Recently, the term U.S. deadline has been trending across Chinese social media.
Originally a term from the gaming world, it's now being used to describe the financial fragility haunting everyday Americans.
Why are so many people in the US, a leading developed nation with the world's largest GDP, just one crisis away from poverty?
What does it tell us about the deep-seated institutional gaps in the US social safety net?
Welcome to The Chat Lounge.
I'm Xu Yawen in Beijing.
Today, we have two distinguished guests to explore these questions.
Professor Li Lun, Assistant Professor of Economics at Peking University.
Professor Joseph Gregory Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University.
Welcome to Professor Li.
First of all, we know recently the phrase US death line have gone viral on Chinese social media and the death line is also referred to as the kill line, a term used in Chinese computer game lingo to describe the point at which a player's health is so low that they can be finished with one strike.
And it has become a metaphor for Americans living so close to financial collapse that one accident, illness or unexpected bill could finish them off.
So, considering your background of living and studying in America for many years, what's your initial reaction when you first heard this phrase?
Yeah.
So when I first heard it I didn't know what it means, because it's not a standard term in economics or public policy.
It's rather like, you know, internet slang or like a informal concept.
But as you mentioned, it's a concept that's borrowed from gaming, right?
So it's a point where you know the health bar is so low that you know the player can be taken out in one hit.
So in this case, you know it's a metaphor for you know American households where they're one shock away from.
You know economic and social status.
You know collapse of of their social status.
So I think, in terms of my initial reaction, I do think it's a.
I'm not very surprised by the concept because from my experience living 11 years in the States, I do find that because people have so low savings and sometimes they'll have high medical costs And each month there's usually a large rental payment and a large credit card payment.
So these things can be a very dangerous combination, not to mention the drug problem and also abusive of alcohol, for example.
So all of these combined, I think, make this phenomenon of the death line or the line of no return.
Basically, once you cross that line, once you lose your stable housing, once you lose your address, You know everything else becomes much harder.
For example, for your job application to get proper medical care, even to receive daily meal.
Those can become very hard.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm shocked, but not very surprised by the phenomena, I think.
Professor Mahoney, when you first came across the term the US death line what was your first impression?
And why do you think it gained such a widespread attention on Chinese social media?
Well, you know, when I first heard it, I wasn't entirely aware what the death line was.
In fact I thought it might be.
It reminded me of the old Reagan era term, the line of death that it imposed on Libya.
And I thought, is this another Trump rehash from the Reagan administration?
Are we talking about a new death line being applied to Venezuela through the blockade there?
So that was my initial reaction.
But then as I began to study it a little more, it made complete sense to me.
I think the key issue here is that Chinese people have become increasingly aware that the United States is a dangerous and difficult place.
I think this awareness really began to break through in the Chinese mind during the pandemic when we saw the catastrophic failure of social policy to deal with the pandemic in the US that resulted in approximately one and a half million people dying, millions of more who were impacted in serious ways.
So I think all of these impressions slowly began to wake up people in China to the conditions in the United States.
Certainly there was a blog that came out of San Francisco that was talking about the dangers and risks that one faces.
That, I think, sparked this story.
But you know, at the same time, I think it's also becoming increasingly well known that among developed countries, the US has the highest rate of poverty.
It has the highest homicide rate, the highest suicide rate, the highest rate of incarceration, highest obesity rate, the highest drug addiction rate and deaths caused by drugs, the highest infant mortality rate, the lowest life expectancy, the highest income inequality, the highest health care costs but the weakest health care safety net.
And we know that Trump is now moving to cut that safety net further, along with other social welfare supports, while at the same time, you know, blaming other countries, including blaming Venezuela, saying that Venezuela was somehow connected to fentanyl.
And that was part of the drug addiction crisis and declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.
And this in part to justify what was just done against that country, but also bringing similar pressures against China, making allegations trying to shift this blame and responsibility, when what we really see across the board is the United States in a period of deep social, political and economic decline.
And while we perceive this, I think in China really starting to break into our consciousness more recently, but certainly in the wake of the pandemic.
In fact, it has much older roots going back to the early 1980s, especially accelerating after the global financial crisis in 2008.
You know, what you have just said reminds me of the story when I was studying in America, in Northern California.
There was a joke about international students.
If they had an emergency, their first reaction would be do not call an ambulance because it's too expensive.
Some of them.
If they had a serious illness, they would buy a plane ticket to return to China for treatment.
So do issues like the high cost of healthcare also affect Americans?
And besides expensive medical bills, what other factors collectively contribute to the so-called death line?
Professor Li.
Well, I'm not American, but I can definitely contribute some of my thoughts.
Because I do think there's a combination of factors, what you mentioned.
So, in terms of California because, despite a lot of people move in California and California is one of the richest states in the US there's a shortage in housing supply, meaning that new constructions are of housing, especially buildings with many stories, are usually very hard to implement because of zoning laws.
So there's a large and increasing housing demand, but not enough housing supply.
So the consequence is that the rent keeps going up.
And for people, especially because there's a lot of income inequality.
The prosperous growth of the IT industry doesn't benefit everyone.
It doesn't benefit, for example, the cleaning lady or the people serving the restaurants.
So I mean these.
Increasing rent, on the other hand, will take a larger and larger portion of their monthly paycheck.
And not to mention, for example, they have to pay back their credit card loans.
And if they get ill, so it's very common for them to skip their treatment.
So, according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, about one third of adults in the US say that in the past 12 months They have either skipped or postponed getting health care that they needed because of the cost.
And also, you know, the debt from health care is a burden for a large share of Americans.
About four in 10 adults report having debt due to medical or dental bills.
And that's not including, for example, you know, expenses that happen to a car or your student loan.
So once you have a large portion of your income taken away from your monthly paycheck and the rent keeps going up, it's very easy to be affected by a negative shock, for example, a negative health shock or an unemployment shock.
You lose your job and suddenly you can't pay your rent.
And for several months, if you can't pay your rent, you're evicted from your apartment.
And if you can't pay, find another apartment in time, it's very, you know, easy to become homeless.
So I think that's where, you know, a lot of people, especially young people in China, are somehow both worried and also, you know anxious, but also disillusioned, because they realize it's very easy.
And especially in countries like US, the richest country in the world, it's very easy to kind of fall between the gaps and they're actually just one accident away from total collapse.
So that's, I think, what triggers this emotion in social media in China.
Professor Mahoney, so a question for you, since you're from America how do those social safety nets work when someone falls into financial difficulty or life struggle?
Well, let me tell you three little stories that will echo the one that you told.
And then I'll turn directly to that question.
The first is I went to university as an undergraduate in the fall of 1989 there in Washington, D.C.
And a couple of months after I started school there, DC was the site of a massive march organized by a man by the name of Mitch Snyder.
It was a march for housing justice, and we call it the homeless march on Washington.
And what he did was he organized all the, or not all of it, but a very large number of homeless people in New York City.
And then they started walking towards Washington.
And then they encountered more homeless in Philadelphia.
They joined, and then more homeless in Baltimore and they joined and then they came all the way down into DC.
So we had a huge number of homeless people in Washington demanding social justice.
And, of course, what's interesting is that those homeless people once, once the rally was over, did not turn around and walk back home to New York or Philadelphia or Baltimore.
They stayed in DC.
So we had this huge homeless population in D.C. for a long time thereafter.
Now, this was in response.
This was actually the second march that he organized.
He organized one in 1984.
And this was in response to the policies that had been put in place by Ronald Reagan that had cut social welfare support, had closed mental health hospitals and had pushed a large number of people out onto the streets who were unable to take care of themselves, including a large number of people who were mentally ill.
And this was something that had then motivated Mitch Snyder to try to create some sort of social justice.
Unfortunately, he would commit suicide a few years later, given his own mental health issues, which I think was part of what was driving his personal empathy with the people that he was trying to help.
But just to say that you had these experiences in California in the 2000s and we were already experiencing a homeless problem, a substantial homeless problem, in the 1980s because of the overturning of social welfare and social supports.
The second thing is in the early 2000s, I was back in Washington to work on a PhD program.
And I had a fellow student who was from Mongolia.
And she was on a scholarship from her government and had a dental emergency.
An emergency like, I think, a bridge, a dental bridge that she had failed.
And the Mongolian embassy bought her a ticket to Cuba and she had to fly through Canada because you couldn't fly directly from the United States to Cuba.
She had to fly up to Toronto and then down to Havana where she received medical care dental care in Havana directly and then fly back to Washington, that this was cheaper for the Mongolian government than providing dental care for her in the United States.
So this gives you a sort of an interesting index of part of the problem here.
The third thing is in 2021 or, excuse me, 2020.
I had gone back to the United States ahead of Christmas 2019 to see my parents for the holiday.
And I got trapped in the U.S. with the outbreak of COVID.
And because I'm a permanent resident in China, I have health insurance in China.
Because I was in an uncertain position in the US, I did not immediately acquire health insurance.
I thought I might be able to get out faster than I did.
And I was also in very good health, but suddenly I developed what proved to be a kidney stone.
And my parents live about 40 kilometers outside of Memphis Tennessee, which is not a very expensive place.
And so I had to seek emergency medical care from a hospital in North Memphis, a hospital that serves a low-income population.
And all I got when I went to the hospital was a CT to confirm that I had a kidney stone and a prescription for painkillers to help me survive that difficult moment.
Because I didn't have US health insurance, I was given a poverty rate, a discounted rate.
You want to take a guess what my bill was for?
A CT scan and a five-minute consultation with a doctor.
You want to guess how much that bill was?
Probably over $1,000.
It was $12,000.
I'm about to guess $50,000.
That's crazy.
But it's still pretty outrageous.
$12,000.
And again, that's the discounted rate for poor people.
And my mother, of course, was like, I told you to get health insurance.
I told Sometimes my mother is right.
How come as a U.S. citizen you don't have health insurance from your country?
Because we don't have it.
Okay, so you have to purchase health insurance from companies so that you can afford to have those companies to pay for those bills.
There are two or three things here.
The first is There was a policy put in place that we call the Affordable Care Act.
That was put in place during the Obama administration.
But what this law did was require people to buy health insurance, with some support from the government.
What's the minimum down payment that you have to put in order to get basic health care insurance?
Well, it varies.
It varies by your age and your risk factors.
It also varies by where you live.
And it varies in terms of what kind of deductible you will accept so will you accept a 500 deductible a thousand dollar deductible uh what sort of coverage do you want up to fifty thousand dollars up to a hundred thousand dollars so the the prices they're they're a multitude of price points and and the cheaper policies generally require a deductible where over the course of a year you would have to exceed payments of out-of-pocket payments of 500 or more before you would start to see benefits.
And of course one of the problems is not all of the procedures that you might get from your doctor.
Not all of them might be covered by the policy.
It could be disputed.
So there is some support for people through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, but this requires demonstrating a certain type of And this requires an extensive procedure.
A lot of people are not able to get or maintain these benefits.
And through time, these benefits have also declined in value.
So there is no national health insurance.
There is no reliable insurance. means for protecting.
But, as I said before, the US has by far the highest cost per capita, but also percentage of GDP in the world when it comes to healthcare, but also the worst public support for those costs as a social safety net in the developed world and, by some estimates, in the entire world.
The Chat Lounge.
The Chat Lounge unpacks views and opinions on hot issues in a more casual way.
Professor Li.
So could you help us understand how difficult is it for homeless people to get back to normal life and reintegrate it into mainstream society, despite the fact that the US has programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance?
Yeah, so my personal experience or, you know, anecdotally, I think it's pretty difficult.
And it's not, you know, just a small group of society or the population that's homeless.
That's special because they're lazy or they deal drugs or they have mental problems that they become homeless.
There's a story on PBS NewsHour where they call it the working homeless phenomenon.
So even for full-time workers, they're still unable to afford their housing, so they can still be homeless.
For example, people may start by living in their car.
And when the ends don't meet, they may end up selling their car and living in a tent or living under the bridge.
So even if they're trying to maintain a full-time worker for example, some people take the shower at their workplace and try to make ends meet they still cannot pay back their rent.
And also what we have been discussing is that the medical, especially for people with chronic disease or mental disease, where they need to have constant prescription of drugs.
That adds additional cost to their monthly bills.
So even if you don't pay your rent you live off the street you still have to pay to get your food, to have somewhere to store your personal belongings, to charge your phone.
So, it's very difficult.
And once they lost their job it's very difficult to kind of maintain their personal hygiene and go to another job interview and stay healthy enough to work in another place.
So, it's very difficult to climb out of that trap once you get to it.
Of course, the affordability crisis and the rising inflation rate only adds to it, because when the food prices have become higher and higher, it's becoming increasingly hard to afford your daily meal.
And that only makes things even worse.
That reminds me of a story I covered when I was in California.
I saw this lady sitting on the curb of the street, and then I spoke with her.
She told me, a local police officer that's the city they call Arquita in Northern California issued her a ticket because of her sitting on the curb of the street.
She's already homeless, right.
She cannot afford to pay for the ticket.
And then they would give her two options.
Either you do social works like cleaning the highways, or you go to the jail.
She has some issue with her legs, so it will be very challenging for her to do those social works.
But if she goes to the jail then that would give her a bad record, making her even more difficult to find a job in the future.
That's the story happened a decade ago, only in certain place in America.
So, Professor Mahoney, what has the government done to provide this kind of supportive network nowadays in America to help those homeless people get back to normal life, to ensure they can have a decent living?
Well, I would suggest that part of the challenge here is that you're thinking about this like a Chinese person.
And you know, if we think, for example, how China has helped seven to 800 million people rise out of poverty, if we think about how China has mobilized to eliminate extreme poverty, we think very specifically about central government working with local government and implementing policies that aim to produce real results.
This is not the way the US works at all.
So in the case of the US, you have a federal system where most of the supports provided are provided at the state level, and even within the state can vary considerably by county or a municipality.
And, above all, the federal system.
While the federal system does play a significant role in programs like Medicare, Medicaid or even pushing through very market-friendly insurance company-friendly policies like Obamacare, they cannot really impose on states how to take care of citizens at the local level.
So there is no direct line the way you would conceptualize it in China for solving these kinds of problems.
The bigger issue is that, you know, why do we see so many homeless in certain parts of California?
It's because California is what we call a blue state.
They may have more lenient laws, more friendly laws that are less likely to criminalize or victimize people who are in difficult situations.
The weather is nicer, so it's easier to survive.
So I think that there are reasons why you see certain areas having more homeless or more people having needs, even if those needs are not ultimately being met.
Maybe perhaps they're not being criminalized or further victimized.
Professor Li, if we compare the social welfare systems in China and in the United States in terms of their approaches to economic crisis and providing social safety nets for people's well-being, what measures has the Chinese government implemented to prevent ordinary people from falling below the death line?
Yeah, so I think one thing that I wanted to add to our discussion is that you know a lot of for US's case, a lot of medical insurance is bonded with their jobs.
So basically, once you lose your job, you automatically lose your medical insurance.
So when we're talking about Chinese government's measures, you know, we have a broad But basic coverage, but you know it covers over 1.3 billion people in 2024 their their basic medical needs so even if you lose your job you don't lose your the basic insurance for your medical bills and also in terms of.
The affordability, the prices.
If you go to the hospital and do a CT scan, I think the cost won't be too large.
Even if you don't have the medical insurance, it will be just 100 yuan to a couple hundred yuan max.
It won't be a disastrous expense for the ordinary people.
And also in terms of the safety net or DBAO system.
There's around 40 million recipients of these DBAO allowances, both in urban and rural areas.
But there's also targeted aid for extreme poverty and extreme hardship cases once China move, basically target to eliminate the extreme poverty and list it as one of the policy priorities.
And I think, in terms of the mindset, Chinese government have a prevention mindset instead of waiting for the problem to happen and then to solve it.
So in terms of our or the local level administrative unit, both in terms of monitoring, in terms of providing temporary assistance to the elderly, to provide employment support, you know, at the community level, for the disabled, for low-income households.
I think we're providing, you know ample, you know support for these potentially to be marginalized group.
And also in terms of, you know, the family support or the informal support.
I think it definitely helps in China's case because, you know once, It's very common, for example, to have someone, if someone loses, or her job in Beijing or Shanghai, they could move to another city or move closer to their parents.
So that's very common.
But I think it's less common in the U.S.
And that's also, you know, potentially explaining some of that difference in terms of you know the deadline.
I've been speaking with Professor Li Lun, Assistant Professor of Economics at Peking University, and Professor Joseph Gregory Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University.
For the second half of the program, we shift gears to China's Global Governance Initiative, or GGI.
My colleague Gui Anna speaks with two experts from China and Malaysia to delve into how the GGI addresses the unfairness in the current global governance system.
Stay with us.
Sideline Story brings you all things sports related.
The hottest topics, latest events, juiciest stories, all with a very personal take.
Welcome back to Chat Lounge.
I'm Xu Yawen in Beijing.
Amid rising geopolitical tensions, escalating climate risks and growing concerns over the governance of emerging technologies like the artificial intelligence, the world is confronting a confluence of long-standing and new challenges.
These pressures have further exposed the widening global governance deficits, placing unprecedented strain on the existing international order.
In response, China put forward the Global Governance Initiative in September last year, offering a set of principles and pathways to reform and strengthen global governance at this critical juncture.
The GGI emphasizes sovereign equality, the rule of law multilateralism, people-centered development and tangible outcomes aiming for a more just and equitable system that includes the global south.
How does the GGI address the inequities in the current global governance system?
And what role will China play in turning this vision into concrete action?
My colleague Gui Anna speaks with Dr Li Peimei, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, and Dr Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow of Institute of World Economy at Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
China has a new vision for global governance when that emphasizes equality, shared responsibility and the voices of developing countries.
We should adhere to sovereign equality.
We should maintain that all countries, regardless of size, strength and wealth, are equal participants, decision makers and beneficiaries in global governance.
We should promote greater democracy in international relations and increase the representation and voice of developing countries.
We should advocate the people-centered approach.
We should reform and improve the global governance system to ensure that the people of every nation are the actors in and beneficiaries of global governance, better narrow the north-south gap and better safeguard the common interests of all countries.
President Xi Jinping's Global Governance Initiative has drawn immediate attention from nations around the world.
Cue a warning and support the Global Governance Initiative presented by the President of the People's Republic of China, our good friend Xi Jinping.
We really believe that if we want to build community of a shared future, we need an initiative like this.
A lot of problems we have now.
It is difficult to do it alone, but in rethinking the global governance by through global governance initiative proposed by the President, Xi Jinping,
I am really confident that we could really change the world, create a new era and live in new international order.
The initiative has been praised as timely, coming at a moment of multiple global crisis and a waning confidence in multilateralism.
China solved a very difficult equation the equation that balancing domestic modernization with the global responsibility.
The point actually of the high standard.
Opening up means that China has a good intention to deal with the world with the best they can do.
I want to say that China is not rising alone.
China is rising with the intention of lifting others.
The success of China is an opportunity for many.
For decades, we lived in a largely unipolar world.
But now we stand firmly in a multipolar global system where power, ideas and influence are widely distributed.
Global governance today must also confront a rapidly changing technological landscape.
Artificial intelligence biotechnology, quantum computing and digital governance are transforming our world at a breathtaking speed.
These advances offer unprecedented opportunities, but also profound risks.
This is why global governance must now extend to data ethics and the moral implications of technology.
In other words, we must place moral and ethical questions at the heart of global decision making.
Equality, responsibility and a vision.
How will the Global Governance Initiative shape cooperation and redefine international engagement?
This is Road Today, our year-end special.
Professor Li.
When President Xi first proposed the Global Governance Initiative, he said global governance should treat all countries as equal players, decision makers and beneficiaries.
From your perspective, what's the biggest thing that's not working in today's global governance system?
And what kind of a solution is the GGI really offering?
Well, I think in today's global governance system, many actually viewed it as being very unfair and unequal.
So I think this is one of the main reasons why countries, especially developing countries, they kind of like system, because the current system only allows the privileged one to make important political, economy and social decisions, but that decisions itself are going to affect the whole world.
So in it, the way how decision is being made is very clearly very unequal and unfair.
So other countries, what are their rule?
They can only take the rule of bystanders, so without the ability to truly contribute to the decision-making process.
Therefore, very often we see that the decisions being made are often disproportionately faring one side, which is the decision-maker.
So for Global Government Initiative it's very different because it's promoting multilateralism, is promoting, you know, creating space for developing countries to also voice out their concerns and also their demands.
So you can say that the Global Governance Initiative actually offers countries the opportunities to participate equally, as participants as well as decision makers.
So, in that um, by having such space and opportunities for developing countries to participate equally, you can expect that the outcome of the decisions that will be made would be taking consideration of all parties and does not only benefit one or some countries.
Dr jaume, what do you make of this?
How does this new vision speak directly to the problems We see in the current global order?
What kind of road does the GGI ultimately seek to promote?
Well, I agree with Professor Li's opinions on some kind of unfair practices or mechanisms based on a certain group of countries.
But I want to emphasize that there are even some worse situations, that is, some countries, or More than 160 members, have joined WTO.
They have made some commitments.
Nowadays, we are seeing some countries want to violate their commitments.
They were not just trying to fulfill their commitments.
So the governance issue is not only about some new areas.
It's also about some traditional ways of doing business.
Like the globalizations are based on.
You know so many kind of respect from different sides, no matter whether it's strong or weak.
But if we are able to reach this agreement, that we will follow the several principles, like the most favorite nations and national treatment, and also the transparency, these three important principles of WTO.
We have to fulfill our commitments, like keep the tariffs lower and also trying to make some trade facilitation for the different stakeholders.
But if we are going to violate our commitments, I don't think that we have the base for discussion of the new areas.
In other words, I would say that we are between the two very important issues.
The first one is how can we continue with our traditional relations or commitments made to the WTO, to the multilateral system?
And another one is how can we deal with the new issues like the digital trade, like something to do with the green trade, or whether there will be more protagonism?
So we have to deal with both sides to try to have a better governance.
And the governance is benefiting all of us, not just a part of us.
Then Dr Jomi, from the early reactions we've seen what are developing countries hoping to get from the GGI.
You can find that in the recent two years we are seeing the global south countries are really working very hard to try to have a better platform.
These platforms are really important for them to continue with their efforts of being involved in the global trade.
Well, you know, many of the developing countries really want to have a better space for development based on the trade, on the fair trade with other countries, with low tariffs and more access of the market.
So, based on that you know kind of expectation, they really want to have some governance, that are taking their demands as one of the priorities.
They need some platform that they can speak for themselves.
So for many countries, like the agriculture products, as one example, is one of many countries, many developing countries' priorities.
They want to reduce the different treatment in the platform.
Like in WTO.
Many developing countries argue that most of the developed countries have put so much money to subsidize the farmers.
So they want them to reduce their subsidies.
But in the developed countries, they do not want to do that.
So in this regard, they want some platform to keep the subsidies in a sustainable way, not just trying to distort the order for the global trade in the agricultural products.
So I would say that developing countries really want to have more trust from each other and also to reach some kind of commitment.
And they want to fulfill them.
They need some enforcement mechanisms to deal with the disputes.
And they believe that these are really important for them to speak for themselves, not just to listen to the others while they change their attitudes from year to year.
Professor Lee, how is Malaysia viewing about the initiative?
Do you think This support from Global South, for example, is driven more by frustration with the Western-led order or by specific ideas in the GGI, like sovereign equality or closing the North-South gap, that feel more realistic and reliable?
First, I think developing countries have long viewed that the current order does not give them enough space to raise out their concerns and voices.
And as for Malaysia, actually in the past decade I think, we have always pushed for multilateralism.
So we are basically against unilateralism, which is basically what the current global order is about.
So, at the same time, when you look at global governance initiative, basically it's promoting that, you know.
It's promoting multilateralism, it's promoting non-interference, respect for sovereignty.
So for Malaysia itself, we think this is something very important, because as a small state we are not happy or not inclined for major powers to actually intervene in our domestic affairs.
And actually that's happening.
So, for example, currently there might be geopolitical competition between countries and then one party, one side might try to, you know, force Malaysia to take sides.
So this is something that Malaysia, you know, does not want that to happen.
So GGI basically is promoting the core values.
That aligns with Malaysian national goals respecting sovereignty non-interference, and they also talked about giving more, you know, space in the international relations for countries to participate, and many more.
And another thing i would like to add on is that for developing countries, and especially those countries that in the past they have been invaded by the west, they mainly would support ggi.
So, for example, like you know, Afghanistan and Iraq, countries like these, you know because they already face the consequences of being intervened by the West.
So these are the countries that I think would you know strongly support GGI because it resonates with what they want.
Professor, many politicians openly say the world has moved from a unipolar system to a multipolar one.
Do you see this shift to making global governance harder, or does it actually create a real opportunity for the more democratic international relations that the GGI talks about?
I think there is consensus that the world is no longer a unipolar world.
Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and public policy analyst, also shared the same assessment.
But, as we know, when a system is going through the transition, there will be some instability, there will be some adjustment and there will be some heightened uncertainty, which we are witnessing today.
So like what I mentioned earlier, we're probably seeing some intensified geopolitical competitions.
The reason is because the hegemon, the sole power, is actually trying to keep its predominant place.
So it would try its best to use various means to stop the world from turning to a multipolar system.
So during this time, we have witnessed like what just now Professor Jomi said, tariffed.
And then we're also witnessing that hegemony using economic sanctions on other countries or even threat of war to stop that transition.
But to be honest, I think the decline of the hegemon is very evident.
Hence, I believe we're moving towards a more democratic international relations.
And as China is promoting global government initiative that emphasizes on basically equality, equal participation and multilateralism, I think we could really move towards a more democratic international relations, because GGI is also supported and embraced by other countries.
The Chat Lounge.
The Chat Lounge unpacks views and opinions on hot issues in a more casual way.
Dr Joimi, do you think a more multipolar world makes global governance hotter or does it open the door to a more democratic international relations?
I would say that when we are now in such a world based on the multilateral systems, like for W2, it's not that easy.
So I still remember some people, you know, they talked with me.
They said that when we have reached such kind of you know, WTO-based system, it has costed us, you know millions, or thousands of millions of people's lives.
So we have a very difficult time to reach that kind of status.
I don't know.
I don't want to say that we want to, you know, abandon nowadays society mechanism to try to find some new one.
But I will say that there are so many things that we need to do more reform, like the reform of WTO, like the reform to introduce more people's voting rights in IMF and World Bank.
So i think that is naturally very important because the world is changing.
The world is changing to our, not just the one.
Countries take a part of, maybe occupy a half of the the gdp.
Globally, there are so many new powers or new countries are emerging.
They have more demands.
They they're you know the trade patterns, the investment patterns companies, distributions are all different from the past.
So we are just about to enter a new era of the digital trade or artificial intelligence era.
There are so many new things.
If we are able to provide some of the advices or opinions from different sides, I think it's more, seems to be more reasonable And the governance is a kind of a very high level of order.
So, based on the different opinions, maybe we can try to find some mutual understanding, some common consensus on certain areas.
We can start from that.
The GGI is a kind of initiative, you know, as for the Belt and Road Initiative.
It's not just decided by China.
We just propose that.
So, based on this kind of mechanism, we want to propose that maybe all of the related and the interested groups can join this initiative to discuss about their requirement.
They can just tell others about what they really want.
And I think that is a kind of important mechanism for all of us to try to find a more balanced way of doing business.
The GGI is a kind of very new initiative.
It's a reflection of Chinese philosophy that we want to have the different opinions from different sides.
We can discuss about what are the most important and the reasonable ways of governing.
And I think that is more sustainable compared with just one country to decide everything.
So I would say that maybe have more advantages and we have to respect this new platform.
We are also encouraged to join this kind of discussion.
Dr. Zhoumi, China often says that a high level opening up is a key way to advance the GGI.
Based on what we've seen in 2025, like freer trade zones, regional trade deals and opening up services.
How's China using its own openness to push improvements in global economic governance?
Well, I think that China, At the beginning of this century, China is a latecomer to the multilateral system.
So we accept all the set rules, like I mentioned in WTO.
After almost more than two decades we have changed a lot internally in the domestic laws and regulations to fit for the requirement of the multilateral system.
But now we are entering a new phase.
I think that the world is facing too many uncertainties and the trade regime.
In the trade regime.
We're not seeing some new rules or governance developed together with the economy itself.
In the free trade zone.
As you mentioned, we are trying to encourage the different areas to try to explore which is the best option practices to do with trade, global trade or the regional trade and the investment in the different areas.
We want to do some kind of practices to, to try to do some experiment.
Based on this experiment, we will be able to deliver some better idea about the governance, Like in the Hainan Free Trade Port, for example.
We're trying to explore the new ways of doing the cross-border trading services in the negative least based.
So it is actually our unilaterally opening up.
We are doing that by ourselves.
So, based on the practices in Hainan, we just modified our foreign trade law and we have introduced this new mechanism in the law itself.
So you know, it is kind of a very good practices and a good example to show that China is willing to just trying to change our ways of managing the trade and investment based on the real economic status.
And we also want to share our experiences with our trading partners.
You know we just concluded the negotiation with ASEAN about the free trade agreement, agreements 30 to introducing more digital trade and also the green trade.
I think that kind of practices can also to give more ideas to our partners on how can we provide the enterprises with better environment.
I mean, that is kind of just a examples.
We want to do more to introduce, to do some experiments first and then introduce some of our experiences, and also to share our lessons with our trading partners.
I think, based on this kind of practices, we can have a better understanding about what should be the rising and how can we proceed with the new things which is good for the businesses.
As we look at this initiative that was just introduced in 2025, Even though the GGI has gained a lot of support, there is pushback from unilateralism and power politics, and some countries are still watching to see how things play out.
Professor Li, what do you see as the biggest obstacles right now and how can the GGI move from ideas to real actions?
Yes, I think one of the main challenges would be the narrative.
The West is trying to shape the narrative that GGI is a way for China to basically dominate the world.
So they are actually trying to warn other countries from getting too involved with China.
So this might be one of the challenges of its implementation.
Um, so what i would say is that they really need to be counter narrative to that idea.
So one of the way to promote counter narrative is for china to organize some dialogues about ggi, just like what the johnny said just now.
Uh basically, ggi is still very new, it's taking shape.
So china is just proposing the ideas, outlining the ideas how ggi core values are, which are, to be honest, quite universal, because I think all the developing countries they love to have their sovereignty being respected.
They want to be treated equally.
They want to be partisan. in decision-making at a global level.
So it would be useful that they have dialogues with countries to think about how this new governance model should be.
So I think this can better translate GGI principles into more concrete outcomes.
Dr. Jomi, what's your take?
What do you think are the main challenges at the moment?
And how can the GGI turn its vision into tangible results in the coming years?
Yeah, I think that's the most important thing is for us to try to start to act, not just to talk.
So actually, ZGI is not just a kind of a very virtual concept.
It has a real implication about the practices, about the laws, regulations on the trade and the investment.
Can we do more to trying to, you know, to strengthen our commitments in the multilateral system and fulfill any kind of the disputes coming from the dispute mechanism from WTO?
I would say that we need to respect that, because we are now seeing some countries or economies are trying to change their commitments to WTO.
I don't think that is a good way.
So first of all we have to overcome or try to take back to fight against some protectionism pressure.
And second, I think that is very natural for us to deal with the new issues because the digital trees are increasing so quickly.
We need to give some of our practices on that mechanism.
And these are really are challenges we have to deal with.
So maybe we can start from certain smaller interested groups and we can expand this mechanism to a wider range.
And I believe that the good examples can really have more attractive.
More economists will join this kind of games and play very promising and sustainable way of making the businesses a bit more friendly and easy to be done.
Professor Li, looking ahead to 2026, Where do you think the GGI will focus next and which areas might see real breakthroughs?
Well, I think climate governance is one of the ways where GGI can actually focus on it, because the US is basically withdrawing from it.
So the U.S. has really declared that it's not ours. participating in the Paris Agreement.
And in fact, they are the largest polluter, yet they are withdrawing from it.
So what it means is that other countries need to step in.
It's not only China, but China could play the leading role in driving climate governance.
But other countries should also work hand in hand with China to discuss and come up with a more concrete plan to fight climate change.
Because, as we know, countries like those maritime countries.
They are the ones most affected by climate change.
And a lot of developing countries.
They are facing more serious threats of climate change because they do not have the money.
They do not have the funds to fight it.
So I think GGI may offer some ideas on how countries can actually better fight climate change together.
So, besides that, I think what we can do is you can try to link GGI with explicitly to UN reform proposals.
As we say, GGI and UN existing mechanisms and institutions are not exclusive.
In fact, GGI values and principles can actually drive current mechanism.
So it will be useful to try to link GGI with UN reform proposals, with IMF reform proposals and with other reform proposals.
With that, we're wrapping up this episode of Chat Lounge.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
