Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
French President, Emmanuel Macron, is in Beijing with a large delegation of ministers and top executives.
China and Russia have vowed to defend World War II outcomes and prevent a revival of fascism or Japanese militarism, and Russia and the United States have concluded another round of talks in Moscow with no breakthrough on securing a peace deal for Ukraine.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Gaena in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, You can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
French President Emmanuel Macron is in China for a three-day state visit.
A major focus is business.
Macron has arrived with a delegation of more than 80 people, including several ministers and nearly 40 CEOs from major French companies.
He is scheduled to hold talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping to map out the next stage of bilateral relations and exchange views on global issues.
China's foreign ministry says the visit underscored the unique role of China-France ties amid global uncertainty, with both sides seeking stronger strategic communication, deeper cooperation and greater coordination on the road stage.
So to delve into this, let's bring in Dr George Tsougopoulos, Director of EU-China Programs and Senior Research Fellow at European Institute of Nice.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Thank you for having me.
Professor, France was the first major Western country to build official diplomatic ties with China.
And in recent years, we've seen frequent top-level interactions and a strong practical cooperation.
And this is also Macron's fourth visit to China. as president.
So how would you characterize today's China-France relationship?
And what do you expect from this trip?
You refer to history and this is very important in order to understand the France approach vis-a-vis China.
And I believe that today's president of France, Emmanuel Macron, values the international role of China.
And that's why, as you correctly mentioned, This is the fourth time that he is visiting China.
I believe that both China and France are building a mutually beneficial relationship, and especially the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, understand why cooperation on all fronts with China is an essential element of the French and the European policy in today's world of uncertainty.
Professor Macron brought a delegation of more than 80 people, including several ministers and nearly 40 CEOs from major French companies.
Observers suggest this visit could open new frontiers for cooperation with transportation and energy seen as likely breakthroughs.
What's your assessment of collaboration in the near future between China and France?
In April 2023, the two sides, China and France, signed a very important joint statement which includes different areas and sectors of collaboration, among other things in the business and trade sector.
And that's why I believe that the president of France is accompanied by a large delegation of French businessmen who are interested in doing business in China.
Obviously, the Chinese market is massive.
This is what France understands.
And I expect that it will be a very fruitful visit that can lead to important accords.
We should not forget that Airbus, in particular, is a European and France company which produces jets.
And obviously, the Chinese market, taking into account that more and more planes are required for the Chinese airspace.
This European company has a lot to gain by accessing the Chinese market. an indicative example.
And, as you correctly mentioned, the transport sector in general, and the energy sector also, will be at the epicenter of important consultations between the Chinese and the French side.
Professor about their collaborations before the visit.
France said it hopes China can share innovation in fields like AI with trusted partners, especially the European ones, given the US.
Midwest's efforts to restrict China in the high-tech sectors.
How do you interpret this French messaging?
Well, I believe that, from a European perspective, collaboration with China is, and this is what we need to bear in mind
Certainly the American press is there and certainly the European Union attempts to boost what is being called as its own strategic autonomy, so for the EU to be a strong actor in the international system.
I wouldn't suggest that it is possible to achieve this result without collaborating with China.
It's a different thing to protect the European interests and a different thing to ignore China.
This is what President Emmanuel Macron has in mind.
On the one hand, to boost as much as possible the French national interest in the technological sector.
At the same time, of course, to build synergies with China as much as possible.
I believe that there is a point where the two different approaches can intersect, irrespective of the American pressure.
Professor, let's talk about People-to-people exchanges between China and France.
We also learned from French reports that Macron hopes to welcome new giant pandas from China.
What role do you think cultural exchanges like this play in building trust between the two nations nations?
Well, people to people's exchanges are highly significant, and here i need to emphasize the importance of the visa-free policy of china, because most citizens of european, of eu, member states can come to china and stay in china for four weeks without having to apply for a visa, which is very important.
And that's why we see their eyes in the number of tourists from Europe visiting China.
Certainly mutual understanding is important.
So I believe that from the moment there is political consensus at the highest level between China and France, then obviously additional exchanges can take place.
And this is related to the media sector and to civilization and cultural activities.
If there is understanding between the two sides at the level of the society, I believe that misunderstanding understandings will be bridged and will be eliminated, which are certainly a problem in today's world of cleavages in the international system.
Professor Macron recently stated that Europe should not apply double standards in global affairs.
But we've seen, We've often seen Europe express goodwill toward China in bilateral diplomacy, while acting tough toward China in multilateral front.
How do you view this contradiction?
Well, I would say once again that the France approach is based, on the one hand, on the determination of France to protect its economic interests, which is a fair thing.
At the same time, however, collaboration with China is possible.
So, although these two lines, as you suggested, are indicative of the approach in today's world, I still believe that it is possible to see the glass as half full and build synergies between the two sides and Europe.
Disagreements will be always there but, at the same time, the most important thing is to work in order to make progress, irrespective of the disagreements.
And I believe that the France-China example is indicative of the joint will to move and make progress beyond the disagreements.
As this visit comes amid the 50th year of China-EU ties.
Macron is regarded as a pragmatist on China.
But the so-called political correctness still heavily shapes EU policy circles.
Visit push Europe toward a more unified and rational approach.
And how much influence does France really have within the EU to steer a more balanced China policy?
Well, historically and also currently, the importance of France for Europe is massive, because France and Germany constitute the core of Europe.
So, having said that, certainly the role of France is important in forging Sino-European relations and in elevating Sino-European relations to a level where cooperation will be possible.
I wouldn't consider France as an exception at the European Union level.
There are other countries, like Spain in particular, which are very keen on collaborating with China.
Certainly, the European Union is attempting to find a pragmatic policy that will work vis-a-vis China.
And once again, I believe that more time is required.
That's why I look at the France policy as a paradigm that can serve the interests of the European Union and can contribute to a mutual understanding and to the forging of Sino-European relations towards a direction that will be mutually beneficial.
Thanks, Professor, for those valuable insights.
That was Dr George Tsougopoulos, Director of the EU-China Programs and Senior Research Fellow at European Institute of Nice.
Coming up.
China and Russia have vowed to defend World War II outcomes and prevent a revival of fascism or Japanese militarism.
This is Road Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies.
World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics economics business, technology and society.
World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies.
I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.
You are listening to Rode Today.
Let's move to China-Russia's recent pledge.
The two countries have vowed to jointly safeguard the heart-worn outcomes of World War II and prevent any resurgence of fascism or Japanese militarism.
At their latest strategic security conference, consultation.
The two sides also highlighted deeper coordination to address emerging global challenges and advance a more just, multipolar world.
The meeting was co-chaired by China's top diplomat Wang Yi and Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu.
For more on this.
Joining us on the line is Professor Qu Qiang, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Mingzhu University of China.
Welcome, Professor.
Thank you.
Professor, China and Russia came out of this security dialogue with a very clear shared stance on Japan, focusing on opposing the whitewashing of Japanese wartime history and sounding the alarm on the revival of fascism or Japanese militarism.
This all comes after Takeuchi's provocative Taiwan remarks rattled the Asian Pacific.
So how do you rate the meaning of this joint message from Beijing and Moscow?
Well, I think...
Beijing and Moscow really share the same joint stance, especially against the current operation in Tokyo.
They try to revise the whole history and also try to speculate on the security issues.
So now Beijing and Moscow together have given them a warning shot, because Takaichi actually has been throwing out those false argument that Taiwan, if it has some contingency and then it concerns about the Japanese survival.
Well, and they implied that they can use their self-defense, so-called self-defense right.
And I think that's been touching the Chinese bottom line.
This basically means in my family I have some family argument and my neighbor have the right to interfere with the military force.
So this is basically never acceptable.
And also, I think, China and Russia in their consultation, specifically naming out that we are against, that you put a better picture on this colonization and invasion of the militaries in Japan.
So basically, Japan want to revise and reshape the history with a new narrative and try to put Japan from a culprit into a victim position.
This is not going to happen.
Both China and Russia would never agree with that.
And, by the way, not only China and Russia and even some Western alliances also feel very alert towards Japanese stance, like France and also the UK.
So I think this is for the first time that China and Russia together are using this historical consensus, try to counterfeit so-called the Japanese and American security consensus as an alliance.
Professor, we know Japan is boosting defense spending to 2 of GDP ahead of schedule and even trying to revise its three non-nuclear principles.
So how do you view Japanese rise of military spending and, in real terms, how could this China-Russia alignment constrain these alarming moves out of Tokyo?
A good calculation of Japan.
This is both in the advantage and also benefit of the Japanese security consideration, as well as for the economic consideration.
Come on, let's say 2% of the GDP.
Put on the defense spending.
This is going to be a really good news for the defense industry in Japan.
The good news for the stock market, I can assume.
But this is not going to happen easily.
Although I think the joint stance of China and Russia can very hardly to directly stop the behavior of Japan and also their spending on the budget, but they will make the political cost very, very high for the Libyans and their alliances to do so.
First of all, China and Russia together make sure this is a military old way.
And also they're trying to breach the nonproliferation principles and the peaceful constitutions.
So international big countries have already been saying so.
So within the libtons of the ruling party and alliances like the core metal, And they probably will feel a little bit alert because they still have some conservative politicians inside of it.
And also for the opposition parties, like the Communist Party of Japan, like the Democratic Party of Japan.
They will probably use this as an excuse to, you know uh, criticize the ruling parties.
And also in the international level i think china and russia together are many Domestic and also multilateral platform are making this narratives and accusations, like in United Nations, like in ASEAN nations.
So all these platform have many countries used to be the victim of the Japanese invasion and also massacre.
And also even for the Western alliances.
This recalling of the history will also make sure that the NATO alliance and the European Union will also view this whole issue from the humanitarian and historic perspective.
So I don't think some neutral country, even in the West, like Germany, like France, they will open a green light for Japan.
And, as a matter of fact, those countries actually feel very suspicious about what Japan is going to do.
What are you going to do?
Are you going to drag more countries into war zone, since the whole world has already failed, facing so much of the turmoil and conflict?
And more than that, I think.
In the tactic level, China and Russia together has been enhanced the density of the patrol together, no matter on the sea or in the sky.
So actually, they're going to create more of the defense dilemma for Japan.
Are they going to follow or not?
If they follow, there's going to be more pressure economically as well as in the politics.
So I think this warning shot will not directly stop Japan's behavior, But they will let Japan understand they're going to be a really high cost domestically and internationally if they're continuing to do so.
Professor, another alarming news.
Japan plans to buy offensive Israeli drones, sparking major backlash from the Japanese public.
And some Japanese experts are suggesting Takeuchi could face an international arrest warrant for this.
What's your take on that reaction and on Tokyo's decision?
Well, I think buying a drone is actually a legal behavior for a sovereign nation.
So if you want to issue some know uh warning shot from the police level, i don't think this is actually a critical, a practical, you know, legal process to do so, because any legal nation, any legal sovereignty, can buy their drums used for the self-defense, that's for sure.
But if you use it for assault or aggression purposes, let's say Join in the oversee military operation or cost in a civilian casualty, and that can trigger some you know penalties and a criminal accusation according to the Geneva Convention.
So I think the point is not buying a drone or not, but where does it use it?
If Japanese media or Japanese politicians wanted to use this as a threat against the neighboring nations to say Let's take a look.
We have the most advanced drones.
You should be feared of us.
And that can be a very, very strong signal that Japan might use drones to join in or get engaged with overseas operations.
And that will... actually deprive the righteousness of Takeichi's so-called self-defense purpose.
And that can direct Japan into a bigger, you know, problems in the international public opinions.
So professor, in general, Japan is provoking China on Taiwan and also provoking South Korea on Dokdo, beefing up its military and hyping external threats.
So, from a security standpoint, what does all this tell us about the ambitions of the Takai administration?
What's the end game for them?
Well, actually, Takaichi's whole logic is not only Taiwan.
Taiwan is just one thing, and also the Korean Peninsula, and also the South China Sea.
Well, She's been creating this narrative so that She wants Japanese civilians and families to feel that Japan has now been surrounded, ambushed even.
So there is going to be a threat coming from the surrounding adjacent regions can serve three purposes.
Number one they can use this kind of urgency feeling to revise peaceful constitutions so that they can allow the aggression by military forces initiated by Japan itself.
And secondly, they can revive what we call the defense complex.
For example, the GDP 2 and the defense industry.
They will rebuild this called defense industry, aviation network and AI enterprises to create more of the budget and to create more of the productivity profit for those Chebos.
And also through all these ways, Takayuchi also wanted to rebuild the national recognitions of all the civilians by denying all the invasions colonizations, massacres and also slavery over the colonized nations.
They try to make sure that Japanese people will shake off this so-called self-guilt and also try to become a normal person quote, unquote a normal nation again and join in the NATO and also join the Western alliances as equal member.
And just take a look at the current cooperation between Japan and NATO.
You can see the signs.
But according to Japanese media reports, Takeuchi on Monday held a telephone meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Root, in which Takeuchi highlighted that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the so-called Indo-Pacific is inseparable and cooperation between Japan and NATO is crucial.
How do you view Japan's increasingly close relationship with NATO, and what kind of risk does that introduce to Asia's security environment?
Well, the Japanese politicians are basically the coward.
They know they stand zero chance of fighting against China, letting alone.
They're now trying to provoke both China and Russia.
So they want to drag more country into this muddy water so that they are trying to forge a more solid relation between Japan and NATO, to promote this relation into a quasi alliances and it become a quasi member in the NATO.
Right now, they've been sharing the high classified infos and intel.
They've been sharing the encrypted contact lines and also they've been sharing the space and aviation assets, and also next year and nato can set up a liaison office in tokyo and also sending the stationary officers in there.
So i think in the future, in the whole region, the far eastern asia, i think all these uh, you know security related situation is going to be more complicated.
And we'll open a window for NATO to look into the Taiwan Strait and also even in the whole ASEAN nations.
And also, I think there is a risk for the promotion of the nuclear related risks.
And also you're gonna see that whole ASEAN nations will also be forced to choose side, because right now the IP4 and the NATO mechanisms actually are trying to cross a draw line to divide ASEAN nations into the partners and the non-partners very exclusive, so that they can deprive ASEAN as a multi-platform organization's position.
And to force those nations to choose side, and all these mutual trust and a peaceful environment built in South Eastern Asia will also be weakened.
And by all these means, I think, is the agenda of the far right wings of the Japan politicians.
They're trying to create a chaotic situation.
They're trying to create the threat and false tensions so that they can achieve their agenda and purpose.
Thanks, Professor, for those insightful analysis.
That was Professor Chu Qiang, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzu University of China.
More to come.
Russia and the United States have concluded another round of talks in Moscow, with no breakthrough on securing a peace deal for Ukraine.
You are listening to ROE Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You've been listening to Road Today with me, Gaena, in Beijing.
Turning to the Ukraine conflict, Russia and the United States have concluded another round of talks in Moscow, with no breakthrough on securing a peace deal for Ukraine.
Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov described the discussions with U.S.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff as constructive and useful, yet made clear that no compromise plan has been reached.
Moscow says territorial issues remain at the heart of the divide.
And President Vladimir Putin has reiterated that several American proposals are simply unacceptable.
Meanwhile, President Vladimir Zelensky says Kiev is now waiting for signals from the American delegation before making its next steps.
So for more on this, Xu Yaowen spoke with Einar Tengen, senior fellow of the Center for International Governance Innovation, a Canadian think tank.
Anna Moscow described the talks as constructive and useful, yet emphasized that territorial issues remain the core sticking point.
In your view, is there any room for the US and Russia to negotiate on these fundamental disagreements?
Well, I don't think that they've reached point where they can have a full settlement.
I mean, yes, Ukraine is one part of the issue, but Russia's concerns are much more global than that.
Remember you go back to Howard Baker standing in the offices of the Kremlin and talking to the Duma, saying that the United States and NATO would never move one inch into a former Soviet Union.
And that promise was broken.
Beside the point whether or not he had the power to say that russians relied on it, and over its succeeding years that was, you know, nato expanded out.
The real question, Obviously in Russia's mind, is why, of course, our pact is gone.
Why does NATO continue?
So NATO looked for a reason to exist and that reason was to contain Russia.
There was also in the background as concern.
That Russian resources and European manufacturing would somehow come together and represent a peer competitor to the United States.
That is no longer in the cards in the foreseeable future.
But this issue of secure he is.
Generally, Russia wants to have a buffer states between it and any hostile entity.
That is old thinking.
If this is going to change, they're going to have to change their thinking about some of these things.
Ukraine appears heavily dependent on US mediation, with President Zelenskyy saying he's waiting for signals from Washington.
Does this make Ukraine a passive actor in deciding its own fate, particularly regarding any potential territorial compromises?
It's not just territorial compromises.
It's across the board.
Obviously, we all remember what happened when Zelensky went to and was sitting there with Trump JD.
Vance, and being castigated and savaged on public television.
It was very clear that Donald Trump had assumed that he was the alpha, that he would be making decisions and that, in essence, Ukraine was powerless.
Zelensky tried his best to try to work the European angle, and although he's gotten all sorts of encouragement from the EU,
The fact is that they do not have the wherewithal to support him.
They would still have to buy American weapons and American ammunition.
Those are running both in short supply and they can be cut off by Donald Trump.
So yes, at this point, Ukraine is subject to the whims of Donald Trump.
We have also noticed that the US has revised this original 28-point peace plan after criticism that it favored Russia, but the current proposal remains non-transparent, especially on issues such as NATO membership, security guarantees and limits on Ukraine's armed forces forces.
Can US-led mediation generally balance the security interests of all parties?
No.
It's not going to be there.
Europeans have weighed in and they make it clear that they want to sabotage this.
That they somehow still believe that victory can be had on the battlefield despite the facts on the ground is that Ukraine is grinding to a slow halt.
It doesn't have the ammunition.
It doesn't have the men.
And it is not able to hold territory.
So at some point, Russia can continue to grind down on the Ukrainian army, seize more lands.
And, in de facto, whether Ukraine likes it or not, they will be in control of territories, whether they set up a DMZ or a peace plan.
The territories will be divided.
And I do not believe there can be a complete peace until there's an understanding from Russia that they feel secure.
Obviously, Ukraine feels the same way.
They do not want Whatever agreement they have on territory, they do not want to see it reversed or some sort of new aggressive strike.
But I believe a lot of this is fictitious and being fanned by those in Europe who see this, as you know, existential threat to themselves.
The fact is that it would be almost impossible for Putin, given the casualties they've already had, to think that he can control all of Ukraine.
He would have to have an army of occupation that would go beyond any resources that Russia could practically put into it, and for very little gain.
So I think there is a path to peace.
The question is, do people want to take it?
Well, Anir, let's look at Europe's role in all of this.
Ahead of the US-Russia talks, President Putin accused Europe of being on the side of war and trying to block the peace process.
How do you interpret his remarks?
And what does this reveal about Europe's actual influence?
All right.
To answer this question, we have to put it in the framework of what happened in 2014.
There was a big revolution.
Actually, it was a putsch.
It was supported by Europe and America because the elected leader was somebody who was closer to Russia and he was contemplating doing away with a number of treaties with Europe.
And at that point, there was, quote, this revolution.
And you can note that people showed up with brightly colored coordinated signs and things like this.
This is not what usually happens in a revolution.
People show up with pieces of cardboard and things like that.
You can see that when they're complaining about Gaza.
They don't show up with slick posters and they don't show up in the same colors.
So from Russia's point of view, the truce was broken.
The West Both Europe and America had supported a putsch and immediately they went to see Spermia.
They were not going to give up their only warm water port, for which Russian blood had been spilled over the many hundreds of years.
And they were not.
They moved to protect what they saw as Russian people who were in the eastern part of Ukraine.
So that's where it was.
It started.
And what we see is there was this Attempt minxed one and two to bring peace at that time.
It was thwarted.
Europeans actually said both Macron and Hollande on the record that they never had any intention of abiding by the peace plan that they signed.
So when you fast forward to today and then you factor in Boris Johnson literally weighing in to prevent a peace plan, you see that Europe is actively willing to fight to the last Ukrainian.
They do not seem to have any constructive advice, only that this can be won on the battlefield.
If only there's enough troops out there.
But it's doubtful that they will send their own, because if they do, as Putin said about an hour and a half ago, he's ready for war.
So we're drifting into a very, very unstable situation.
Europe divided, still cannot make up its mind, but it is absolutely certain that somehow it can win on the battlefield which the realities show it cannot.
And one last question, Enner.
So looking ahead, how do you see as the most realistic path toward a peace deal?
And what are the biggest obstacles that still stand in the way?
There has to be a division.
Obviously, Russia has taken over territory that was previously in Ukraine.
They're not going to give up their warm water port.
There has to be some sort of line of demarcation, and there's probably going to be, you know, Russia and then Ukraine, which would be much smaller.
They'll have to come to some sort of agreement to make sure that the Black Sea is open and can be used by both sides.
That would be the territorial side.
The other part in terms of security, I think actually is going to have to come from Russia.
And what I mean by that.
Is almost impossible for me to foresee that Russia can establish a ring of former Soviet Union countries to be neutral when it comes to Russia, eg that they would remove missiles and they can be part of NATO, but they can't station NATO troops or have active armaments aimed at Russia.
And the reason I say that they have to change.
That is because, with hypersonic missiles, the old thinking that having territory between you and your potential adversary keeps you safer is no longer true.
You know there's so much that can be done devastatingly with these hypersonic missiles and there's really no defense currently against them.
So I'm hoping that both sides will realize that the old thinking has to go away.
There has to be some way of guaranteeing peace for both sides in a way that guarantees security for all, not just one side.
It has to be for all of the countries.
And this is what I believe China has been working towards.
That was Einar Tengen, Senior Fellow of the Center for International Governance Innovation, speaking with Xue Wen.
Shifting focus to innovation.
Chinese researchers are now at the forefront of some of the world's most groundbreaking scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs.
A new study in the US proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that China, once seen as a supporting player, has become a core player in the global cross-border research and cutting-edge innovation.
The study was based on nearly 6 million academic papers.
What has China done right to reach this point, and how can China and the US, the world's two biggest scientific powers, coexist and collaborate to drive global scientific progress forward?
Wang Guan speaks with James Evans, the Max Palavisky Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago.
Professor Evans, in your recent PNNS paper, you and your co-authors analyzed nearly 6 million papers to trace shifting patterns of global scientific leadership.
The study highlights China's growing ability to organize international research, set agendas, integrate resources and sustain leadership at some categories, even amid decoupling pressures, of course.
Now, in your view, what does this reveal about the rise of China's influence or even leadership, if you would agree with that word in today's global scientific landscape?
Well, I think since 1996 China has invested in the Western education, European and US education of its scientists.
From that time it has dramatically linearly increased in the global impact of the science that it produces, with a rising commitment to science.
That also means there are more opportunities for scientists in China, which means I would say people with better Native capacities are drawn to science.
And so basically, there are more scientists that are increasingly trained, with greater opportunities, which means even better people within the Chinese context are incentivized to get involved in science has been associated with just a rise in really great Chinese trained scientific minds who have been able to, through education and scholarly advance, to make contributions that are appreciated by the world.
I think it's really a testament to the massive rise of Chinese science over the last 30 years.
Your article notes that in several key frontier technologies, China is expected to reach parity with the United States in research trends in the near future, many of which are likely to mature during the 15th five-year plan period.
What would such parity mean in practical terms?
How can we feel it?
I mean, how might intensifying China-US competition shape the future of global technological development?
I think that if China and the US continue in the intensity of their collaboration, then parity means that they're equally likely to lead on a research paper.
Then a research paper is equally likely to have Chinese and US leaders in it, that they're really playing equal roles.
And one of the things that we found in other research that we did is, in the area of artificial intelligence, that collaborations between Chinese and American scholars end up being the most impactful research on average, higher than both Chinese research alone and US research alone, because of complementarities to their focus, their background, their interests and their skills.
So I think it would be both a loss to China, a loss to the US and a loss to world science and technological advance if there was a great decoupling.
So one of the things that I've also found in other research.
This was a PNAS paper from a few years ago where we looked at whether hierarchical or flat research projects were more innovative.
And we found systematically, using the same that we used in this study, that flat teams, where more people with more backgrounds were all involved in leadership, leading the paper, ended up being more associated with novelty, disruptive findings, breakthroughs that drove future scientific and technological attention.
So basically, parity means that there's flatter collaborations between Chinese and American teams.
And so that That means we've built a system that facilitates this kind of flat collaboration, which is the most likely to yield technological and scientific advance.
So I think this is a moment where we have this, in some ways, precious asset that could be dismantled in some ways by decoupling strategy, either from China or the US.
Professor, your research notes that China expanded its academic leadership through the Belt and Road Initiative.
How do you evaluate the role of such collaborations in strengthening China's global research networks and influence?
So this was the most surprising thing to me in the course of this research.
I was not at all aware, and I think most people in the West were not aware, that China was spending almost as much as it spends to send Chinese scholars abroad to the US, to Europe, to other countries, to the UK.
It's spending almost as much doing those things as it is bringing non-Chinese scientists to China.
So that represents...
In some cases, in some years of the data, like 80 of the amount that it's spending to send Chinese scientists abroad.
And those of us who live in the US and Europe and the UK.
There are enormous numbers of Chinese scientists levels, but at all levels of the US academic system.
I would say most master's programs related to computational analysis are predominantly scholars of Chinese background, ancestry or citizenship.
So that's a huge effect.
So there are a ton of people from Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa especially that are coming into China to be educated.
Decoupling has long been a heated topic amid China-US competition.
Yet, despite Washington's restrictions, China continues to make breakthroughs from the deep-seek model to Huawei's Ascend AI chip, showcasing growing capacity for independent innovation, indigenous innovation,
Why have the United States' efforts to slow China's technological rise fallen short?
From your perspective, what factors have sustained China's continued advancement?
Deep Seek really have begun to change the global perception of Chinese leadership.
So I think before those things happened earlier you asked about My motivation for doing this part of it is I have a longstanding set of collaborations and scholars in China that I admire and collaborate in and work with and visit.
But also I was tasked in the US with serving as the research director of the National Network for Critical Technology Assessment.
And I remember in Washington I was presenting work about the rise of Chinese science and scientists on the global stage.
And there are many in leadership positions who simply did not believe it.
They did not believe that Chinese scientists were producing insights. that had major global impact.
They mentioned.
Oh well, Chinese scientists are present at global computer science conferences, but their papers are not of the kind of leadership that people are attending to and really building on.
Some of these innovations that you described really completely changed those assessments and opinions.
So I think some of those striking events, technological events, like you know, seeks R1 model that really kind of opened reasoning models to global advance and participation because of the open source nature of the model.
I think decoupling could be enormously harmful for global science and technology and for both China and the US.
So for the US, from the US's perspective, if China decouples, which is to say They educate less Chinese scientists and they engage in less collaboration with Chinese scientists?
There are two options.
One is that those Chinese scientists spend more time with European and British collaborators where they're already in China even more leadership position.
So it would increase their global leadership position.
The US does not have enough science and scientists to change Chinese leadership and access to technology and technological advance.
And the fact that they're already effectively on parity means they have the expertise there.
Second option is the Chinese scientists increasingly collaborate with just each other.
As you say, self-sufficiency.
And maybe they even begin to publish in Chinese language journals, which decreases their exposure to the West.
And that makes Chinese science increasingly invisible or opaque to readers.
American scientists.
So we're less aware of its developments and we're more likely to be surprised by its advances, which is not in US mid- and long-term interests.
That was James Evans, the Max Palavisky Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago, speaking with Wang Guan.
Finally, looking at global challenges, the United Nations is warning that the global artificial intelligence boom risks deepening inequality, potentially creating a great divergence between wealthy and developing nations.
A UN report.
Cautions AI benefits may concentrate in regions with a strong digital infrastructure, leaving behind buildings without reliable connectivity or skills.
The report also stresses the need for a people-first approach to make sure that AI bridges global divides instead of creating new ones.
So for more on this, my colleague Song Ruixin spoke with Dr Liu Xiaoshan, Director of Embodied Intelligence with Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Society.
The UN report suggests that the wealthy nations are positioned to capture most of AI's economic benefits.
Then could you elaborate more on those specific structural advantages?
Oh, definitely.
I think AI is monopolistic by nature.
It takes huge amount of financial investment, which only advanced economies can afford.
It takes a lot of talent to incubate the best AI model, which only the advanced economy have.
And also it takes a huge market, a consumption market, to make sure that the AI gets data and gets the income in which only the advanced economy can fulfill.
So I think it's a self-reinforcing cycle.
The gap would become bigger and bigger.
Then the report notes that the inequalities within countries' even advanced economies risk leaving some regions behind.
Beyond the general digital divide, in your opinion, what are the key specific gaps?
Is it primarily in just infrastructure or, like the absence of local innovation ecosystems, that cause these internal disparities?
Well, I think infrastructure definitely plays a crucial role here.
If you have broadband access, you have very affordable internet access.
You are more likely to use AI tools.
And the second thing is education.
I think you need certain background of education for you to use AI to smoothly.
So these two factors combined would contribute to the inequality even within the country.
Yeah, like you've mentioned, infrastructure and broadband access matter, but so do education and training.
It looks like the report calls for steps to use AI's power to close gaps in access to basic needs and advanced know-how.
Then from a research and development perspective, what are the most actionable steps?
Well, I think people need to understand.
AI needs to be a basic utility for our society, just like water and electricity, So it needs to be available to everyone.
To achieve that, of course, availability or affordability it's a number one issue.
And for RD perspective, how do you open source the model to enable the model can reach every single one in your region?
And that's the second factor.
But at the end of the day, I think the most important mind shift is that AI is not just some premium features that we can access on our phone.
It really is a basic utility just like water, telephone and electricity.
The basic AI tools should be available to everyone in the country.
Let's take China, for example.
If we have a model that's available to everyone that's at a very low cost, that's a basic AI tool.
I think we should have today.
If you launch different tools from different companies, most of them are free.
And open sourcing is to make sure that our tools can become an international standard.
So even countries who do not have the advanced tools today can still enjoy the benefit, can follow the standard and deploy the tools over there and then with the center and tools, then we enter into where we collect more data and then with the more data we can better build the tools to serve more people.
It's a virtual circle that we're entering.
Okay, so you mean from a RD and policy standpoint, the emphasis should be on inclusion openness, capacity building.
I mean not just chasing frontier performance or narrow so-called commercial value, right?
Correct, correct.
I think...
Again, I think the key message for me it's a basic tool for everybody and everybody should have access to it.
Instead of throwing all the resources into chasing the most advanced capabilities, we should also think about how to make their capabilities available to everyone.
I think for open sourcing, we have gradually built up some standards.
I think DeepSeq sets a very perfect model for open sourcing.
Their code is available everywhere.
So if people want to launch it, they can do it on their own.
But for data sharing, I think it's still very sensitive.
People worry that if your data get leaked to another country there might be national security issues, but that will take time to build up the data open sourcing standard.
But for the code itself, I think it's there.
Well, I think Europe always has the most strict rules towards anything related to privacy or data in a way that hindered their development in AI.
I think at the beginning of this AI era, we should be more open-minded to let people try and see what happens, whether we can use data to build better models, instead of going into a full mode defensive mode.
I think in that regard, China is doing a much better job compared to Europe.
Okay.
Then, talking back to that report, I noticed that the lead author of the report Michael, cautioned against overemphasizing technology.
I mean, advocating a people-first approach.
Because currently you are living in China.
Then, from your observation, How would you assess China's AI development?
Where is strength in aligning AI with public need?
And what significant potential applications do you believe remain kind of underexplored?
The Western narrative has been focusing on technology, mostly.
So say one day's news is open AI has back technology, next day's Google's Gemini exceeds.
So I think that's due to the competition on the end.
But in a way, the competition is a bit monopolistic by a few companies.
But in China, if you launch a cell phone, you can try any tool for free.
So I think that's a people first approach.
It's product first, people first to make sure that a tool can gain enough users to make sure that the tool is good enough to serve the users first.
So in the China approach, to me, it's a better approach right now.
I can understand Michael's concern such that Wall Street is throwing that amount of money into the most advancing tool and the news we see is mostly laid off from these companies because they don't need the workforce anymore.
But the China approach is more gradual.
They have a tool, Doubao or Gimi or whatever, They can make it available to many people.
Many people can try to see how they can use the tool towards one vertical usage scenarios.
Then gradually, we will form the ecosystem.
And on top of that we have a deep-seek ecosystem which is a totally open source we can build on top of it.
So to me, the China ecosystem is more diverse.
So I'd say the fears are well-founded, especially if no coordinated action is taken.
Then, if the gaps in AI access and capacity between and within nations are not urgently addressed, what is the likely tangible outcome?
Are we exaggerating or being overly anxious?
No, we are not exaggerating.
If you just compare any country like China, or pick a country in Africa, for example, if you gauge their AI capability versus that of China or the United States, the gap is growing significantly at an ever-faster speed actually.
So we see a growing international gap.
Basically, you have two main players, China and the United States, but the rest of the world rely on these two ecosystems.
But If you do the math population-wise, if you combine China and United States, it's only 22 of the world population.
Whoever can serve the rest 78 of population would win the market.
So I think China is in a role position to help the other countries to gain their AI capabilities.
That was Dr. Liu Shaoshan speaking with Song Reixin.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today with Mika Anna.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
