Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Coming up, foreign ministers of China and Japan agree to steady bilateral relationship.
Trump meets South Korean leader as trade deal between the two sides remain elusive.
China unveils the first batch of companies traded on the Scientech tier of Shanghai Stock Exchange.
And true stocks between Pakistan and Afghanistan collapse in the city of Istanbul.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called on China and Japan to jointly advance the strategic relationship of mutual benefit and build constructive and stable bilateral ties.
The senior Chinese diplomat made a remark in a phone call with his Japanese counterpart, Toshimitsu Motegi.
Wang Yi said China has maintained consistency in its policies towards Japan and is willing to continue adhering to the principles set out in the four political documents between the two countries.
He added that history and the Taiwan question bear on the foundation of the bilateral ties and the basic good faith between the two sides.
And, for his part, Motegi said he hopes that China and Japan will enhance exchanges at all levels, expand mutually beneficial cooperation and properly manage their differences.
So, joining us now on the line is Professor Qu Qiang from Mingzhu University of China.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you.
So we know this is the first high-level diplomatic engagement between Beijing and Tokyo since Sanae Takeuchi became the new Japanese prime minister.
So what do you make of Foreign Minister Wang Yi's definition of what this bilateral relationship should be, namely a strategic relationship of mutual benefit?
Well, I think Minister Wang always mentioned Chinese and Japanese relation as a mutual benefit of strategic relations.
And this is based on four important political documents, which is after the 1972, 1978 and the document ever after that.
Especially, I think this mentioning is based on the 2008 you know joint declaration between China and Japan.
So it's a very loud and a very clear message sent to you know, the Japanese business society, as well as for strategic society, that what is the so-called China's threat and also the over-dependence on China's supply chain?
So in Japan lots of business people and the politicians still have this kind of a conflict in their mind.
But they forgot actually, before this so-called threat over reliance, actually our mutual benefit and, you know, peaceful coexistence actually come larger and come first.
Actually, when Japan can work with China, you will have a very high and very certain benefit, for example, trying to have a very large market, especially when the whole Eastern Asian market has been facing aging problems, are facing lots of international turbulences, facing the supply chain shift.
And China can provide this kind of certainty.
And secondly, about the securities.
When China can be secure, when China can be safe, a lot of sensitive topics can be avoided.
And no other nations from the third party can actually interfere with this kind of security.
So I think with China, cooperating with China, Japan will have more of the benefit, will have a brighter future, instead of just a confrontation and a conflict with China.
Okay.
Now here let's review these four political documents between China and Japan.
They are the 1972 Joint Communique, the 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the 1998 Joint Declaration and then, Like you said earlier, the 2008 joint statement.
So why are these four political documents key to China-Japan relations?
Well, you have to understand, in the modern international relations, the rule of law is very, very important.
That's the reason why we form all this kind of the declarations or treaties to make sure that everybody, every nation, will fall in line and keep their promises.
That's very different from what we have before the Second World War.
So 1972 declaration or the communique actually solved one very important precondition or issue.
That is, they ended the hostility between China and Japan.
Make sure these two neighbors stay in peace with each other.
And also in 78, this legal document actually, you know, write it about how they can, they should together, you know anti-hegemony, which makes China and Japan treat each other equally and friendly, without interference from the third party, from some other international major powers.
In 1998 joint communique actually mentioned that Japan and China can be actually a peaceful and also development-oriented partners.
So actually make China and Japan's friendly cooperation to be happening possible.
And also, last but not least, the 2008 joint communique actually mentioned, this partnership actually can be elevated into a comprehensive sense.
For example, Japan and China can work with each other in trade and security, in regional governance and also in environmental protection.
And all these kinds of corporations can be happening based on these four documents.
When Japan basically want to take a detour off this right route, for example, when they try to revise their textbook in a wrong way, when they try to go to the Yasukuni Shrine, when they try to violate the international laws on the Diaoyu Island or Taiwan Island.
Well, China will always trace back to this four document.
We will always say please respect the law and respect what you have already signed, so that to keep the Japanese extreme right wings to drag the bilateral relations into the confrontation at wrong direction.
So in your observation, has China maintained a consistent and stable policy towards Japan?
Yes, I think New China always followed the same policy towards Japan.
We want to be peaceful neighbors with each other.
Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai always mentioned that China and Japan can be a friendly neighbor.
Mr. Deng Xiaoping mentioned we've been friendly for more than 2000 years.
We only confronted with each other in the past 50 years and also.
President Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping and they all write this kind of the mutual benefit and win-win strategy into our bilateral diplomatic documents.
And China whenever we mention about our policy towards Japan, we always say the generation long or long lasting friendship, win-win cooperation, and also always learn from the past and facing the future.
This is our principles.
So in the lots of the incident happened in recent years, for example in the Diaoyu Dao Island incident, in the Fukushima nuclear waste waters, in all this kind of the fuzz and the turbulence, is Beijing the most Beijing have been doing?
You just suspended our, you know, high-level dialogues and, you know, have some enforced a law enforcement and, But rather we wouldn't post some economic sanctions or even military threat over Japan.
And in 2024, I think China is the first side to restore the Japanese citizens and the tourists the short-term visa-free policies.
And China first, you know, restarted this high level dialogue on economy and also China agreed on many of this kind of you know favorable conditions under the RCEP.
So China always tried to show a great attitude, a good attitude toward Japan, rather than let the nationalism or this kind of extreme right-wing behavior of Japan to take the control of the direction between China and Japan.
So in this phone call, Japan's foreign minister told Mr Wang Yi that Japan has never intended to decouple or sever supply chains with China.
Why do you think decoupling from China, especially in economic sense, is not on the table for Japan and going forward, How would you expect the economic links between China and Japan to develop?
Well, the thing is, the reality is China and Japan actually belongs to one bigger economy, which is China.
ASEAN and Eastern Asian economy.
So basically the two economy, China and Japan, has been entangled and engaged with each other too deeply.
For example, the semiconductor industry in Japan, the machine of machines in a very high end of the part actually find its greatest market in China.
And also China has been contributing to more than 30 or 40 percent of the tourists overseas to visit japan.
So this kind of decoupling will mean japan will lose this largest and the most profitable market.
And also China actually doesn't want to decouple with Japan either.
Meanwhile, Japan wouldn't want to do the same thing, because Toyota, Sony and Komatsu and all this kind of the champions, even though they try to shift their supply chain to Vietnam, to India, to Indonesia, but still their highest research power or highest you know assembly line, you know with the most greatest quality, still stay with in Shanghai, in Guangzhou, in Shenzhen.
So actually Japan, China and ASEAN nations are forming a very tight triangle, so facing the whole rest of the world market.
And more than that, I think America right now actually have lots and lots of uncertainties.
So Japanese people are fully understanding, well, they cannot fully trust Trump administration.
They have to leave some back doors or exit in case that American market if they fail, If they failed or the American politics actually turned very negative towards Japan.
So they need Chinese market.
Also, they need a peaceful environment in the whole Eastern Asian market.
So that's a reason why they don't want to decouple with China.
Now, since you talk about America, Professor Chi, we understand during U.S.
President Donald Trump's just-concluded visit to Japan.
To Tokyo, there were talks of golden age, of ties between Tokyo and Washington.
So how should Prime Minister Sun Yat-sen's government manage ties with Beijing and Washington, including the competition and rivalry between the United States and China?
Well, I think for the cabinet or current government of Japan, they really have to understand they are just a tool of America.
And they're just a watchdog put by America at the gate of the Eastern Asia.
So yes, basically they can – offer you the tomahawk missiles and also they can use you as a tool, you know, to stir the water in the taiwan strait.
But basically, you as a japanese, as a japanese government, you have to clearly understand You can talk the talk, but you sometimes should avoid to act the act.
And the economy.
Like I just mentioned, your largest market is in China and America is just going to squeeze out the Japanese capacities to move Japanese factories and investment back into the American soil instead of creating more jobs in japan, helping japanese people under japanese workers, and china, on the contrary, is offering japan company largest market and also, you know, corporation and technologies, and also in the diplomacy, i think, right now, even Even though the G7 or Quad or the trilateral relation between America and South Korea are actually trying to bond together to threaten China but, on the other hand, Japan really needs this peaceful environment in Eastern Asia.
Japan doesn't want to confront China.
Japan doesn't want to be dragged into the conflict with South Korea, even North Korea.
So in this moment, I think cooperating with China and make a peaceful water in this region is of the best interest of Japan.
So I think, yes.
For Tokyo.
Its best strategy is that don't mess around with America, but more don't mess around with China.
And plus, They can rely, you know, remain the alliance with America.
But meanwhile, it doesn't impede Japan from being a peaceful and working partner with China. and japan can have the most of the benefit by stand in between and play a balanced strategy and diplomacy well we see singapore's doing so with indonesia is doing so malaysia is doing so and they're doing pretty okay so i think this is a very important moment for Takaiichi government and to learn and then to improve their performances.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Professor Qu Qiang joining us from Mingzhu University of China.
Coming up.
President Donald Trump meets with South Korean leader, as trade deals between Washington and Seoul remains elusive.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies.
World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics economics business, technology and society.
World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies.
I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
U.S.
President Donald Trump has met with South Korean President Lee Jong-un as part of the final leg of his trip across Asia.
The two leaders took part in a working lunch on Wednesday, which was then followed by a private meeting in the afternoon.
Washington and Seoul have historically been allies of each other.
However, tensions between the two sides spiked after hundreds of South Koreans were detained in a particular immigration raid in the United States last month.
So joining us now on the line is Andy Mark, professor with Beijing Foreign Studies University and a senior research fellow with the Center for China and Globalization.
Thank you very much for joining us, Andy.
Ding Hong, a pleasure as always.
Okay.
So we understand.
President Donald Trump has been greeted in South Korea by lavish gifts, including a gold medal and a crown.
Other than that, what do you think Trump is gaining from South Korea?
Well Ding Hong.
I think it's not just South Korea, but here's, I think, the way to look at what President Trump is looking for.
So in show business, winning an EGOT, an Emmy for the best television show, Grammy for the best music.
Oscar for the best movie and Tony for the best play means you've conquered every stage of fame, and i think donald trump is chasing the political equivalent.
So he wants not just to be a two-term president, which he's already accomplished, but he wants to be seen as a historic figure on the scale of a george washington or an abraham lincoln.
I think he's also – if we've been following the news, we can see he's seeking the Nobel Prize and perhaps even wants to be president for life.
So I think for countries like South Korea, they have to understand this and play to his ambition and not to an ideology.
So appealing to his sense of legacy and grandeur, I think will be much more effective than focusing on reason or policy objectives.
Currently, the United States and South Korea are still trying to reach a bilateral trade deal.
Actually, before the meeting between the two leaders, Both sides had to play down the prospect, play down the public's expectation regarding a possible breakthrough in trade negotiation.
So why do you think at least it looks like to be the case now that this meeting between them failed to achieve a breakthrough?
Well Ding Hong.
And for a very long time That drove the relationship and the US was willing to accept, maybe even encourage, the growing industrial might of South Korea, in particular by accepting exports from South Korea.
Now, of course, under President Trump, who's long focused more on trade and goods, this is very, very problematic.
So I think South Korea now is really caught in this predicament because They export a lot of automobiles to the United States, so Hyundai companies like that are very, very important to the South Korean economy.
So they're being hit by 25 tariffs which the US has said they will reduce in exchange for 350 billion in investment.
That will basically be a blank check.
So I think that.
For South Korea, this is a very bitter pill, if not an impossible pill to swallow.
And I think this is why there's a downplaying on both sides of any major breakthrough.
And I think the question will become is there – a way for the Trump administration or President Trump to accept something less than you know?
I think, what would be seen, as You know, sort of a maximalist demand.
Yeah.
But in the meantime we understand.
By comparison, Japanese and European automakers are nowadays faced with a US tariff of 15.
How do you think this difference might impact South Korean companies, such as Hyundai and Kia, for that matter, in their competition with Japanese and European brands in the American market?
I think that's the whole point, Ding Hong, right?
So that's the quid pro quo that President Trump is a very, very shrewd interlocutor, right in terms of someone to negotiate with.
And he understands just how important – automotive exports to the United States are for South Korea, precisely for the reasons you say, that it is a very large market, but also very, very competitive, and any disadvantage that the South Korean companies would have would be very, very painful.
So I think this is again what makes it, I think, such a bitter pill or such a dilemma for the South Korean government because, on the one hand, 350 billion is a lot of money in absolute terms and it's an enormous amount when we think about it for an economy the size of South Korea.
But at the same time, of course, the automotive companies are not just important pillars, but also very politically important in South Korea as well.
So again, this is a very, very difficult position I think that the South Korean government is currently facing.
Now this 350 billion US dollars you mentioned.
That's a very difficult and thorny issue in this trade negotiations between the Trump administration and the President Lee Jong-un's administration.
Basically, President Trump is demanding that South Korea to invest that amount of cash in the American economy.
But South Korean officials basically claim that They are not willing to do that.
They can only offer, say, loans or other forms of investment.
So do you think South Korean officials have a point when they say putting up that amount of cash could destabilize their own economy?
I think that's certainly true, Ding Hong.
And again, I think that this is meant to be I hate to say this, but I think it is meant to be painful right that President Trump is looking to extract the very best possible deal.
And you know from some philosophies of negotiation, if you can reach the maximum pain point to get someone to submit to, you've won.
So I think that there's probably some of that going on.
I think there also is an internally coherent logic from President Trump that this investment is very important to re-industrialize the United States, to have again, as I mentioned, a blank check from Japan, from South Korea, from other countries that he has the authority to direct into the industries and the companies that he feels are most beneficial for reindustrialization.
But I think an important side benefit, of course, is that increases his political power and influence over the United States, since he's able to direct the flow of a very, very large amount of money.
So again, from Trump's perspective, it makes a lot of sense.
Now the question is again is this something?
– where will South Korea fall on this very difficult decision?
Hmm, okay.
So very briefly, the final question before we let you go.
How should President Lee manage ties with Washington as he tries to pursue a more balanced foreign policy than that of his predecessor?
I think, Dave Hong, that the problem facing South Korea is no different from that facing the UK Australia, some other countries that are really trying to navigate this difficult position.
And I think really look to the future and we can see, you know, China's growing economically technologically, it's having greater and greater impact on the global stage.
And I think that's undeniable.
And that's a fact that I think all of these countries, including the United States, need to come to terms with.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Andy Mark, professor with Beijing Foreign Studies University.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
We'll be back after a very short break.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
China has pledged to accelerate the country's green transition during its next five-year plan.
Top Chinese leaders adopted recommendations for the next five-year plan in a major meeting held last week.
The recommendations call for reinforcing China's ecological security shields and green development drivers, saying green development is a defining feature of Chinese modernization.
The recommendations emphasize promoting green transitions in industry, urban and rural development transportation, energy and other key sectors.
In addition, the recommendation also says that China should devote sustained efforts to building national experimental areas for ecological conservation and establishing pilot zones under the Beautiful China initiative.
So joining us now on the line is Dr Li Lun, assistant professor of economics with Peking University.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Li Lun.
First of all, do you agree with this idea that green transition should fundamentally come from industrial upgrading?
Is it possible to decouple productivity growth from pollution or emissions?
Yeah.
So what we're seeing previously, that we are, for example, from 2014 to 2024, we're seeing that PM25 the air quality is improving year on year.
So the PM25 is decreasing by around 5 year year on year.
But we are also seeing GDP has been keeping growing in the same period.
So I think the traditional thought that maintaining, for example, a grain transition is a roadblock to growth.
I think that view is now way out there.
I think, in terms of China's case greener power, for example, is exceeding the capacity of fossil thermal power plants.
We're seeing that wind and solar is actually producing more power in China than the traditional kind.
And also China reaches target of twenty hundred gigawatts of renewable energy, six years before the target.
So so so I think right now, like using the greener energy is actually not a roadblock to growth, but it's actually a secret or you know secret path for for higher as well so apart from industrial upgrading what needs to be done to tackle the existing air water and soil pollution and prevent new pollutions Do you see a need for upgrading the actual methods that China uses in this country's battles for blue sky, clear water and clean land?
So I think China is already doing pretty well in terms of tackling the current air and water pollution, including the soil pollution.
So, for example, we're installing a lot of monitors on the SO2 and NO2 the emissions of a lot of power plants and factories.
So we have pretty strict laws punishing the carbon emission by the factories, or in some cases people can buy some of the carbon quotas.
In terms of soil.
Our technology in terms of dealing with Everyday waste and garbage has improved so much that excess waste that's contaminating farmland is no longer a threat as severe as years ago.
We need to have the market kind of regulate them to install these monitors on them.
And also, in extreme cases, allow them to buy some of the quotas so that we can contain the total amount of pollution that's being released.
So the market forces.
The potential role that could be played by market forces in terms of tackling pollution is one thing.
In the meantime, in terms of energy consumption, we understand the recommendations for the next five-year plan says that China should continue to upgrade coal-fired power plants, phase out the use of coal in non-industrial sectors and encourage green and low-carbon energy consumption.
So what do you make of the roles that could be played by market forces and pricing mechanisms in these transitions?
Yeah, so we can think of these coal plants.
As you know, insurance to.
You know sometimes the electricity needs, especially in peak hours.
So you mentioned market forces and pricing mechanisms.
I think those are very important because we know that wind and solar energies they are limited by the weather conditions.
And sometimes, when it's rainy or cloudy outside, these greener forces or greener power plants may not be able to provide all the powers that's needed, then that's where the coal plants that's very handy or convenient that can come into place.
So I do think that setting some of the coal plants that's upgraded, that's with the newer cleaner energy and use them as a part of the insurance to guarantee that people get the electricity whenever and wherever they need is very important.
Also in terms of the market going through the carbon market, having the carbon price as a signal, and show that which industries are using more the carbon quotas and which allocations or quotes that we need to set for the future.
It's also an area where I think think the market has been helping with the greater transition.
From an economic perspective.
In what ways do you think a better natural environment or a better living environment, for that matter, in what ways do you think these things could help West China's goal to pursue high-quality development?
Yeah, so I think at least from several aspects.
So first of all, I think people will definitely get healthier and therefore more productive.
So, I mean, the final goal of any development should be, you know, people's well-being and People's health is definitely, and longevity, honestly, is a very important indicator of people's welfare.
And also having better air, better environment, also attract tourism, also increase the city's amenity, city's image.
It can also attract talent. and also improve services.
For example, when a river is being cleaned, we can open a lot of stores alongside the river, and not so if the river is polluted.
And finally, I think having a better natural environment basically guarantees a resilient, forever energy system.
So having all of these solar and wind, Also nuclear power plants in addition to the coal plants actually provides a more resilient and more secure energy sources for our nation and also can stabilize the energy prices, especially in terms of unpredictable cases.
Hmm.
So, by the way, what kind of unpredictable cases were you mentioning briefly?
Yeah.
Yes.
So briefly, for example, if there's fluctuations in global energy prices, there's fluctuations in coal prices or, for example, there are extreme conditions in you know whether that's basically preventing.
You know the traditional ways of generating power.
So basically you don't want to rely on this, you know, a single source of generating power.
You want the grids to be, you know, prepared for any, you know, extreme conditions.
We're seeing, for example, in some cases In the States or other European countries, where when there's a hurricane or an earthquake, then you have the entire region out of power.
So having multiple energy sources can prevent things like that to happen.
Thank you very much for joining us today.
Dr. Li Lun, Assistant Professor of Economics with Peking University.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
China's capital market is taking yet another step for nurturing tech innovation.
The Shanghai Stock Exchange has unveiled the first batch of enterprises listed on a newly created Scientech growth tier under this star market, namely the country's Science and Technology Innovation Board.
This is a move to better support high-quality technology companies that are not yet profitable but show strong potential.
In the meantime, Goldman Sachs has just issued a bullish forecast predicting that Chinese equities could rise by as much as 30 by the end of 2027, driven by policy earnings growth and an artificial intelligence-led productivity boost.
For more.
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Chen Jiahe, chief investment officer with Novant Aki Technologies.
So Jiahe.
First, what's the significance of launching the new science and tech growth tier on China's stock market?
Well, this launching of the new board really enables China's equity market, or the stock market, to be better serving the high tech companies in China.
Because, if you look at the details of this new board, it enables more tech companies to join the equity market when they are still, for example, not making that much profit, when they are still growing, when they are bearing more risk but more potential return as well.
So this new design is helping these high tech companies to get listed in the equity market.
It also enables the investors to have a better chance to access the investment of these companies, especially at an early stage, compared with the traditional setting of the stock market.
So this is really helping the tech sector as well as giving a second choice and an additional option for the stock investors.
And how is this new tier different from the existing stock market structure?
And why is this importance these companies can list even if they are not yet profitable?
Yeah, if you look at the details of this new board, it's just, you know, opens well, I would say opens more doors for the high tech companies to get into the stock market, compared with the previous design.
For example, as you mentioned, they don't have to be profitable when they are getting listed.
If you look at the traditional companies when they are growing, they get profitable at every stage of their growth.
But if you look at high-tech companies, they are different.
They can be investing for years or even for decades, They don't make a profit at all.
They keep on investing and people keep on giving them money.
I mean the stockholders or their shareholders keep on giving them money for many, many years until one day their product is finally sold, is finally winning out in the market, and they get the investment back in one or two years.
So this is something really different.
If you wait for the high-tech companies to make profit, then you allow them to get the financing from the equity market.
You'll probably be too late, because the time that they get profit would be the time they don't need any investment at all.
So this is This is a new challenge for China's traditional stock market, and that's why we're designing the new board, including this one, to fit this phenomenon of the high-tech businesses.
And meanwhile Goldman Sachs recently predicting a 30 rise in Chinese stocks over the next two years.
So, Jia He, what are the main drivers for this optimism?
How do you view it?
Well, I would say it's actually pretty difficult for you to predict how much the stock market will be rising next two years.
I mean, it's a pretty short term.
I wouldn't be surprised if the market be rising by 50% or by 10%.
If we look at the reports written by investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, as you mentioned, they'd be optimistic and given out a 30 prediction.
It's basically because China's equity market has been performing pretty good in the past one or two years.
Because when we look at these reports, In most cases they're optimistic when the market is bullish and they're bearish when the market is going downward.
So that's basically because the stock market has been performing pretty well.
And you see the report keeps on saying the trend will be continued in the next two years.
But if you look into the long term, there's always no questioning that China's stock market will keep on moving upward.
And that's because China's economy is growing at a very stable status at the moment.
I mean, if you look at China, we got the pressure from the United States about the trade.
But if you look at the current agreement we just signed with the ASEAN countries, who has twice the population of the United States and that enables more trade between China and ASEAN countries.
So, if you look at all aspects, including the financing, the high tech, The social security, China is improving every day and every year.
And if you look at the long term, there's no reason that the stock market will stay at this point.
And where do you think the growth is most likely to come from for China's stock market?
Well, if you look at the growth, I'd say most of the companies if they are valuing at a fair valuation at this moment, they will offer you growth in the future.
Well, actually, we are investors in the market.
We don't focus on just one or two sectors.
We look at almost every sector.
So I mean you can look at China's economy as different industries, such as human resource, such as highways, such as ports, such as consumption telecommunication, banking.
I mean almost every sector, also healthcare.
I mean, if you read the annual report of all these companies, you can see a very usual growth about five to 6 per year.
That's in according with China's GDP growth.
I would say the growth of China's equity market actually comes from every industry.
As long as you don't have a super valuation, your valuation is fair, then investing in these companies would be not a bad idea at all.
And Anna said China's slow bull market is developing momentum.
So how do you view it?
And could this slow bull market attract more global investors into China?
And if so, where are opportunities?
Well, we can see the bull market in China has been pretty stable.
And this is definitely attracting quite a lot of global investors.
The main channel for investing in China's equities nowadays is so-called the shanghai shenzhen hong kong connection program.
I mean through this program you can easily invest your money into china's stock markets.
By investing your money in hong kong open accounting hong kong you can get a lot of money into mainland In any time.
I mean you can throw in billions, you can throw in tens of billions of money if you like.
So it's really easy nowadays for global investors to invest into China.
And that's why we see quite a lot of them actually joining in because of the opportunities here.
So I would say that's also another reason attracting the global investors to come in.
And finally, do you think China's capital market reforms are keeping pace with this technological innovation speed?
Or what more could policymakers do to deepen the financing channels for innovation companies?
Well, the policymakers have been doing all what they can to stimulate the growing of the high-tech sector, because currently China has been setting the high-tech growth to be one of the most important drivers for China's economic growth in the future.
And if you look at the building of the equity market, I would say currently the financing channel has been pretty good for the high-tech companies.
If you are really a high-tech company, you want to get listed in China's equity markets.
It's simple.
It's really simple for you.
And the government is encouraging it.
The security regulators are encouraging it.
Everyone is encouraging you.
I mean, if you are really a high-tech company, you should get listed.
And investors always give you a sky-high valuation.
It's really easy for you to get financing.
Chen Jiahe, Chief Investment Officer with November Key Technologies, talking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Peace talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan have ended in Istanbul without a deal.
Pakistani officials have confirmed the failure of the dialogue, blaming the Afghan delegations for obstructing progress.
Mediated by Qatar and Turkey, the negotiations followed an initial round of dialogue in Doha.
The talks in Doha produced a temporary ceasefire earlier this month after a week of fighting that killed dozens of people on both sides.
So for more, my colleague Zhao Ying earlier spoke with Dr. Wang Jing from Northwest University in Xi'an, China.
The talks in Istanbul were described as a last-ditch push to avoid conflict, yet they failed.
What do you think were the main sticking points that led to the collapse of negotiations?
I think that many factors actually finally led to the collapse of the negotiation or the peace chances.
First of all, we cannot forget the very crisis or the very divisions over the border control, over the border management between Pakistan and Afghanistan, because we know that in the northwestern Pakistan as well as the southeastern Afghanistan, actually in history these are the areas full of the push to ethnic groups and also the push to tribal areas, where all kinds of the local authority, local autonomy are usually respected.
But for the different countries, as a country with units we're talking about Afghanistan, we're talking about Pakistan it is very necessary to reorganize the different factors into the new political mechanism.
So that's why the crisis emerged, particularly after 2021, when the Afghan Taliban assumed the power in Afghanistan as well.
They also faced the problem, the border control, border management problem.
I think the second one factor that led to the collapse of the peace talks could be attributed to the distrust between Pakistan government and the Afghan Taliban-led government, because we know that from the perspective of Afghan Afghan Taliban that they believe that the Pakistan is trying to intervene their own national affairs.
But from the perspective of Pakistan governments, they believe that the Taliban Afghan Taliban is actually helping and assisting the members from the Pakistan Taliban and trying to violate the situation inside Pakistan.
So that's why they have the conflicting narratives uh, over what is happening in the border areas, and then the last of another these days, that i think that both the two sides believe that these war or this conflict cannot be easily managed through the kind of the peace talks, because the we're not talking about the, the very coherent mechanism that could direct everything in the negotiation table.
We're also talking about many factors, many variables, many complexities in both sides, both Afghanistan government led by Afghan Taliban, as well as the Pakistan government.
So that's why I think the peace talks are highly necessary.
It's very useful, it's very positive, but it cannot solve the problem between Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.
Okay, then how close are we now to a full-scale confrontation between Pakistan and Afghanistan?
I don't think the full-scale confrontation is realistic because another side I mean Pakistan government as well as the Afghan Taliban they lack enough motivations to launch the four-scale war.
They lack enough motivations to start the confrontation with each other.
But we cannot underestimate, of course we cannot underestimate the hostilities between the two sides, we cannot underestimate the divisions between the two sides, but we are not able to overestimate these kind of the levels of the hostilities that could lead to the total confrontation.
Because when we're talking about total confrontation mean we mean that the both sides, both afghan taliban as well as the pakistan government, they should mobilize every forces inside their own countries to confront directly with each other.
But this is unrealistic because for african taliban, a government, they also have to face possible threats of the of the challengers, particularly some of the islamic extremists led by the isk, i mean the islamic states of the holoshan uh, whether yet uh the very branches of the islamic states inside afghanistan.
They also have to monitor the possible uh deployments of the forces of iran over the border issues.
So actually they have a lot of other challenges also from pakistan.
They also have to monitor the possible uh new conflicts and new words with uh, with india.
So actually, for for both of them, i don't think if we could have enough willingness and the motivations to to, to motivate, to mobilize a very total confrontation with each other.
But again we on the one hand we cannot say that they will.
They will have enough motivations to start a total war.
But on the other hand I don't think the kind of the low scale war, low scale conflict might be avoided.
So low scale conflict might maintain, but the total confrontation might not be very likely.
So Pakistan's central demand was that the Taliban curb the activities of the TTP.
But why is the Taliban leadership so reluctant or unable to act against this group?
I think because from Pakistan's perspective, the Taliban's branches in Pakistan actually enjoy very close ties with the Afghan Taliban.
And also from their narratives that the Afghan Taliban can determine everything in the Pakistan Taliban.
They are allies to some extent, but they are not the ones who have more supreme authority over the others and who can direct everything that the other side would follow.
So that's why I think, maybe from Pakistan's perspective, that the Afghan Taliban should cut all the ties with Pakistan Taliban.
But this is unrealistic because they have the very close ties and they are still enjoying the very close ties based on tribal family connections, as well as the political alliances.
And, on the other hand, even that the Afghan Taliban actually suspend some kind of assistance, it is unlikely that all the activities inside Pakistan Taliban would also be suspended.
So we're talking about very complicating practical scenarios and this should not be solved through the very easy mechanism.
How do you see President Trump's offer to solve the crisis very quickly?
Does Washington have any leverage over either Islamabad or Kabul at this point?
I don't think Trump's actually narratives or definition should be taken very seriously, because for Donald Trump every war and every confrontation could be solved very easily from Russia, Ukraine to Israel Pakistan, now to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So that's why I think maybe he's trying to define from his own understanding and actually dump, underestimating the very complicities of the war.
But I think maybe that Washington or United States or Donald Trump himself, hopes to intervene the crisis and hope to do something to benefit the peace opportunities between the two sides.
This might be positive, but I don't think it is an easy task.
For the Taliban government, how has this standoff affected its domestic legitimacy?
I think it's not a big challenge, because for the Afghan Taliban, of course, there were some challenges both internally and externally.
Actually, at home at least.
I mean inside Afghanistan.
There is no other very competent challengers who are able to oversee the government led by Afghan Taliban.
And also we cannot deny the fact that although Pakistan played a very important role for Afghan Taliban government over the diplomatic level, but actually they cannot transfer this kind of diplomatic influence towards the very internal influence for the dissension makers, particularly for the high ranking dissension makers inside the Afghan Taliban.
So that's why maybe I mean, maybe it's kind of a standoff uh would uh create some kind of uh problem and obstacles for the afghan taliban government, but i don't think it would be the very big problem.
So that's why the two sides pakistan government as well as the afghan government by afghan taliban Their crisis will continue.
Their small-scale confrontation will continue.
So the peace opportunities are there, but still needs more efforts from international community.
Dr Wang Jing, Associate Professor with Northwest University in Xi'an China, talking with my colleague Zhao Ying.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
I'm Ding He Lin, Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
