Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today.
I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
Coming up, China calls for joint counterterrorism efforts with Pakistan.
EU launches carbon border tax despite opposition from trading partners.
Donald Trump is to withdraw the United States from dozens of international organizations.
And in Syria's city of Aleppo, clashes between government and Kurdish forces are escalating.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
China says it is willing to intensify cooperation with Pakistan in fighting terrorism and telecom crimes.
Chinese Public Security Minister, Wang Xiaohong, made a remark in a meeting with Said Maheshin Radhanakavi, Pakistan's Interior and Counter-Nucleics Minister, in Beijing.
Wang called for efforts to address various challenges and jointly safeguard the national security and social stability of both countries.
And, for his part, Nakavi said Pakistan is ready to deepen law enforcement and security cooperation with China, vowing to take further measures to safeguard the safety of Chinese personnel, projects and institutions in his own country.
The meeting came days after Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, made a visit to China.
In a strategic dialogue between Dar and his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, the two sides pledged to further deepen ties and expand cooperation.
So joining us now on the line is Hamzai Rifat Hussein, president of Initiate Future, a policy think tank.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Hamzai.
First of all, why is it necessary for China and Pakistan to intensify their cooperation in terms of fighting terrorism and telecommunication crime?
Well, thank you so much.
I think first of all China and Pakistan.
You know they suffer from similar threat perceptions, especially terrorist groups, which are emanating from Afghanistan.
Obviously the East Turkestan Islamic movement is very active in Afghanistan and nothing to relay to Beijing that they want to dismantle such groups.
And obviously, Pakistan, you take a look at the statistics.
We are one of the worst hit countries.
As far as terrorism is concerned, we have witnessed a spike in attacks.
We've had attacks in the capital Islamabad.
We've also had attacks in different parts of the country, particularly in Khyber, Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.
So there's a common threat perception and obviously Baloch militants as well.
You know, the Baloch Rajoy, Ajoy Sangar, which is an amalgamation of different Baloch groups.
They have also known to attack Chinese engineers, Chinese workers, as well as CPEC projects in the country, and that is why it is extremely important.
Now to your second part of the question telecom crime.
You see terrorism and criminal activity.
If you are to analyze it, you know, based on a solid perspective.
Prevention of violent extremism is extremely important.
I mean, if you want to prevent violent extremism, you need to understand that the threat is hybrid.
Now,
Terrorists use social media platforms.
They use telecommunications.
They also convey messages through social, through you could say various Internet devices.
There's hacking as well.
So there's a hybrid threat.
So you can't rely on kinetic measures only.
Both China and Pakistan need to have a holistic, comprehensive approach towards dealing with terrorism and telecommunications crime.
So, like you said, we have seen some attacks targeting Chinese citizens working on some of the Chinese-invested infrastructure or energy projects in Pakistan.
So what are the reasons behind those attacks?
And what measures has Islamabad taken in response to try to ensure the safety and the security of Chinese personnel and the Chinese projects?
Well, first of all, I think a lot of you could say Chinese infrastructures, especially infrastructural projects sorry, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is an energy, transport and port works is considered to be a symbol of exploitation or foreign domination.
This is a view which is held by below separatist groups such as the BLA explicitly, which target Chinese personnel and projects because they believe CPEC benefits the state and foreign powers at the expense of the local Baloch resources and autonomy.
They've also carried out suicide attacks and bombings in Balochistan and elsewhere.
Coming to Tariq-e Taliban, Pakistan and allied Islamist militants.
They've also threatened Chinese workers and infrastructure, demanding taxes or denouncing foreign investment.
Now, China's projects are integral to Pakistan's economy and regional connectivity.
So attacks against Chinese national infrastructure serve multiple militant aims.
So I'll just give you a list of the aims that are there.
I mean, off my fingertips, first of all, to gain publicity, to signal capacity, to strike high value foreign link targets, undermine Pakistan security claims and also damage Pakistan China ties. so some attacks have occurred uh for example the 2024 shangla bombing it was a suicide attack killing chinese engineers en route to work there was a dasu bus attack a 2021 suicide bombing that killed several chinese workers as well attacks in karachi as well so in light of the all-weather friendship that pakistan shares with china islamabad has implemented several protective measures first of all they've uh you know adopted special security units and protocols They've provided bulletproof vehicles for all Chinese personnel movements, their military and paramilitary support at high-risk locations as well.
Authorities have also trained police forces with military-level training, and they've also expanded intelligence-led counterterrorism operations and launched an operation which is called an Urdu Azme Istakam, which is a broader anti-insurgency drive and it also encompasses security improvements.
So this is extremely important, because both sides have agreed to institutionalize counterterrorism cooperation.
And as I said, because it's a hybrid threat, you can't rely on kinetic measures alone.
Indeed.
By the way, Xinjiang represents the starting point, or one end, of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or better known as the CPAC.
We know, in Xinjiang, Chinese authorities have conducted a pretty successful counterterror campaign, turning it from a place that was once riddled with terrorist activities into a pretty safe region today.
So how does Pakistan view the counter-terror efforts in Xinjiang?
And do you think the case in Xinjiang provides any inspiration to Pakistan's own counter-terror efforts?
Yeah, I think it does, because Pakistan has repeatedly and publicly supported China's policies and approach in Xinjiang.
This encompasses peace, stability and counterterrorism, and framed the state's development as a sovereign issue that should not be politicized by outside actors.
So, for example, over here in Pakistan, we respect sovereignty and non-interference.
Our official statements also characterize Xinjiang's stability as contributing to broader regional security.
It's very pivotal, obviously, as you said, as a starting point of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
And in joint statements with China on counterterrorism cooperation, we've also reiterated shared commitments to combating terrorism.
And we've acknowledged China's role in strategies, without explicitly detailing specific policy endorsements.
Now, does Pakistan see Xinjiang as a model for its own counterterrorism?
Officially yes, but we don't adopt the Xinjiang model as a blueprint, because China and Pakistan are very different political systems.
Now Pakistan's government and official diplomatic channels generally do not talk about replicating Xinjiang's counterterrorism strategies.
However, we have our own legal, constitutional, and political framework.
So, when we look at Xinjiang in general, I think there's a lot to learn as far as clamping down on extremists are concerned, but it's not that we don't want to replicate it.
It's just because both countries have very different systems.
So when you talk about security cooperation, like joint exercises of police and paramilitary forces that have taken place to train Pakistani officers in Gilgit-Baltistan and institutions such as the Xinjiang Police Academy,
Pakistani delegations have also traveled and they are also expected to travel to Xinjiang to enhance security, cooperation and mutual learning.
And this encompasses counterterrorism, anti-smuggling and anti-narcotics work.
So the official policy I mean, you know, Xinjiang is all about economic integration, skill development and inclusivity.
Also, Pakistan understands that this is not a Muslim issue.
This is not an Islam issue.
And if you are a separatist, it doesn't matter which religion you hail from.
You know you will be clamped down.
So we don't think that this is any sort of persecution against Muslims, because the Chinese who are Muslims, they live in Shanghai Beijing, Guangzhou and different parts of the country.
So, yeah, I take your point.
And thank you very much.
So when we talk about counter-terror efforts, Of course, a focal point is Afghanistan.
In this recent foreign minister's strategic dialogue, China and Pakistan called for more quote-unquote, visible and verifiable steps to eliminate terrorist organizations based in Afghanistan and to prevent Afghan territory from being used for militancy against any other country.
So how can China and Pakistan cooperate in this regard?
Well, let me bring you back to the seventh round of the China-Pakistan foreign minister strategic dialogue.
And you know there was a joint it wasn't a statement, but there was joint emphasis on terrorist groups based in Afghanistan posing a serious regional and global security threat.
Both sides, I recall, called for visible and verifiable action by Afghan authorities to dismantle those militant networks.
So it clearly shows Islamabad's longstanding concern that groups like TTP and other affiliates may be operating from Afghan soil.
And China.
Of course.
You know they're concerned about regional terrorism affecting BRI, CPAP projects and broader stability.
So there are some key areas.
First of all, there needs to be strategic diplomatic engagement.
China and Pakistan can jointly engage with the Afghan authorities.
We've done it in the past as well.
There needs to be diplomatic pressure and sustained dialogue, urging visible action against militant groups.
And here's a proposal for example, co-chairing and participating in trilateral formats like the China-Pakistan-Afghanistan foreign ministers' dialogue, to build confidence and press for counter-terror progress.
Then obviously, there's intelligence sharing and security coordination to track cross-border militant movements and financing networks, whether it's from the ETIM, which obviously does get a lot of support from different parts of the world, including in Central Asia, then monitoring safe havens and coordinating plotting from Afghan territory.
I think that's extremely important.
Then obviously, you know, you look at multilateral platforms as well.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization emphasizes counterterrorism cooperation.
And you would recall that the SEO initially started as a security organization.
So that's something that they can tap on.
Then there's the UN counterterrorism mechanisms as well, um but but there also needs to be development oriented approaches.
For example, we don't want to isolate afghanistan.
We need to ensure that they have political and economic development, they adopt moderate policies, they pursue good neighborly relations.
For that there needs to be improved governance and political legitimacy, economic opportunity as well, and then security capacity building.
I think there needs to be collective efforts from china and pakistan to strengthen the afghan security capabilities uh training and capacity support, border management coordination.
Then both China and Pakistan do seek constructive engagement.
However, there needs to be a balance between incentives and pressure.
And then there's a regional context as well.
There are broader regional tensions.
For example, Afghanistan just attacked.
I mean, militants from Afghanistan just attacked Tajikistan.
So that, again, is a huge problem.
So I think my answer will be nuanced.
There needs to be joint diplomatic engagement, intelligence sharing, use of multilateral forums, development-linked approaches and capacity-building cooperation.
That will result in dealing with the Afghan issue.
Now I think ultimately, any counter-terror effort is ultimately aimed at creating a a more secure and safer environment for to enhance development issues.
So, beyond counter-terror cooperation, we know beijing and islamabad have also agreed to build an upgraded version of the cpac with a focus on on on industry, agriculture and mining, and stepping up collaboration in the financial and banking sector.
So how does the prospect of upgrading the CPEC look like to you?
I think it's pretty bright with a few challenges, of course.
There's a focus on key economic sectors.
So upgraded CPEC means CPEC 2.0.
And that means shifting the focus beyond core infrastructure into broader economic cooperation.
So obviously there are industrial linkages.
Rather than just building ports, roads and energy plants.
Chinese investment in manufacturing industrial parks, home appliances, textile production zones that can enhance Pakistan's export potential and create jobs as well.
There's obviously agriculture modernizing the agricultural sector through technology transfer, value chain development and export protocols for products like mango citrus, dairy and rice based on recent MOUs.
Then there's mining, of course.
Pakistan is extremely rich with regard to critical minerals.
That's why the Trump administration has expressed an interest.
So a CPEC 20 involves strengthening mineral exploration, processing and industrial parts with Chinese participation.
This includes downstream value addition, and it's related to geological cooperation.
Then you have the Gwadar Port, of course, which remains a priority, the Karakoram Highway and the Khunjerab Pass, ensuring that you know there's efficient, secure transportation links between the two countries.
Expansion in finance, finance and banking sectors to improve investment flows.
Information technology, science and cybersecurity, and technical and vocational training.
So there are implications.
For example, CPEC 20 aligns with Pakistan's national development strategies, with China's BRI aiming for long-term economic resilience.
So it's not just short-term infrastructure delivery.
It includes fostering export competitiveness, job creation, and localized value addition.
And the special economic zones linked with CPEC are expected to attract investment in sectors like textiles and electronics and heavy industry.
There are some challenges.
Obviously, the key challenge is security.
There needs to be security improvement.
Pakistan is dedicated and, you know, an extra task force to that end.
And I think that is the main issue.
But overall I think it's shaping a more diversified and economically strategic partnership for Pakistan, which is important because infrastructure is not enough.
You need industrial cooperation.
You need agricultural modernization.
You need mining development and financial integration.
Hmm.
Hamidzai Rifat Hussein, president of Initiate Future, a policy think tank.
This is World Today.
Stay tuned.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
The European Union's carbon border tax has officially come into force.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism requires companies exporting pollution-heavy goods into the European Union to pay for their products on emissions.
The European Union argues that the policy levels the playing field against the countries with less stringent climate rules while at the same time advancing its environmental agenda.
However, major trading partners of the bloc, including China and India, for example, regard this policy as protectionism under a cover of environmental rhetoric.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Professor Liu Baocheng from the University of International Business and Economics.
Thank you very much for joining us.
So some say what this carbon border tax is essentially about is In order to boost the competitiveness of European steel and cement manufacturers, the EU is now attempting to make sure that those cheaper imported steel and cement are no longer that cheap.
What is your take?
Well, I think there's much controversy in this argument because the EU producers have already been paying higher prices for their ETS system, roughly between 60 to 80 euros.
So this is there to provide a level playing field with other importers on the same industry, because they also view that the climate change efforts will have to be concerted around the world.
And therefore it is there to push some of the countries with loose environmental policies to tighten up their control and also to boost the carbon trading system within their own country.
So that's the positive side.
But the negative side is it does really boost the comparative advantage of the EU producers, because they have been doing far better work in that regard.
And this does not really take into full consideration of the developmental stages, the between different countries, particularly those developing countries who really have a loose policy which is really compatible to their stage of industrialization.
So it really creates a sort of intersection between the EU climate ambition and their own economic self-interest.
Now, actually a supportive argument for this particular carbon tax or carbon border tax is that it will somehow incentivize those non-EU countries or economies to adopt their own carbon pricing mechanism or systems.
But I think in the case of China, China actually already has had its own carbon market since the year 2021.
And China's market actually represents the world's biggest in terms of, for example, in terms of the volume that is covered by this market, in terms of the volume of carbon emissions.
So How would you comment on the situation here in China?
Do you think China has a point when, for example, when the Chinese government argues that the EU policy amounts to unfair restrictions?
I think, generally speaking, we are in the same trajectory because both China and the EU are very much committed for the carbon reduction.
However, the reality would present a different picture, because the Chinese ETS system has been rather young.
Actually, that started only five years ago.
Also, China said the emission trading price is far lower than that of the EU.
So that means when Chinese exporters are facing the CBAM cost, they have to pay more than 60%.
Despite all the reduction for the carbon tax that has already been paid in the domestic market with China.
The other is that China's ETS system does not fully cover the categories that EU has been listing, and also the rollout of such a sort of list could be expanded.
And so therefore it's gonna really outpace China's efforts for such sort of drives.
But having said that, the percentage of the CBAM covered exports from China are really not that significant.
By basic calculation, it would only constitute less than 5%.
The other considerations are because the EU has given quite a grace period for some countries, like China, to make some adjustments.
It won't really take effect immediately, although they need to get into full steam in preparing for documentation and for the policymakers to adjust their regulations.
On the other hand, it does really offer a push for China to step up such sort of efforts.
Do you think we're going to see scenarios in which this EU policy will end up diluting the incentive for cleaner production processes and allow high emission imports to enter the EU market with insufficient costs in terms of their carbon emissions?
And, I guess, in a bigger picture sense.
Another, bigger question we have on our mind is that, as more and more countries nowadays begin to embrace green economy, green development in a more profound way, what can be done to try to reduce those trade barriers or trade frictions rather, triggered by varying carbon emission standards?
I think that's a very broad question, but the answer is that the risk does exist if The EU used the carbon border adjustment mechanism simply as a sort of a tax at the border, instead of communicating with the rest of the countries, with the particular industries that are subject to such a sort of tax.
It is really a sort of dilution for the incentive for cleaning companies for the cleaner production.
However, if the carbon price is not really closely related with such sort of a drive and there could also be a sort of regulatory arbitrage which simply means extra, adding extra burden on those, you know, foreign exporters.
But basically speaking it's more of a standardized charge.
So in such a case the firms may choose to pay some adjustment, uh tax, and then, you know, wait until see what could be the result.
So the analysis it really requires more precise and transparent policies and also the rollout has to be on a sort of progressive basis rather than become a static tariff like instrument as how to address such sort of issue.
I think there's already been a consensus for the recognition of the climate change efforts.
And hopefully these consensus can be further cemented, let's put it this way.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Time is up.
Professor Liu Baocheng joining us from the University of International Business and Economics.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
We'll be back after a short break.
You're back with World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
The United States has announced its withdrawal from dozens of international organizations, including the UN's Population Agency.
U.S.
President, Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday suspending support for up to 66 organizations agencies, as well as commissions.
The Trump administration had already halted support for organizations including the World Health Organization, the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees, the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO.
For more.
My colleague Song Ruixin earlier spoke with Dr Harvey Zeldin, former vice president of ABC TV Network and a senior fellow with the Center for China and Globalization.
The Trump administration states these organizations' quote-unquote advanced agendas that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength.
Specifically regarding climate, labor and immigration.
What are the precise policies or initiatives from these bodies that the current administration views as damaging to US interests?
Well, first, let me say that these are shocking policies, but they're not any surprise.
They really come out of the blue, but they're coming from the far-right Luddites, who've been clear about their intentions since revealing their agenda 2025 prior to the last presidential campaign.
So our post-World War II era is built on cooperation, but these actions against the 66 international organizations, 31 from the UN and 35 others are the negation and the repudiation of this model, to be replaced by basically, my way or the highway, or maybe, as President Trump might say, it screw you.
And so one of the things that it does is it specifically guts the Paris Climate Accords, largely negotiated by Presidents Trump and Xi a decade ago, from which Trump tried to pull out in his first term and Joe Biden restored until now.
So specifically, it guts the Paris Climate Accords.
Those were largely negotiated by Presidents Obama and Xi.
But Trump tried to pull out in his first term, but Joe Biden restored them before it was too late.
So now we have a planet actually at the breaking point and the consequences might be irreversible.
And I would say, interestingly, this brings up Greenland that Trump says he wants to have.
The vast ice sheets in Greenland are melting faster than ever and will negatively impact the entire planet and cover much of it.
So the agenda that's just been announced to pull from these 66 organizations takes away many policies that were bedrock values for America, like equality, women's rights, labor rights, fair work practices about the laws or the regulations that govern how we regulate people and regulate organizations.
And so it's going towards a world in which might and money make right and which the values that America has tried to follow largely, especially in the 20th and now 21st century, and those are all being shredded.
Okay, so in the short term, what is the immediate physical savings from defunding these organizations, and to which domestic priorities are these funds explicitly being redirected?
Amounts to peanuts.
It's not a lot of money.
It's pocket change, or as Trump might call it, chump change.
And so it's not really about the money.
It's about destroying these important policies that have been so emblematic of what America stood for before the Trump era.
America was far from perfect then.
But let's say it's getting much more imperfect now.
So where are these funds going to go?
Well, we don't know.
They could go to missiles.
Maybe they could go to Secretary of War Hexeth to fight other actions there threatened in Greenland, other countries in Latin America and who knows where else.
It could go to American law enforcement, created by Trump, to kill people like the woman who was killed in Minneapolis yesterday, a 37-year-old mother who was peacefully protesting ICE raids in that city.
Maybe it'll even go to building another White House ballroom or the Donald J Trump believe it or not museum.
We don't know.
If money isn't the real driver, why emphasize defunding at all?
And who's that message mean for domestically?
Well, there's a lot of Republicans and some Democrats who want to cut government waste, no matter what that means and no matter how savagely it's cut.
Now, cutting government waste is a good thing.
We don't want to cut away muscle.
We just want to cut away fat.
But there are people like the Heritage Foundation, people like the trillionaires and billionaires who back President Trump, who believe that there should not be any social programs and that there should be no market regulation.
And basically there should be a government that's run by rich people who know better than anybody else.
And the strategy is just part of flooding the zone, throwing so many objects at the media, at people, that they can't cope with it.
But the end point is a government that is not uh responsive to the people, not serving the people, and i believe, to me it's actually the opposite of what china is doing.
China tries to serve its people and if you look at any public opinion surveys, it shows those surveys show the chinese people feel very good about what the government has been doing.
If you look at other public opinion surveys in america, in europe and some other places people are less, much less uh supportive of uh the results of what government have been doing in those.
So it's really it's about values and about the changing of the world, from a world that we lived in, an interconnected world, to a world where Mike makes right and where the rich know better than anybody else and feather their own pockets.
Okay, so seeing all this together, these moves appear to follow a pattern.
I mean from the WHO to UNESCO and now UNFCCC and a host of technical bodies.
What pattern do all of those withdrawals reveal?
They reveal a disconnect from the system that's existed, at least post-World War II, a system where we try to work together through the UN, the IMF, the Bretton Woods organizations, to try to make the world a better, fairer place.
And so now it's going more towards a 19th century model of might makes right and that my way or the highway, that we don't care what other countries think, that we're going to go it alone.
And if you don't agree with us, that we're going to take you over or somehow neutralize you.
So it is very dystopic picture that we're looking into.
And I think any person from any country in the world who looks at these things and cares about our future has to be concerned about them and has to think about how these forces can be negated and defeated.
Like you just said, if those countries would be concerned about it, then what signal does this send to traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere who deeply value these multilateral networks?
Oh, we can see that in Europe now.
Europe is really scared because if Trump aggressively tries to take Greenland, then this is going to shred NATO, which has been a basis for peace and security since the end of World War II.
Trump's already shown that America cannot be counted on as an ally, as a partner.
So it means that people have to try to do it, countries have to try to do it best they can on their own.
And they have to regroup and reform to find other coalitions that work together.
And I think that this has a tremendous impact on other efforts, let's say China's efforts like the Belt and Road Initiative, like the initiatives of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to try to work together to build a better world, and a world that is positive and that is synergistically going forward, as opposed to negating all the things that we're able to achieve.
Harvey Zoldan, former vice president of ABC TV Network and a senior fellow with the Center for China and Globalization, talking with my colleague Sun Ruiqing.
This is World Today.
We'll be back.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
More and more international patients are taking medical tourism trips to China, thanks to the country's affordable costs, advanced medical care and efficiency.
Jerry Gray, a UK-born Australian freelancer currently living in China's Guangdong province, shares his first-hand experience.
Speaking with my colleague Xu Yawen.
Jerry says with improvements in medical technology and visa accessibility, China is poised to become a global hub for medical tourism.
Jerry, after living in China for a few decades, how would you compare your personal experience when seeking healthcare in China versus in Australia or the UK, particularly in terms of costs and efficiency?
In my own personal experience i i was never ill in the uk or in australia.
I've lived in both countries for extended periods of time, each each of those countries for about two decades or a little more than so.
I do have experience of the medical system, but i don't have personal experience of medical care.
But when i came to china again i was relatively healthy.
18 months ago i went through a process.
I had deep vein thrombosis and I was admitted to hospital and I went through kind of urgent treatment.
They told me it was life-threatening and I needed the treatment urgently and I got it.
Now, the difference between what happened in China and what happened or would have happened if I'd been in the West is probably that I had to pay in China.
The cost was very low compared to what I would have had to pay if I'd been a private patient in the West.
But in the West, it would have been free because I was on a Medicare or a National Health Service.
In China, I paid over 7000 RMB, which is a little over a thousand US dollars, for five, six days of treatment in the hospital.
And then I was released and I was no longer in any danger.
So I was basically cured.
I was fixed for 7,000 RMB, which is cheap.
If it is not life threatening.
So let's use me again as an example.
I ride a bike a lot.
And so if I go to the hospital with a problem with my knee in China and they say yeah, you're going to need an operation for this.
I will say, when can you do the operation?
And they'll say next week or tomorrow or we could do it on a week on Monday.
It will be very, very soon.
And I would get fixed.
If I went to a hospital in the UK, first of all, I would have to wait 10 or maybe 12 hours to see an emergency doctor.
That doctor would then say you need to go to see a specialist and we'll make an appointment for you because this is not life-threatening.
The appointment might be one year away.
It could be six months or it could be two years, but it will certainly be a long time away.
When the specialist sees me and says yes, you need an operation, I can fit you in in 18 months time.
So it might take three or even five years for a non life threatening treatment, whereas in China I could have it done next week.
So there's the big difference between the two systems.
As we know, following China's visa free policy, more and more foreigners are coming to the country, not only for tourism, but also for health care.
For instance, A British content creator shared her experience on the Internet of seeking treatment for stomach issue in Beijing.
And a South African canoeist who's the world champion ocean paddler, chose Shanghai as his last chance to fight cancer.
So, in your opinion, what motivates them to travel thousands of miles to China for medical care, despite the language barriers, different medical systems and other cultural differences?
I would say the motivation is frustration.
With the UK, with Australia, you will have to wait many months, or perhaps many years before you get the treatment that you need, unless you can afford to pay a very, very high premium for it.
So you can go private and you will get seen, but it will cost you tens of thousands of pounds.
You come to china and you can be.
You can see a doctor for as little as a few r b.
It's about three r b to see a doctor.
Uh, certainly in john san, where i live anyways, it's just a few r b to see a doctor.
The doctor then gives you whatever treatment you need or refers you to a specialist, and you can see that specialist the same day or the next day.
So there's the difference between the West and here.
And I think very much it's frustration that brings people over.
But of course, there's the other aspect of it.
And that is the fact that China has so many medical advances now.
And there are things that the West can't do that China is doing.
So there's also some experimental things going on.
Now i don't know very much about clinical procedures in in the experimental stage, but i do know that if you come to china, you've got options such as traditional medicine and you've got western medicine and then you've got combinations of the two.
So a lot of people are frustrated with the western medical system, and particularly americans that i know.
Americans are hugely frustrated with their medical system.
It's enormously expensive.
It's prohibitive for some people.
If you haven't got a good job with good insurance and that insurance covers everything, then you literally half a million people, almost half a million people in America every year go bankrupt because of medical treatment.
Now, if they get on a plane and they, they would need a visa, of course, but if they get on a plane and they come to a hospital here, then it wouldn't bankrupt them.
They could have a short holiday.
With the continuous improvement in China's medical technology and the expansion of visa convenience, do you think China has the potential to become say, a regional or even global medical tourism hub?
Yes, it certainly has the potential.
I think it's already happening.
A lot of people are coming here for things like dental treatment.
I have a friend who, her daughter works here and has lived here for 18 months, nearly two years now.
So her mother is coming across and getting dental treatment because the implants take several months.
If you want an implant, you might have to have a tooth removed.
And then three months later, you have the foundation put in.
And then three months later, you have the implant put in.
So this is a six-month process.
So yeah, I've got a friend who's doing that from Canada.
I've got another friend from Australia who is going through the final stages of treatment for cancer and he's very seriously thinking.
His wife is Chinese, so he could live here.
He's very seriously thinking of coming across and just going to the hospital and saying what can you do for me and managing his exits, because he's 80 years old now and seriously ill.
And he's been going through treatment and it's got to the stage now where they say It doesn't look like we can help you anymore.
So he's thinking China is the option because they have alternatives.
So I don't know what his final plan will be with that, but he's debating that right now.
So, yeah, I think it has the potential.
It's already started.
And I think what China probably needs to do is to look at this.
I don't know yet if they've written a white paper on this, because China is very good at writing white papers to say this is what we're going to do.
And then and then it creates a plan and implements that plan very, very well.
So I think probably China needs to look at this and say well, if we are going to do this, this is a genuine opportunity for Chinese medical innovations, Chinese medical systems.
It is a genuine opportunity to have a tourism industry built around this and it will be very, very good when people go back to their own country and say wow, do you know what China is doing?
And that will be very good.
It would be very good for the narrative to counter the anti-China narrative that exists.
So I think probably it needs to happen.
It will happen.
It's very likely to happen.
And I think what will probably happen is that the government will set aside some system whereby it doesn't swamp the Chinese medical system.
And I hope that will happen where we can all get the medical care we need at the price we're prepared to pay.
Jerry Gray, a UK-born Australian freelancer, talking with my colleague Xu Yaowen.
Coming up, in Syria's Aleppo, clashes between governments and Kurdish forces are escalating.
This is World Today.
Stay tuned.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
In the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, the clashes between government forces and Kurdish fighters have escalated.
Tens of thousands of local residents have fled to predominantly ethnic Kurdish neighborhoods by Wednesday.
The government says the army launched a military operation in response to the Syrian Democratic Forces' attack on some of the government-held parts of the city.
The SDF, on the other hand, has accused the government forces of attacking civilian neighborhoods and infrastructure and imposing a suffocating siege on the Kurdish areas.
The latest clashes are some of the deadliest so far between the two sides.
They come as an effort to merge the SDF with the National Army showed little progress.
So joining us now on the line is Professor Wang Jing from Northwestern University in Xi'an, China.
Thank you very much for joining us.
It's my pleasure.
So first of all, what do you make of the immediate cause of the latest clashes in the city?
Well, I think the latest clash is a very important continuation between different factions inside Syria, particularly different Syria interim government forces and local Kurdish-led military forces.
So we know that after After the end of the 2024, actually there has already been several divisions between the local authority and the central interim government.
Because of some interim government.
They hope that the whole system, including the Syrian land local authority, should be integrated into this.
The central government led the military and the political system, while the local authority hoped to maintain some kind of autonomy.
So that's why I think it is a very major expression of such a division.
And I'm afraid that this conflict might continue and become more and more salient in the future.
So actually the leadership in Damascus under the interim Syrian President, Ahmad al-Shira, actually signed a deal in March 2025 with the SDF for the letter to march with the Syrian National Army by the end of last year.
Why do you think that deal's implementation has run into problems?
Well, actually, the deal is good.
The deal was good.
But the problem is that the deal was a very ambiguous one.
It's actually just to stress some of the principles, the very ambiguous principles that could be accepted by both sides, I mean by the interim government as well as the local Kurdish-led authority.
For example, to safeguard the sovereignty and to hope that the country will develop better.
But there's a very real problem, as we just mentioned, how to set down the divisions and how to end the crisis, how to melt down the internal possibilities of conflict has already been forgotten, has been ignored, because once they were very strongly stressed, it might lead to the collapse of this kind of a deal.
So the deal becomes just a very principal one.
This is not the one that could be turned easily into the, the terms that could be realized immediately.
So that's why I think the deal was good.
But then the deal covered some very important issues such as how to integrate And the local authority into the interim government, whether or not the local militias be maintained and who pays the money and what kind of the skill that the local authority should be maintained and their militias should be maintained.
And how to set down the the divisions, once it erupted, between the interim governor local authority.
So that's why I think the deal was good, but it was not enough.
So that's why the war continues, the conflict might continue and also the conflict could be further escalated.
Now the SDF actually for many years has been the main US partner in Syria when we talk about fighting against the ISIS.
So out of curiosity, is this organization still supported by Washington today?
And how would you expect the Trump administration to respond to the latest clashes in the city of Aleppo?
I think the United States will continue to support the SDF because, as you mentioned, they are and they will continue to be a very important partner for the United States inside Syria.
And also during the past decade actually more than a decade the United States has already established a very comprehensive and very set of important mechanisms for the cooperation and coordination between the United States military presence in northern Syria and the SDF, not only just over the issues such as counterterrorism, but also over other issues such as how to divide the oil exploration projects in this region, how to share the intelligence, and so on.
So actually the continuation, I think that the cooperative mechanism will continue.
But the problem right now is that the war or the conflict between the Syrian local authority, led by SDF, and the Syrian interim government was not in the very major area that the United States concerns in northern Syria.
It's just in and around Aleppo.
And this, of course, is a very important city, but it's not the very central area that the United States really concerns.
The United States is concerned about the eastern Syria, where the IS, as you mentioned, might come back again.
So that's why I think the United States will continue to focus, but that depends on how the war will continue and how the situation will transfer.
Actually, before the civil war broke out in Syria, Aleppo was the commercial center of Syria, right?
So, let's talk about a key regional power and a key neighbor of Syria, Turkey.
Turkey, we know, considers the SDF a terrorist organization because of its association with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which we know has launched a long-running insurgency internally in Turkey.
And of course, now a peace process between the two sides is underway.
So do you expect Ankara to intervene in this ongoing clash in Aleppo?
I think Turkey's role is very important because we know that during the past year there might be, of course, according to some rumors and news, but we cannot be sure.
But there was some news that Turkey has already set a kind of a deadline for the Syrian interim government, that the SDF, their military forces, should be integrated into the central government-led structure.
Once the interim government cannot do it in 2025, that Turkey will do themselves and they will launch new military strikes.
So that's why partially, it could explain why the new round of war or the conflict erupted again between the central interim government and the local authority.
So Turkey's role is important.
But the problem is that if once Turkey has led a very comprehensive and very large scale of strikes against the targets in the northern Syria led by SDF area, it might lead to further the kind of division and uncertainties in this region.
So that's why I think Turkey should be very cautious.
And it might lead to other intervention of the other powers, including the United States.
So that's why I think the situation might continue.
And there are possibilities of escalation.
But that's why we should watch and see what might happen next.
Let's really hope that political dialogue instead of violence, political violence will prevail.
But thank you very much for joining us, Professor Wang Jing, joining us from Northwest University in Xi'an, China.
That's all the time for this edition of the program.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Bye for now.
