Chinese Premier Li Qiang arrives in Zambia for a landmark visit.
What might their ties say about future collaborations across the global south?
Japan's neighbors are raising serious concerns over Takeuchi's provocations on Taiwan and territorial claims.
How far could these missteps push East Asian tensions?
And China welcomes the Netherlands' decision to suspend its intervention at Xperia, calling it a first step in the right direction.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Ge'anna 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 Premier Li Cheng says China is ready to work with Zambia to strengthen their long-standing friendship and deepen mutually beneficial cooperation.
His remarks came during a landmark visit, the first by a Chinese premier to the African nation in 28 years.
Zambia was the first country in southern Africa to establish diplomatic ties with China.
Li Cheng added that in a world facing growing uncertainty...
China is willing to enhance multilateral coordination with Zambia stands together with the wider global south.
For more on this.
Joining us on the line is Dr He Wenping, a leading expert on African affairs and a senior research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Could you please start by helping us understand the significance of Premier Lee's visit to Zambia?
And how do you view the timing?
And why was Zambia chosen for the Africa trip?
Well yes, this timing, I think, is quite important because Premier Lee Chang first he started his visit to Russia to join this Shanghai Corporation Organization's annual meeting.
So after that, he will go to South Africa to join the G20 summit.
So that is why, during those two big events in between, he still now visit, chosen Zambia to pay the very important as this kind of official visit.
That is why we regarded this as an important event, bring China and Zambia relation to a new high.
Dr. He primarily highlighted the importance of carrying forward the Tanzania-Zambia railway spirit.
For audiences who may not be familiar, could you please explain what this Lexi represents and what relevance does it hold in today's context?
Oh yes, Tanzania-Zambia railway, short name we call it the Tanzania Railway.
Even myself when I was in Tanzania the year 2010, when I was there to join World Economic Forum African Summit.
I particularly pick up half day, call the taxi and then to visit that Chinese experts, their graveyard, because 67 Chinese engineer sacrificed their life for building this railway.
So this railway has been regarded as the milestone project linking China Not only with Tanzania.
Zambia actually is linking China with the entire Africa as a whole.
This Tanzania spirit goes to like a mutual support.
China by that time also not that rich like today.
But Chairman Mao and the Premier Zhou Enlai, they all immediately agree to the request to put forward from Zambia and Tanzania.
Those presidents saying your real way is much, much more important.
It's for survival.
Because Zambia, Tanzania, they're newly independent, called black African countries.
They're still under those blockade by the South Africa white regime, this apartheid regime.
That is why their survival is based on this connectivity, especially Zambia, because they're a landlocked country.
They need access to the sea. goes all the way to Dar es Salaam to get things out, to get things in.
That is why Israel is very much important for their survival.
So this spirit, I think, that is mutually support.
Even though they are facing a lot of challenges, but we still work together, make things down.
This shows very strong.
This developing country China, also just got independence, even though we are not that rich, but we are still hand in hand and working forward together.
Given the deep historical bonds between China and Zambia, and also in the face of growing global uncertainties, Premier Li called for stronger multilateral coordination between the two countries and greater solidarity among global south nations.
As key developing nations, what can China-Zambia cooperation offer to the broader global south?
Well, I think, of course, this is our bilateral relationship between China and Zambia.
Also, it's just one like a water now reflecting all the ocean.
Because we're based on very traditional friendship.
That is typical this project Tanzania-Zambia railway.
But not only that old friendship, we also develop our relationship with the time moving forward.
For example, now China-Zambia also has a lot of those corporations.
Even me, I also visited Zambia before.
Visited a lot of projects, for example, agricultural demonstration center.
I also visited like our corporate.
Zambia has a lot of corporate.
Also visited from Lusaka capital city and then took a very small plane and then to visit our corporate development economic zone by Chinese company.
So everything has been done in a very good way.
Even there's a copper act, developing the copper, itself also environmental, you know, very friendly way, no pollution at all.
And then zambia also now want to develop the new energy industry.
Now they are very eager to join together with china, like to develop a digital economy and the new electronic car does the environmental friendly, all those solar power, even wind power, so on, so forth.
I still remember, probably in the year 2023.
One year before China African Summit 2024 and the Zambia president visited China.
Exactly that year, China-Zambia established a comprehensive strategic partnership.
But that year, what impressed me, that was President Zambia and he started his China visit not saying go to Beijing.
He went to Shenzhen first and then talked a lot, visiting one by one with Huawei and with BRD, with Tencent.
So many of those digital and the frontier technology, those companies.
And then signed the MOU with Huawei, and then organized called Digital Zambia, this conference.
Wow, lots of Chinese companies joined those conferences.
It's digital, digitalized Zambia.
This is quite impressive.
Even led by the Zambia president himself his trip after Shenzhen and then he flew to Beijing to talk with Chinese leadership.
So from this you can see, Zambia now is want to have a high level cooperation with China, not only just focus on traditional area, now want to develop this cooperation to new area and to high level.
Dr He, building on that, from the construction of the Tazara Railway to today's medical teams, volunteers and students, and people-to-people ties have always been a foundation of China-Zambia friendship.
Based on your own experience and observations, how would you describe the progress and future of China-Zambia cultural and human exchanges?
Yes, this is another very important area. now for our bilateral cooperation.
Personally.
Even yesterday, when I offer lecture to African Human Resources Training Seminar, I see, in my classroom I found two Zambia.
They are from a different area.
One is working on agricultural issue, another even teaching in the university.
So you see, this is just the recent, just two days ago.
By the way, we have now receiving more and more.
African students, of course, including Zambia students, now come to China.
They got Chinese government scholarship, or some got scholarship from even Chinese company, some even from Confucian Institute.
So now those financial supporting resources now has been coming multiple, not only one way, just the government, the government.
That is why even some African students, also including Zambia students, Now they are self-found.
They don't need to rely on any other resources.
They self-found themselves.
They want to come to China to get a diploma, to study some major with their own interest.
So now China is becoming very attractive for African students to come all the way to study.
Plus, two days ago, when I was chatting with Zambia friends, they said wow, our country has lots of tourist resources.
Have you been to our Victoria Falls?
You know, a very big waterfall, you know, in the world even ranks as number three biggest waterfall.
Very attractive, very beautiful.
Of course, I told them I've been there once, but from Zimbabwe side.
So not only that waterfall, of course, many other very interesting tourist attraction.
So that is why many, many Chinese now on the way to Africa to see the continent, being the tourists.
Of course there's a business person now, students mutually visiting each other and even scientific research also going on.
So a lot of those human-to-human exchanges has been undertaken.
Finally, Dr. He, we often see Western coverage of Zambia focus heavily on its mineral resources.
How would you compare China's approach to cooperation in Africa with that of Western countries?
What are the key differences in mindset and development philosophy?
Well, I think the fundamental difference is China is on how to help African countries and African people to improve their capacity and make full use of this advantage of resources with their own.
That is to help Africa themselves.
Because they have a lot of rich resources, that's the fact.
But before Western's way, even until now their way, It's just the eyes on those like crude oil, like in Nigeria, the Shell company, Dowda company from France.
Yeah, they just dig it out, those crude oil, and then export them out.
You're not thinking about how to develop those resources on this country, how to benefit from those resources.
So that is why a long, long time uh nigeria, for example, the biggest oil producing country in africa, but a long, long time they suffer from short of petroleum with their own because they have no this refinery capacity.
Even they have been cooperated with british shell, french this tower for such a long, long time.
It basically is they have not teaching how to fishing the local, they just, you know, even get those resources out.
That's it.
That's the difference.
Like our cooperation with Sudan started from middle of 1994 and then up to now.
Well, I visited Sudan and then you see what all oil industry started, from upper stream to the middle stream and then downstream, from exploration to like get oil out and then refinery them, even all the way to the like a sale of the oil station.
All this all set of industry now Sudanese knows very well.
Also, they controlled, because they have been training, even come to China to get training, professional knowledge.
Then now they can control everything.
Now they also know how to refinery everything, quite higher, even advanced than the Nigeria.
Well, Nigeria is an earlier starter, but now they even in all this technical old stream.
So this is a difference.
I just use the case.
Now we are not only these resources.
Actually we have been building a lot of infrastructure, like a harbor, like a bridge railway expressway, all these airport terminal, to laid on a very strong foundation for Africa as a whole, of course, including Zambia, to kick off their own industrialization process.
Now we are doing a lot of investments for Africa, their own empowerment of Africa themselves.
Thanks for those valuable insights.
That was Dr Hou Wenping, an expert on African affairs and a senior research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
This is World Today.
We'll be back.
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.
You've been listening to World Today.
A Russian foreign ministry spokesperson is warning that the Japanese prime minister's recent comments on possible intervention in the Taiwan question are extremely dangerous.
Maria Zahalova says Japan should reflect deeply on its history and draw lessons from the Second World War.
She urged Sanae, Takeuchi and other Japanese leaders to be mindful of the serious consequences that could follow from their misguided statements or actions.
Meanwhile, Takeichi also drew backlash from South Korea after claiming that Dokdo Island is Japanese territory.
The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan has staged a rally with the Progressive Party outside the Japanese embassy.
People at the rally say Takeichi's recent territorial claims pose a threat to peace across East Asia.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takeichi said has fueled regional tensions from the start of her term in office.
It is imperialistic logic to assert that another nation's territory is directly linked to one's own national security.
Sanae Takaichi's recent erroneous remarks regarding the so-called Taiwan contingency threaten peace in China and across East Asia.
Members of the Progressive Party, among others, must closely monitor the situation and respond appropriately.
For this and more, let's have Dr Rong Ying, chair professor at the School of International Studies at Sichuan University.
Professor.
Russia called Takahashi's Taiwan comments extremely dangerous and Russian experts warn Japan is reviving old wartime narratives while building up a new economy imaginary enemy.
How do you see this mix of historical rhetoric and real military expansion?
And why does it raise alarm in countries like China Russia, South Korea and also North Korea, all of which suffered under Japan's past aggression?
The simple answer is that these countries and the people of these countries have been the receiving end of the victims of Japanese aggression, military aggressions and foreign aggressions, in particular, i think, for koreans, the two koreans, the korean peninsula, which was under japanese uh colonization for over for 50 years and, i think, the other neighboring countries uh, i mean countries in asia, southeast asia and so and and others which had subject to the japanese uh war, I mean aggressions, wartime atrocities, even though they have publicly I mean their government has not spoke up.
I mean as loud as the Koreans and Russians and certainly Chinese.
I think they have a very strong sort of concerns and strong views and memories of the bitterness of Japanese sort of aggression, Japanese wartime atrocities during the World War II time.
Reactions, strong reactions from these countries and the public, just, I think, normal and natural.
And I think if Japanese government, Takeuchi in particular, I think if they didn't do anything, then it would have caused more backlash and more strong indignations around this side.
Takayoshi didn't just talk about Taiwan.
Her radical remarks also include claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory, sparking protests and strong statements from South Korea.
What has been the tone and direction of Seoul's recent response to Japan?
That's exactly the reason why I said that these countries and people which had been subject to the aggression and atrocities of Japanese imperial armies, Japanese aggressions,
Because I think the logic of Takeichi, which used the whatever sort of circumstances, which I think, as a pretext and defined as a kind of so-called survival threatening situation for exercise its so-called collective self-defense, reminds me the bitter history.
Remind us.
I mean the incidents that happened in China September 18th and other incidents that lead to the war and the conflict aggression to these countries.
So South Korea, definitely given the territorial disputes and bitter memory and history of Japanese colonization, and where they respond very strongly.
And I think there'll be more if Japanese don't do anything along this line.
Some experts say Japan's government is picking fights with multiple neighbors to shift attention away from domestic problems.
Do you share the same stance?
Before taking office, we know Takahashi promised to fix Japan's economy.
But now she's provoking regional tensions.
How do you connect these two tracks?
That's a good argument.
And definitely, I think, those who believe that there's a connection or that Takeichi is playing a kind of a game by provoking tensions with its neighbors the sighting making an excuse to push for their agenda or her agenda for remilitarization, for so-called become a normal state, is meant, partly because she is believed that that could not do much in terms of economic side.
And we see that Japanese economy on the whole not to mention, I think, the three decades of stagnation is facing huge problems.
And I think that her economic agenda or strategy, which has been floating, I don't see there's a chance, good chance for survival, talking about the so-called strategy for growth and so on and so forth.
But all in all, I think the real challenges at home is the economic development, the inflations and the stagnation of Japan's economy because of the past three decades of economic slowdown.
Then, building on that, what does this politics over livelihoods approach?
Reviewing about Japan's current political ecosystem.
How strong is the influence of right-wing faction over public discourse and policymaking in Japan today?
Japanese society as a whole, due to the problems and difficulties, as I said, facing at home and abroad are rising rapidly.
That is very much so.
I mean as being manifested by the most recent sort of, I mean the result of the elections.
So the right-wing, ultra-right-wing political parties are rising.
And it was speculated that the reason why Takeuchi won the election, being a kind of right-wing conservative, is because those who voted him, I mean within the party LDP, thought that she was something less conservative, which is, I think it turned out to be a false or wrong sort of answer.
All in all, I think the idea of politics over liability is, I don't think it's a good approach.
Rather, now we have a leader, a prime minister, who is very much, I think, has revealed a real sort of color of a right-wing and conservative, and also who does not, I think, so far any concrete or effective sort of policies managing challenges of Japan's economy.
Professor, one last question very briefly.
Even some Japanese commentators say Takaichi has crossed the line that previous right-wing leaders wasn't touched and warned she's pushing the world toward conflict.
What kinds of uncertainties does this create for Japan itself?
Yeah, very much so.
Not only, I think, to raise a lot of create a lot of uncertainties, but more a lot of dangers which I think, in the end, not only related or touched upon the future strategic directions of Japan which, whether Japan will continue to pursue a path for peaceful development.
And it also definitely, it would have huge implication impact for regional peace and stability.
I think Japan now with that, the Takeichi's remarks and moves, it stands a critical point.
Thanks, Professor, for those insightful analysis.
That was Dr Rong Ying Chair, Professor at the School of International Studies at Sichuan University.
You are listening to Road Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You've been listening to Road Today with Miike Anna in Beijing.
China has welcomed the Netherlands' decision to suspend its intervention at Chinese-owned chipmaker Xperia, calling it a first step in the right direction.
Beijing says the Dutch side bears primary responsibility for disruptions to the global semiconductor supply chain and urges further moves to restore stability.
The Dutch government moved in September to take control of Xperia from its Chinese parent Wintec, citing so-called economic security concerns, and suspended the company's Chinese CEO.
To defuse the dispute, officials from both countries held two rounds of consultations in Beijing.
The Netherlands has now paused its administrative order under the Availability of Goods Act.
To delve into this, Let's bring in Dr Yao Shujie Chang Kong, Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.
Welcome, Professor.
Hello, Anna.
Professor, the Dutch government has posited its administrative order against Xperia as a gesture of goodwill, but keeps the right to reinstate it.
And the court ruling stripping Wintec of control still stands.
How should we rate this limited concession and what's driving this shift?
I think it's a cautiously positive signal from the Dutch government to suspend this control over Nespresso.
You know semiconductors, export.
But the control on Wintec in general is still a fairly sunny issue.
It's fairly difficult to understand why the Dutch government just moved half a step forward, not a full step forward.
But given the complicated situation, the international trade system, especially the semiconductor technological you know complication between China and the United States and the Netherlands, is dragged into the you know the conflict to become a close ally of the United States, follow the interests of the United States and ignore the.
You know the stable you know trading system of semiconductors in the international market.
In this case necessarily is so important that by totally banning the factories from exporting to other country, it could have some, you know, damaging effect on the automobile industries, especially nowadays, lots of new automobile makers depending heavily on the cheap output from the next period.
So we have to wait and see how the situation would evolve between the Netherlands and the Chinese trading negotiators in the next stage.
Let's delve back a little bit on this case.
China says paving the order is just a first step, with the real solution being a full revocation and correction of the court ruling.
From an international law perspective.
In your opinion, does Netherlands' use of 1952 wartime supplies law to intervene in a Chinese company cross the line?
Is economic security becoming a no-limits geopolitical tool today?
Yeah, it seems to be.
You know, everything is brought into the so-called national security.
But mind you, every country has a national security issue.
China has national security.
Netherlands has national security.
Likewise, the United States.
The question is, if you use national security in every regard, especially the kinds of technological cooperation between nations, would slow down the technological progress, it would disrupt the international supply chain, it would reduce the efficiency of the entire global trading system and also the production system.
Now, by interrupting some part of the global supply chain, the production chain, i think it send a very dangerous signal to the international trade organization.
By using a law in 1952, it's certainly obsolete.
Nowadays, it's almost 73 years later.
A lot of products, for example, like Nespresso products, didn't actually appear in the 1950s.
It's a new emerging industry.
So I think it is a very you know idiopic, you know excuse for using the national security by using every possible you know suggestion of funding, a reason to block the international trade.
This is a little bit ridiculous to me.
Professor, speaking of the negative impacts of this, as you earlier mentioned, Xperia supplies chips to major automakers worldwide.
This move from Netherlands has already stirred global supply chain concerns.
Can this pause ease those pressures quickly?
And how will the still active court ruling continue to affect the production of those automakers worldwide?
I think it is possibly possible resolve the issue by you know the Gleeson, the administrative control over Nashville, but without lifting The control on Wintec.
I think it's a, it still have a lots of uncertainty.
It means that the Dutch government can go back to control everything if the country wishes.
Now China also have to do some other for You know whether it is counteract.
You know the Dutch actions by the so-called trade retaliations.
If this is the case, I think both sides are going to lose Lausanne to win.
And there's a third party, the United States.
In the end, I don't think the United States is going to win either.
So the most important thing is that we should have a better understanding of the mutual interests, rather than relying on the excuse of national security, even the ideological barrier between the West and the East, because we are all doing international business.
We are all going to produce the cheaper, high-quality product for the consumers to benefit all the people in the globe and by doing this disruption of trade disruption, technological cutting off, it's going to help anyone.
It is going to hurt all the people involved.
About the US factor the intervention came a day after the US tightened export controls on Wintec, which many see as a coordinated action with Washington.
Could this pause suggest that the Netherlands is trying to assert some strategic autonomy from the United States?
Yeah, this I totally agree.
I think the Netherlands, by the way, is a relatively small economy, and it have to rely on the big markets such as the United States, China, and also some of the components, technological components also have to rely on foreign manufacturers, including China and American manufacturers.
So the Netherlands is only picking up in the, in the core center of the technology.
But in the supply chain technological chain the Nasdaq cannot cut off from the other major economy.
So it has to balance between the two economy giant, in this case, the United States and China.
So the Nasdaq can benefit the most.
Sitting in between these two giants, especially the tension between the two big economy powers, the Netherlands actually have a rather difficult situation.
Professor, the final question I think is quite crucial for Chinese companies.
We know Xperia represents about one-sixth of Wintec's 2024 revenue and the dispute has already shaken operations and investor confidence.
Even If resolved, could this incident change how Chinese companies view investing in Europe's semiconductor sector?
It would certainly have a psychological effect, because you make a lot of investment and you certainly want a better return.
But if you make the investment and you get into uncertainty and also conflict between the political interests rather than business interests, then it is very difficult to calculate the risk.
So for the multinational company, whether it's based in China or some other country, they have to look at this example how to cross-border in merger and acquisition and also investment.
Certainly they have to take significant consideration of the potential risk before they go on the business.
And there's certainly a very painful process for many multinational companies who do need vertical and also horizontal integration in order to expand their business.
Thanks, Professor, for those in-depth analysis.
That was Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.
African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, has reaffirmed that the upcoming G20 summit will proceed as planned, despite Washington's decision not to participate.
He said most G20 leaders have confirmed their attendance.
President, Donald Trump put out all US representatives, alleged mistreatment of Afghaners and even genocide charges that South Africa strongly rejects.
The G20 Leaders Summit is scheduled for this weekend in Johannesburg, South Africa's largest city and economic hub.
The upcoming summit will mark the first time it's held on African soil.
So for more on this, Xu Yawen spoke with Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics at University of International Business and Economics.
Professor Liu, with South Africa hosting the first ever G20 summit on African soil.
How significant is this moment for the African continent and the Global South?
And what core issues do you expect to be at the forefront of South Africa's agenda during the summit?
Well, this is a very good question.
If we read the major three principles that Africa has set forth for this G20 solidarity, equality and sustainability it has a clear reference with regard to how the world can really get together to support the drive for modernization and industrialization, particularly now with the doorstep of the digitization, and together, of course, you know how African continent can really also come together to really support such a strong drive.
In terms of equality.
There is a strong voice with regard to a balance between the global south versus the global north, particularly on the global stages.
More of the reference will be referred to global financial institutions to step up the efforts to provide better access to the acute need for development in the African continent.
With regard to sustainability, I think now green transition is really the major theme over there, because the sustainable development in the African continent is not only concerned about its own people, but rather is really have a universal impact on the climate change efforts.
The whole world has been making efforts towards
So, you know, these are really the issues that can be raised.
And so in terms of the priorities, I think now they have already made it very clear.
So there was three priorities for inclusive economic growth and also food security.
And third one would be the artificial intelligence and innovation for sustainable development.
So I think now the agenda is very clear, but much is really dependent how other members and even the global community can really be there to exert concerted efforts towards such a sort of outcry and also such a drive.
Professor, over the last three years, we have noticed that the G20 presidency has been held by emerging economies like Brazil, India and South Africa, focusing on issues like debt relief, climate finance and sustainable development.
How can South Africa's leadership build on this momentum and ensure these issues remain central as the presidency passes to the United States in 2026?
Well, by traditional fashion.
It is the first, second and third tier leadership of the world in terms of economic development and also it's the national might.
But still, the African now stand up to raise their voice on a global stage on an equal basis.
This is really there to challenge the existing and also all the stereotypes, the global order.
And now it is not really that, the second tier, which is the more of the big emerging economies, that are really losing their voice, but rather the African stand up on themselves to have their own voices to be heard by the global community, which means that they are making a lot more efforts to get closer to the global sustainable development agenda.
And also, you know, whereas the rapid integration within the African continent, more of the business environment is being fostered to be able to receive not only the public support from other countries, particularly the global nows and China, but rather they also are there to be able to attract more of the private sectors to contribute to their growth in terms of the local employment, in terms of the connectivity, et cetera.
And now they feel that they still have a more bargaining power within the global, particularly financial institutions, as how those finance can be more catered to their development needs, particularly to cover the last mile of demand to enhance the local community, and also will be able to accommodate their own autonomous governance and management in order to produce tangible results.
Professor, the U.S. has faced criticism for its absence at the summit.
What does the U.S. absence mean for the G20?
And do you think its absence could potentially encourage a more diverse and inclusive discussion mechanism within the group?
It's good news and bad news.
The good part is that, without the US, more consensus can be harnessed to be able to move forward with some of the efforts, and particularly now when China is there producing tangible results, with infrastructure development, with local extractive industries, and also to continue to open its market for the local produce over there.
They do feel the benefit of it.
So therefore, the voluntary, the withdrawal of the US leadership is something that is there to offer more space for other big emerging economies to be able to raise their voice and bring a more just solution to some of the outstanding issues that are going on over there.
But the bad news is that the US is still in control, or at least having a big influence over, many of the global financial institutions like IMF, World Bank, etc.
And also the US private sector, particularly some of the philanthropic foundations, how they really position themselves in the future and how they are going to collaborate with many other efforts by other economies.
So that's creating a bigger question mark.
So whether the US is going to be able to continue in such a sort of silent mode towards the development needs of those developing countries like Africa.
So that's a big question mark.
And hopefully US can really be able to respond, at least at the private sector level, to such a sort of collective efforts, together with the African development agenda, to be able to move forward.
And one last question, Professor Liu.
Give the G20 set to transition back to a developed nation in 2026.
How can the Global South maintain its influence in the G20 under the U.S. leadership?
I think now It is high time, and never in history, that the global south really stand up against any type of challenges raised on unfair basis.
So it's not really an era of bargaining with power and bully, but rather bargaining with reason.
So therefore, the countries, small or bigger, weaker or stronger, so they are there to stand with the principles of equality, peaceful coexistence and mutual support and eventually, mutual benefit.
So therefore, however the agenda might be set by the United States, these principles need to be further reminded of some of the consequences that might really result from that.
And then the private sector will not really completely distorted by some of the political agenda going on within the White House.
So therefore, to engage with the private sector is something, still a tangible potential that can be further developed.
And third is that the global financial institutions, they all have the voice to really to reform, but how that's going to be reformed on equitable, fair and transparent manner.
So that's something a collective push by the whole global community, instead of a dominance by the United States.
So therefore, the global stage is there.
It's really countries needs to be equally seated to have their own voice raised and also heard.
So this is something that's really important for all the participating members.
And, more importantly, they also need to get better prepared, with their own governance in transparency and equity, and also with more of the clear development agenda, particularly with specific projects that can benefit their own community and also equally contribute to the betterment of the global community in terms of climate change, in terms of the public health, etc.
So these are something that can really fill the agenda of the G20 and also to put some guardrails against the US dominance.
That was Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics at the University of International Business and Economics, speaking with my colleague Xu Yawen.
This is World Today.
Stay tuned.
Welcome back to Road Today.
Germany has released its first-ever national security strategy for space, aiming to protect its assets and reduce reliance on non-European powers.
The plan outlines 10 priorities to strengthen Germany's space infrastructure across civilian and military sectors.
The strategy follows France's announcement of a €42 billion increase in military space spending from 2026 to 2030.
So for more on this, my colleague Song Ruixin earlier had a talk with Kamal Makili Aliyev, associate professor at the School of Global Studies at the University of Gothenburg.
Kamal, first of all, why does Germany have this strategy now?
How would you evaluate the timing?
I think Germany's move is like a catch-up response to an accelerating militarization of space.
As we know it, it's driven by russia's recent attacks on satellite enabled services, for example, and an intensifying us and china tech competition.
So berlin is signaling that space is now a security domain, not just a civilian one, and wants industrial and operational footholds before capability gaps become really strategic liabilities for germany.
And the timing is urgent but understandable.
Germany spent decades under investing in defense and is now trying to basically condense a decade of capability building into a few years to avoid strategic dependence on United States, for example, or other allies.
Help us understand the German Foreign Minister Walpole's statement.
That quote unquote space has long been an arena for military conflicts and economic competition.
What he is probably trying to say is that space has never been purely peaceful.
Commons right that humanity tried to do it.
We tried to even create the international law to support it, but we never really did it achieve that goal to make space purely peaceful.
So the satellites, for example, underpin navigation, communications and finance, and so the same building them can produce immediate military and economic effects on Earth.
And of course, the navigation is for satellites is not also agnostically civilian.
It's also can be used for military purposes as well as information intelligence gathering.
So over the last decade we've seen more counter space tests, signal jamming.
Do use commercial capability competition.
Think Musk Starlink, for example.
And so Vodafone was flagging that space is now integral to both conflict and economic competitiveness.
But he did say it a little bit clumsy, because military conflict in space is yet to be seen.
And economic competition is ambiguous, because most of it is happening on Earth.
Yeah, that's why the statement was so strange.
With a pledged 35 billion euros, Germany has the resources to back its ambitious strategy.
And then from your observation, Kamau, what are the biggest potential obstacles?
I mean, especially in terms of technical, political or industrial aspects?
Well, there are three main bottlenecks, I would say.
First one relates to industrial scale and supply chains, because Europe lacks this mass production lines and launch cadence that the US or, for example, China have.
Scaling satellites in manufacture, securing chips launchers, resilient ground systems is very hard and it's very time consuming.
The second bottleneck is technical complexity.
Defensive counter space technologies like space situational awareness, resilient PMTs, hardened satellites jammers, lasers know futuristic tech.
This requires a lot of research and development and testing and integration.
It's not a plug and play technology that you can just buy and use, and delays and costs overruns are very, very likely.
So it's very difficult for europe.
And then the third bottleneck is political and industrial coordination.
Germany must coordinate with eu nato, its domestic firms, reconcile its expert rules, all that bureaucracy, know that is being criticized in europe, and also avoid duplication or industrial infighting, even right
Firms competing too harshly and creating additional bottlenecks.
So the parliamentary approvals and procurement reform are the political hurdles that can slow the delivery, and Germany has a history of that.
Then, regarding the strategy itself, it explicitly mentions deterrence as one of its three action fields.
From your observation, what exactly is Germany seeking to deter?
I mean, is the deterrent aimed solely at protecting physical assets in orbit?
I think it's a layer deterrence.
If you look at the policy documents of recent years in Germany, It intends to deter both direct hostile acts against satellites, like kinetic strikes, jamming and blinding, for example, but also coercive attacks on terrestrial systems that rely on space services.
GPS denial of communications, communications outages, cyber attacks timed with strikes the kinetic strikes right.
In practice, that means building resilience, having backup PMTs, distributed architectures of technologies monitoring, for example, spatial situational awareness needs to be very high and response options that raise the cost of attacking either satellites or the critical infrastructure that depend on them, so you can have a credible response.
Yeah, so it's difficult.
Then, following French President Emmanuel Macron's recent announcement of a planned 42 billion euros increase in military space spending, we now have Germany's new strategy.
It looks like these moves signal a pivotal change in Europe's approach to space.
Then what are the primary drivers behind this shift?
And could it potentially accelerate a global arms race despite its stated defensive purposes?
Well, primary drivers are First of all, strategic vulnerability.
The Ukraine war exposed how space dependence can be weaponized very clearly.
So Germany is cautious of that.
Technological competition is the second driver because hypersonics campus satellite tech.
It's already a reality and Europe is lagging behind.
And there is a political push for European strategic autonomy.
That has been there even before, Or the war to Ukraine.
But the war in Ukraine highlighted kind of
So together we create a security imperative.
There is a real risk of an arm race spiral if major powers interpret defensive investments as offensive escalations, especially when programs include jammers, lasers or non or sorry on orbit servicing that can be repurposed for the military purposes.
So The state of intent is defensive, but transparency, norms and confidence building will be crucial to prevent a competitive spiral.
Unfortunately for Europe, it's also a very secondary, if not tertiary, link in the competitive escalation spiral.
So Europe doesn't really matter if, for example, United States is going to be doing the same and boosting its military spending in space.
My final question for you, Kamau.
The strategy mentioned is partnership with NATO.
How can Germany realistically pursue European autonomy in space while remaining operationally dependent on the US for critical intelligence and capabilities within that partnership?
I think Germany needs to start investing in its own R&D first and foremost.
It also needs to start creating an import of technologies, because if germany wants to accelerate its research and development strategies, it needs an outside help.
It cannot do it only with the sources it has.
It can also coordinate with allies in eu which are available right now for cooperation and also highly motivated for such a cooperation, and it will need to do it in a manner that overcomes It's a very complex arms acquisition and military research acquisition bureaucracy.
And in order to overcome that bureaucracy, Germany needs to start thinking more flexibly, more like the United States, especially in the latest iteration of its administration, creating less barriers between the companies within the private sector and the public sector.
That will be acquiring all that.
And it doesn't seem to be yet there, but it needs to be done.
Otherwise, gaining the autonomy in even the critical parts is going to be very difficult.
That was Kamal Makili-Aliyev, Associate Professor from University of Gothenburg, speaking with Song Ruixin.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today with me, Guiana.
Thanks for listening.
Bye for now.
