the facilities, includes the people who are educated and able to provide and also transportation, sure enough.
And last but not least the elderly people who live in the village they have less income.
Well, that's my assessment and the pension system is now beginning to build up.
Okay, that means the elderly population are not willing to spend money.
All these reasons undermine the importance of the government, the central government, and the community, as well as family members who contribute to elderly care in China.
You briefly touched on this issue, but I'd like to explore further.
Looking at elderly care globally, from a broader perspective, what can China learn from national governments around the world that may have already developed strategies on this issue?
What experiences can China share with the rest of the world?
Well, some experience, for any sustainable policy.
Now, in this case, I talk about elderly health care, okay, in any country, not just in China.
You need political commitment, you need financing, ethical ordination, and country -specific implementation plans, as well as monitoring and evaluation, and what I call a accountability mechanism.
That is globally what is required.
But now, if you look at the elderly service in China, let's talk about political commitment.
The central government is determined to put this as a priority in China, OK?
Now, financing, public, I did talk about the importance of public -private partnership.
So what the government can do is to give subsidies that are well targeted but what the industry and what other community, society can do can contribute money to help the elderly.
Now, that's a coordination.
I learned because of my experience, I thought China is the continent country.
So better clarify the functions of the country and the township and the village facility.
Once the measure gets done.
In the coordination, you need to clarify the function.
What are you responsible for?
What are you being afraid by?
True or not? I hope that in China, it will clarify the country -specific implementation plan.
China has a beautiful plan.
So elderly surface, yes, it may be accelerating very quickly, but I'm confident that China will get to the end benefits for elderly people in China.
One last important.
You talk about monitoring, but I talk about extends further to homecare as well as to management.
And now you and I are talking about elder, right?
In elderly, we must understand multi -morbidity.
What do I mean by that?
Shizai Manbing, the MCD, the chronic disease.
So in every elderly, you know, we have multiple diseases, so more than one disease.
In China, diabetes is a big problem.
So that's why we need to monitor, and I did talk about health management, and the most important thing is to manage Shigai Man Bing.
What are the most urgent issues that policymakers need to address?
Well, I think in terms of policymakers, they need to pay attention to what I mentioned, policy and also try if at most to look at the coordination because coordination involves the community involves you know context with the presidency is what I would emphasize in WHO now why in every location it's different isn't that Beijing is different from Shanghai and it is different from Shenzhen So you have to be contact specific in order to address the problem.
Regional disparities?
Yes, well, the word policy means state policy from the central government and small policies in the local area.
That is Margaret Chen, Director General Emeritus of World Health Organization, speaking with my colleague Song Reixin.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay with us. The world today, I'm Jai Ying.
The United States has paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
U .S. National Security Advisor Mike Watts said the Trump administration was pausing and reviewing all aspects of this relationship.
This step follows the U .S.
decision to suspend military aid to Ukraine after a dramatic breakdown in relations between U .S.
President Donald Trump and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky.
The U .S. has shared intelligence with Ukraine since the early stages of the Russia -Ukraine conflict in 2022.
For more, we're joined by Joseph Sierawsa, professor of global futures at Curtin University in Australia.
Thanks for joining us.
Good evening. Well, what do you see as the key factors that led the U .S.
to pause its intelligence sharing with Ukraine at this very moment.
Well, the Trump administration which is determined to affect a ceasefire and the conclusion of cessation of the war in Ukraine is putting enormous pressure on the government of Zelensky to come to the table.
Now, Trump's made no secret of this, he wants Zelensky to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, He wants him to agree to a negotiated settlement, and he wants this to happen without particular concessions.
So the first thing he did in January is he suggested the idea of holding back a military aid.
Of course, the Ukrainians have aid stockpiled for about six months.
And yesterday he's decided to hold back intelligence, which is very important because it affects the operations of what goes on in the battlefield.
So, while Zelensky can get some of this intelligence from somewhere else, the idea that the United States has cut off his view of the enemy should be taken very seriously.
So, Zelensky has got a couple choices here.
He could either buckle under this pressure, or he could, he can go his own way, and Trump's made it very clear that he has no choice.
Yeah, but exactly how significant is U .S.
intelligence in Ukraine's ability to counter Russian forces I mean is this more of a symbolic gesture or is it gonna have immediate implications on the ground?
Oh no this isn't symbolic I mean US intelligence which is gathered through US satellite systems and the rest of it provide eyes to the Ukrainians on the ground, that lets them know the the number of troops they're facing and the order of battle and all the rest of it.
It also allows them to see what's coming in the air either drones or planes it allows them to Well see what's going on if they want to go beyond their borders and attack Russia on Russian soil.
I mean these are real effective things.
You know fascinating here is that a lot of America's allies that so called Five Eyes have access to the same material but not in the depth of volume that the US has.
So this is a major blow.
Yeah but Europe as we know is stepping up their support for Ukraine and French president And to many, Macron has urged Europe to prepare for a future without U .S.
support. How feasible is that in military and intelligence terms?
Well, the Europeans can't go over it alone.
They have been tied to the Americans for 76 years.
That's how old NATO is, as a matter of fact.
And there's no real natural leadership.
In Europe though, I'd say that today Macron is, France is a natural leader and Germany has stepped aside.
and Britain would like to be the leader of Europe, but let's see now, Britain doesn't belong to Europe anymore as a result of Brexit, so we have some complications.
But I think it'd be very, very hard for the Europeans, that is the EU, which by the way, doubles up as membership to NATO to take over the leadership of the Defence of Europe.
They're just not in the mood to do so.
They've never spent the kind of money necessary.
And I don't know if they have the heart to do so.
Well, the Kremlin has celebrated the US suspension of military aid as a contribution to peace but some analysts are suggesting that this could embolden Russia to push harder.
How do you see Russia exploiting this this moment militarily or diplomatically?
Well I don't know if the Russians are celebrating that it's dancing in the streets but they'd be very pleased with the events of the last couple weeks.
They were counting on Trump to put pressure on Zelensky to bring this war to a close.
And Trump's initial motive, of course, is to stop the killing.
Russia's initial motive, of course, is to get what they want, and they will get what they want at the end of the day.
But I think the Kremlin would be very pleased with what's going on in the White House.
Well, Zelensky, on the other hand, has offered a course of action that he said could end the war.
And he says he was ready to release Russian prisoners, heart strikes, and declare a truce at sea immediately, but only if Russia will do the same.
How would he interpret his message?
Oh, his message is too little, too late.
I mean, at the end of the day, Zelensky wants security, wants a security guarantee, either from the United States and its allies, or it'll take it from its allies if he can get it.
If it comes from Europe alone, it won't be substantial because Europe is too dependent on the United States.
So there's a lot of things here that are interlocking, but this idea of swapping prisoners and the like, it's too late because Zalensky wants some assuredness that there's security at the end of this.
And you know, there's nothing forever in diplomacy or defense.
You know, what you need is security for the far as the time could tell.
He's not going to get exactly what he wants.
In fact, I suspect that he's not going to get any more than he could have gotten three years ago or four years ago when there were those brief truce negotiations or the suggestions of it in Istanbul.
I mean, I don't think he's going to go any further than that.
Okay. Well, the Trump administration actually frames this pause of military aid and intelligence sharing as part of a broader review of the US Ukraine relationship.
But is it primarily about forcing a peace deal or do you think this may reflect a deeper shift in Trump's foreign policy priorities away from Europe, from the European conflicts?
I think it serves both of Trump's policy goals.
He wants to bring the war in Ukraine to close, to get on a one -on -one position with Putin.
He regards Russian -American relations as probably the second most important relationship on the planet, of course American relations with China, the first important relationship on the planet.
So he sees it a way of resetting the button with and Russian -American relations.
And I also, it's also his warning shot to NATO that NATO is finished.
I mean, I can't see NATO surviving this particular clash of interests.
I mean, they're just going in different directions.
Yeah well, how do you think Trump's Ukrainian policy is affecting the cohesion of the Western Alliance?
And, I mean, could this signal a broader retreat from US leadership in global crisis?
Well, I think the United States would say to like to take the lead in world affairs and sort of in combination with Beijing and Moscow.
I mean, the United States, exerting its influence through NATO is not as important as it used to be the previous administration that is the Democratic administration, even Republicans before them.
So everything is beginning with the transatlantic alliance.
Trump doesn't see it that way.
He sees Europe, 449 million people with the ability to protect themselves and pay for own defense and he wants to back off that kind of relationship.
He thinks that America has been carrying the ball too long for them, and allowed them to get away with the pain for their own way.
So I think Trump is trying to teach her a lesson here, and I think it might even have a very therapeutic effect.
Yeah, we're hearing from Europe, for instance, from Ursula von der Leyen talking about rearming Europe, and then how realistic is it for Europe to assume greater responsibility?
It's unrealistic, Europe is not going to rearm to save Ukraine which has already lost this war.
Ukraine's been losing this war now for about a year and a half.
Joe Biden wanted to give Ukraine just enough not to make it an issue at the 2024 election and lo and behold he wasn't even there in the 2024 election, because it was always going to come up.
Who lost Ukraine? So the Republicans can say today, well, the democrats lost the Ukraine, and then later on in the next campaign And Democrats can say that the Republicans lost Ukraine.
This is a very big issue in American politics, and once these foreign wars become part of the American political scene, that is domestic politics, they become something that they are not.
And when I was a kid in the 1950s, the big question in American politics was who lost China?
Who lost China? China's an internal affair.
I couldn't care less.
It's their war to fight, but in the 1950s, American politics got colored with this idea that the Republican Party would not have lost China the way the Democrats did.
So you see what I'm driving at is that these foreign wars, which have their own reasons for going on and their own adjustments on the world stage, they become part of a people's political vocabulary, political scene, and they become part of domestic politics.
And at the end of the day, they become something they are not.
Well, thank you, Joseph Sirakouza, Professor of Global Futures at Curtin University in Australia.
And more to come, France considers protecting European allies with its nuclear arsenal.
Arab leaders have approved a 53 U .S.
billion plan for Gaza's reconstruction.
And Panama President says Trump is lying about reclaiming canal.
You're listening to World Today, stay with us.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhang Ying.
French President Emmanuel Macron says he will discuss with the European allies on the possibility of using his country's nuclear deterrent to protect the continent.
Macron made the remark in a televised address on Wednesday, noting the use of France's nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president.
Macron's move calms in response to a push by German election winner Frederic Murs, who recently called for a discussion on nuclear sharing with France.
US President Donald Trump is pushing for Europe to carry more of the burden of protecting the continent, having indicated that the current level of US security engagement may not be forever.
France is the only nuclear power in the European Union.
Joining us now in the studio is my colleague, Ding Hong.
Thanks for being here.
Hello, Zhang Yun. So is it a surprise that Macron has floated this idea of extending a nuclear umbrella?
No, not at all. The French president has long been arguing for the very scenario in which Europe needs to bolster its own defenses and have more strategic autonomy from the United States.
This is not the first time that he has openly talked about this very idea.
Back in 2020, he expressed support for a strategic dialogue with European partners regarding the role played by France's nuclear deterrence in the collective security of Europe.
Back then, of course, this very idea received a little traction, because many European countries were still in a comfortable manner reliant on America's nuclear capabilities.
Now, because of Donald Trump's policy shift, there is really a kind of forced rethinking on the continent about its security architecture.
After all, let's keep in mind that Germany has long been reliant on nuclear deterrence offered by the United States, because Germany is hosting some American nuclear weapons and maintaining some dual -capable aircraft that can deliver those nuclear weapons if necessary.
So this very recent comment by Frederick Mertz that you have mentioned is only pointing to this growing uncertainty over Washington's commitment to European security, but on the part of France, it is very understandable that Paris wants to play a big role for Europe at this very moment.
Because, for example, Britain is also a nuclear power.
Britain is a member of NATO's nuclear planning group and British nuclear warheads are designed in the United States.
By comparison, or in contrast, France produces its own nuclear weapon on its own territory and is not subject to any NATO obligation.
So this is giving Paris a great deal of leeway in terms of defining its own nuclear doctrine.
Why do you think Macron has insisted that the use of France's nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president?
Well, this is probably because this idea of a French nuclear umbrella for Europe is controversial show and the contentious for some people in France if we think about the divided, fractured domestic politics in in in that country.
Macron's political components have called this idea a breach of the French sovereignty.
Marine Lapin the French far leader, far right leader is accusing Macron of undermining the French model of deterrence and also a top lawmaker from another Conservative party in France has also argued that the nuclear button is not something to be shared.
Like I said earlier, France does not participate in NATO's nuclear planning group.
So in the eyes of people like Marine Le Pen, the security of France does now really have so much to do with the security of other European countries, So I think ultimately this is a debate about whether France's own vital national interests on security are limited to its own territory.
My guess is that, in order to respond to his critics, President Macron has insisted that France would firmly remain in control of its nuclear weapons and any decision to use them.
Given the fact that until now, France has largely played a role that is complementary to the nuclear deterrence provided by the US, is it realistic to create a French nuclear umbrella for the whole Europe?
Yes. So, to put this issue into a statistical perspective, France has 290 nuclear warheads, which is possesses a total of 1 ,700 deployed warheads or at least 1 ,600 deployed warheads on the Russian side.
Some people might argue that if Paris wants to provide a kind of effective nuclear deterrence for the whole European continent, then it needs to increase its nuclear arsenal to a that is on par with that of the US or the Russian arsenal, that would take time and a lot of budgetary effort, I would say.
And in addition, there are some logistical issues that should be tackled by the France as well.
For example, how can this country create additional stockpiles for those needed materials, how can France reactivate a few nuclear weapon production factories that were dismantled and shut down in the late 1990s?
Also the nuclear weapons currently stored by the United States of America in the European continent right now are airborne capabilities as opposed to seaborne or ground -based systems.
Although France has an airborne nuclear component, its capabilities and capacity are not comparable.
So we are talking about a significant amount of strategic, doctrinal, or even logistical barriers, which would make such a shift challenging and difficult.
In a scenario where nuclear weapons from France, and Britain for that matter, are stationed in other European countries, would that constitute a violation of the spirit of nuclear non -proliferation?
This will depend on the nature of the change, I think.
Here, we're, of course, largely talking about the treaty on the nuclear—the Treaty on the Non -Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons better known as, or non -insured as NPT.
NPT prohibits new countries from developing nuclear weapons and that is the foundation of the global nuclear order and it seems to me that this very treaty does not seem to clearly address nuclear weapons sharing within NATO or among NATO countries And NATO countries argue that this practice of sharing was established long before the treaty's entry into force in 1970.
So, my sense is that the scenario we have mentioned might not directly challenge the non -polar proliferation regime, but it would likely invite criticism from some non -nuclear power states.
You know, there has long been this criticism of the Western countries approach to nuclear issue and also such a move might also trigger some ripple effect because other powers might see it as a justification for pursuing independent nuclear arsenals.
Ukrainian president Valadimia Zelensky has already openly suggested that his country what to seek, nuclear weapons if NATO membership remains out of reach.
So, potential risks are obviously there as well.
OK, thank you, Jing -Heng.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back. This is World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. Jana has expressed support for a post -war governance plan for Gaza endorsed by the Palestinian people and agreed upon by Arab countries.
Arab leaders approved a 53 billion US dollar plan proposed by Egypt for the reconstruction of Gaza.
It is a counterproposal to US President Donald Trump's idea of taking over Gaza and moving out more than 2 million Palestinians.
This new plan proposes that Gaza would be run temporarily by a Gaza Management Committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government and comprised of qualified technocrats.
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcomed the Arab plan.
However, the US and Israel have rejected the plan, saying it failed to address realities in Gaza.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Wang Jin, Associate Professor at Northwest University in Xi 'an, China.
Dr. Wang, thanks for joining us.
It's my pleasure. So what is your biggest takeaway from this Arab -led Gaza reconstruction plan?
And would you see this as a reaction to Trump's Middle East -Riviera idea?
I think for sure it is the kind of reaction to Trump's Middle East plan.
Because we know that on the one hand, the Arab led the Gather Reconstruction Plan, or we caught maybe Egyptian Version Plan.
So it was put forward after Donald Trump's plan for Gather Reconstruction.
So actually, it is a kind of reaction to the Donald Trump administration's plan for the Middle East.
And on the other hand, inside these plans, we can see a lot of details and the details to some extent similar, or very totally different to Donald Trump's plan over the GADAD reconstruction process.
So that is why I think it's kind of a reconstruction and reaction for the Donald Trump's plan for gather -strip reconstruction process.
But what we have to want to emphasize here is that it is a plan not only from Egypt, but actually the plan from Arab states that pulled by the Arab summit, so that represents not only the voice from Egypt, not only the voices from the Arab states, but also the voices that insist based upon the two -state solution held by the international community and voices that also will be shared by the international society in the future, so that is why the plan is very important, particularly against it as a particular backdrop right now.
Yeah, and if you look at this plan, it actually outlines a three -phase reconstruction over five years, starting with clearing rubble and moving displaced Palestinians into temporary housing.
But what might be the biggest practical challenges to making this vision a reality, especially be given gather's current state?
I think we should take this kind of plan as just a kind of vision or just a kind of outline rather than the very, very practical plan based upon the step -by -step realities.
Because the plan is just outline, maybe three phases you mentioned, and it's covered the year of next five or maybe longer, and it talks about, and mentions and covers, a lot details such as organizing a kind of management committee and just as collecting funds and money such as for example the clearing rubble and as well as the moving displaced the Palestinians.
So a lot of details are very difficult to be implemented in the recent future but it is actually just ideas just as voices.
So that is why I think it's just a kind of outlook or the kind of vision that is supported by Arab states.
And it is very difficult to be very nearly influenced step by step, little by little.
So it is very difficult to be turned into the reality within the recent future.
Okay but the plan also calls for an international conference to raise funds with Gulf states potentially footing much of the bill.
But what kind of guarantees of any can be offered to make sure that their investment don't collapse in another conflict?
Yes, this is very important, because if you want investment, one of the things that you want to guarantee is that your money will not be lost or will not be collapsed in the next round of conflict.
So, as we mentioned that I think this plan just kind of outlook, just a kind of vision or the political statement.
So, it is not a realistic plan that could be easily be turned into reality.
So, right now, there will be no kind of very reliable guarantees that would be organized and proposed by the Arab states.
I don't think that any guarantees will be given from Hamas and other Palestinian factions to make sure that money invested by the international as well as the GAF Arab states will not be lost.
So that is why I think we hope and we expected that there will be some kind of guarantees that make sure that the investment will be easily and safely implemented and safely, much more safely and efficiently collected, but unfortunately, I don't think it will be turned into reality easily.
Okay, so as you said, the plan may still be in its early stages, but if the Arab States do pull off this reconstruction against the US then it's a really opposition.
Could it signal a shift in Middle Eastern power dynamics, like away from Western dominance and towards a more assertive Arab led order?
I think you are right, because actually it did a very important signal, suggesting that that Arab states has already started to keep a distance from United States, keep a distance from the Western countries plan in the Middle East because from Arab States' perspective, that United States plan that imposed by Donald Trump administration is just too ridiculous and it's just too far away from the reality, from the justice that held by the international community.
So that is why the Arab states should do something to further push forward this kind of new plan and try to propose a new plan, try to resist the pressure from United States over the construction process of Gaza led by United States.
So that is why I think Azure, maybe the division between the two sides, the Arab States and United States or Israel is not so white, it's not so apparent, but actually it's become, we are witnessing the turning point in bilateral relations from between Arab states and the United States, or even maybe bigger between Arab states and the West.
I think it's within the history and this is a new beginning page for the international community, particularly in the Middle East.
Well as you mentioned earlier, the Arab plan ties physical rebuilding to a two -state solution, but the political will for that still seems distant.
So what does that mean to the sustainability of any reconstruction effort.
I think it's still we should say the two -state solution is still the very principle should be the principle that continue to work for the future plan.
No matter the plan covers political or interest or maybe social construction process inside any territories of a Palestinian future Palestinian state.
So I think the two -state solution on the one hand will be continually held and be insisted by an international community, particularly by the Arab states in different plans, and then on the other hand, it should be considered as the only reliable or only that kind of sustainable solution to end the crisis between and Israeli in the Palestinian too.
And the possible, this instability, instabilities in the future for that would endanger any kind of peace solutions to the Palestinians and Israelis as well as between Israeli and Arab states.
So that is why I think the two -state solution should be insisted, and the two -state solution idea video should be emphasized again and again, different plans, including the Arab states' plans, and where I think should also be emphasized, particularly by the United States.
This is the only way that could end the crisis and lead the end of the war.
The only way that we establish hope between the Palestinians and Israel is really for the future peace, so there is only a solution.
Thank you, Dr. Wang Jin, associate professor at Northwest University in Xi 'an, China.
Panamanian President Jose Molino has accused U .S.
President Donald Trump lying about Washington taking back the Panama Canal.
The response came after Trump said his administration has started reclaiming the waterway.
He was boasting about a deal in which a U .S.-led consortium will acquire a controlling stake in a Chinese -operated port company in Panama.
The Chinese company said the transaction is purely commercial in nature.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Donald Trump claimed the U .S.
has already started taking back the Panama Canal, while the Panamanian President called that a lie.
Tell us what exactly is happening there.
Yeah. Yes, I think that we get some different messages from the different sides.
The United States claimed that they are going to take the Panama Canal back, but I don't think the president of Panama will agree with that.
I think that for most of the negotiation should be started by the two sides.
Both sides should give their own messages.
And the message is maybe not exactly the same, but they have to, you know, based on the same facts, on the procedures whether they have started to do that or whether they are still considering about the possibility of doing that.
I don't think that, you know, from the messages coming from the president of Panama, it hasn't started for the negotiation even right now.
Well, Hong Kong firm Hutchinson said it had agreed to offload a 90 percent stake in the Panama ports company and sell a slew of other known Chinese ports to a group led by asset manager BlackRock and Hutchinson said this is a purely commercial deal, but how would he assist the timing and motivations here?
I don't think that it's so pure, like we discussed about the commercial reasons because if you are looking at the logistics in the recent years I think the logistics is still a very profitable sector when you are looking at the international trade, it is in the continuously growth trend.
So when the companies are operating the docks and also the harbors, they may benefit from the increased, you know the trade and also they have a lot of control about different real assets, I mean related with the harbors and the ports.
So from that reason, I don't think that is purely because of the commercial, you know, understanding about the profits.
But on the other hand, I need to see that for many of the harbors, especially for those very important harbors, it's not only about the very common transactions if you're looking at United States practices.
When they are trying to distinguish the important infrastructure and also the non -important infrastructure, I think that that ports and the harbors are one of the very essential and critical infrastructure.
So if you are going to play some investment in the United States, even you have to pass the national security review of the CIFIUS, the US Committee on the Investment Checking.
So I don't think that is so pure, just to discuss everything based on the commercial interest of this company.
Well, we know that the US built the canal in the early 1900s, and it relinquished control of the waterway to Panama in 1999.
So does Donald Trump's talk of reclaiming it have any legal basis under international law?
I don't think that US has a reason to reclaim that because from the international practice if you have signed a treaty and the treaty will be effective.
There is not just a, you know, you declare that it will be ineffective.
The treaty will be effective.
Because all the treaties are based on the consensus.
And the consensus has transferred, been transferred, the Congress, the legislative power of the United States.
The Congress has promised that they will agree with that.
Even, you know, when the administrations have changed, like from one administration of Trump to another one.
I don't think that the Congress will change that match, even the United States Congress will want to change that.
They have to also give the concerns from the other side.
So from the international practices, no countries can just do that thing unilaterally.
You have to discuss that with other countries.
If both countries agree with that, maybe you can start to do that.
But even for the Panama Canal, I think it's not just that easy, even the both sides of the United States and Canada and the Panama want to do some change, the related stakeholders will be involved to express their opinion and concerns.
It's a very important connection point between the Pacific and Atlantic so they have a lot of impact on the international roots or the patterns of the international trade and logistics.
Well, as you said, ports are very essential infrastructures.
Then, what does this acquisition mean for China's role in Panama and the broader region?
Could this be seen as the U .S.
attempting to counter China's influence in Latin America?
Well, we know that Panama Canal was first built for the United States to control Latin America.
So they have put a lot of military and armies there and they control the logistics and try to collect the minerals from Latin America.
So, I don't think that if the United States wants to do that, they will change the pattern and ideas.
Because China has a lot of relations with Latin American countries right now.
We have a lot of benefit from cooperating with them, and on the other side, that is the same.
So, for both of us, for China and Latin America, we want to diversify the trade, and we want to improve the benefits of the people.
So, the trade is important and especially for the countries like the Brazil and also Argentina, they have a lot of connections with China, so they have to use the Panama Canal as one of the key points for the international trade.
If the United States is trying to stop that, I think they have many off -road reasons.
Well, if you're looking at the practice of Donald Trump and the previous administration, They have changed their promises quite often.
So we cannot say that they will not change any of the practices right now.
It is very dangerous for the both side of China and the Latin America.
Well, so is this dispute more about geopolitics, economic leverage, or about Donald Trump's domestic political strategy?
I mean, what do you see as the underlying driver here?
I think that maybe it is also from his idea of making United States as a better position in the international trade and investment regime.
And he want to use some of the very old fashions, like so -called the Gulf of United States or other names, to try to weaken the other's position in the negotiation.
So, Hanama is one of the examples and I also declared some of the possible ownership of Canada, of Greenland, and even Gaza.
So I don't think it's a kind of a very obvious, very rational ways of dealing with the partners and maybe from the geopolitical, maybe from other reasons.
But I believe that we want to get more from the other countries and partners.
Well, Donald Trump has refused to rule out a military intervention to regain control of the canal.
How serious should we take this threat?
I don't think that is impossible for him to do that because if you are looking at the officials, the high -ranked officials of the US Army, of the Pentagon, they have changed a lot of higher level officials.
I think that he is trying to make it, you know, like more politically controlled by the administration.
We know that army is one of the very powerful strength of the United States.
If they want to do more, they have the strength, they have the power and they also have the intentions.
Sometimes, maybe, they do not have the reasons, but they can create some like what they have done in Iraq.
So we have a lot of reasons to look at what Trump wants to do.
The Thank You Dr. Zhou Mi, and that's all the time we have for this edition of World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. Thank you so much for listening.
See you next time.
