Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
Coming up.
China and South Korea pledge to bolster bilateral ties as President Lee Jong-moon's China visit continues.
Nicolas Maduro pleads not guilty in US federal court.
Denmark is in a kind of crisis mode as Donald Trump sets eye on Greenland after attack on Venezuela and political risk consultancy Eurasia Group has named US political revolution as the top global risk for 2026.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
Chinese President, Xi Jinping, has called on China and South Korea to achieve more cooperation results in emerging fields such as AI, green industries and the silver economy.
Meeting South Korean counterpart Li Jiangmun in Beijing.
Xi Jinping said that the two countries share close economic ties, with industrial and supply chains deeply interwoven.
The Chinese leader also said that the two countries should defend the results of the victory in World War II and safeguard peace and stability in Northeast Asia.
And, for his part, President Li Jiangmeng said Seoul highly values ties with Beijing and hopes to further deepen their strategic partnership.
He also expressed interest in opportunities from China's next five-year plan.
The two leaders witnessed the signing of 15 agreements in areas including science and technology, the environment transportation, and economic and trade cooperation.
Li is currently on a state visit to China from Sunday to Wednesday.
On Tuesday, he went to Shanghai after meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang in Beijing.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Yang Xiyu, Senior Research Fellow with the China Institute of International Studies.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Yang.
China and South Korea, we know, are maintaining some robust trade relations, with their annual two-way trade worth hundreds of billions of US dollars.
So how can the two sides create new momentum in their trade?
Well, you are touching a very great but complex question.
You mentioned the new momentum.
It's a really challenging task facing both of the countries.
On one hand, after several decades of rapid development of the two-way trade and investment between the two countries, I think the volume of the trade investment are approaching the limits in the dimension of traditional way.
But, on the other hand, with the background of the two greater transformation of the economy, say green energy transformation and the AI digital transformation.
In this background, both China and South Korea are increasingly relying on the new areas for the further development of their respective economies.
By the same token, bilateral cooperation is also increasingly relying on the new frontiers.
So, returning to your key words of the question, the new momentum must stem from the new areas, such as AI tech cooperation and green energy-oriented cooperation.
Friend, environmental-oriented cooperation.
So the new areas, the newly emerging areas, will certainly contribute greater than the traditional sectors for the enhancement of the enlargement of the bilateral trade investment between China and South Korea.
So do you believe fields such as the AI, or green industry, or the silver economy, will be the next focus of China-South Korea cooperation?
Yes, it's a very interesting question.
I think.
On one hand, both South Korea and China suffer more and more of the aging problem.
That trigger multidimensional challenges, from social to economy, to culture, and so on.
So both China and South Korea must address seriously on the challenge from the civil age.
But on the other hand, the newly emerged challenges from the civil war situation also provides new rooms and new opportunities for the economic development.
Both China and the South Korea, facing the similar challenges, certainly need close cooperation, jointly addressing these challenges.
Therefore, the silver economy, addressing the silver problems, will certainly be the great potential for both of the countries, also for the bilateral cooperation.
By the same token, China and South Korea pay more and more attention to the AI sectors, simply because AI has become key drivers for the new development of the economy.
Additionally, it's well known both China and South Korea are leading economies in terms of the AI development, but command quite different advantages between the two.
For example, China has taken the lead in the AI cloud and has taken the lead in the AI infrastructure.
Meanwhile, South Korea has command great capacities of the high-tech chips production and so on.
The different analogies provides a quite beautiful and perfect vertical complementary rules for the cooperation.
So on one hand there are indeed competitions between the two sides for the high-tech development, but on the other hand, Just based on the different advantages, the two sides really need deeper and wider cooperation for the mutual development, for the shared prosperity.
So, in the meantime, Dr Yang, what do you read from this pledge by the two leaders to safeguard regional stability?
I think it's a very important question and a challenge for both China and South Korea.
In this summit meeting, Chinese top leader President Xi Jinping addressed the importance of maintaining the stability of the post-World War II regional order, in which the key pillar is Japan must maintain and keep their pacifist past for their national development.
That is the key pillar for the post-World War II regional order.
And address the same issue, pay high value of the strategic partnership with China.
That means the two sides have a great room for the cooperation for the shared goals, say maintain the stability of the post-World War II order and make the joint efforts to watch and push Japan continue their pacifist path.
That benefits not only for China, South Korea, for Japan, but also for all Asian countries as a whole.
Then, considering the history where both China and Korea were the victims of Japanese imperialism, how can the two countries today defend the results of the victory in World War II?
I think the historical issue is very important.
It's well known.
The historical issue in the bilateral relation between South Korea and Japan, and as well as the bilateral relation between China and Japan, has always been one of the important issues in the respective bilateral relations, simply because the right base for the historical issue is the right base for the healthy relationship between the respective bilateral relations.
Unfortunately for Japanese side, especially in recent decades, the right wing in the internal politics in Japan increasingly made efforts to revising history, revising the historical acknowledgement.
That's a very dangerous Because it's saying those who fail to learn lessons from history are doomed to repeat it with.
The wrong historical acknowledgement will lead to a repetition of the old past.
This is why both China and South Korea pay highly attention to the historical issue.
That's simply because it's not a historical issue.
It's a really existing challenge, a security challenge referring to the direction of Japan's future development, referring to the future of the peace and stability and security for the Asian countries.
By the way, adding to what you have elaborated, it is reported in media that President Lee Jong-un will pay a visit to this Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea Memorial Hall, located in Shanghai.
We know, this Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was a sort of government in exile established by Koreans during the Japanese colonial period from 1910 to 1945.
So what messages do you read from this particular schedule of President Lee's visit?
What do you think this tells us about China and South Korea's shared memory about history?
I think President Lee's visit for the memorial site contains both historical significance and existing significance.
On the historical aspects, the memorial site really contains memories of the shared sad history and the shared anti-Japanese aggression history between Korean people and the Chinese people.
So President Lee's visit readdressed the importance of the historical issue and also readdressed the significance of the site, because this site has became a symbolic monument reflecting the shared history, the shared anti-Japanese struggle between the two peoples.
Therefore, not only President Li, but also several, quite several former South Korean also paid a visit for the site.
In other words, the revisit by the South Korean state head reflects South Korean people's determination to insist on right historical acknowledgement, not only for South Korean people, but also for Japanese people.
By the same token, South Koreans' feeling and position highly shared by Chinese side.
Therefore, his visit in the Shanghai side really reflects the shared history, the shared struggle experiences and the shared goals by the two countries, say South Korea and China.
The final question before we let you go.
So, in your observation, Do you think President Li's visit this time is opening a new chapter in the development of bilateral ties?
Why or why not?
Well, I would say this visit has opened a strategic recalibration of the bilateral relation.
Let's remember, this visit is quite unprecedented simply because the very unprecedented frequency of the top level exchanges say, in about two months the two sides has exchanged top-level state visits just about two months.
Two months ago, President Xi Jinping paid the state visit to South Korea, and two months later the South Korean side returned the head state visit.
Such unprecedented exchanges, plus senior level to the working level, intensive exchanges, really reflects the turning point of the bilateral relation from the previous almost freeze the level to the strategic recuperation oriented.
That means such a strategic re-anchoring will certainly open, as you said, the new period or the new phase of the bilateral relation, the up and the down, the rock and roll of the bilateral relations in the previous years.
So I'm quite optimistic for the future of the bilateral relations.
The two great countries will develop a deeper and wider cooperation based on the shared prosperity and mutual achievements.
Now it's not a new chapter opened, but towards the opened new chapter based on the current strategy of re-anchoring.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Dr. Yang Xinyu, Senior Research Fellow with the China Institute of International Studies.
Coming up, Nicolas Maduro pleads not guilty in U.S. federal court.
This is World Today, stay tuned.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
White, as well as President Nicolas Maduro, has pleaded not guilty to all drug-related charges during his first court appearance in New York.
He emphasized that he remains as the president of Venezuela.
Maduro's wife also said that she is innocent of all the charges brought against her.
Venezuela has requested that the UN Security Council demand that the United States respect the immunities of President Maduro and his wife and secure their safe return well, as well.
As ambassador to the UN, Samuel Mokada told a particular emergency meeting on Monday that the US action violates the UN Charter and the basic norms of international law.
U.S. military forces carried out a strike in Caracas and forcibly seized Maduro and his wife.
So joining us now on the line is Dr Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology.
Thank you very much for joining us.
A pleasure to be with you.
So the lawyer representing Maduro and his wife has indicated that he expects many complicated legal issues to arise over the course of Maduro's case, including those concerning the legality of his forcible seizure.
What is your understanding of the case against Maduro?
Well, the case is flimsy.
It's entirely politically driven, of course.
But I need to, I guess, emphasise the fact that there is substantial historical experience which points very clearly to the fact that, regardless of the legalities or otherwise of how the American legal system was able to detain a particular accused person, those issues will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the case at all.
There have been many cases in the past with a long-arm jurisdiction of American policing and legal authority has reached across borders illegally.
And ultimately, those arguments concerning how the accused has actually been apprehended have no bearing on the case as it is heard and argued in the United States.
We know a bad rock principle of international, as well as US, laws is that a sovereign head of foreign state is immune from prosecution.
Why is this a key principle?
And do you think any foreseeable U.S. trial of Mr. Maduro will violate this key principle?
Absolutely.
I mean.
This is, of course, once again the American system and the American political elite proving that they see themselves as above and beyond international law.
This is what has been long time known as the international liberal rules based order, which is, of course, an environment in which the Americans get to dictate what the rules are for everybody else, but reserves the right and the authority to absolve themselves from following those rules.
We're going to see the same again.
This is the United States thumbing its nose at the regime of international law and ultimately undermining the foundations of the post-war legal order.
So, based on what you have suggested earlier, do you think this particular case we are talking about against Mr Maduro, is a sign that in the case of the US government behavior, for example, the line between legal action and political action has been blurred or is being blurred?
Absolutely, it's been blurred.
The law is bending to the political demands of the Trump administration.
There's no two ways about that.
And?
But this is exactly what you expect from a country that has, for many decades, treated international law as something that it could choose to participate in when useful and ignore when not.
It has been an unlawful rogue state for decades.
But for the first time in quite some time, its behavior is so explicit that it is almost impossible for even the most ardent American allies to ignore.
Hmm.
So why, do you think, at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council held on Monday, the critics of the US, the latest US action against the Venezuela, including its forcible seizure of President Nicolas Maduro?
The critics included not only countries like China and Russia and some countries in Latin America, but also include some of the allies of the United States.
For example, the French diplomats to the UN or the Danish diplomats to the UN.
Well, this all goes to their concerns that the Americans are going to treat Greenland in the same ways that they've treated China.
Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela.
For quite some time, the Europeans, of course, have been 100, in lockstep with the United States and going so far as episodes where the head of NATO described Donald Trump to his face as daddy, in what has to be one of the most humiliating episodes we've seen on the international stage for quite some time.
Now, these Europeans have of course thought that by currying favour with Washington, that they would be able to keep Washington firstly committed to the European priorities, which includes, of course, the question of Russia and Ukraine.
But little did they think that the Americans would turn on them as well.
And of course, this is their greatest fear.
Donald Trump and some of the people close to him have made it very, very clear that they have their eyes set now on Greenland.
Donald Trump has appointed an envoy in a clear sign that they are laying the groundwork for a move to secure their own interests and their own ambitions in relation to Greenland, regardless of what the Europeans or the Danes have got to say.
So in the days ahead, do you think we're going to see a scenario where, for example, the U.N.
Security Council will issue a statement, or even a legally binding resolution, demanding that Washington release Maduro.
Well, the United States, of course, is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power.
So no, the United States will, of course, veto any such a resolution.
So, from a pure legal point of view, there will be no such resolution coming out of the Security Council.
The whole point of all of this, of course, is to demonstrate to the wider world that the United States has gone fully rogue, that any pretenses that it may have had in the past of being the leader of the so-called global, liberal international order have now disappeared.
The veil has been removed and people can now see the United States, as for everything that it actually has been historically and continues to be.
The theatre at the United Nations really goes to prove the point.
But ultimately it also goes to show that the Security Council no longer has the teeth that is necessary to bring one of its major permanent members to heel.
So how can we make that tease, how to say, to be born again?
Is that realistic or would you say it's just wishful thinking?
I'm asking this because some say, and I'm just directly quoting some European countries' diplomats to the UN they say any violation of international law by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which include the United States, would erode the very foundation of the international order.
Look, it certainly erodes the institutions of the United Nations.
But fortunately, countries are not solely bound by the United Nations arrangements and have, of course, in many different ways, pursued all sorts of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, separate to the United Nations arrangements, in the pursuit of their shared objectives.
And we've seen that in the trade arena.
We also see that in environmental matters and other things.
So I think firstly, countries that actually believe that the United States is acting in ways that are contrary to the interests of peace and stability globally need to come together.
If it's not through the United Nations, then through countries that are willing to act cohesively.
And that means willing to take action in relation to the United States.
Now the United States, of course, has made it clear to the world that it sees itself as being able to act above it and act with impunity.
It has for decades, of course, run the rhetoric that if anybody steps out of line that they need to be punished.
The United States is the past master of sanctions and all sorts of other forms of punishment that seeks to cause pain and economic damage to others.
It's time for the rest of the world to give clear consideration to how they need to ostracize the Americans, who themselves, of course, are telling the world that they are above and beyond the law.
Yeah, your point's well taken.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Dr Warwick Powell, Adjunct Professor at Queensland's University of Technology.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
We'll be back after a short break.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
Danish Prime Minister Maid Frederiksen has denounced U.S.
President Donald Trump's renewed statement that the U.S. needs Greenland.
She called Trump's remarks, quote, unacceptable pressure on the self-governing territory, unquote.
Frederiksen stressed that both Denmark and Greenland have time and time again rejected any idea of Greenland becoming part of the United States.
President, Donald Trump has been expressing interest in gaining control of Greenland since 2025, saying that he would not rule out the possibility of using military or economic coercion to achieve that goal.
So for more.
My colleague Song Ruixin spoke with Kamal Makini-Aliyev, associate professor at the School of Global Studies University of Gothenburg.
So Kamal, this is a topic many people have already heard about, but just want to help our audiences who may not be familiar with it.
Let's start with the basics.
Why is Greenland such a recurring focus for some U.S. politicians?
Well, Greenland's appeal to US politicians is rooted in the geostrategic geography defense, infrastructure and resource wealth that is associated with Greenland.
The island sits basically astride the Arctic, controlling the shortest air and missile routes between North America and Europe.
It also hosts the US Pitufik space base.
It's a very critical component of early warning and space surveillance network systems of the US strategic defenses.
Its location makes it central to Arctic security and the great power competition that the US is engaged in.
Melting ice additionally opens new shipping routes and access to mineral resources, including rare earths, that are critical for the technology and defense supply chains.
So the interest is not new.
US leaders have floated Greenland purchase ideas since as early as 19th century.
But current rhetoric.
It ties it to reducing reliance of US on China for minerals, securing Arctic defense and expanding US strategic posture.
So Trump calls it essential for US and allied security and his naming of a special envoy signals very persistent political interest.
The Danish prime minister has framed a U.S. attempt on Greenland as an act that would end NATO.
Is this a statement of fact about the alliance of collapse or something else?
Well, it is a largely strategic warning aimed at Washington and other NATO capitals, to underscore the seriousness of the issue.
Denmark is a close US ally and Greenland falls under the sovereignty, by extension under NATO's security umbrella.
And Danish Prime Minister warns that any US attack on another NATO member would rupture the alliance's foundational trust and obligations, effectively ending the alliance's post-war security architecture.
And probably the alliance itself.
So it's not a literal prediction that NATO will collapse tomorrow, but a high stakes diplomatic signal.
Infringing on the sovereignty of the NATO territory would undermine the very collective defense pact that underpins US-European security cooperation.
And this warning is meant to preempt escalation and rally Western unity around sovereignty and international law.
OK.
So while the rhetoric has been sharp, but let's see Greenland's own leadership seems to be striking a more calibrated tone.
So Greenland's prime minister says they are open to dialogue through the proper channels, with respect for international law.
So, given the strong rejection of annexation of a fantasy quote unquote, what specific form could such dialogue or discussions realistically take?
Yeah, any realistic dialogue would focus on the security cooperation, economic partnerships and Arctic governance, and not transfer of sovereignty.
So I would think formal consultative talks between Greenlandic, Danish and US officials on Arctic security, Arctic security needs and you know, the US military presence there,
It could be talks about technical cooperation on defense infrastructure integrating, for example, pit-offing bases capabilities with Danish and NATO plans, while protecting sovereignty.
It might go on around bilateral economic and resource development discussions that respect Greenland's autonomy.
For example, investment in mining or other infrastructure, and the terms defined by the Greenlanders themselves.
It can be around multilateral Arctic Council engagement.
You know where you have US Danish Canadian, Nordic and Russian Arctic strategies that are discussed in line with international law.
The emphasis on the proper channels I think underscores that Greenlanders want legally grounded, respectful partnership talks and not unilateral US overtures or annexation demands.
That's, I think, very clear.
But in the context of the recent US military operation in Venezuela and the subsequent rhetoric about so-called running the country, Affairs have been raised about a potential use of force against Greenland.
Then, while legally and militarily unprecedented against a NATO ally, how significant is the risk of continued coercive pressure, especially given the current political climate in Washington?
Legally and militarily.
An attack on Greenland, a territory of Denmark and a NATO ally, would be unprecedented and extraordinarily consequential.
NATO Article 5 mutual defense obligation covers Greenland, so any hostile use of force would trigger collective defense obligations and almost certainly lead to a direct conflict between NATO and the United States itself.
Danish leaders explicitly warned that such an act means everything stops regarding NATO cooperation.
However, comments from some US officials including, you know, a senior White House aide, not ruling out military options and Trump's rhetoric linking Greenland to national security, have amplified a lot of fear and speculation.
And even actual policy planning by force is highly unlikely, even in that case, right?
It's still highly unlikely.
But I mean realistically.
The US retains other levers diplomatic economic, you know a lot of soft power to pursue influence even without resorting to military action.
So the risk of coercive pressure exists, but not large-scale force against NATO territory.
I don't think that's actually in the cards.
Even under current geopolitical realities, it seems very unlikely.
Okay, what about the US President Donald Trump?
He stated the EU, quote-unquote, needs the US to control Greenland.
On what specific intelligence or discussions is this claim based?
Well, Trump frames Greenland's strategic value in terms of shared Western security interests.
He's arguing that controlling Greenland strengthens missile defense and high latitude surveillance and that benefit both North America and Europe at the same time.
While this narrative resonates with some security analysts, I don't think there's any public evidence that the claim is based on newly declassified intelligence.
It rather reflects Trump's interpretation of existing defense realities, you know, and his preference for direct US control of strategic hubs.
So he basically wants to project power.
Greenland already contributes to NATO's strategic posture via the hosting of the Pitofik base, its early warning radar, and helps monitor missile threats towards Europe and North America.
I mean, Trump's assertion that we need Greenland for national security, it actually is consistent with longstanding defense rationales, but it's also combined with a political language that goes beyond formal strategic consensus. and goes into the unilateral rhetoric right so us first critics argue that this exaggeration feud recent diplomatic tension i think it's rather grounded in new classified assessments rather than anything that we've seen in the open intelligence but if we step back even further i mean does this episode signal a shift away from a rule-based international order toward a so-called might makes right approach I think if such rhetoric is normalized, you know, that the major power can lawfully demand control over another sovereign territory under the guise of security needs, and I stress lawfully, I think it would undermine fundamental principles of the UN Charter and the post-war legal framework prohibiting territorial acquisition by force, for sure.
European and Nordic responses emphasize respect for the sovereignty of international law and framing the US language as contrary to established norms of international law.
So this needs to be also taken into account.
Although this episode has sparked I mean a lot of really heated rhetoric, I don't think it's going to lead to concrete challenges to the rules-based order, particularly because Denmark and Greenland have robustly rejected US annexation ambitions and underscores their own sovereignty.
So by the global implication, it might lead to a heightened sense of vulnerability among small states.
I think it's going to go in that direction.
But a push for more diversified security partnerships, possibly EU and Nordic cooperation.
It is going to try to guard against pressure from larger powers.
We'll see how effective it's going to be, of course.
I mean Norway, Finland and Sweden very quickly affirm Greenland's sovereignty and respect for international law.
And they signal the unified Nordic front that reinforces territorial integrity and the role of law in the Arctic.
So they have a say in this.
Canada also is a state that shares an Arctic security concern and has previously cooperated on Arctic patrols and sovereignty.
I think it's likely going to reinforce joint monitoring and defense arrangements without provoking confrontation.
You know, the Canada relations with the US is already strained, so they're going to be trying to sit this one out very quietly. um major eu powers like france and germany have publicly supported denmark and greenland's autonomy and indicating that major eu capitals were very sensitive to sovereignty violations and may deepen diplomatic and defense linkages with nordic states to avoid you know unilateral overreach by any single external power so i think they're going to be intertwined on this um with nordics Dr. Kamal Makili-Aliyev, joining us from the University of Gothenburg, talking with my colleague Song Ruixin.
This is World Today.
We'll be back.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Political risk consultancy Eurasia Group has listed the US political revolution as the top risk for the whole world in 2026.
The consultancy says in a new report that the United States is experiencing a revolution where President Donald Trump is attempting to systematically dismantle the checks on his power, capture the machinery of government and weaponize it against his enemies.
The report has also said that, with many of the guardrails that held in President Donald Trump's first term now buckling, there is no longer certainty on what kind of political system the United States will be when this revolution is over.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Professor Qu Bo, Director of the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University.
Thank you very much for joining us, Professor.
Thank you very much.
So the report says what began as tactical norm breaking in the United States has now become a system level transformation.
Would you agree with this observation?
Yes, I think the revolution is really happening.
So if we look at when Donald Trump just came into power almost a year and from the tariff wall and to the big beautiful bill and the shutdown of government for the longest in American history,
And by now, the U.S. military action intervened in Venezuela.
So we also, Donald Trump just ignored the Congress or ignored the tracks and balance.
So that is why, almost in the after Donald Trump came into power, many Americans are concerned, already concerned about a return absolute rule, due to the steps taken by Donald Trump's second administration.
So that is why the last year there are no kings protects all over the US organized, organized to coincide with Trump's birthday on June 15th.
So the second Donald Trump administration has made a determined effort to to strengthen a president's power and reduce oversight of the executive branch.
So achieving this could mean the president acting in an arbitrary manner similar to absolute monarchy of the past of the United States, free of congressional or judicial interference.
And if we look at the big beautiful bill and actually contain certain provisions that strengthen the role of the president and undermine the tracks and balance system?
So I think this is true.
The revolution is happening and Donald Trump is trying to strengthen its own power.
So that is why someone argued Donald Trump is trying to become like the king of the United States.
Yeah, but it seems, on the other hand, at least in the views of President Trump or his administration officials, they are not staging an assault, for example, on US democracy.
Instead, they believe they are saving exactly the US democracy through a necessary purge of a political system captured or hijacked by a deeply corrupt establishment which has already weaponized the government's resources against them.
If we think about the impeachment against Trump during his first term and many of Donald Trump's voters also tend to hold this kind of particular view
So what do you make of this huge difference in terms of perception between different political camps in the United States?
So I think this is very obvious, especially against the current context of U.S. politics.
So one of the features of current U.S. politics is so-called political polarization.
And this is not a new phenomenon, and that divided the United States very much.
And so I think that is also the reason for so-called the American Revolution.
So on one hand we have to say the some actions of Donald Trump's so-called reform, the administration has some legitimate base right to increase the efficiency of the government.
So that is why at the beginning he cooperated with Elon Musk. to restructure the government.
And I think that wins some applause from American people.
But on the other hand, just due to the political polarization.
So that really made the United States have so different perceptions about what is the political camps by Donald Trump.
I guess we can talk for hours on end about this issue.
But very briefly, the final question when there is a political revolution in the United States, what could be its international impact?
So I think very badly.
And now the United States, or Donald Trump, really highlights the significance of force or the military force.
So I think the United States will like, is going to build a going back to very realistic perspective and will undermine the rule based the global order.
And that will cast a great shadow for the the international international orders.
Okay.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Professor Qu Bo, Director of the Institute of International Relations with China, Foreign Affairs University.
Coming up.
According to latest official figures, China's low-altitude equipment industry has grown fast over the past five years.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Welcome.
I am Chuchu Zhang.
Deputy Director at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University.
On the World Today program.
We will dive beyond the headlines to uncover the stories, trends and impacts that connect states across the globe.
Join me on World Today.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
China's low-altitude equipment industry grew steadily over the past five years, with output rising over 10 annually.
By the end of 2025, more than 1000 enterprises had registered, covering more than 5 million units of equipment.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China forecasts that this particular industry could exceed 35 trillion yuan, or nearly 500 billion US dollars, by the year 2035.
For more.
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, professor of economics with Willamette University.
So Yan, China's low-altitude equipment sector has grown over 10% annually in the past five years.
What factors do you think have driven this rapid expansion?
Well, I think there are three major reasons.
One has to do with the very strong government support when it comes to policies, but also when it comes to open up airspace.
So these kinds of policies help to re-governize the private sector to have massive investments into technologies.
And so we are seeing a lot of technological breakthroughs When it comes to AI, when it comes to battery.
Also, a lot of technological innovations in the EV sector are able to transfer into this low-altitude economy equipment manufacturing sector.
So we're seeing this kind of technological breakthrough with massive investment that helped to promote the sector growth.
And last but not the least, as we know that there is the very complete domestic supply chain in China manufacturing, you know, these low altitude economies equipment, drones and other vertical lending and takeoff vehicles, so the kinds of complete supply chain is built, is able to massively produce these products at a very high speed at a very cost effective way, and so that help again to promote the sector growth.
And, last but not least, i think the surging demand from tourism logistics, you know, urban air mobility, agriculture and other services sector also provide a very strong push for the sector to grow.
And how are the private companies, startups and big state-owned enterprises positioned in this market?
Well, I think you see a lot of innovative leaders.
Companies in these sectors are startups or private sectors, right.
Like the DJI, one of the most important drone manufacturers in China, is one of these startups.
So these companies, they have rich capital, they have the talent, they have the professionals and they are also taking advantage of a lot of policy support.
And that's why I think it's important for these private companies and startups to continue to play a major role, giving the agility and efficiency, giving their technological innovativeness, And so you're also seeing some state-owned enterprises that are also helping to provide a lot of infrastructure, provide a lot of strategic enlightenment.
For example, they're able to provide a 5G network and telecommunication infrastructure.
So in a way, I think private companies really provide kind of the wings of innovations, whereas SOEs, The state of enterprises, are building necessary runways and air traffic control systems.
So, using this analogy, you can see this is a very complete ecosystem that really combined the private sector and the public sectors, and take advantage of each.
You know the sectors, the sectors, the strengths to co-develop.
This low altitude economy.
And what are commercial applications of the low altitude economy in sectors such as industry, agriculture and services, and how to make it cost efficient?
Yeah, I think that's a great question.
I think you know you've got to have really diverse and rising demand to continue to support industry development right in the low altitude economy.
So I think there are many user cases for the low altitude economies.
So, for example, when it comes to logistics and deliveries right, you're seeing now, actually in China, drone delivery has been very efficient to provide some of the last mile delivery.
So I think that sector will continue to grow.
Then you're also seeing urban air mobility that is emerging and developing.
Some of the industry leaders, for example Yi Hang.
They are projecting the cost of the kinds of e-virtual, the electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicles will decline significantly, you know, given the mass production.
So that would make the kind of urban commute very cost-effective using those kinds of aerial vehicles.
Then you mentioned agriculture.
I think that it's another important application of these kinds of technologies in precision agriculture, When it comes to fertilization, when it comes to irrigation right.
You can use a lot of these kinds of drone technologies to accomplish that, as well as monitoring weather events.
So that is another very important application.
And last but not the least, I think tourism, emergency services you know use drones for and also amend, you know pilotness kind of vehicles for sightseeing, for firefighting, for disasters relief.
All of these are important markets and growing demand for these kinds of technologies and products.
And meanwhile, China's commercial space market grew from 38 billion yuan in 2015 to 23 trillion today, with an annual growth rate of more than 22.
And China expects it to approach 10 trillion yuan by the year 2030.
So what is driving this explosive growth?
Well again, I think there are three main factors for the commercial air growth, commercial space industry to have this kind of rapid growth.
One has to do with, again, government support.
So the commercial space sector was listed in the government's World Report in 2024 as a new engine of economic growth.
So you see cities like Beijing and Shanghai very soon follow the report with dedicated support policies and action plans to accelerate these cities, investments and infrastructure in the commercial aerospace sector, as well as regulatory updates.
Then you are also seeing the second factor, which is a lot of private sectors participation, right?
A lot of companies in the commercial space companies have been setting up.
So far this, until 2025, there have been over 500 these kinds of commercial space companies.
Many of them are the private companies.
So with a lot of these companies.
They're in all kinds of segments in this space when it comes to manufacturing of the rockets to many of other equipment manufacturers.
So you're seeing, you know, these private sectors are setting up and they're able to produce at a massive quantity, again at a fast, speed and cost effective way.
You're also seeing private companies.
They're setting up launch services and also satellite services.
So that's why you know you're seeing this.
Private sectors active participation is helping to promote the commercial space industry.
And last but not the least, I think there has been quite a few of technological breakthroughs in the sector.
So you need rockets, satellites, and launch sites.
Those are the three essential pillars of the commercial space industry.
And you're seeing 2025.
For example, there are a couple experiments of the reusable rockets are being scheduled to launch and to test.
You're also seeing on the satellite front, there are many.
The so-called low orbit satellite network is being set up, right like the space sail constellation.
So many of these low orbit satellite network and these satellites are being launched.
And so that helped to create a kind of technological advancements for the sector.
And last but not the least, in 2024, China had a first launch facility dedicated to commercial missions that opened.
So these conclude the last piece, right, of the technological ecosystem for the commercial space.
So you see, from the government sector support to the private sector's active you know, investments and production to the technological breakthroughs.
That's why you're seeing this very rapid development of the commercial space industry in China.
And why is commercial space industry being elevated now?
And how might the advancements in this area fit into other high-tech industries like advanced materials robotics, AI and vice versa?
Well, I think the space industry and the commercial space industry is a matter not only for you know, when it comes to economic growth engine, but it is also a national security issue, right?
So when you have in the US, for example, Elon Musk's space links that are able to provide a lot of these satellite services to both the government and also private sector, I think China is seeing the vacuum right.
And it needs to ramp up the space industry development.
And so to commercialize the space industry would add more investment and add more momentum for the development of it.
And second, as you mentioned, right, this sector does provide a lot of growth potential.
And it's not just for the space industry itself, but really it is able to have a lot of spillover effects to other high-tech sectors like advanced materials, like robotics, like AI and also advanced manufacturing.
That's why the sector is going to gain a lot of emphasis, but also momentum when it comes to development in the next few years.
Yan Liang, professor of economics with Willamette University, talking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching for World Today.
I'm Dinghe Lin, Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
