Hello, and welcome to World Today.
I'm Zhao Yang. Coming up, China and Russia have reaffirmed their close ties amid global uncertainties.
What are the foundations of this strong partnership?
U .S. President Donald Trump have announced an AI infrastructure plan worth up to US $500 will it take shape in practice?.
Belgium has launched an investigation into allegations that Apple sourced blood minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
What's behind this legal action?
Chinese President Xi Jinping says he is willing to work with his Russian counterpart to face uncertainties with stable and resilient bilateral ties.
In a video call with Vladimir Putin, the Chinese leader called for mutual support, multilateralism and a new chapter in promoting unity within the global south.
Xi Jinping also pledged to support the high -quality development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as China has taken over the SEO's rotating presidency.
President Putin agreed that changes in the international landscape will not affect bilateral relations.
He expressed Russia's hope of cooperation in multilateral affairs and world peace.
The leaders also exchanged New Year's greetings.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Hye Hong -jian, professor at the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
What do you make of the timing of this video conversation between President Xi and President Putin, and what key messages can we take away from their talks?
Regarding the current relations between China and Russia, I think this video conversation between leaders become a kind of tradition in the eve of the Chinese Spring Festival.
I think, as good friends, it's okay for both sides to exchange the salience greetings.
Of course, I think another very important background is the inauguration of President Trump means that there will be some new government and then new policies from the United States towards the world.
especially in the frame of major players' relations.
So I think at this moment, exchange views and to reach some more common ground could be pretty critical for both China and Russia to be ready for any kind of uncertainties from maybe near round of the adjustment of the adjustment of the major player's relations.
As we know now, some deep and also some comprehensive influence from the relations between major players will be very important in the international relations and also how could humankind decide other side, which way we will go forward.
Well, President Xi mentioned that a stable and resilient relationship between China and Russia would help address uncertainties in the external world.
What specific uncertainties do you think he was referring to, and how can China and Russia collaborate to tackle them?
I think, firstly, regarding to the uncertainties ahead, also, we know after two or three years, I mean this gaming or competition between major players, some more regional conflicts.
Now I think it's time for both the major players and some regional countries to reveal their situation and perhaps there will be some big change of the policies and the grounds for some major players.
Of course, I think that there will be some more suspicions, I think from our international community, that once there are some more huge changes of the relations between major players, it could give some more uncertainties or some maybe negative impact on a current strategic stability on a global level.
So, both major players, it's time for China and Russia to promote mutual trust and especially to share some common views on their strategic stability on global level, especially to, how to share some more common responsibilities to support the peace and also development, but not only on the bilateral level and also regional and global level.
When President Xi mentioned China and Russia's close cooperation on multilateral platforms like the UN, SCO and BRICS, how do you see their joint efforts influencing the reform and development on the global governance system?
To support the central role of the United Nations and to respect the international law it could be a very, very important consensus among all of its common grounds between China and Russia.
I think now it's time for those two countries to learn from this attitude.
As we know, this year we'll witness some very important moments of the anniversary of the United Nations Foundation and also the end of the Second All or some other.
So I think it's time we have to realize there will be some more deficit in the global governance, but at the same time I think China and Russia should also shoulder some more the responsibilities, to support a more stable international order, of course, with the principal of respecting the central role of United Nations and some other multilateral organizations.
Well, Xi said that Jana, as the rotating chair of the SCO, is willing to work with Russia and other member states to usher in a new phase of the SCO, featuring higher quality development and greater responsibility.
How do you understand this?
China will take a rotating president of the SCO.
It could be a very, very important issue for Chinese foreign policy this year.
I think China will try to play more active, though, to help the SAO to get a more sustainable and healthy development.
Also in the past, SAO has been regarded as a majorly and many security organization, but in recent years, as we know, especially from China's perspective, There should be some more balancing functions within the SAO, especially with some more exchange and cooperation in the area of economic infrastructure or even finance and technology.
So I think this year, yes, China will try to help the SAO to play a more active role, not only in the regional security issue, but also into more comprehensive directions.
Well, President Xi also highlighted the importance of advancing BRICS cooperation and fostering unity among the global South.
What do you think are the key areas where China and Russia could work together in advancing BRICS interests?
As we discussed the issue of SAO, SAO is a sub -regional corporation.
Regarding to the BRICS Corporation, it is a multilateral cooperation with bigger scale and also with more comprehensive issues.
Last year, we witnessed the big progress for BRICS, and this year, I think that both China and some other members of BRICS, they need to continue to push forward this tendency and especially as a, you know, remarkable representative of so -called global south.
This year could be a critical time for BRICS to find some more common ground, especially some new sectors.
For example, as we know, this year once the some more problem or troubles on the global governance, I think that BRICS and some other members of the global south should take some more responsibility to, you know, provide some more solutions and even to enhance this availability and also the credibility of BRICS and Global South.
Some critics argue that the strong relationship between China and Russia is driven by the hostility from the West that both countries are currently facing.
But are there deeper, more enduring foundations that support this partnership, and what do you believe are the key elements that sustain this relationship beyond these external factors?
countries but it's not the war.
I think especially in recent years, for the relations between China and Russia, not only they are still based on security cooperation and also they try to explore some new sector of cooperation, especially in a sector of economic cooperation, and industry cooperation and trade cooperation, we can find that there will be some more balancing and also comprehensive relations between China and Russia.
But of course, I think that for this battle relations always, both China and Russia, they needed to get some more joint efforts to look for some more impetus from their own development.
There is Tae Hongjian, professor at the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
This is World Today, stay with us.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Yang.
Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xiaxian has urged the global community to uphold monotlateralism and promote open and inclusive development.
He made remarks in his speech at this year's World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos.
Wang Qianyu has more from the Swiss City.
This year's Davos meeting is a themed collaboration for the intelligent age.
The event has brought together nearly 3 ,000 leaders from over 130 countries.
It's expected to address global challenges and explore emerging opportunities.
At the opening ceremony, Klaus Schrup, the founder of the forum, said in his speech that the world has to come face to face with an erosion of trust in society, calling for global collaborative work to regain trust.
This can only be achieved if we genuinely address the existential fears of the many.
The fears of marginalized, the fears of those who are afraid of accelerating environmental degradation and the fears of those who worry about being left out in the transition to the intelligent age.
Meanwhile, the president of the European Commission, Ursula from the lane, and Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang also gave special addresses.
Ding noted the importance of globalization and multilateralism.
Economic globalization is a result of social progress and technological advances, and it cannot be stopped.
Protectionism does not solve problems, and trade wars help no one.
We should take every chance to guide economic globalization and move it toward a better stage that is more vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable." The World Economic Forum is one of the most internationally -influential economic events.
Earlier this month, the organization released its Global Risks Report highlighting threats over the next decade, including misinformation, geopolitical tension, and the escalating climate crisis.
These challenges require urgent and collective action, exactly why global leaders, economists and scholars gathering to find solutions.
That is Wang Jianyu reporting.
For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Zhou Mee, Senior Research Fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Co -operation.
Dr. Zhou Mee, first, what are the key highlights of Chinese Vice Premier Ding Guizhu's speech at this year's Davos Forum?
What signal does he send?
Well, when we're talking about his speech, I think that he has mentioned several key words, like the multi -lesson, and also, the AI and also some of the development issues and FDI.
But all these messages are just one very important principle that is the consistency.
The channel has made our promises for so many years, and we keep on the track.
Maybe the world has changed a lot by the different kind of technology or the attitudes of certain countries, but China's promises are very stable.
So we keep on the promises that we will open our market wider and wider, and we are trying to fulfill our commitments in the international communities and agreements.
And we will also address the challenges, not only facing China, but also a lot of developing countries.
So we are going to take care of what we are having, and we are trying to give a better support for the enterprises who want to do more in such a kind of a very important change of the technology and also the international governance.
He highlighted the multilateralism and promote open and inclusive developments, so how do you understand it?
Well, the multilateralism is kind of a promise.
We have attracted more than 160 different countries and members in the world.
So we have fulfilled our commitments after we joined the WTO for almost 24 years.
I think that what is changing very quickly and in the past several years, the global supply chains are reconstructed.
And in this regard, I think that it's very necessary for us to give the enterprises a very certain and very promising future, because they do need the confidence to put more resources in the development.
Well, when we're talking about development, I think there are so many other emerging economies and the least developing countries where they do need a lot of support from other countries.
Maybe there are some imbalance, but I don't think that is necessary to stop our commitments.
It's very important for us to fulfill our commitments.
And he said, China welcomes more foreign firms to invest and do business in China.
So Dr. Zhou, what has China done to improve the business environment for foreign businesses in the past few years?
Well, for the FDIs, I think that China made a very clear commitment that is, we're transferred from the positive list to the negative list.
That means that China will only put some of the restrictions and also the limitations on the paper.
And if enterprises want to come here, they can look at that and they can know what they have to do to fulfill their obligations.
Well, the negative release has been a lot of changes in the past several years when we reduced the sectors and the requirements in that list.
So we are going to support the enterprises by reducing the barriers for market access.
Well, on the other hand, I would also say that it is very important if we have provided a mechanism, if the FDIs do have some argument or they have some complaint, they can come here, they can talk with the government officials and just trying to ask them what they really want.
And if you're looking at the free trade zones in China, that we have published so many free trade zones in different provinces, they do have zero characteristics and advantages.
So they want to attract certain groups of or the sectors of FDIs from other countries and they are going to support them with supply chains.
In a world, I would say that the FDI in China is facing a much more predictable environment and they are able to connect their businesses and advantages with China's local ones, and that is very important for them to have a stable future in the coming years or even longer term.
A new technology. He also said China will push for the AI development, but the technology must be properly handled to avoid a Pandora's box of uncontrollable risk.
So what has China done on the AI governance?
Well, yeah, it is true that the AI is developing very quickly.
You know, the technology is pushing the abilities of the computers in a much higher level than before.
But we have to know that all this, you know, development should be just aimed or control or just not beyond the abilities of the people, and ethnic is a very important thing.
So we have published certain kind of rules to trying to require the enterprises in China to develop the AI in a proper ways.
That means that when they are going to develop the technology, they have to be also very clear on the cantooning of the risks, especially for the spillover risks.
So they have to deal with the situation by the balance to look at the benefit and the welfare of the people well together to improve their efficiency, so it's not only just about one company it is about the ecosystem, so we do have the you know the understanding by all the related stakeholders that we can do it together and we were also trying to hear some of the opinions from other countries and that is important for us to align with the international governance and trying to create a better criteria to better support the AI development.
And he says China will collaborate with diverse countries around the world, especially when it comes to sharing new technologies with countries in the global South.
So, how do you think it should make it a more level playing field and how to bridge the gap?
Well, some countries are developing quicker and other countries need also the benefit from the technology development.
So, we need to give some support to the least developed countries and also some of the emerging economies by helping them to improve their abilities to be involved in the digital economy and also the digital trade.
So first of all I, I would think that it's important for us to give some capability building and trying to help them to learn the importance of the development and second we need to support them on the infrastructure and some of the enterprises and the supply chains along this area.
And the third one, I think that it is also important for us to reach some kind of international governance, or some kind of international agreements, to make it clear what are the privileges and also the obligations for the stakeholders.
So in a world, I would say that we should move on together instead of just trying to do something only for ourselves.
And the theme of this year's Davos Forum is collaborating in the intelligent age.
So, Dr. Zhomi, what do you think are the challenges facing the global economy right now?
for the challenges.
I think that there are many changes among them.
Maybe three are more important.
The first one is the governance.
So how can we fulfill our promises multilateral systems and trying to be certain and for the better, fighting against some uncertainty that need us to stop the pro -technism and trying to be more multilateralism.
And second is how can we fulfill our commitment for the global climate change?
How can we stop the warming?
And it is also a lot of impacts on agriculture development and which is very important for so many countries.
And the third one is about how can we deal with this technology development, artificial intelligence and also some other new emerging technology that they are reshaping the So we have to deal with the uncertainties and make it a very strong and stable environment for all the stakeholders to move on together.
What do you think will be China's contribution to the global economy?
China is a super -large market.
We have so many diversity for the development.
All the regions in China are trying to be better off.
So we have pushed on high -quality development, which means that the stakeholders can benefit from care.
And second, I think China has fulfilled our commitments as openness.
And third one, we want to improve the environment and the governance by welcoming any suggestions from other stakeholders.
And that is very helpful for other countries or enterprises who want to do better.
And they can come here to develop with us together.
And also we know that Donald Trump has his plan to revitalize the American manufacturing industry and also impose tariffs to support its domestic industry.
So how do you think this will affect the U .S.
economy and also the global economy?
Well, no countries can just separate and develop by itself in my understanding.
If they want to do that, they have to return to the past, because the agriculture is mainly not so interdependent than on the other countries.
The manufacturing and the services are not.
So we are not trying to return to the 17th or 18th century, we are now in the 21st century.
Everyone should understand that the flow of the data, the flow of the technology, it cannot be stopped.
So the Protestantism cannot do any good for the certain countries.
Even in the short term, they will also reduce the efficiency and the innovation abilities for the stakeholders in the United States.
So I believe that the trend cannot be stopped.
So we need to cooperate, to fight against the challenges and to try and find some better ways to deal with their problems.
That is Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yong.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay with us. You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying.
U .S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has met with his counterparts from Australia, India and Japan on his first day as America's top diplomat.
The ministers reaffirmed what they call their country's commitment to the Quad Format, indicating their leaders would meet in the coming months.
The Quad was established in 2007 to bring together countries that worked with each other in response to the devastating 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
However, it has become a major component of the U .S.
Indo -Pacific strategy to counter China in the region.
Tuesday's meeting had been scheduled sometime after the three foreign ministers accepted invitations to attend the inauguration of U .S.
President Donald Trump.
Joining us now in the studio is my colleague, Jing -Hung.
Thanks for being here.
Hi define. So, the joint statement from this quad meeting hosted by Rubio is quite brief and there are only two paragraphs in the statement but what signals do you think we can read from the meeting?
I guess the message Mark Rubio is trying to send here is that quads or the so -called Indo -Pacific strategy of Washington will be a priority for the foreign policy of the second Trump term.
US diplomats are unwilling to openly admit it, but like you said earlier, in recent years, QUALT has become a platform used by Washington to counter China in the Asia Pacific region or in Washington's terminology in the Indo -Pacific region.
For example, China was the top agenda item when former US President Joe Biden convened Quelch leaders at his Delaware home last year in in September last year and that meeting actually gave birth to a deal for these four countries coastal guards to begin joint patrols starting from this year.
Now with Donald Trump back in the office questions have been raised regarding whether things will change in the US approach to Quelch.
I guess the Trump administration is trying to address this question by emphasizing on strengthening a regional partnership to counter China despite the vastly different worldviews between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
No one needs a reminder about Mark Rubio's hawkish position on China, but one thing to note here is that Rubio actually supports this very idea that somehow the US needs to to bolster its partnerships and alliances initiated by Joe Biden in order to counter China.
That's basically how I see this Rubio -hosted quilt meeting.
Of course, many things remain to be seen.
As you said, the meeting's joint statement is very brief.
In a big -picture sense, unpredictability is a marked characteristic take for Donald Trump.
Well during the first term of Donald Trump from 2017 to 2020, Washington was already showing interest in quad to advance his Indo -Pacific strategy.
So now what do you think Trump 2 .0 might mean for quad?
Well let's begin with the first term of Trump at the time.
Although the US Indo -Pacific strategy was put forward by the Donald Trump administration at the time, but overall, his foreign policy for the Indo -Pacific strategy or the region was really marked by unpredictability and inconsistency.
There was a disconnection between the stated strategic intentions, including the promises made to its cloud partners and the actual actions that were taken at the time.
These features might well return when we talk about Donald Trump 2 .0.
Ultimately, I mean, America first and isolationism are the key fundamentals for Trumpism.
In the meantime, dynamics are also changing on the parts of Japan, Australia and India.
We are seeing warming, improving relations between China and each one of these countries.
Chinese, for example, in a case of Australia, we saw Chinese Premier Li Qiang travelling to Australia in June last year, the first trip by a Chinese Premier, in some 7 years.
China has also reopened its markets to Australian imports like wine.
So if the US tells Japan, Australia and India now that the focal point of clout is about containing China, countering China, we will have reservations for multiple reasons, even though on the surface they might be unwilling to voice their opposition.
The next Quad Summit is due to be held in India, and Indian Foreign Minister Zhai Shankar has written on his ex -account, and I quote, The meeting today sends a clear message that in an uncertain and volatile world, the Quad will continue to be a force for global good.
So what do you make of India's stamps on quad and is there anything that makes India's position different from that of the US?
Among India, Japan and Australia, India is probably the last country that wants to see quad become an anti China security architecture because Japan and Australia are treaty allies of the United States that's undeniable but for India it has a foreign policy tradition for non -alignment Mr. Jai Shankar has actually said on many many occasions that India is never part of any security alliance system or and it will never be and with regard to Jai Shankar's comment on social media platform acts that you have mentioned.
My interpretation, my reading is that India will keep some distance from Kwaut if Kwaut means stirring troubles or stirring geopolitical confrontation with China.
We also need to pay attention to another recent remark by the Indian foreign minister.
He said in a city of Mumbai in India that the relationship between India and China is trying to disentangle itself from the complications arising from the post -2020 border situation.
So, if Washington wants to engage New Delhi right now in terms of a bigger geopolitical game to counter China, I don't think India will be on board judging from the current situation.
but if we're talking about where Quad started from in the first place with a focus on broader regional issues, broader public goods, including infrastructure building, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, climate change on these issues, I think that's something welcomed by the Indian side.
Well apart from the Quad meeting, Rubio has also held a 1 on 1 meeting with the three foreign ministers and for example Japanese foreign minister Takashi Iwaya told Ruby Oda Japan has no choice but to continue increasing defense capabilities given this situation in East Asia.
How do you look at his comment here?
Well, of course the bigger picture here is that the return of Donald Trump to the White House has really prompted expectations that Washington may will place additional pressure on allies, including on Japan, to further step up their on defense spending, this idea that you need to pay more.
So from the way I see it, that is just a Japanese way to try to please the new Trump administration in Washington.
But for Japan, there are a lot of work to do.
In terms of balancing its relationships with both the United States and China, let's not forget that Foreign Minister Iwaya's trip to Beijing sometime last month resulted in a deal to start China -Japan security negotiations.
So during Donald Trump 2 .0 absolute alignment with Washington's policy on security issues is not really in the best interests of the Japanese government.
Okay, thank you Jing -Heng.
You're listening to World Today, and coming up, United States President Donald Trump has announced an AI infrastructure plan worth up to 500 billion US dollars.
Stay with us. You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhang Yang.
U -Best President Donald Trump has announced a joint venture between OpenAI SoftBank and Oracle to invest billions of dollars in artificial intelligence infrastructure.
The joint venture, dubbed Stargate, plans to invest $500 billion over the next four years.
The three companies plan to contribute funds to the venture, which will be open to other investors and start with 10 data centers already under construction in taxes.
For more we are joined by Professor Jong -Goon from the University of International Business and Economics.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
So what are the primary goals of this project, and how do you think it will reshape the landscape of AI industries in the US?
Well, I think what we are very precise about what this project is all about.
This is about AI infrastructure build up.
That means data centers electricity and water supply and other ancillary facilities that that can enable AI computations.
I think this is really what is this project's all about.
And it's quite actually surprising to see that an infrastructure build up would cost so much money, you know, $500 billion.
Although they say the initiative is going to be only $100 billion to start with, but more money will be coming to be poured in later on.
But still, you know, a very significant amount of investment, if you look at the scale of the project.
So what role will these three companies respectively play in this joint venture?
Well, there haven't been a lot of details about the project being discussed so far, But I think it's quite easy to speculate each company's role.
Oracle, of course, is United States largest, I think one of the largest or maybe the largest operator of data centers.
They have already built an infrastructure of data centers across the United States.
So clearly, Oracle will build and run these data centers.
The SoftBank is an investing company.
It has tons of money in its back.
So, I guess, Feeling Yoshi San is gonna pull a lot of money into this.
He is gonna fund this.
That's where the money is coming from.
And Sam Alderman, of course, is the pioneer of AI.
And open AI properties, is the company playing the role of integrating this, running the infrastructure so that it can be used for supporting AI computation, that kind of things.
So that would be my speculation about what each company's role will be in this gigantic project.
Okay, well, Sam Waterman has been a vocal advocate for a more open collaborative approach to AI, but this Stargate project with its involvement of these three big companies seems to be pushing AI infrastructure toward a more, you know, centralized controls.
How do you reconcile these competing visions for the future of AI?
Well, I think it's pretty clear.
One of the things that is needed for this massive computation capability is that you need an infrastructure.
That means that you have the computation power, the data centers, the batteries to backup the data centers, the electricity, water needed to cool these data centers, the farmer servers, these things.
So, I think AI is definitely something that is for the big techs.
I think for small companies, it's kind of difficult to pull the resources to have something like this, especially when talking about infrastructure.
So, I think it's naturally expected that it would be something that is of a very large scale investment and backed by big tech companies with deep pocket investment funds.
And that's just exactly what these three companies are coming from and Orrko is a very well -run company.
It is a huge cash reserve and you know, soft bank without going, without saying, it has tons of money in the bank.
so they have the financial resources to put into a project like this.
Yeah, but still, it looks that they are kind of concentrating AI capabilities in the hands of these very few major private players.
So do you think a project like this risks exacerbating inequality, both within the U .S.
and globally, because we've seen a growing debate over whether AI benefits all humanity, or it will be only accessible only to a small number of powerful corporations?
Well, I would imagine the AI deployment model would be somewhat analogous to the telecom world is this OS I model where you have the physical layer in the bottom, and then you have the Mac layer, the application layer.
And the data link layer.
And on top of this is the application layer.
I would imagine that AI deployment would be very similar to this, where You have the physical large infrastructure sitting at the bottom.
And then you have a couple of layers on top and then top layer of course is the applications, the capability of AI computation, particularly being used for a special application, a special scenario.
And I would argue that when you come to this application layer, there might be opportunities for small companies in niche markets, finding applications in a specialized, maybe industrialized special application.
But if we're talking about the basic infrastructure at the very bottom, it involves a huge amount of investment.
Or as I said, it's basically running a big infrastructure.
And I think this is very difficult for a small company to do.
So so I would argue that the an influencer would be naturally expected to be run by big tech companies.
So I wouldn't be too much concerned about the concentration of market power for something like this because, you know, we have analogous characteristics in other industries.
And look at the infrastructures in utilities, for example in water in telecom in electricity the electricity grid for example they are pretty much controlled by big companies.
Okay well it appears that the US is positioning itself against China in the AI race but AI has the potential as we said to benefit humanity as a whole so how do you see the balance between competition and global cooperation in AI development?
Yeah it's interesting to see that in the news that I have read, I think it's either Altman or Larry Harrison, you know, specifically mentioned China, you know, using China as a sales pitch to persuade President Trump to essentially endorse and be supportive of this project.
And this is actually very much expected.
I think, you know, it's undeniable the United States and China are currently engaged in the first high tech competition.
And certainly AI is one of the key battlefields.
So, United States appears to be leading in this AI algorithm development, computation development.
But when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to building such a massive network of data centers, I think China moves very fast and is really capable of doing this.
So that's why they mentioned China, you know, being potentially leading this area, they want to be lagging behind.
So it's not surprising to me that they will use China as sort of a boggy man and use this as a as a way of convincing President Trump and indeed he was indeed convinced.
But that's okay. I think that's what competition is all about.
That's the nature of competition and you know China has its own strength but you know when it comes to cooperation in A .I.
between the two countries there are still some room of cooperation.
For example this is one subject that being discussed by President Xi and the former President Biden when they met each other in San Francisco.
One of the things they discussed is indeed cooperation I think, by that, I mean the cooperation on developing standards, developing moral principles and guidelines for AI development, that kind of things, plenty of room for cooperation between the two countries.
Okay, thank you, Professor John Gong, from the University of International Business and Economics.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back. You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhang Ying.
Belgium has launched an investigation into allegations that the U .S.
tech giant Apple sourced blood minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The DRC filed criminal complaints against Apple's subsidiaries in Belgium and France last December.
The African country accuses the company of using minerals supplied by armed groups committing atrocities in eastern Congo.
Lawyers acting for the DRC said Belgium has appointed an investigating judge.
They are still waiting for decision from fronts.
Apple says it verifies the origin of the mineral's sources, which are labeled as coming from non -conflict areas or Rwanda.
However, DRC believes these minerals come from illegal mines in eastern Congo and are laundered to become part of the legal supply chain.
For more, we are joined by Einar Tengen, senior fellow at Taihe Institute.
Einar, thanks for joining us.
A pleasure. So first of all, what exactly are blood minerals and why they are so controversial in the DRC?
Well, the blood minerals they're referring to are tantalum, and also telestin, cole, and kin, so -called green -t -t.
So these are mined.
They're very important.
Half the world's resources in this are in the DRC and Rwanda.
So this is what is at the heart of the accusation.
Now, Apple said that we don't source there, but then in June, they set out a mess of saying, basically we're stopping any kind of import from those countries simply because we can't tell where they're from.
So it's kind of a bit of a contradiction.
Yes. As you said, Apple has denied those claims, and it kind of labels the minerals sources as coming from non -conflict areas, or Rwanda.
But, according to the lawyer representing the DRC, he actually said that there is no tech company on Earth that doesn't know that everything purchased from Rwanda is 90 % sure to be Congolese.
Emin, can you explain what this means?
Well, I mean, both Rwanda and Congo share the fact that they have these minerals.
The allegations that there's a group called the M23, which although Rwanda denies backing it, most people believe that they have, and the issue is that they have taken over significant areas of Congo, and have been mining it.
We were talking about 150 metric tons of these, of this coal truck, for example, which is where you derive the pencil.
So it's an area where they say, okay, Rwanda, yes, they do mind this stuff.
But the question is, are they mixing it with stuff that is coming from the Congo area?
Well, DRC has been embroiled in conflict for decades.
So to what extent do you believe tech companies like Apple have played a role in fueling these conflicts or is it the issue more deeply rooted in broader geopolitical dynamics and maybe some systematic factors?
Well, multinational corporations have a very poor record on in terms of where they source and things like that.
They're not really that interested in the politics.
They tried to say, oh, well, we didn't know, or we didn't track, or as far as we know, all these types of things.
But the fact is, as they said, we don't, we can't verify where things are coming from.
The question is, were they turning a blind eye to it?
And that's what this case is going to be about.
Now, you know, the strategy here was Congo said, look, we're losing a billion dollars here in revenues from this, and we believe that they're involved, so rather than go directly to Rwanda, what they've done is attack them at the source.
They're going to try to, you know, get to the European courts, come.
There's an irony. I mean, you know, things happened in Congo because of Belgium.
There were unspeakable, and France has a history of, they were buying uranium yellow cake from the Sahil regions of Africa, cutting across former French colonies for 20 cents euro a pound, and then reselling that same pound for 200 euros.
Now, that has stopped.
But there is this kind of irony out there that these two countries are involved in making judgments against other countries when their hands are not exactly clean.
Yeah, so why exactly is the case being prosecuted in Europe?
Well, because it can be what you're doing is you're packing the area where Apple phones and computers and things like that are being sold.
So they believe that they'll have a much better chance of pressing their case.
And if it is in fact found that Apple could pay significant penalties and enforcement in Europe, where Apple is not willing to give up the market.
So they see this as their best chance to get economic illumination, as well as topic.
But it's going to be a question of Google.
Yes. So is it just Apple, or are there also other tech companies that are also maybe using these conflict minerals?
They're all doing. Or that would be the allegation, because we're talking, as I said, for some of these minerals that have the world supply.
These companies are getting it from somewhere.
Maybe some companies are being more picky about where they get it.
But, you know, they're all in competition.
So they're going to try to get it as cheaply as possible.
And in some cases, you know, it's not the people at the top saying this, it's people who are, you know, under pressure from their bottom lines, things like that and say, hey, we can get it cheaper over there.
So let's and we don't ask too many questions and we won't have ultimate lives.
There's a notion that big tech benefits from cheap minerals extracted through human rights abuses, while presenting an image of social responsibility.
Do you believe the tech industry's public relations efforts are ultimately masking the real damage it is doing to vulnerable regions?
They are. And as I said, they're in this for profit.
They want to pretend that they're socially responsible.
They're trying to create deniability out there, but given that half the world's minerals come from these countries in those particular areas, it's really hard for these companies to do that.
But, you know, there is a solution.
The solution is not relying on a good state of multinational corporations, which are only interest in profits.
But these countries have to kind of come together and be much more effective.
If Rwanda and Congo said, look, let's declare peace, let's find the other groups, countries that supply these vital minerals, let's put together our own forces, you know, the trading platforms, and let's set the price the way OPEC did.
Because if they did that, then there would be money, there wouldn't be child labor involved in all these things.
I mean, the ironies that use these same countries that are benefiting from these cheap minerals which are being extracted from more torn areas are the same ones that will play these videos of child labor and horrible conditions in its minds, all the ecological damage that is being done, and, you know, they blame the country, but they don't necessarily include How they themselves are implicitly profiting all of this.
Well thank you, Ainer Tiangan, Senior Fellow at Taihe Institute.
And that's all the time we have 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.
I'm Zhao Ying. Thank you so much for listening.
See you next time.
