Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Coming up, Chinese Premier Li Qiang calls on G20 to strive for broader global cooperation on development.
China's foreign minister says Japan crossed a red line with Taiwan military intervention remarks.
US and Ukraine promise updated peace framework after criticism of pro-Russian points in the original plan.
And India has reopened global tourist visa access for Chinese citizens.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
First up.
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called on the G20 economies to strive for broader global cooperation to jointly cope with challenges and promote development.
He made remarks when attending the 20th G20 summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Premier Li called for upholding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in dealing with issues concerning climate change and ecology.
He also urged efforts to strengthen cooperation on green energy and promote widespread application and effective governance of artificial intelligence.
Over the past weekend, G20 leaders adopted a declaration focused on disaster resilience, energy access and critical minerals.
So for more, joining us now on the line is Dr Yao Shujie Changkong, Professor of Economics with Chongqing University.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Yao.
First of all, how do you understand China's proposal of upholding common but differentiated responsibilities in dealing with issues concerning climate and ecology?
Premier Li Qiang has called for keeping green energy supply chains stable and facilitating the free flow of related technologies and products.
Why is this important for the mission to tackle global climate crisis?
The global common interest is that we should maintain a stable and even declining carbon emission for green development to protect the global environment and the ecology.
But why it needs to be differentiated for different economies is because over the nearly 200 countries in the world, they are in different stages.
And different stages, and also the economy, natural endowment, technological endowment and also the industrial structure.
You shouldn't have a fairly unified standard for every country, because there are different situations.
So this is why we need to have a differentiated approach for different economies in the world.
Now, the green technology is very important for controlling the climate change.
And for the most advanced countries, the bigger countries, they probably comment more technological know-how on how to reduce emissions, how to increase the efficiency of energy.
And this know-how, I think it shouldn't be highly protected by individual countries.
They should be applied to all the other countries which do not have the technology available.
But as long as these technologies are able to suppress energy demand and also increase energy efficiency, it is the common interest of none only individual countries, but also for the entire world.
Now this kind of technology should become more available to all the countries, especially the poorer countries, which does not have the technological capacity to increase the energy efficiency.
So I think China's approach is to make sure that even the Chinese, they should make the technology available for all the other countries so we can have a concerted effort to reduce air pollution for the entire world.
On food security, the Chinese premier called for developing an open, stable and sustainable global food market and enhancing cooperation in agricultural science and technology.
So what do you make of the main obstacles that should be overcome in these proposed efforts?
Yes, agriculture and food production is very important for the human, you know, livelihood.
And also lots of poor countries, they struggle, you know, to reduce hunger and malnutrition.
And why is that?
Because of the technological level are lower as the earlier case of green technology.
This is a fairly basic human activity issues.
And agricultural technology have the purpose to increase land yield, land productivity, so that the poor countries can produce enough food to avoid large-scale farming, large-scale hunger and large-scale malnutrition.
China itself has a long history of supporting the poor countries, especially in Africa, where China sent agricultural experts to help the local farmers and local farming system to increase their land productivity in many African countries since the 1970s.
And China has continued to make this kind of effort to help the less developed countries, especially the smaller countries which don't have mastered the kinds of technological requirements for improving agricultural productivity.
I think this approach is very general the so-called inclusive development in the ease of the Chinese government.
China suffered a similar problem in the past, but China has done very well in terms of increased agricultural and grain productivity over the last few decades.
China has eradicated the problem of hunger and all the people have moved into the so-called Xiaokang society, which means that they have enough food and clothing.
Now, these kinds of experiences and also the technology which have been mastered by the Chinese science and also engineers, they could be applied to the rest of the world.
Now the barrier that you mentioned.
I think the bottleneck is the local capacity and also some countries who tend to protect their own technology for their own purpose, rather than giving sufficient consideration for the kinds of humanities in the poor countries.
So, in order to break through this kind of bottleneck, I think first of all the poor countries need education and technological support, technical assistance, And for the rich countries they should make their technology cost effectively, even zero tariff, and also free supply of agricultural technology, as long as they are used for improving the local food production.
So, as you said, keeping our sciences and technological flow open, as open as possible, is very vital.
Then, with regard to promoting widespread application and effective governance of artificial intelligence, which was another key proposal from Premier Li Qiang at the G20, how would you rate the importance of open science?
Yes, artificial intelligence has become another focus in terms of the degree of importance, is probably going to affect all the production system and also human life activities.
Artificial intelligence has some special characteristics.
First of all, to make breakthrough in artificial intelligence, it requires lots of endowment and also heavy investment.
And once the technological have the breakthrough, it can apply to generate significant economy of scale and economy of scope.
Now, in this case, the bigger countries such as the United States and China and, to some extent, Japan or Western Europe.
They can benefit quite a lot from the application of artificial intelligence.
However, in the smaller country, it's very difficult to generate this kind of similar economy of scale and similar economy of scope.
So this is why it needs some international cooperation to generate this kind of economic scale effect, particularly for the smaller and less advanced countries.
In order to reduce the so-called digital gap and prevent inequality, divergence between the rich and the poor countries, between the North and the South.
I think the technological breakthrough and application in the artificial area is very critical in the 21st century.
And this is why China is doing a lot of effort to help the country in Latin America, in the BRICS countries and particularly in Africa.
The Chinese government is supposed to establish 20 major digital centers in African countries.
The purpose of this is to help the local society to use artificial intelligence and also the Internet of Things.
So in order to improve the local productivity and improve the lifestyle of the people in the modern world.
Now, we understand a very key aspect of our modern or cutting edge technology.
For example, the manufacturing of chips is the supply and production of critical minerals.
And, in this regard, Chinese Premier Li Qiang called for promoting mutually beneficial cooperation and a peaceful utilization of critical minerals.
Professor, what can be done to better protect the global supply of critic minerals from geopolitical triggered disruptions?
I think it is a very good gesture from the Chinese premier.
The Chinese premier saying this, I think it has two different purposes.
The first purpose, in my view, is that China has mastered the technology and also the production technology capability of producing the critical minerals.
This is very important for the rest of the world because especially for the cheap industry, for the non-military civil industry in particular.
However, I think some major countries they tend to protect their technology and also have this technological embargo to constrain or suppress China's technological progress.
Now, this is the first purpose.
The second purpose is, in order to have mutual benefit, I think, the major country, particularly between China, America and also the rest of the world, in Japan and Western Europe.
They should come to a general consensus that not a single country can master everything.
Some countries have this kind of advantage.
For example, the Netherlands, the United States and Japan.
They may have the technology for producing the high-end chips and semiconductors.
But China is very good in producing these critical minerals.
So why don't we come to a general consensus?
If you have a freer exchange of the critical products that China needs, you may have a freer exchange for the critical minerals that China has.
So this is the so-called mutual benefit.
There is no one-sided benefit for some countries, and I ignore the benefit of some others.
The final question before we let you go, Professor Yao.
This was the first time that a G20 summit was held in Africa, which we know represents a key ground of the Global South.
So how can the G20 play a leading role in terms of strengthening the development empowerment, the livelihood support for the Global South?
I always try to compare the G7 and the G20, although the G20 includes all the member states from the G7.
Now the G7.
When it was established in the 1970s, it had a dominant power in the world and continued to do so even up to now.
But since the world financial crisis, the G7 had some problems.
Their share of global GDP is declining.
Their dominance is relatively weakened.
And the emerging markets such as China India Brazil, Russia and South Africa.
They are turned out to be the major economic growth center, getting more and more important.
Not only the population size, but also the economic muscle.
So in the world, in order to have a better international order and regulations, I think the G20 is going to have a major low, or even bigger low than the G7.
So the G7, once it's holding South Africa.
It means that even the less advanced countries, such as all the African countries, it has generated some significance in attracting global attentions, particularly the attention from China and some other major emerging economies.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Yao Shujian, Chang Kong Professor of Economics with Chongqing University.
You are listening to World Today, stay tuned.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi says China will never permit external forces to meddle in the Taiwan region, nor allow Japanese militarism to stage a comeback.
The senior Chinese diplomat on Sunday vowed that China will work with all parties to uphold the international consensus regarding the One China principle and jointly safeguard the outcomes of the victory of the World War II.
Wang Yi said it is shocking that Japan's current leader has publicly sent the wrong signal of attempting military intervention on the Taiwan question, adding that Tokyo has crossed a red line.
In the meantime, Former Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has once again criticized Sanae Takeuchi over her remarks on the Taiwan question.
Ishiba is urging Takeuchi to refrain from indulging in momentary verbal satisfaction in diplomacy.
So joining us now on the line is Dr Wang Xingsong, Associate Professor from Beijing Normal University's School of Government.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you.
Wang Yi is by far the most senior Chinese official to address the Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba's recent Taiwan remarks.
What are the messages that you can read from the Chinese Foreign Minister's comments?
Right.
And, as you rightly pointed out, Wang Yi is not only the Chinese Foreign Minister, but also a Politburo member who is in charge of China's foreign affairs.
So the fact that that he had to publicly announce that Daquiji has crossed the red line means that the top leadership of the Chinese government and the CPC are not only berated by the prime minister's behavior, but also determined to respond.
The one China policy and the Taiwan issue are the core interests of the Chinese nation.
And the Chinese government has repeatedly reminded those who seem to believe that there can be no consequences.
Now that the Japanese PM tested the bottom line, I think Japan has to pay the costs that are still yet to fully come.
Now, in a letter that China has sent to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres last Friday, I think, China criticizes Prime Minister Takeuchi for grave violation of international law and diplomatic norms.
And the letter also says that quote.
So quote As you look at the wording of this particular letter from China Professor, how do you understand the wording here?
For example, particularly regarding China exercising its rights of self-defense under the UN Charter?
Right.
The UN Charter prevents any country from undertaking military aggression against another, but with an exemption, that is, for the self-defense purpose.
For that purpose, it is legitimate to use military force and it will be called a just war.
As the Taiwan issue is within the Chinese sovereignty and I think a presumed military involvement by Japan in the Taiwan issue will be regarded as infringement upon China's sovereignty and as a military aggression.
And therefore, China would have no means but to defend itself.
Now, none of that means that the Taiwan issue has to be resolved with force, because China has always upheld the principle of peaceful reunification.
But that's exactly the trap by Takeuchi, which is that, by inventing such a scenario, Takeuchi intends to make China the bad guy in the first place and to create the space for Japan to revise its constitution, which is the political goal of the LDP.
So, in order to prevent Japanese militarism from staging a comeback, what efforts should be taken by the international community in your opinion?
Well, the international community should join China in criticizing the aggressive speeches by Takagi, because it is not just a call for respect of sovereignty, but also a call for respecting the post-World War II security order.
It's been 80 years and many years probably think that the militarism has long gone.
But what Takaichi did and what her party coalition supported, is exactly to revive the militarism that cost 30 million lives of the Chinese and many lives of the Southeast Asians and even the Americans.
Therefore, there should be no appeasement, as it was appeasement in the preceding years of the Second World War that, step by step, led to the eventual tragedy.
So, by the way, what role do you expect China to play in this regard?
I mean, when we talk about how to prevent Japanese militarism from resurrecting?
Well, we have already seen that Japan's sectors of tourism culture have suffered from a plummeting stock market.
And soon, I think, there will be more economic costs to come, as more Chinese tourists are hesitant to make Japan their travel destination.
And the economic costs can be huge, because many locals who work in the service sector in Japan rely on tourism for revenue.
And there is no doubt that, given what we have discussed earlier, that China is justified to respond to the erroneous behavior.
And in fact I wouldn't be surprised that more economic sanctions are to come and there could be responses by China on other fronts as well.
And Takachi might be trying to stir up the regional security in order to reach her goal of revising the Constitution, or she might be playing up identity politics to shore up her domestic political base.
But her misjudgment is that the Taiwan issue and the Japanese historical militarism are also identity issues for China, for which there's not going to be any compromise whatsoever.
So indeed, I guess the latest information we can gather is that, as of Monday morning, a total of 12 China-Japan fly routes ended had suspended all their flights.
And, in the meantime, millions or tens of thousands of cancellation of trips on the part of Chinese travelers who had originally planned to plan a visit to Japan.
And, like you said, I guess in many ways China is justified to take these countermeasures in response to this provocation from Japan over the Taiwan question.
The final question before we let you go, Professor Wang Xingsong why do you think Japan, or Takeuchi herself or her government, is playing the Taiwan card when we talk about Tokyo's plan to pursue rearmament?
Well, this is not new because Takeuchi has always been a right-leaning politician.
And before she became president of LDP and prime minister of Japan, she always supported Japan voices and opinions against China as well.
As you know, she always supported the idea of revising the Japanese constitution to remove the pacifist articles, to turn Japan into a military power, and so on and so forth.
So it's not completely a surprise.
But at this moment I think Kakaichi is trying to stir up the Taiwan security issues so that she's more able to take advantage of her prime ministership to revise constitution.
At the same time, I think the Japanese government overall is trying to show its attitude toward the United States by showing that Japan is a very loyal partner of the US in the region of Asia Pacific.
And if U.S. has any hesitancy, then Japan can be the frontline kind of aggressor in that regard.
But at the end of the day, I think Takahashi has a very wrongful calculation of the situation.
Yeah, your point's well taken.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Professor Wang Xingsong joining us from Beijing Normal University.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
Welcome.
I'm Elav Elad, economics professor and member of the Data Science and AI Center at New York University, Shanghai.
On the World Today program, you can find in-depth and impartial insight, as well as critical commentary, on key trends in the Chinese economy, financial technology, business and blockchain.
To prepare for the world tomorrow, join me on World Today.
You're back with World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
The US and Ukraine say they have created an updated and refined peace framework to end the conflict with Russia.
A joint statement between Washington and Kiev says that any eventual deal will fully uphold Ukraine's sovereignty.
Washington and Kiev are having further negotiations in Geneva Switzerland, after discussions about a 28-point US plan.
European national security advisers, who are also in attendance, pushed for a future peace deal to be more favorable to Kiev.
The original US-backed plan leaked last week demands Ukraine hand over some territories to the Russian side.
Russia had earlier voiced readiness for negotiations, insisting that the peace plan must be thoroughly discussed to ensure that Moscow's interests are considered.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Zhang Xing, Deputy Director of the Center for Russian Studies, East China Normal University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
So there are many eye-catching proposals in this original US-backed plan that was leaked sometime last week, including the content regarding the territory, regarding this Zaporozhye nuclear power station, as well as the size of the Ukrainian army, etc.
What is your main takeaway from that original plan?
And do you agree that it was somehow a pro-Russian plan?
Overall, I think the 28-point plan is a much more detailed proposal, more detailed than, for example, the previous versions of the Istanbul agreement.
That's one.
The 28 points also cover a comprehensive policy arenas more than the Istanbul accord did.
And also overall, I would say, given the status quo, I think it's a relatively speaking plan or proposal more favorable to Russia, especially in terms of the delineation of territory and then also the proposed stipulation on getting rid of sanctions and for Russia to return to G8.
And these are all, I think, very new items on the proposed plan, much more than the Istanbul Accord, and also important conditions that are, I think, are more favorable to Russia.
I take your point.
Now, actually a few hours before this release of this joint statement between Washington and Kiev that I mentioned earlier, a few hours before that European countries proposed their own version or their own alternative to this original US-backed plan.
And we know the European version or the European alternative, does not call for Kiev to withdraw from the cities that it controls in eastern Donbas, nor does it rule out Ukraine's future membership within NATO.
So what do you think?
What does this tell us about the current differences between the US and Europe regarding the Ukraine conflict?
For one.
It shows that European countries still want to have its own say in the possible final resolvement of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
It doesn't want to leave the decision completely in the hands of either Russia or either United States, as the key mediator.
Second, in the 24-point proposal released from Europe drafted mostly by UK, France and Germany, if I'm not mistaken the conditions overall are more favourable to, relatively speaking, more favourable to Ukraine giving, for example, Ukraine much higher limits of the scale of military forces that can hold during peaceful time, much more than the american proposal allows, and also be more flexible on ukraine's potential membership in nato and then on assets, frozen assets from russia.
It's definitely the european version is definitely much more stringent on the use of these money, especially the possible use or joint use of these funds with Russia's direct participation.
It sets a much more stringent restriction on that.
And then, as you correctly point out, there is still quite clear difference between the basic stance on Europeans' position and American position on the possible either ceasefire or political resolvement of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
I think the battlefield situation in winter is still not completely clear.
But as the time goes on, also as the winter comes closer, I think Russia is making visible but costly advancement in the Donbas region.
So I think Russia still holds a slightly better position on the battlefield.
It would probably not, definitely would not directly accept European version.
And it's very likely we'll still hold the conversation with the United States.
Hold it on in order to get even better possible position from its interaction with the United States.
I take your point.
So, in your opinion, how much progress can we expect in terms of this negotiation between Kiev and Washington?
Looks like the Ukrainian leader Zelensky and his top team are working very hard trying to go in between the US and the European side to find some middle ground as a middle ground that may give Ukraine a little bit more breathing space for the next step, possible political negotiation with Russia.
It definitely will try to pick and choose from both proposals that may come at Kyiv's favor, a relative favor.
But whether that kind of pick and choose regrouping proposals from both sides are feasible, we will need to see how much political maneuvering Zelensky and his negotiation team can get.
I think the fact that the European side have given this counterproposal Counterproposal, very concrete detail.
Would that give a little bit new context to the possible maneuvering by Ukraine with Russia and the US?
Because this is also an unprecedentedly detailed proposal by Europe.
I think Ukraine can build on that.
Unlike in previous rounds, the European proposals are not as detailed as this time.
So, in other words, I guess Europeans will by no means be sidelined in this long tussle involving multiple parties.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Dr Zhang Xin, Deputy Director of the Center for Russian Studies, East China Normal University.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back.
Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievsky Teixeira.
I'm a professor of public policy management. at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
I am a great listener of The World Today.
In my opinion, The World Today is one of the best China radio programs.
In The World Today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world.
So please come to join us.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
America's long-delayed September jobs report is finally out, after the longest government shutdown in the history of the US, and it is painting a complicated picture.
The economy added 119,000 jobs, more than double expectations.
However, unemployment rate has climbed to 44, wage growth has cooled and key sectors like manufacturing and transportation continue to shut workers.
All of this is coming against the backdrop of sweeping layoffs at some of the country's biggest companies, as well as growing uncertainty over the Federal Reserve's next policy move.
With more.
My colleague Zhao Yang earlier spoke with Dr Yan Liang, a professor of economics with Willamette University.
Let's talk about the September numbers.
The unemployment rate climbed up to 4.4%, and that is the highest since October 2021.
What does it tell us about the direction of the labor market?
How concerned do you think the American consumers and investors are at these figures?
September shows that the new job creation reached 119,000.
So this gives some people a bit sort of optimism, right?
Because this number did beat the market expectation.
But, that said, when you look at the three months in a row, when we look at July, August and September, the labor market is undeniably weak.
These three months, we saw an average job creation at 62,000 per month.
In the US, if the monthly job creation is less than 100000, that means the economy is not likely creating enough jobs to keep up with population growth, which means the unemployment rate will rise.
As I just pointed out, 4.4% is the highest in five years.
And so that means the job market is weak or soft.
So that just shows that the labor market is not doing well.
And so that definitely will weigh on consumer sentiment.
So far, I think the US economy is supported by still resilient consumption spending and AI-related investment.
But the Michigan University survey showed that the consumer sentiment has dipped down to a new low in September.
In November,
So it is questionable how much stronger this consumer sentiment is going to still last to boost economic growth.
And we are seeing job gains concentrated in healthcare and leisure, but losses across professional services, transportation and manufacturing.
So what does this tell us about the structure of the US economy right now?
Well, I think it just shows that the US economy's job creation is very much related on the consumer-related services.
So you're right.
We're seeing typical job growth in health care, in restaurants, and social assistance.
And it's losing jobs in transportation, warehousing and professional business services, as you mentioned, as well as manufacturing.
So it shows that again the economy really much rely on the consumer, facing service industry and also not to mention the federal government.
Right.
It's actually the largest employer in the economy.
It has been, you know, shedding jobs.
So that just shows that you know, with the policies such as tariffs and some of the scale back of industrial policy support, will likely see that you know the business sector in terms of, you know transportation housing warehousing manufacturing, you know these more sort of the non-service based sectors would not fare well, largely due to a lot of, you know, economic uncertainties and volatility due to some of the aggressive government policies including, you know, shutting jobs in the federal government.
And over the past few weeks Amazon Microsoft IBM GM, they all have announced plans to cut tens of thousand jobs.
So how do you explain that?
And what does it mean for the job market?
Well, yeah, I think Amazon is planning to cut 14,000 jobs.
And I think some of the analysts argue that this is going to continue and the cuts could affect as many as 30000 jobs.
And so this is easily one of the largest corporate job cuts in Amazon's history.
And I think, and just like Amazon, some other companies like IBM and the basic tech companies, as well as GM, I think the reason is largely AI related.
On the one hand, These companies are sort of betting on the AI to be able to incorporate it in their businesses and to economize on workers.
So using AI to replace some entry-level jobs and other related jobs.
So that's one of the, I think, reasons.
And then the other reason, of course, is that, as these companies are really investing a lot of their resources, their corporate earnings, and also take on unprecedented level of debt to invest in AI related in terms of equipment, but also software that means they have to economize on other expenses.
So labor shedding, labor cutting, job cutting is one of the ways for them to save on these expenditures in order to invest heavily on AI.
So I think yes, though these job cuts are likely to be both AI related to replacement, but also we like labor sorry and AI related savings, you know to increase investments in AI.
And the Fed Governor Waller says a December interest rate cut is needed.
However, Chairman Jerome Powell is more cautious.
So how should the Fed interpret this mixed job data?
Yeah.
So I think this is, it does create some kind of dilemma, right?
So I think within the Fed, the views are pretty split.
So you mentioned your Fed, John Williams.
He believed that a cut is necessary.
But the Fed chairs in both Dallas Fed and Boston Fed, and also you mentioned Chair Powell they all take a more cautious view because there's no indication that the you know inflation is getting.
You know it's cooling down.
As a matter of fact, I think when you have the last number is in September, the CPI actually grew by 3 year on year, which is higher than the 29 in August 2025.
So, without a very clear indication that the inflation rate is softening, I think it's difficult for the Fed to make the cut, even though yes, the labor market seemed to be softening.
At the same time, the Fed's next meeting is December 9th and 10th.
And at that time there won't be really any solid data for the months of October and November because, as you remember, that the federal government was shut down for 44 days.
So those two months data will not be released until December the 16th.
And it's unlikely to have the full actual data release, especially for the months of October.
So that means you know by December 9th and 10th when the FOMC meet, they are not going to have really solid data for them to cut rates or stay put.
And so I think that creates some dilemma for the Fed decision making.
Now, again, the Fed has been cutting rates twice this year.
So unless there is very strong indication that the economy is going one way or the other, it makes it difficult to justify another cut.
And I think the market right now priced the probability at only around 30%.
So I think you know it's at this point is unlikely.
The Fed is going to make another cut and they probably will save the cuts to next year for a few times.
And some analysts say the S&P would already be in a bear market if not for AI-related gains.
So how do you view it?
Well, I think the sentiment is quite justified because we know that AI-related tech companies, especially the medical industry, if it's in seven, they're basically accounting for over 35 of the market share.
And this year so far, most of the stock market gains came from these tech companies AI investments.
And, you know, so that's, I think, what really batches to the stock market.
And you saw this from NVIDIA's stocks, right?
When they released their third quarter sales that beat the expectation.
That send their stock price up by 5, but then, very quickly, it fell.
And I think that is basically due to lingering fears of an AI bubble, right?
And so there's still the question about yes, the NVIDIA was able to achieve very strong sales in the third quarter, but how long this kinds of high demand for AI chips would be lasting.
So there is a concern about the sustainable growth in that sort of AI related investments.
And also in general, I think there is economic uncertainty, right?
When we looked at the mixed you know job market report and the consumer confidence swings and so on and so forth, as well as you know again, the policy uncertainties with tariffs, with immigration policies and with other industrial related policies.
So I think all of these just you know, you know provide some kinds of volatility and fear about the stock market.
Professor Yan Liang from Willamette University talking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
India has reopened tourist visa services for Chinese nationals across its embassies and consulates worldwide.
The move is seen as another step towards restoring normal exchanges between the two countries after a five-year freeze following the 2020 border standoff.
So for more on this development, my colleague Xu Yaowen spoke with Gao Xirui, a PhD candidate with the University of Hong Kong.
Mr Gao, India first resumed tourist visa processing for Chinese nationals in July this year.
How is this resumption different from the previous one?
So I think the major difference is the scale.
So in July it was only the embassy in Beijing, as well as all the consulates in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong SAR.
But now they are resuming visa processing for Chinese nationals globally, meaning they send an order to all consulates and embassies across the globe and say now they are reprocessing for Chinese nationals.
So we can see the scale is larger.
I mean, it's more convenient now.
And the processing period is now three to five working days after the submission of your visa application.
I think it's also more efficient and an expanded lift of visa restriction.
Three to five days, that's much faster than the previous one.
While the resumption of direct flights and expansion of visa services are encouraging, Some Chinese travel agencies have raised concerns about the quality of India's tourism infrastructure and security guarantees.
So how critical are these factors in shaping the willingness of Chinese citizens to travel to India?
And what steps do you think India should take to address these concerns?
I think if you look at our social media and travel agencies and ordinary people, Chinese tourists they're typically concerned about you know, the infrastructure, the food safety and security, especially for female tourists.
I think the fact is that most tourist sites are not as dangerous as Chinese tourists expect.
That's somehow, you know, also shaped by social media.
But there are some destinations, such as you know Kashmir, are not necessarily accessible to Chinese tourists.
So what they can do is first identify these problems, and there are some problems that actually chinese tourists are usually we ignore.
It is actually a linguistic barrier.
You're not all indians speak english um, only some of them, and given that most chinese cannot read or understand hindi and only a part of our tourists who go to india speak english, so i think the We could expect a linguistic barrier that they don't expect before they go to India.
So some Hindi majoritarian infrastructure may need to add Chinese or English translations to make sure that people can understand each other.
For example, if you enter a restaurant in a local Indian city, maybe they don't have an English translation or they don't speak English.
That's a problem people usually ignore.
So there's always a standard receiver gap, you know, receiver end.
Many people don't feel as strong sincerity as the sender feels.
So India may think that, you know, lifting the barrier is enough to satisfy Chinese tourists.
But maybe you know the two sides have to actually stand at the point view of tourists and have to do more so that Chinese tourists can be assured and update their beliefs towards India.
Well, speaking of Chinese tourists, we saw the data shows that in 2019, the year before the suspension, China saw a peak of 340000 tourists visiting India, But in 2023 the number sharply decreased to around 30000.
So how long do you think it will take for Chinese tourism to reach that level again after the resumption of visas?
And also, aside from improving visa policies, what other areas of cooperation should China and India focus on to build a more stable and sustainable bilateral relations?
I still remember when I read a lot of comments on social media posts or people who travel to India in prior to 2019 is still quite positive.
People believe it's a very exotic, incredible experience in India, which they don't get elsewhere.
But, you know, after that, people cannot travel to it.
And, you know, they don't have this kind of one way information consumption.
So the comments and, you know, the viewpoints become more negative and that creates a totally different environment and a different incentive and expectation for Chinese tourists.
So, first of all, I think more people need to go there and write their real comments and feedback and they build a different channel of information communications so that people's beliefs and expectations updated and that will change the environment.
And you know.
There's another issue we need to address now is there's a strong substitutional effect now into 2025 compared to 2019, because many countries that require a visa for Chinese tourists in 2019 are now visa-free to Chinese citizens now, say Singapore.
So it forms a sharp contrast between India and other destinations.
India per se is a very incredible destination.
However, its visa application complexity may turn people away towards other visa-free destinations.
So the contrast is very sharp when people have multiple choices.
Apart from visa, I think Tucson is still great should focus on how to stabilize its ties with trade and how to make the people-to-people exchange apolitical meaning, not sensitive or not subject to the political turbulence.
Make sure it could stand even during some political turbulence.
Also Mr Gao.
We know earlier this year Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with his Indian counterpart, Indian External Affairs Minister Jashankar.
They both spoke about using the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations to enhance cooperation.
So how do you interpret the current trajectory of China-India relations?
And do you believe this is a genuine possibility for long-term strategic partnership?
I think, at least from the Chinese side.
I believe China is genuine to stabilize its strategic partnership with India if we have one, and to build one if we don't.
So lifting of visa restrictions and resumption of direct flights, I think are really concrete steps thanks to our diplomatic efforts.
But if you count on the agenda between China and India with other you know, China-US or China-Japan relations we have before, the agenda is still limited.
The major people to people exchange or you know the domains of in terms of cooperation are like trade and tourists and only some people are some students who study.
So now we are seeing a thought because the opportunity cost of going without, you know, a resumption of visa and direct flight is increasing.
So, Due to the high opportunity cost, we both decide to enhance cooperation.
But, most importantly, we still have to make the two people have greater expectations for the bilateral cooperation, meaning that, apart from strategic rivalry, more stable cooperation investment studying traveling business, have to be assured.
You know, as for long term, to build a long-term strategic partnership, people's expectations are crucial.
They have to hold the belief that if they study or invest or, you know, doing a trade with um indian or chinese counterpart, it will not be interfered with some potential turbulence in the future.
So, that being said, i think we still have to be cautious and, you know, a lot of efforts do have to be put.
So I think both sides are genuine, but we still have to, you know, work concretely to make sure that the long-term strategic partnership is stable.
Gao Xirui from the University of Hong Kong talking with my colleague Xu Yaowen.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
