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, the UN is sounding alarm over possible fall Israel's takeover of Gaza.
Poland is likely to face years of political deadlock under a new president.
We will take a look at a robots-focused shopping festival here in China and the industry behind it.
Nagoya mayor seeks to resume exchanges with China's Nanjing after years-long suspension over his predecessor's denial of Nanjing massacre.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
A senior UN official has warned against the possible expansion of Israeli military operations in Gaza.
Miroslav Yanka, UN Assistant Secretary General for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, has urged Israel to stop any such plan.
He has also called on Israel to immediately allow rapid, unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza.
His remarks came after Israeli media reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is favoring a complete military takeover of the Gaza Strip.
According to Israeli media reports, Prime Minister Netanyahu is expected to meet with a few senior security officials to finalize a new strategy for cabinet consideration later this week.
So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Fudan University.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Zhang Chuchu.
First of all, if Israeli media reports are credible, then why do you think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is favoring a complete military takeover of the Gaza Strip?
Well, from my own observation, I think this stance aligns with his broader political ideology and also it aligns with the pressure from right-wing coalition partners who perceive the Gaza's control as unfinished business from past conflicts.
And we have to take into consideration that as several Israeli ultra-orthodox parties announced plans to leave Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government.
Right now, he relies more on the right-wing politicians.
And meanwhile, it is also worth noting that such a move would also serve Netanyahu's domestic political interests, potentially bolstering his image as a strong leader amid the ongoing legal challenges and political scrutiny over the handling of the war.
And right now, the negotiations with Hamas are currently deadlocked, and he's concerned that None of the goals he set before will be achieved attempting to achieve certain results by escalating military actions.
On the part of the Israeli side, there was a decision made in 2005 to withdraw settlers and Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip while retaining control of the territory's borders.
That move is blamed by some Israeli right-wing parties for enabling Hamas to gain power in Gaza.
And like you said earlier, Prime Minister Netanyahu is now increasingly reliant on some of those far-right forces, their political support.
So what is your take on this? Do you think the arguments made by those right-wing parties are in line with the reality?
Not necessarily the case. And I think the issue is quite complicated because the 2005 disengagement from Gaza has its context.
For instance, it was a move to withdraw Israeli settlers and troops while maintaining control over borders, airspace and coastline.
And in fact, it was intended to reduce the financial and human costs of occupation at that time.
I think it is true that Hamas regained power in Gaza after that.
But on the other hand, maintaining the occupation indefinitely would have posed its own challenges for Israel at that time, including international isolation.
Also, it would have faced ongoing insurgency and ethical dilemmas over governing a hostile population.
And also, we have to take into consideration that there was also a cost.
So I think blaming the withdrawal overlooks that occupation itself fueled radicalization and a negotiated settlement might have mitigated these risks.
So, at this point, it remains unclear whether Netanyahu's government is considering a long-term occupation or just a short-term military operation to dismantle Hamas and rescue the remaining hostages.
So, Dr. Zhang, if we are talking about a long-term occupation for that kind of scenario, can you put your fingers on some of the leading main challenges that the Israeli side will be faced with?
Well, indeed. Actually, I can see that a long-term occupation of Gaza by Israel would present multifaceted challenges, which potentially exacerbates the current crisis. in Palestine and Israel.
And first of all, there might be security and military strain because governing over 2 million Palestinians in a densely populated area would require a massive sustained troop presence, leading to very high casualties.
And in fact, Israeli military chiefs have already voiced the opposition to that, and they have already cited risks to soldiers and hostages.
And secondly, also there are humanitarian and economic expenses.
So Gaza's economy at the moment has already been devastated by blockades and wars, right?
With widespread poverty, also unemployment exceeding 50% and reliance on aid.
So there are already a lot of humanitarian crisis.
And right now I would say occupation would definitely worsen the food security infrastructure collapse and health crisis.
And for Israel, if you're going to occupy that place for a long time, and if you want to rebuild all this infrastructure, of course, there is a cost.
And last, we need to take into consideration that the Palestinian resistance and radicalization is also going to continue if there is a long-term occupation.
So rather than quelling the threats, it might intensify recruitment for military groups perpetuating a cycle of violence and making governance untenable.
On the part of Hamas, do you think the prospect of a fall Gaza takeover by the Israeli side could have forced the organization to somehow make concessions to Israel?
But I think the prospect of a voice really takeover is unlikely to force Hamas into meaningful concessions, as the group has historically thrived on resistance narratives and views.
So Hamas has always rejected such plans outright, framing them as aggression that justifies continued armed struggle.
Okay, and also it is important to note that Hamas knows very clearly that Netanyahu just wants to eliminate Hamas, right?
And whatever it does at this stage, it might not challenge this objective and change Netanyahu's mindset.
So it currently has very limited room for compromise.
I take your point. So Miroslav Janka, this UN Assistant Secretary General, says, quote, international law is clear in this regard.
Gaza is and must remain an integral part of the future Palestinian state, unquote.
What is your understanding in this regard?
Well, I think this position emphasizes international law, particularly the UN resolutions like 242 and 338, etc., which all call for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967.
And also it affirms the right to Palestinian self-determination in a viable, contiguous state.
So this view rejects any permanent Israeli annexation or separation of Gaza.
But I think right now the biggest challenge here faced by international law in its implementation is that it is not mandatory.
So Netanyahu is likely to continue launching military actions in disregard of international law and the attitude of the international community.
And it's very likely that he aims to just make a copy of the so-called West Bank model in Gaza.
Facing reporters in Washington on Tuesday, U.S.
President Donald Trump declined to say whether he supported or opposed a possible Israeli military takeover of Gaza.
So in your opinion or in your observation, what could be the calculation for the Trump administration on this particular issue?
I think the Trump administration's calculation in declining to explicitly support or oppose and Israeli military takeover of Gaza likely stems from a desire to maintain the very strong US-Israel ties without committing American resources or risking domestic political backlash.
Because by stating, okay, it's up to Israel and focusing on humanitarian aid, Trump avoids alienating his pro-Israel base, while at the same time, he also is trying to sidestep him. the entanglement in the potentially protracted conflict that control US involvement.
And I think another important reason is also that Trump does not want to get deeply involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pay for it.
So right now he's unwilling to make a clear statement.
The final question before we let you go, how would you comment these recent gestures or moves by countries like Britain or France to set out a clear time for their recognition of the Palestinian statehood, like by September this year during the UN General Assembly, etc., etc.?
? Is that because of their genuine, wholehearted support for the two-state solution?
Or is that because of, say, they're afraid of being criticized for their Gaza policy?
I think there are a lot of reasons and a lot of context for that.
And also it is very important, especially that we see the major powers in Europe, including the UK and France, as you have just mentioned.
And I think one of the most important reasons is that these countries have been following the so-called value-based diplomacy for a very long time, right?
They have been emphasizing on the values of democracy, human rights, etc.
But right now they have been criticized for the double standard actions when it comes to what is going on in Gaza.
So that is one important context. And also, on the other hand, we have to take into consideration that The Gaza issue is not just a foreign issue for these countries, but also is closely connected with their own internal issues, because right now there are a lot of immigrants from the Middle East and there are just so many marches and demonstrations there.
So in this context, that is why they are changing their positions to express the opposition to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
But at the moment, I would say another very important challenge for the upcoming UN resolution, for instance, is that right now, since the United States is still a very important member of the Security Council, and also it has the veto right.
So as long as Trump does not change his mind, maybe all of these kind of efforts have their limits.
Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Fudan University.
You are listening to World Today. Stay tuned.
Beijing is demanding answers from NVIDIA just weeks after Washington lifted the export ban on its AI chips.
China's cyberspace regulator has summoned the U.S. chip company, raising concerns that its H20 chips contain backdoors.
What exactly is a hardware backdoor? Are China's worries about chip security justified?
How difficult is it to prove a chip is truly secure?
And if backdoor functions are validated, what could this mean for NVIDIA's business in the world's second largest market?
Join us for an unfiltered look into the growing chip security storm at the chat lounge, wherever you get your podcasts, and on CGTN Radio.
You are listening to World Today. I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
In Poland, Kairos Narocki has been inaugurated as the president.
Narocki won a June 1 election in a major blow for Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a former European Council president.
Narocki sought U.S. President Donald Trump's support during his election campaign.
His campaign also opposed the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine.
He has strongly criticized the government led by Donald Tusk, calling it, quote-unquote, the worst in the history of democratic Poland.
Presidents in Poland can initiate as well as veto legislation and have some influence over the country's foreign and defense policies.
So joining us now on the line is Professor Cui Hongjian from the Academy of Regional and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Thank you very much for joining us. Hi. So, first of all, do you think the election of Narocki is pointing to the high degree of, say, political polarization in Poland?
Why or why not? Yes, as we know, this election of the new president of Poland, I think it's a very important signal for the Polish politics that there will always be some, you know, struggle or some, you know, fighting between this so-called mainstream and also far-right party or some other.
As you know, even a new president, he doesn't have a party identity, but indeed he got the support from a law and justice party.
And I think it's also a continuum of this you know, struggle between the existing party and also the party who organized the last government.
So indeed, I think it's a very long-term tendency for this Polish politics.
Both Karol Narocki and Andrea Duda, his predecessor, who has now just left this post of the Polish president, both of them are supported by the Law and Justice Party.
And we know Duda had already been at loggerheads with the Prime Minister Donald Tusk over many issues.
What do you make of the major differences between Narocki and Duda?
Also, you know, I think that, yes, personally, they do have some differences.
As we know, the former president do that.
He has a very, I mean, strong background as a politician.
But another case for a new president. The new president has a, I mean, long-term just for working for society and has not any Yeah, does not have... Yeah, I think his background was more like... Yeah, difference for their policy or some political attitude.
Another, I think, yes, perhaps this new president, he also tried to look for some new approach to have some more influence on the existing government.
Because always, as we know, he will try to avoid any kind of comparison between him and the former president because it will be maybe not so good for this politician just to you know, always compared with some other, you know, politicians.
Now, some people say it's still possible to find common ground or common causes between the Iraqi and the Prime Minister Duda's government in areas like defense or foreign policy.
What is your take on this? Mostly, I think it's major differences between the you know, Tusk's government and a new president and even the Law and Justice Party is on some, you know, domestic policies and also some political attitudes.
But for some, you know, issues like in foreign policy and security policy, I don't think there will be some, you know, huge difference, especially there are not so many spaces for these political divergences, these so-called common threats.
And even, as we know, during the last government panel, there are not so many or so huge differences between those two parties on security and foreign policies.
Now, during his election campaign, Narocki highlighted the importance of ties with the United States.
And now he has assumed a five-year term in office.
So if, I mean, Wausau can somehow forge or manage to forge closer ties with Washington when Narocki and President Donald Trump are in office, respectively, Do you think such closer ties will change when Trump is no longer in office, possibly after 2028?
I think the current issue for this new president in Poland is not just for maybe post-Trump areas even four years later.
But now the current issue is if it's a If there are any, you know, questions or challenges for this Trump administration, as we know, even on the political attitude or background, perhaps this new president or some other, you know, politicians from far right-wing parties in Europe, they shared a lot with Mr. Trump.
But on policies, we can find that maybe they will have some new problems. especially if we take recent changes between the European Union and also the United States on the tariff issue, we can find out that even some former political partners of Mr. Trump in Europe, in European countries, they do have a lot of divergences because it touches the core interests for every country's Yeah, that's a very good point indeed.
So to Poland, which relationship do you think is more important by comparison, the one with Brussels or the one with Washington?
I think both. I think for Poland, if it tries to play a more leading role, not only in European Union and also in NATO and also in so-called Atlantic relations, to keep some balance between the relations with Brussels and also with Washington will be very, very critical.
But of course, as we know, for Poland, and especially for its policies, I think maybe the best situation could be that it could get some more security support from Washington, and at the same time, it could get some more benefits economically from Brussels.
But as we know, to a large degree, once there's some big problem between the European Union and the United States, it will give some less and less space for Poland. to play a kind of balancing zone between two sides.
The leeway, the room for leeway is limited, to put it in this way.
So the final question before we let you go, Professor Cui Hongjian, do you think Mr. Narocki's presidency, Polish presidency, is going to generate any additional momentum or new momentum for this far-right movement across Europe?
Why or why not? To some degree, yes. I think the election of the new president in Poland stimulates this far-right movement in Europe.
But of course, now, once there are some more major issues emerging for most of the European countries, and especially for security and the foreign policy areas, I don't think that there will be some more space for far-right-wing movement in Europe.
So I think that it depends on how could this new president could play a role in its domestic policies in Poland, firstly.
And then it depends on how could the Polish president could have some coalition or some exchange with other parties from other European countries.
And the third is I think that how could this Polish president to make a balance between, you know, fighting with this mainstream party and also to, you know, keep this, you know, a kind of, how to say, competence sharing between the government and also presidencies.
Yeah, your point's well taken. Thank you very much for your analysis today.
Professor Cui Hongjian from the Academy of Regional and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
You are listening to World Today. I'm Ding He in Beijing.
We'll be back after a short break. Hi, I'm Einer Tangen, a political and economic analyst and senior fellow at the independent Taiher Institute.
World Today is news without the hype and business commentary that is informed and up to date, presenting the facts and asking incisive questions.
So join us if you are someone who needs to know what is happening in China as it is happening.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
A high-tech area in Beijing is hosting a shopping festival selling robots.
Buyers can receive up to 250,000 yuan or more than 34,000 US dollars in subsidies when they purchase robots from some of China's leading manufacturers.
The Yitong Robotics Consumer Festival is covering products from leading Chinese brands like Unitree Robotics and UBTECH Robotics.
And this particular consumer festival is actually part of the broader 2025 World Robot Conference.
Chinese factories now deploy robots across more than 70 industries, and service robots are quickly entering average homes, hospitals, warehouses, and senior care.
For more, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Yan Liang, professor of economics with Willamette University.
So, Yan, this Yitong Shopping Festival for Robots sounds amazing.
What's the thinking behind offering subsidies to companies and individuals?
And how significant is it for Beijing to make such a public event?
Well, I think this is quite a significant event, not only because it showcases all these wonderful new products in the humanoid robotics, and it's featured by some of the very high-tech products by Unitree, UBTEC, and others.
On the other hand, I think it really showcased that the government is supporting the user cases for these high-tech.
So we know right now the government is trying to boost domestic demand, especially consumption demand.
And so that ranges from some of the traditional products, home appliances, electronics, to now I think these kinds of high-tech products like the robots.
We know that China really has a very large markets right now for robots from both the industrial sector and also service sector.
So I think these subsidies will really help to provide some extra incentives for consumers to try it out, especially now robots are becoming increasingly affordable.
And so I think this is an excellent, I think, case to support the kinds of new consumption and also help to boost the supply side as well.
And as you mentioned, the latest figure shows that the strong growth for industrial and service robots in China.
In the first half of this year, the country's total output of industrial robots surged 36%, while the production of service robots jumped 26%.
So what do you think is driving this momentum?
And what is China's strength in robotics?
Right. I think, you know, we do see, you know, robots are being employed and used in 71 industries and various service sectors like homes, hospitals, warehouses, elderly care, you know, delivery, logistics and so on and so forth.
So I think there are a couple of reasons.
One is that, you know, China's robotics technology is developing, you know, by leaps and bounds.
As I mentioned earlier, companies like Unitree and UB Tech Robotics, they're able to really develop the cutting edge robots that can perform many various activities in a very consistent and accurate manner.
And so the technologies is there to drive the industry.
And second is China has a very large and very robust manufacturing base.
So it's able to, like you just mentioned, very quickly ramp up the productions in robots.
So we know, you know, in this, you know, festivals, there are many companies are being featured and there are many different types of robots, you know, from lower range price to higher range price, you know, from more simple task oriented robots to more sophisticated ones.
And so it really helped to provide, you know, the user basis, which I think is the third reason. for the advancement of this industry.
Because from industry sectors like automobile production to the service sector like home care, these robots can always find the users in these various sectors.
And so that I think also boost its adoption.
And last but not the least, I think really the government is being supportive in promoting the technological advancements, but also the consumption, all of these robots.
So I think combining those four factors, the technology, the manufacturing capacity, the user cases, and then the government support, I think that's really helped China's robot industry to thrive.
And could you tell us more about the landscape of China's robotic industry, especially the humanoid robots?
I think, you know, the production is very much ramping up, as you just mentioned, you know, 30%, 36%. a new growth in the industrial robots and 26% on the service sector robots.
And so right now we're seeing that industrial robots surpassed 369,000 units and the service robots has reached a staggering number of 8.8 million units.
So in terms of the landscape in China, I think, again, we're seeing very fast development of technologies, you know, front flip robots that first appeared in China.
Then you're also seeing, you know, this very large production in terms of the scale.
So that really helped to reduce the costs.
Unitree now is able to sell the robots at a starting price of $5,900, which again, really helped bring down the cost and help to populate the adoption of these robots.
And finally, I think, you know, again, with this government subsidies, which are generous, and it's not only, you know, online, but also offline.
So in JD.com, for example, if you're buying these robots as individual users, then they usually give you about 10% off.
So if you buy 500 yuan, the starting discount will be 50 yuan off and so on and so forth.
So, you know, I think with all this promotion, you know, we're likely to see that the Chinese robot industries would continue to very much take the lead, I think, by combining, you know, again, the very large manufacturing bases with the cutting edge technologies, especially, you know, advancements in AI, making the robots a lot more, you know, intelligent and also capable.
So I think that is the landscape that we're looking at when it comes to China's robots market.
And what does the future with widespread humanoid robots look like in China's cities and factories?
That's a great question. I think, as I mentioned earlier, right now 70 different industries are employing robots.
When it comes to robots, there are different types.
If it's the traditional kinds of the non-humanoids, they're already widely used in factories.
Again, automobile companies are employing these robots to manufacturing cars which are able to achieve very high efficiency and reduce material uses and produce in a much faster speed with much higher quality.
So I think factories could widely use the robots to accelerate the production and improve the productivity.
And service sector is another big area. So as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to home care, right?
So we're already using some kind of rudimentary forms of robots, right?
Like the robots that can help to mop your floor.
But in the future, I think these humanoids robots, when they enter the households, they're able to take care of many different household chores, household tasks.
Then they can also be used in tourism, in logistics, delivery, for example, as well as many others in hospitals, in elderly care, in child care, even in education, in research and development, and so on and so forth.
And also, I think when it comes to disaster prevention or some of the emergency delivery, these robots can also be very, very helpful.
So I think as the production ramps up, as the cost goes down, and as people are familiar with these robots and view confident and convenient of using these robots, then I think these would really help to spread the uses in the Chinese economy and really help to make people's lives more convenient, comfortable, and also help to boost productivity significantly.
And both the US and China are pouring lots of resources into AI and robotics.
So how do you see this competition? Where does each country have the edge?
Well, I think the U.S. does have certain advantages when it comes to, for example, computing capacity.
It has, you know, companies like NVIDIA that is very much leading edge when it comes to manufacturing AI chips.
And so, you know, the U.S.' 's AI landscape is also developing very fast.
Companies like Meta and others have, you know, open AI, have poured in billions of dollars to develop technologies.
So I think the U.S. has that sort of first mover advantage.
But I think China, on the other hand, is very much quickly catching up, especially when it comes to open source AI models and also very cost effective development of AI technologies, as well as the very large scale manufacturing capacity.
Now, when it comes to AI chips, China is slightly, I would say, lagging behind based on industrial experts' opinions.
But even Nvidia's Jensen Wang was saying that China has huge potential and is not really very much lagging behind when it comes to AI technologies.
So take chips as an example. The United States has tightened the control over the AI chips, even though they very recently just relaxed the restrictions on H20 chips that Nvidia was able to sell to China again.
But I think, again, with China's very, very innovative companies like Huawei, like many others, China is able to develop the AI chips very quickly and try to fill the gap.
And on the other hand, you know, you see companies like DeepSeek was able to develop the foundational technologies in a very cost effective way.
So combining the large manufacturing capacity and this very fast moving technologies, I think China is really catching up, if not already leading in many of these robotics sector.
When it comes to, for example, drones, China is really leading in that sector.
Humanoid robotics, I think China is also leading in that sector.
Yan Liang, professor of economics with Willamette University, talking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
Coming up, we will hear from the executive director of the UN Office for Project Services on Global Climate Governance.
You are listening to World Today. We'll be back.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
A senior UN official says climate crisis is worsening instability in federal regions, calling for urgent global cooperation.
Jorge Marira da Silva, executive director of the United Nations Office for Project Services, commented in an interview with my colleague Wang Guan.
And with rising global emissions, China is actually stepping up efforts through innovation and green partnership.
For more, let's take a listen. Under Secretary-General Da Silva, welcome to Beijing, China.
You visited China in multiple capacities as Minister for Portugal, as your capacity working for OECD, and now with UNOB.
Maybe to start with, I would like to ask you to tell us a bit about this organization. to our average viewers.
UNOP, United Nations Office for Project Services.
Thank you, Mr. Ghosn. It's a pleasure to be with you in this occasion.
So UNOP is the operational branch of the UN, so we are Just to implementation.
If you compare us with other UN agencies, some of them do a fantastic job on norms, on policies, on programming, on planning.
That's not our task. Our task is implementing projects on the ground.
We are the engineers. We implement projects on the ground.
You are engineer by training. Infrastructure, procurement, project management.
We build hospitals, schools, energy facilities, renewable energy, energy transmission lines, roads.
We procure medicines. So we are really on the ground, particularly with the focus supporting those most in need, the difficult places.
But there are so many difficult places as we speak, and I would assume that these are distressing times if you look at the conflict zones whereby UNOPS operates a lot and the humanitarian relief that is needed for peacekeeping infrastructure and facilities.
How do you look at the situation? How would you describe the challenges that your organization currently faces given all the geopolitical tensions and rivalries?
We are really living very difficult times.
25% of the people in the world live under conflict.
We have not witnessed this proliferation of conflict since World War II.
So it's very impressive, the proliferation of conflicts and violence, and also very worried with the fact that some of these conflicts became forgotten.
So it's compounded crises that are just having one crisis on the top of the other.
There is a high concentration or correlation, almost correlation between conflict, fragility and climate.
In the exact same places where people are facing the impact of the floods or the droughts, the cyclones and hurricanes, it's exactly the same places where people are under conflict and war.
And therefore, we need to do more, much more, to support the people from a perspective that is prevention, prevention always, humanitarian as needed, and development wherever possible.
We really need an approach, an ambitious approach on solidarity, bringing peace, bringing stability, but also fostering sustainable development.
Under Secretary-General, you raised a very important correlation, perhaps few people have given a thought on, that is the correlation between susceptibility to climate-induced disasters and countries and regions already in war and conflict.
Why? What's behind such a correlation? Well, I think that climate has a surveyed fragility.
And without resilience, countries cannot foster development.
So the more resilient are the countries, the stronger they will be building development.
So there is a correlation between climate and development.
But then there is also a correlation between peace and development.
It's impossible to foster development in a country during war and during conflict.
So these three dimensions, that is not exactly a correlation, but is the simultaneous impacts on climate and on wars on the same countries, is particularly worrying because it's exacerbating the pain and the suffering.
It's very unfair. It's very unfair also because most of these countries are not the countries that emit most.
And therefore, we really need a call on solidarity.
Those countries can't address conflict, fragility, climate impacts without global solidarity and without cooperation.
And I would say it's in our interest, it is in everyone's interest, because we live in a dependent world.
Imagine that China or Europe or the US becomes carbon neutral tomorrow.
That's not the plan, but imagine that they will become carbon neutral tomorrow.
It won't fix the problem because emissions in developing countries in the global south will continue growing if those countries are not supported.
Why? Can you tell an African country or an African continent where you have 700 million people without access to electricity?
1 billion people without access to clean water, 2.4 billion people without access to sanitation, 1 billion people that goes to bed every day without a decent meal.
Can you ask them to go green at the same time that they are trying to fight poverty and to protect their people without additional financial resources?
It's impossible. So I think that it's fundamental from ethical and moral reasons to support developing countries, but it's also in the interest of everyone because the climate crisis is a global crisis.
It doesn't make much sense that we go totally green in one part of the world if the other part of the world will not be able to go towards this green and low carbon trajectory.
And that's why it's in everyone's interest to strengthen solidarity and cooperation well remember what happened during the pandemic we said nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated with climate is the same we can be the greenest in one country but if we don't support other countries on the green trajectory we won't get a good response to climate change so i really hope that everyone in the world understand that the climate crisis a global crisis and we won't be safe unless everyone has had the chance to go towards this trajectory.
And some developing countries are lagging behind, and they are struggling with the multiple challenges, not just climate, but also war, conflicts, poverty.
So I think it's really a fundamental moment, as you said, multilateralism is living its defining moment, a breakdown or a breakthrough moment.
Either we break through embracing an ambitious agenda, more ambition, more commitment, more solidarity, more peace, or we risk further exacerbating inequalities and widening the gap between the North and the South.
We're marking the 80th anniversary of, of course, the founding of the United Nations that pretty much kept the world united, although there have been fragmentation.
How do you look at the role of China, which has been a founding member of the United Nations 80 years ago, all the way through today, where it has been perceived as a leader of the global south and a contributor to global development?
China has been playing a fundamental role in the international discussions.
We have in this conversation already mentioned several elements from climate to development.
I think that the commitment of China on multilateralism is key.
The world needs more global coordination. and reinforcement of multilateralism.
So I think that this approach is fundamental and obviously China plays a vital role.
Horham Marira De Silva, Executive Director of the United Nations Office for Project Services, talking with my colleague Wang Guan.
Coming up, Nagoya mayor of Japan seeks to resume exchanges with China's Nanjing after years-long suspension.
You're listening to World Today, stay tuned.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
The mayor of Japan's city of Nagoya has expressed the hope to resume exchanges with China's Nanjing.
Ichiro Hirasawa says he hopes to resume exchanges at the earliest opportunity, vowing to make a sincere effort to achieve that goal.
Japanese media has reported that senior members of a cross-party group promoting China-Japan friendship are currently working on a plan.
Official ties between the two cities were suspended back in 2012 after China protested against the then Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura's denial of the Nanjing Massacre.
The Nanjing Massacre took place when Japanese invaders captured the city on December 13, 1937.
Over the course of six weeks, they killed some 300,000 Chinese civilians and unarmed soldiers in one of the most barbaric episodes of World War II.
So joining us now on the line is Dr. Yang Xiyu, Senior Research Fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.
Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, my pleasure.
So first of all, Dr. Yang, what do you make of this recent open remark by Nagoya's current mayor, including the timing of this remark?
I think the remarks indicate very positive meanings.
That is a very important step forward for the right direction. for the resumption of the friendship exchanges between local cities like Nanjing and Meguiar.
However, I think that's not enough. I think they need some following action steps so that to remark the goal. can be realized.
The timing I noticed is very important, including two days of meeting.
Firstly, the remarks made right before the Victory Day of anti-Japanese invasions, including Victory Day of anti-fascist for the world.
And the second timing, I think the remarks made before the trilateral leaders meeting between China, Japan, South Korea later this year, for the first point of the timing, I think the mayor's remarks means they recognize the history of Japanese invasion.
That was the fact. I think it's positive.
That's why I say it's positive. And secondly, I think his remarks want to input local momentum for the top-level trilateral meetings or rely on the top-level trilateral momentum for local exchanges.
So for both of the timing, I think their remarks is made very thoughtfully.
So in the case of certain Japanese politicians who deny or question Imperial Japan's wartime atrocities, including this former mayor of Nagoya, how would you explain their behavior or their mentality?
Is that because of genuine ignorance of history or because of some political motivations?
It's a very key question because the denial of history by sub-Japanese politicians has always been the main obstacle for the positive or constructive bilateral relation between China and Japan.
Regarding to the motivation, I don't think they just want to ignore the history.
The real motivation is they want to deny the history so that they can repeat under some situation, repeat what they used to do.
It's saying those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I think the nature of the denial of history lies in this point, say the right wings in Japan, some politicians deny history not because of their knowledge, But because of the mindset, the dream of Japan becoming another strong power like the one in 1920s, 1930s.
So that is the root of the right wing's mindset of denial. of their history.
And I think that the denial of the history is very dangerous, not only for Japan's future, but also for the future of Asia.
That is why China and some other Asian countries always strongly insist on the right view, right mindset on the history, not only for Asian people, but also for Japanese people, so that all the Asian people, including Japanese people, can get the one single shared base of right recognition of the history so that we can share the future.
So how would you look at the current nationwide popularity almost with regard to this?
Dad writes a film about Nanjing Massacre here in China.
How and what do you think Nanjing Massacre symbolizes to contemporary Chinese people?
I think the film now is very hard because of the two reasons.
One reason is the technical reason. The other is the political reason.
For technical reason, I need to say this movie is a very... contain a high value of art.
It's a high value, the film. But secondly, I think that the film write exactly the history in the reality reflects the right history.
And that calls for great echoes among Chinese people, especially among young Chinese people.
I think this echoes among the people, like you said, popularity containing two meanings.
On one hand, that reflects Chinese people's firm determination on the right recognition of the history and also reflects some Chinese people's sentiments unsatisfying some Japanese right-wing politicians on the wrong knowledge about the denial of history.
I think this popularity includes both the highly value of the earth, but also includes the Chinese sentiments of the Your point is well taken.
It's a multifaceted phenomenon. But thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Yang Xiyu, joining us from the China Institute of International Studies.
Unfortunately, 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.
