Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi says President Xi Jinping's trip to APEC summit set the course for Asia-Pacific cooperation.
What insights does it reveal about China's role in future global engagement?
Russia and the United States are not rushing a summit.
While Ukraine receives Germany's promised Patriot systems.
How will these moves shape the next phase of the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
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.
Our top story.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi says President Xi Jinping's trip to South Korea has chartered the course for Asia-Pacific cooperation and demonstrated China's sense of responsibility as a major country.
During his three-day trip, President Xi attended the annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Gyeongju and paid a state visit to South Korea.
According to Wang, the Chinese president took part in more than 10 bilateral and multilateral events, consolidating good neighborly relations and deepening regional friendship.
He noted that China advocates inclusive cooperation and shared prosperity, standing firm against the rising tide of protectionism.
So for more on the trip, let's have Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics at University of International Business and Economics.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Thank you.
It's a pleasure.
Professor, in just three days, President Xi attended over 10 bilateral and multilateral events.
How would you assess this trip from his meeting with the U.S.
President Donald Trump to the APEC summit and to a series of bilateral talks?
Very intensive exercise in the high level diplomacy brought about very fruitful consequences.
So which means China is in full blown to have proactive engagement on the international stage.
So the highlight, of course, was the meeting with the U.S.
President Donald Trump which, when the whole world has been watching how to stabilize the world's most important bilateral relationship,
So the broad message went also beyond that.
It was about restoring dialogue, reducing uncertainty and showcasing China's commitment to open regional and global collaboration.
So at the APEC, President Xi's participation.
Along with all of this, the concentrated talks from Japan, South Korea to Australia and others, it also projected the confidence and continuity of the Chinese policy drive.
So it shows that China is not really retreating from globalization, as some other countries have been doing, but rather to seek to reshape the globalization drive, especially in the area of trade technology, green development, and also to have a shared collaboration in shaping the common future that all mankind are really embracing.
Professor.
In one of his speech, President Xi emphasized true multilateralism and strengthening the WTO-centered global trade system.
How does China see its role in defending multilateral trade at a time when some major economies are turning inward and imposing new tariffs, for example?
Well, the saying goes that when trade stops, war begins.
The peace and development continue to stay within the Eastern Pacific region, which is an important value that all our neighbors have been embracing.
And now when President Xi talks about for multilateralism, it means that the principle that a fair trade and transparent trade and also inclusive participation are utterly important, so any type of disputes should be solved within the WTO framework instead of staying outside and engage in intellectual decisions or in building the exclusive type of trade blocs.
So today we see some major economies are bypassing the WTO rules and they use the tariff for industrial policies, under the name of national security, to serve a unilateral political purpose.
So China's position is that these moves will further fragment the global supply chain and undermine the common efforts to build transparency and predictability, particularly among the business community.
So, by contrast, China advocates reforming and strengthening the WTO instead of abandoning the hard-earned, the true multilateral system.
So, through the IPEC, China has been promoting the major concept ideas like to deeper the original integration and to maintain the resilience of the supply chain, and then to cooperate on the digital trade and ai governance, and then and so last is really for green and inclusive development to ensure that all emerging economies have the same voice in the root setting.
Professor, could you please elaborate more on that?
What are specific elements of china's apac vision do you think can help counter rising protectionism today?
So i think one is that uh, The multilateralism is there to embrace inclusivity and also transparency.
For example, when China and the United States are committed to far less than 10 of tariff by the unilateral imposition of high-level tariff, and to use it as a leverage on the negotiation drive is not really in conformity with such subtle principles.
So the national treatment and the most favorite treatment are the two important principle pillars of WTO and that must be revisited.
And also any of the participating member.
With 164 economies, they should really there to reflect on their policy, whether it's in compliance or in contradiction.
And also China is creating its own example by further opening its market, reducing the negative list, and also provide a larger scope and deeper area for global participation, both in investment and in trade.
And now also to have more of the AI in it, a facilitation of custom clearance and just to streamline many of those.
You know the hidden barriers.
So these are really the direction that China would push forward, and also that notion need to be shared by the global community.
China will also hold the next APAC Economic Leaders Meeting in Shenzhen next year.
What message does Shenzhen once a small fishing village, now a global innovation hub send about?
China's model of openness and modernization?
Well, there's no other stories that can better tell the modernization drive embodied within Shenzhen from a small fishing town now to a big the manufacturer and, more importantly, innovation hub along the world.
So this means that today, when China has been operating over almost the last half a century of its open door policy by engaging on regional integration and also globalization, China has really succeeded in shipping the Shenzhen as such a grand success and that can also be shared and be benchmarked by many other economies that are seeking for development, either industrialization, innovation or the urbanization in this direction.
So Shenzhen embodies China's approach for its modernization and it is there to be continually reform-driven and globally connected and also innovation-driven.
It delivers such a promise that China's next stage of opening up will not be about the low-cost manufacture, but also move forward towards the high-quality growth in which Shenzhen can continue to serve as a driver in bringing about the new successes in the digital economy, in generating clean technology for the transformation and also smart manufacture and also the.
Something that I really observe is really the harmonious society, where more of the non-governmental organizations are also teaming up to build a society that is more of a harmonious and also enjoyable by all people and by all the citizens.
Professor, let's shift to China's bilateral diplomacy during President Xi's trip to South Korea.
Earlier you mentioned China-US relations and the President Xi and Trump's meeting was significant for stabilizing China-US relations.
But do you see it as a genuine reset of China-U.S. relations or more of a tactical pause?
Well, it is something of a historical moment, not only between the two biggest economies, but also to the world, because the world has been watching how far the US protectionists can really flare to impact the global growth and the global supply chain.
So such a face-to-face discussion after years between the two top leaders, they can't really come up to a deliberate time for the stabilizing the global marketplace.
So I think the major achievement is really to stabilize expectation.
I do not really see is quite much of a breakthrough.
But both sides agree to manage differences, to deescalate tension and to resume continuous model level communication, to explore the practical cooperation on some of the identified issues like financial control agriculture, and to move with some of the limited the tariff adjustment.
So it is not really a very grand reconciliation, but it's really a strategic pause that can prevent the further escalation.
We would see that, looking ahead.
China is now hosting the APEC for next year and the US is hosting the G20.
So both countries have really shared a responsibility to tell the world a very strong message that a global governance needs to function and multilateralism needs to be defended.
So ideally we shall see that as Time goes by, as more of the dialogue and negotiation can really be able to settle more of the dust.
So both sides can really have the good reason to come together to deal with the climate change, with public health, with AI governance.
So it is not only possible, but rather necessary.
So therefore, we do expect that both sides can really exercise their strong sense of responsibility for global peace, global development and growth.
Thanks, Professor, for those valuable insights.
That was Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics at University of International Business and Economics.
This is World Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski 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!
China's non-manufacturing activity picked up last month.
The non-manufacturing purchasing managers index came in at 50.1 in October.
Ratings above 50 indicate expansion.
The sub-index for the service sector stood at 50.2, indicating a modest recovery in vitality.
Sectors linked to travel and consumer spending recorded ratings above 60.
Thanks to the National Day and Mid-Autumn Festival holidays, demonstrating high market activities.
For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Li Lun, Assistant Professor of Economics at Peking University.
So Professor Li Lun, China's manufacturing PMI slightly contracted in October.
So how do you explain it?
And do you still see the underlying structural improvements in sectors like high-tech and equipment manufacturing?
Yeah, so we're seeing that.
You know, in October the official manufacturing PMI fell from 498 in September to 49 in October.
So basically, I think this partly the reason is the holiday effect, because we have to keep in mind that we have an ultra long golden week this year.
So basically the factories are, you know, basically hold back their manufacturing for a couple more days than previous years.
So I think this definitely contributes to some of the fail.
So if you look at service sector, for example, I think there's a clear pattern that basically there's the non-manufacturing PMI rose to 501.
And basically this means that you know some of the.
You know basically, the decrease in manufacturing PMI is transferred to the service sector.
I think overall our manufacturing sector is pretty healthy because from January to September we're seeing that equipment manufacturing and high-tech manufacturing are both contributing to near 10 year-on-year growth.
So I think we have to take PMI with a little bit of grain of salt, because PMI under 50 it only means that the sector is not producing as intensively.
This does not mean that the sector is not growing rapidly.
So I think it's a different statistics that we need to be a little more cautious when looking at it.
So what do you think are some of the main factors driving the resilience of the high tech and equipment manufacturing here in China?
Yeah.
So I think, first of all, we are seeing that, whether from the government or from the different planning bureaus, we're seeing a huge policy support towards high-tech and equipment manufacturing.
So these are very important for boosting consumers' and investors' confidence.
We're also seeing a lot of these business models, for example, for EVs, for robots.
They're attracting global interest, whether in terms of export market or attracting foreign investors to invest here.
So I think basically we're seeing whether the supply chain for EV, the supply chain for robots, We're seeing the entire industry or basically the entire export mix of the manufacturing being gradually built up.
So it's not one company that we're talking about.
It will have its business cycles, its ups and downs.
We're basically building the entire ecosystem of the new supply chain.
And basically, it's very unique to China.
It's not very easy to find substitutes. in other countries.
So I think these all combines, you know, contributes to the resilience of our manufacturing sector.
And to the non-manufacturing numbers.
As you mentioned, the service sector PMI has steadily expanded this year.
So what is driving this?
Yeah so uh, headline non-manufacturing sector basically is uh 501 and service sector is at 502 of a pmi.
So basically it means they're in the expansion range.
So a pmi about 50 means that the sector is is steadily growing.
So this means that, you know basically, in terms of looking forward, i think service is definitely going to be the anchor uh for for our growth because, you know, the products are are basically getting cheaper and cheaper as the technology becomes better.
So what needs to be uh, you know, be become a better part or a larger part of gdp is definitely going to be the service.
Right now they account for 584 percent of gdp in the three first three quarters and i think there's definitely a lot of room to grow.
And also, i think people, as people become, you know, richer and their income become greater, I think they will definitely have more demand for either their traveling they're going to more restaurants they will have more demands for other personal care and other service industry.
So there's huge potential for the non-manufacturing sector to continue to grow.
And you mentioned that holiday travel and consumer spending provide a strong momentum for services.
So how do initiatives like improving outlay care, childcare and cultural services here in China fit into the broader strategy of boosting consumption?
Yeah.
So I think elderly care, child care and other services, like cultural services, they definitely matter a lot for consumption because, first of all, they themselves are a huge market.
So, you know, elderly care is basically is employment intensive or labor intensive industry.
We need very well-trained personnel and also very good medical equipment and medicine to basically compose a good elderly care.
And similarly for childcare as well.
And so basically they themselves are a big sector for the consumption bundle.
But they also free up the parents or the middle income populations wallet and also time, because when they're the elderly and their children are taken care of, they can, for example, go out and watch a movie or go to fine dining in other restaurants, or they can just not have enough worry or concern before they take a larger amount of spending in some other areas.
So I think basically and not to mention that, for example, in the cultural services as well So as we are heading towards an aging population, so I think people will have more sophisticated, more advanced needs for cultural events.
So I think right now we're also seeing that museums, theaters and also music concerts are getting more and more interest than before.
And as China looks to strengthen the domestic demand, how significant a role can the silver economy play in driving the consumption and new growth opportunities?
Yeah, so the silver economy is a very meaningful and very important sector for demand.
So right now, I think, the silver economy scope is around seven to eight trillion yuan, or one trillion us dollar.
Uh so uh, there are a lot of projections that by 2035 uh, the the total scope is going to reach four trillion uh, us dollars, basically four times of the scale now.
Um so basically, i think it reflects a you know, demographic change towards an elder, an older population.
Um so how to kind of stimulate demand to this group that's traditionally very, you know, tending to have higher saving rate and lower consumption rate.
I think it's going to be a little bit of challenge in the future, but they also, you know, provides a lot of opportunities.
For example, I think people's tastes are going to shift a lot towards service sector, for example, including health management including, you know, assisted living projects, you know smart home devices.
Or, you know, robots because they can also assist with, you know, the elderly population.
And also, I think, having some of the elder care ecosystem, including community centers, including home-based care or, you know, more advanced business insurance products.
They all are going to be, you know, the new growth opportunities in the future.
And China's cultural industry saw the revenue up nearly 8 and profits up 14 in the first nine months of this year.
So what's behind this strong performance and what new trends are shaping the next stage of growth in this sector?
Yeah, so we're seeing that the major, you know, cultural firms, profits are going up by 14 14 year on year from January to September.
So these, I think, are going to be definitely going to be very important because, you know, digital service is including, for example games, movies.
They're to be exported to other markets because they can surpass the geographical barrier much easier than the traditional products.
And also in terms of Moving an IP from, for example, a cartoon to TV, to a movie or to a game.
I think, with the help of AI and also with our computing power, I think we're definitely going to see a lot more digital IP or more innovation in this sector as well.
That was Professor Li Lun, Assistant Professor of Economics at Peking University.
More to come.
Russia and the United States are not rushing a summit, while Ukraine receives Germany's promised patriot systems.
Despite the ceasefire in Gaza, violence continues.
You are listening to Road Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
Welcome back to Road Today.
I'm Ge'anna in Beijing.
The Kremlin says there's no need to rush plans for a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US.
President Donald Trump.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov says promptly preparing such a meeting is possible, but there's no need for it.
He says what's needed at the moment is meticulous work on the settlement of the Ukraine crisis.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky says Germany has delivered the promised Patriot air defense systems just over a month after Germany pledged to send two of that system by the end of this year.
Then how will these developments shape the future of the Russian-Ukraine conflict?
For more on this, joining us on the line is Kamal Makili-Aliyev, associate professor at the School of Global Studies at University of Gothenburg.
Professor, the Kremlin says there's no need to rush plans for a meeting between presidents Putin and Trump.
What does this reveal about the different expectations and pace of dialogue between Moscow and Washington?
And what kind of message is Russia sending to the United States and Europe?
Well, Russia's message that no need to hurry. is very much deliberate.
It signals that Moscow wants talks to follow very careful preparation on Moscow's terms and not be headline-driven summits.
Practically, that means that Moscow feels it has time and leverage.
It will meet when talk outcomes and sequencing will suit its strategic aims.
For example, its calls for inspection sanctions, relief guarantees around Ukraine, and not because Washington wants its optics right.
Because Trump is very much favoring optics over the content.
So the message to the SS and to Europe is actually twofold.
We're open to the dialogue, but don't pressure us into a very rushed deal.
And if you want progress, be prepared to negotiate on Russia's conditions.
The Kremlin spokesperson stressed that the priority now is to work meticulously on resolving the Ukraine crisis.
How do you interpret that remark and what does a meticulous approach to the Ukraine issue mean from Moscow's perspective?
Well, from my understanding of Kremlin, meticulous for Moscow means very slow transactional diplomacy, disentangle issues, secure legal and security guarantees and tie any de-escalation to Western concessions.
For example, sanctions reliefs or limits on the NATO posture.
So it's an insistence on sequencing resolve political and security prerequisites first, before any rapid ceasefire.
Russia is very much in favor of doing that before going into any kind of stopping the hostilities.
So meticulousness here means maximizing leverage and minimizing surprises for Russia.
Professor, speaking of that, U.S.
President Donald Trump has made it clear that Washington will not consider supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine for now.
Is this mainly out of concern about escalation, or are there any other factors behind this decision?
And how might it impact the battlefield dynamics?
Of course, escalation risk is overarching, right?
Long range Tomahawks can strike deep into Russian territory and they may cross a political red line for Moscow and raise the prospect of a dramatic Russian response and escalation.
But mostly these are pragmatic constraints.
There is U.S. inventory questions, not that many Tomahawks currently present.
Logistics, for example, how to deliver them and how to launch them from Ukraine.
They mostly launch from ships, but Ukraine doesn't have a lot of ships to launch it from.
So it needs to be from the Earth, which creates problems, etc.
And even Pentagon's calculus, right?
Sustainability and target sustainability is always the questions.
Politically withholding Tomahawks really preserve diplomatic space for talks for United States and avoid the domestic blowback over further escalation.
On the battlefield, Tomahawks, they probably would provide Ukraine deep strike reach.
And without them, Ukraine is just focusing on short range strikes and using Western artillery and missiles.
So immediate tactical impact is very limited.
But the strategic deterrent effect of long-range air strikes is absent.
So yes, Ukraine really needs them.
But Professor, Germany has delivered the promised Patriot air defense system to Ukraine.
What do you make of the move?
And to what extent can such a long-range systems strengthen the protection of Ukraine's critical infrastructure?
And how might Russia respond to this deployment?
I mean, patriots are important.
They materially strengthen Ukraine's layered air defense system.
Especially, they are protecting, as you said, critical infrastructure and urban centers from cruise missiles and certain ballistic threats.
They won't make Ukraine vulnerable, but they raise the cost of air campaigns against keynotes and can blunt Russian strikes.
That's for sure.
So Russia may respond by shifting tactics, create saturation attacks, standoff systems, try electronic warfare to try to dismantle the system of Ukrainian defenses.
But that has proven to be very much of low effect and efficiency.
Or they can elevate other forms of pressure, for example, increase ground offensives or try strikes on logistics.
But overall Patriots will improve defense and biopolitical time for Ukraine, but they are not war-decisive weapons alone, of course.
Professor, many experts believe the fighting is increasingly turning into a war of attrition, with Russian forces maintaining pressure on several fronts.
At this stage, what do you think is the most decisive factor shaping the course of the war?
I think it turned toward attrition long ago and logistic and industrial sustainment is going to be key for any side.
Whoever can sustain munitions, repair cycles, spare parts and train personnel over months will set the tempo.
And in attrition warfare, tactical gains are basically ephemeral without steady ammunition, air defense stocks and the ability to rotate and medically care for the forces right.
So economic sanctions, weapons pipelines from allies and domestic mobilization capacity, they all feed into the same sustainment equation.
And therefore, they will shape the outcome for whoever can sustain that.
Against that backdrop, many reports suggest that there are differing opinions within the European Union over aid to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, after the US announced new sanctions against Russia, attention has turned to how closely its European allies will follow.
How do you assess the level of coordination and unity between the United States and Europe on sanctions and military support for Ukraine?
Well, that's always a question, right?
On paper, the coordination remains very strong.
New Year's sanctions and recent EU packages, such as additional sanctions and LNG measures on gas right.
They show concerted pressure.
But operationally and politically, there are always cracks.
Differences on timing, appetite for escalation.
We just talked about Tomahawks and Long Range Strikes as a good example.
And how far to press energy measures as well, right?
Not everyone is happy with the effects it's putting on the third world countries.
So some EU members also balance domestic economic exposure and political constraints.
That allows for very slowing unanimity.
But also the strategic alignment, still exists.
Operational divergence, on the other hand, very persistent.
So that means that coordination is robust but fragile and needs continued diplomatic work.
And sometimes the diplomatic work breaks down.
Professor, one last question.
We've been seeking answers to this question repeatedly.
Despite international calls for a ceasefire, Russia argues that appeals for an immediate truce overlook the root causes of this conflict.
From your perspective, what are the bottom line demands of the parties involved in any potential negotiations today?
Are there core interests that each side is unwilling to compromise on, even at the risk of prolonging the conflict?
Right now, everything is contingent on the territory and the territorial gains that russia has, uh contra ukraine's unwillingness to seek the territory without fighting for it, and i think that is the key point.
If we look at the negotiations that have that we have seen so far, we will see that russia have been pushing for um concessions on the territory from the Ukraine, specifically on the Donbas area of eastern Ukraine, as a precondition for then establishing the ceasefire.
And Ukraine is unwilling to do this.
Everything else are the secondary considerations when it comes precisely to the ceasefire, not to the conflict.
Because the conflict contingent on much more than that.
These are strategic Russian considerations, Ukrainian territorial considerations and, of course, Western response to the Russian aggression.
So there is this tangle of secondary conditions when it comes to the conflict itself.
But for the purposes of ceasefire, the key problem is territory.
And Russia wants the whole of Donbass as a set point to start negotiating or even creating a first temporary ceasefire.
And Ukraine doesn't want to give the territory without the fight.
Thanks, Professor, for insightful analysis.
That was Kamal Makli-Aliyev, Associate Professor at the School of Global Studies at University of Gothenburg.
You've been listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Ren, 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.
Welcome back to Road Today.
Israeli forces have killed another Palestinian in Gaza despite a ceasefire.
The man was killed on Sunday in an Israeli drone strike on a Gaza city neighborhood where Israeli forces were carrying out building demolitions.
The Israeli military says the men crossed the line marking the ceasefire boundary.
According to Hamas, Israeli forces have killed at least 236 Palestinians and injured 600 others since the ceasefire took effect last month.
Hamas also said on Sunday that it had handed over the remains of three hostages to Israel, a move confirmed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office.
Seeing the ceasefire took effect.
Hamas has relieved the remains of 20 hostages, with eight still in Gaza.
For more on this, joining us now in the studio is my colleague Ding Heng.
Great to have you, Ding Heng.
Hello.
The latest killing came a few days after Israel carried out an overnight airstrike across Gaza last week and killed more than 100 people.
There was also an exchange of gunfire in the city of Rafah that killed an Israeli soldier.
Why do we continue to see strikes and killings despite the ceasefire?
Well, first of all, talking about what happened last week.
Basically, Israel and Hamas were trading accusations against each other regarding ceasefire violations.
Israel carried out the large-scale strikes last week because it accuses Hamas of handing over body parts that didn't belong to the deceased hostages still in Gaza.
Israel's claim is that the body parts belonged to a hostage whose body was already recovered by Israeli forces earlier, and therefore this constituted violation of the ceasefire deal.
And a relevant accusation from the Israeli side is that Hamas staged false display of discovering a deceased hostage's body.
Hamas, of course, has rejected these accusations, calling them baseless allegations.
And, in the meantime, this dispute over returning the bodies was compounded by the exchange of gunfire in the city of Rafah that you mentioned.
Again, Hamas has denied any link, any involvement in that shooting and killing and in return accused Israel of a blatant violation of the ceasefire.
So overall, I think the ceasefire is vulnerable, that's for sure.
We also see Israel taking offensives on other fronts, such as southern Lebanon and the West Bank.
One problem I see is that when Israel wants to launch an airstrike, for example, for whatever reason it cites, it goes ahead, but after the strike Israel will claim that the ceasefire was now back in place.
This is quite controversial, and we tend to come to this conclusion that there were some problems in the implementation of the ceasefire.
And also, Let's not forget that when this ceasefire deal was signed in Egypt in October, both Israel and Hamas were not present.
To me, that was seen as a potential problem at the time as well.
As you suggested, a key issue here is the return of the bodies of the dead Israeli hostages.
In your observation, what's complicating this issue and what could be the uncertainties facing the return of the eight bodies that are still in Gaza?
I think launching military strikes on Gaza and the devastation in that region could really complicate this issue, because let's keep in mind that the bodies of the deceased, the hostages, are not readily available for being handed over to the Israeli side.
They need to be recovered and searched in the ruins of the destroyed houses and buildings in Gaza.
And I think technically speaking, identification of the bodies is a huge challenge.
The other way around.
We know, for the return of one body of one Israeli hostage, Israel will release the bodies of 15 Palestinian prisoners.
And according to the data I get, only one third of the more than 200 Palestinian bodies returned since the ceasefire began have so far been identified.
So I think, by the same token or similarly speaking, I don't think locating all of the bodies of the Israeli hostages could be easier.
There were hundreds of tons of rubble in Gaza.
So if somehow You tend to describe this kind of inability on the Hamas side to locate all the bodies of hostages as a deliberate intention to delay their return,
That's going to be a problem.
And if you further use this as a reason to launch more strikes, more attacks on Gaza, this will make the return of the remaining eight bodies more complicated.
We know, the first phase of the 20-point peace plan involved the release of hostages from Gaza and Palestinian prisoners from Israel.
The second phase requires the formation of multinational force to stabilize Gaza.
As we see a lot of uncertainties for the first phase, how does the prospect for the task of the second phase look like now?
So, in that regard, US officials have floated several possible contributors to a multinational force, like Egypt Qatar, the UAE Indonesia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, and some countries have expressed interest, such as Pakistan.
I think so far none of them has officially announced participation.
I think discussion is going on regarding more clarity, such as the size of the force, the number of the personnel that each country will contribute, the chain of command and the duration of the deployment of this force, etc.
I think...
In this regard, international mandate is really, really important, because under some countries on domestic laws actually they cannot participate in such efforts unless they have an international mandate.
Whether such a mandate can come from the UN Security Council, it remains to be seen.
In the meantime, I think Israel holds its own concerns as well, saying that it will not tolerate the involvement of countries that Tel Aviv views as antagonistic, such as Turkey.
But in the meantime, let's not forget that Ankara actually played a key role, a crucial role in terms of getting Hamas to agree to a ceasefire.
So all in all, forming a U.S.-led multinational force to stabilize Gaza is no easy task.
But in your analysis, are there reasons for us to be confident that the ceasefire will withstand the escalation in violence?
It's really hard to say.
Apart from all these certainties we have so far mentioned, other difficult questions include the disarmament of Hamas, the governance of a post-war Gaza, as well as saying when and how humanitarian aid to the region can be increased, etc.
So overall, this is really, really difficult a situation.
One observation is that the ceasefire will likely survive because both Israel and Hamas perceive that the cost of abandoning the current ceasefire are too high for both sides.
At this point we see a lot of political determination on the part of US President Donald Trump to maintain this ceasefire, because his political legacy is at stake here and he certainly sees incentive to hold onto the ceasefire From the perspective of a peace for Gaza.
We certainly hope that President Trump can be predictable and more certain in this regard and take more concrete actions.
Again.
We really need to emphasize that Washington is holding immense leverage over Israel and Israel's behavior.
Thank you, Ding Hong, for your insightful analysis.
That was my colleague, Ding Hong.
Coming up, we'll take a look at Louvre Heist, what to know about the suspects.
This is World Today.
Stay with us.
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've been listening to Road Today.
Paris prosecutor's office says two more suspects have been charged over the Louvre robbery.
One is accused of organized theft and criminal conspiracy, believed to be part of the gang behind the heist nearly two weeks ago.
The other faces charges of complicity, both deny the allegations and remain in custody.
Three of the five people arrested earlier this week have been released without charge, bringing the total number formally charged to four since the investigation began.
The stolen royal jewelry, worth over $100 million, remains missing.
Authorities suspect The pieces may have been broken up for illegal resale abroad, but remain confident of recovering them.
To delve into this, let's have Harvey Zoding, former vice president of the ABC TV network and a senior fellow near the Center for China and Globalization.
Thanks for joining us, Harvey.
Okay, sure.
Thank you.
Harvey, as a Vienna resident, surrounded by artistic treasuries, what was your first reaction upon hearing this louvre?
A global symbol of culture had been robbed.
I was really shocked that this brazen daytime robbery happened in a country like France that values its cultural patrimony so highly.
France has a history of technological innovation.
Whether it was their hot air balloon or pasteurization or, even more recently, an early version of the Internet called Minitel.
Vienna, in fact, though, has had a similar robbery on a smaller scale.
Envenuto Cellini was a famous Renaissance goldsmith and sculptor.
One of his prized pieces was stolen from the Vienna Art Museum in 2003.
It had a value of 60 million euros, and unlike the Louvre treasures, Cellini's piece was insured.
The thief ended up turning himself in in 2006 as the police closed in.
And of course, here in Austria, on a very different level, we had the mass theft of the Nazis from the Jews in the 1930s, of valuables that are still being fought over, especially by museums and collectors who own them.
Have you talked with any Europeans about this?
How are people around you reacting to this news?
Of course, the shock in Europe is widespread.
People are shaking their heads that this even happened and that these one-of-a-kind items were not even insured.
Why do you think events like this resonate so deeply with people around the world, not just in France or in Europe?
I think it's because these items are the direct physical embodiment of the people who possessed them.
They were touched by France's nobility.
It's like a piece of France's history has been lost at enormous financial, psychological and historic cost.
The missing jewelry worth about 88 million euros still hasn't been found.
Given how famous and unique these pieces are, how big of a loss do you think this is?
And realistically, do you think they could still be intact when sold off on the black market?
Well, the value of the stolen items can't be begun to be valued as historic treasures.
They're priceless, full stop, as cultural treasures.
Their street value, if you can call it that, for just the raw material of precious metal and gems is only one-tenth of the intact value.
And it's possible that someone might like to possess them for their historic value.
But it's much more likely that they'd be sold for scrap, as they'd be almost impossible to sell they're so famous.
The case actually showed a serious loopholes in security and management, and it's not the first time we've seen similar incidents at the British Museum and earlier mentioned about the loss from Vienna.
So, for world-class museums like this, what's the biggest security weakness that needs fixing right away?
I would say that the big problem is that the Louvre, the British Museum, the museum here in Vienna, use outmoded 20th century technology in the 21st century, digital age.
There are good security devices and security measures that involve data mining on the internet, and facial recognition software can recognize known criminals.
But because they're very expensive and because money is tight, security budgets are never enough.
And even hiring and training guards isn't cheap, and they're the first line of defense.
So now that EU countries have to raise their own defense budgets significantly, there's going to be even less money for museum acquisitions and security.
So the Louvre theft may just be a forerunner of other thefts in other countries.
Some say the suspects' backgrounds, reportedly from poor Paris suburbs, highlighted deeper social problems in Europe.
Would you say this case also reflects the broader social and economic challenges facing some European urban areas today.
Well, let me tell you that in New York there was a famous bank robber named Willie Sutton, who was only caught after many successful robberies.
After he was caught, the police asked him, why did he rob banks?
And he said, because that's where the money is.
And so museums are similar, but may not have the security systems that financial institutions can afford.
So it's no surprise that even there are good social safety nets here in Europe.
People, especially immigrants, slip through them and are unprotected.
And with the political drift rightward here in Europe and the US, immigrants are demonized and poor people generally suffer disproportionately.
Common prosperity in Europe and the US, unlike in China, is on the decline.
And I think that's very, very sad.
Thank you, Harvey, for those insightful analysis.
That was Harvey Zoding, former vice president of ABC TV Network and a senior fellow of the Center for China and Globalization.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
For further discussion, you can also follow us on X, it's CGTN Radio.
I'm Gaena in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Until next time.
