Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying.
Coming up, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has held strategic dialogue with his Portuguese counterpart, what issues have they discussed?
Russia and Ukraine have agreed to a Black Sea ceasefire, but uncertainties remain.
Can it pave the way for a broader peace deal?
Indonesia would join the BRICS's new development bank.
What's behind the decision?
Jana and Portugal have held a strategic dialogue in Beijing.
It involved foreign ministers from the two countries.
Jani's foreign minister Wang He said the two have had a good tradition of mutual respect and support, and they have set a good example of resolving issues laid over from history through friendly consultation.
He also expressed China's readiness to work with Portugal to further promote bilateral ties and make China and Europe strategic partners.
Portuguese Foreign Minister Paolo Rangel said the country is ready to strengthen cooperation with China in various fields, including the economy, trade and energy.
For more, we have Dr. George Tsagopoulos, director of EU -China programs and senior research Fellow at European Institute of Neath.
How significant is the strategic dialogue between Chinese and Portuguese foreign ministers, and what does it tell us about the current state of bilateral relations?
I would say that this is a very important meeting, and the continuation of the strategic dialogue is a significant development.
And it is placed in the gradual improvement or the context of the gradual improvement of relations between the two countries, China and Portugal.
I would say that both countries are developing ties quite fast and obviously from the moment that they are enhancing their strategic dialogue, this is indicative of their determination to promote joint synergies in different sectors.
So it is a significant development that of course also is linked to the gradual improvement of relations between China and the European Union on the whole.
OK, well, the Portuguese foreign minister expressed interest in expanding cooperation in fields like energy, health, finance, infrastructure and green transformation.
How might cooperation in these fields bring new opportunities for both China and Portugal?
Well, again, I would say that there is continuity in the economic partnership between China and Portugal, we should remember that Chinese investors indeed invested in Portugal in difficult times during the European debt crisis.
Their investment has contributed to part of the Portuguese recovery again in difficult times.
So I would say that this tendency can be strengthened in the future.
And the continuation of the strategic dialogue can be the beginning in order for the two sides to explore additional synergies.
And in today's world, obviously, green energy is at the epicenter of attention and taking into account China's leading role in that regard. I would say that Portugal would be one of the EU member states to welcome additional Chinese investments.
But again, it's important to suggest that there is continuity in the collaboration and that additional synergies will only be placed in the context of a partnership which is already very strong.
Hmm, well Wang Yi has also highlighted the successful resolution of the MCL issue as a model for addressing historical disputes.
I mean, how significant is this historical precedent for the current China -Portugal relationship and how does MCL continue to serve as a bridge between the two countries today?
This is a very important question.
I would say that Macau's integration in China's mainland has been very smooth and harmonious, and this is indicative of the good collaboration which has existed over the last 24, 25 years.
And within this context and beyond the region of Macau itself, it's significant to suggest that China has also improved relations with Portuguese speaking countries, and this is quite significant for China's foreign and economic policy.
Always it's very important to look into history and, as you correctly suggested, the return of Macao to China and the smooth integration are elements that cannot be ignored and are elements which are contributing to a very good understanding, which is also equally significant as economic and political ties.
Well, actually, Portugal has often taken a more open stance towards China compared to some other EU countries like last year, Portugal abstained from an EU vote to impose tariffs on Chinese built electric vehicles, and it has welcomed Chinese investment from this industry.
So what roles do you think Portugal can practically play in China's broader engagements with Europe?
Well, you know, European relations have entered a new period of improvement, I would say, over the last years.
And as you correctly suggested, there are member states like Portugal, which are quite open on expanding collaboration with China on on different fronts.
And the example that you mentioned concerning the electric vehicles is a characteristic one.
Generally speaking, there are different EU member states which are still open to doing business with China and to improving ties with China.
And obviously Portugal, and from the moment Portugal itself also continues the strategic dialogue with China.
This is quite a define concerning the extent to which bilateral relations can improve and obviously the extent to which relations between China and the European Union can further sow science of stabilization in the future.
I would say that the bilateral example that we are currently examining, the example of Portuguese -Chinese ties, is indicative of the new mood in the European Union to do pragmatic business with China and to keep the relationship as stable as possible in a changing world.
Wang Yi framed Europe as an important pole in a multi -polar world and supported its strategic autonomy, but some would argue that Europe's pursuit of strategic autonomy is more aspirational than realistic, given its economic and security ties with the US.
What's your thought on this?
Well, there is much debate about the EU strategic autonomy for a period of like eight to 10 years right now.
And, indeed, there are different voices concerning the extent to which the European Union can indeed act autonomously in the international system.
What I would say is this, that the European Union should act autonomously in the international system, because this is how it could better defend its interests in a changing world.
Of course, it's not very easy, because, as you correctly suggested, the European Union is quite close to the United States.
states, but we are seeing that it is taking measures in order as much as possible to be able to defend its interests alone without counting on others.
And I expect this tendency to continue in the next years.
Obviously, the beginning of the Donald Trump presidency is a signal which is highlighting why the European Union should do so, but irrespective of that, I would say that the European Union is anyway making steps toward this direction, because it is this direction which is serving its interests.
So can you be more specific on what steps is Europe exactly making towards strategic autonomy?
What exactly can it do?
Well strategic autonomy is a concept that means that the European Union needs to defend its interests autonomously in different sectors, and these different sectors include defence, It could include the economy, it could include technology, and so on.
Practically, it means that the European Union need to be able to defend itself alone without, for example, relying on the American support in the medium and long -term.
It also needs to produce its products alone, especially in the technological sector, in order as much as possible not to rely on others.
And it also means that it can be an economic actor, having also the political power to play a role in important international negotiations which are taking place about global problems, which can include wars, but they can also include talks about other questions like terrorism or climate change and so on.
So the more strong Europe emerges in a changing world, the more autonomous it has to be in order to be able to tackle problems and to have a say in that type of negotiations that I just mentioned before.
Do you feel that the Trump Administration's tariff policies as well as weakening transatlantic alliance are pushing Europe closer to China?
I would say that the European Union has attempted to normalize ties with China since 2023, which is indicative of the interest of the European Union as much as possible to preserve a pragmatic relationship with China because this is in the interest of the European Union.
So from the moment this is the case indeed, obviously the beginning of the Trump presidency is pushing the European Union again to cement this approach. But I wouldn't say that it is the Trump presidency which is a game changer in that regard. It is the fact that the European Union needs China and vice versa because in a multilateral world, that type of cooperation, despite disagreements, is important in order to guarantee economic prosperity and growth across the globe.
So this interest is the one which is the driving force in all the developments that we are seeing over the last two years.
And obviously the case that we are currently discussing, the strategic dialogue between Portugal and China, is an indicative example of the trend that is expected to be reinforced in the next years.
Well, actually, the visit by Portugal's foreign minister is part of a series of high -level European visits to China.
What does this flurry of diplomatic activity suggest about Europe's China policy moving ahead?
Well, as I said before, it is quite important to look at the perspective of both China and the European Union in that regard. They both need each other for different reasons.
But their common interest is to build a world that will be safe and prosperous, despite disagreements which are certainly existing.
So it is in the interest of both sides to talk to each other as much as possible, find a modus viventi in order to proceed together in a world which needs synergies.
So I would explain all meetings, which are taking place in that regard, and taking into account the joint interest of both to build together a multilateral world, despite again the fact that there are disagreements, but the more that two sides talk to each other, the better it is in order for them, as much as possible, to find a joint way forward and collaborate.
That is Dr. George Zugopoulos, director of EU China programmes and senior research fellow at European Institute of Nice.
You're listening to World Today, stay with us.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying.
The White House says Russia and Ukraine have agreed to a black ceasefire.
The agreement came after the United States held separate talks with Kiev and Moscow.
The US says they will ensure safe passage for commercial shipping and stop military strikes in the waterway.
The Kremlin says Russia has approved a list of energy facilities spared during a 30 -day partial ceasefire.
Moscow and Washington also agreed to ease sanctions on Russian agricultural and food trade to ensure the implementation of the Black Sea Initiative.
Meanwhile, Russia's foreign ministry has rejected the possibility of transferring control of the Zaporicia nuclear power plant to Ukraine or any other country.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said his understanding was that the truce agreement did not require sanctions relief to come into force and would take effect immediately.
He also said the US has proposed a new minerals deal that goes well beyond an initial framework accord hammered out last month.
Both Kyiv and Moscow said they would rely on Washington to enforce the deal, while expressing skepticism that the other side would abide by the terms. For more, we are joined by Joseph Zarakusa, professor of Global Futures at Curtin University in Australia.
Professor Zarakusa, thanks for joining us.
Thank you. What do you make of the significance of this limited ceasefire deal?
Could it pave the way for a broader peace negotiation?
I think it's a very good first positive step in the direction of a full ceasefire.
I mean, it is a partial ceasefire.
It's about the cessation of hostilities in the Black Sea, which is very important to all the combatants, of course, and to a partial ban on destroying each other's energy, oil, gas, nuclear, and the like, so as to make electricity a little more reliable, energy a little more reliable.
And I know there are some hitches that come along with this, but look, a couple of weeks ago.
This couldn't have happened.
After three days of negotiation in Saudi Arabia with the United States, we finally come to some kind of arrangement.
President Trump is able now to say with some satisfaction that he has got both parties to a ceasefire.
It may not be a perfect ceasefire.
It may not be one that Zelensky believes in.
It may not be one that the Russians want to keep a hold of the whole time.
But keep in mind that the American ceasefire with North Vietnam, which began in 1968 when I was a university student lasted five years in which both sides lost a number of people.
So these ceasefires can be pretty shaky.
On the other hand, they do provide the framework and the skeleton for which a full scale nuclear – I'm sorry – diplomatic deal can be worked out.
Okay, but obviously there are discrepancies between Russian and Ukrainian interpretations of the agreement.
For instance, the Kremlin says the deal hinges on sanctions relief, while Zelensky said it's effective immediately, and he caught Russia's sanctions relief demand as attempt to manipulate the deal.
Evan, how would you interpret these differences and what challenges might arise from their lack of alignment?
Well, you know, there are two things going on here.
No. 1, there is a ceasefire about which we are talking, a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.
On the other there is a reset of U .S.-Russian relations, which requires the U .S. providing sanctions relief to Russia and a number of other the things that are not really on the table.
I mean, there's certainly parallel things going on.
And Russia has the right to ask for these things.
Trump has made it very clear that he's prepared to go the extra mile to bring Russia back into what we call the comity of nations, back into the diplomatic landscape.
And so if you think about two things going on, and also think about this, too.
Now, diplomacy isn't about just compromise.
It's about getting a little more than your position allows, but nevertheless than your position requires.
So some of these proposals may seem extreme to us.
On the other hand, it's - this is what the game is about to the Russians, is to get those sanctions off their backs.
Well, both Ukraine and Russia have expressed skepticism about the other -size compliance.
And apparently, they are relying on Washington to enforce the agreement.
But what mechanisms, if any, are in place to enforce compliance from both sides?
Well, right now, everybody's on good behavior.
The United States will not put ground troops in, though I suppose there will be a mix of international troops at the end of the day keeping the peace.
I mean, I'd like to say South Africa and maybe China and some other nations that Russia trusts to maintain the peace.
The border there is over a thousand miles.
There's a lot of peace to maintain.
Look, the United States is counting on good behaviour, and I think Russia and Ukraine are kind on the United States to make everybody keep their word. They'll keep in mind The super pressure here, the extreme pressure here is on Zelensky to play ball.
Because President Trump has made it very clear that if Ukraine doesn't go down this route, the United States will turn its back on the whole thing.
So, I mean, of course Washington is playing a key mediating role here, but how much influence do you think Donald Trump truly have over Kyiv and Moscow?
Let's go. Well, you know, you'd think that the United States would like to play the honest broker.
This is a role, of course, that Bismarck played many, many years ago in the 19th century, where you're looking at the interests of all the sides.
And the United States, to a certain extent, is trying to play that role.
The thing is, because the United States is a superpower and Russia is a great power, too, you got these uneven things going on.
You get Ukraine struggling to stay above water.
And you got Russia that's trying to get back into the international arena.
So you got different kinds of things going on here.
But I think President Trump is trying to be the honest broker here.
He's made it very clear that in addition to the ceasefire, that the United States has a higher obligation and has to make sure that there's no nuclear exchanges between the United States and Russia in the foreseeable future.
But in the meantime, we hear from Europe that they have actually expressed concerns that Donald Trump may push for a deal that undermines Ukraine's sovereignty.
How valid are these fairs and could this drive a wedge between the U .S. and its allies?
Well I mean, the Europeans can complain.
They can well complain, maybe part of what they're saying is correct.
But the Trump White House is deaf and dumb to what the Europeans are saying.
It doesn't care, OK.
Trump's going his own way.
I mean, if Europe wants to complain and say they're going to do something else, it can't act without the United States.
NATO in the future cannot be without the United States.
And Europe knows that.
So Europe's either going to have to come up with a whole new game, or it's going to have the fall in mind behind the United States, it doesn't have much choice.
Okay. And another thing I think worth noticing is that Zelensky said that the US has proposed a new critical mineral steel to keep, that goes well beyond an initial framework accord hammered out last month.
I mean, what does this mineral steel suggest about the Trump administration's priorities or true intentions?
Like, is it primarily focused on securing economic benefits for the U .S., rather than ensuring long -term peace and stability of Ukraine?
And if that is the case, could that undermine this credibility as a neutral mediator in this conflict?
Well, the US secretary of the Treasury has pointed out that the US agreement to get these critical minerals, as well as oil and gas, is designed really to reassure Ukrainians that the United States has got a stake in their future.
That's one way to look at it, of course.
I mean, you know, Trump's also saying that Ukrainians have to pay their bills for what they borrowed from the United States.
Of course, they never thought they had to pay that back.
I mean, Joe Biden never made that very clear.
It was always, always, always a gift. Keep in mind that Trump is harkening back to an older way of doing business.
People say he's a transactional president.
Mainly, it's about dollar diplomacy.
In the 1920s, we had a secretary of state, Phil Anderson Knox, who was trying to use money to manage the situation in Asia and Europe, and I think even in China too.
And it's called dollar diplomacy.
It was using America's economic might in order to muscle in on the affairs of the interests of these other nations.
And that's what Trump's trying to do here.
In addition to bringing the hostilities to an end, everybody wants to see, stop the killing.
I mean, everybody agrees to that.
Trump is coming in for the payment here.
Some people say this is extortionists.
I think the idea of United States cutting a deal with Ukraine at this time should give the Ukrainian population a little bit of comfort that the United States might be there for the long haul.
And Zelensky is right.
Started at $50 billion.
Now they're talking about $500 billion or something that goes on for 50 years that could pay even more than $500 billion.
They're talking about the 50 -50 split on oil, gas, and these precious minerals.
So I think some Ukrainians might be a little worried about this.
On the other hand, it's going to take billions and billions of dollars to get these things out of the ground.
And the Ukrainians don't have that kind of startup capital anyway, so they might be able to take advantage of some of this up to the point.
But you're right, the United States is using its economic power to muscle in on the affairs of Ukraine and Russia in the years ahead.
OK, well, one last question briefly.
What do you think would be the next steps to advance peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia?
Well, I think we're going to be looking at the exchange of prisoners, injured people, maybe get those kids back that hadn't been expatriated to Russia from Ukraine.
And I think you'll be looking for more stabilization, that is the Ukrainians will be retreating wherever they can because they're in a very very bad way.
And so if you can't win a war you should at least have an orderly or strategic retreat.
Okay thank you Joseph Sirakusa.
You're listening to World Today We'll be back after a short break.
Welcome back, you are listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying.
The Chinese mainland has described Taiwan chipmaker TSMC as a piece of meat on the chopping block at the mercy of others.
The state council Taiwan affairs office on Wednesday slammed Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party authorities, saying the DPP only cares about its own selfish agenda.
Earlier this month, TSMC pledged to invest $100 billion to boost its existing presence in the U .S. U .S. President Donald Trump has reportedly asked TSMC to increase the investment to $200 billion.
DPP is facing widespread criticism from the opposition in Kwameintown and the industrial sector that it is using TSMC to curry favour with the US.
Joining us now in the studio is my colleague, Dingheng, thanks for being here.
Hello, Zhaoyin. Well, how do you feel about the description that the TSMC is becoming a piece of meat on the chopping block at the mercy of others?
Well, that's a fair piece of description of the current situation I think.
Because I saw a lot of political pressure from the United States, from Trump at play here when TSMC announced its US investment plan a few weeks ago.
When the announcement was made, the mood in Taiwan was actually far from being a celebration or celebratory.
In stats, there were shocks, there were fears that Taiwan is somehow losing its semiconductor crown jury to the United States.
I mean, let's be frank about this.
President Donald Trump in the United States is highly transactional in his approach to international affairs.
With regard to Taiwan, he has for more than once actually accused the Taiwan of stealing the U .S. semiconductor industry.
Of course, that's a widely disputed claim.
He has also said outright that Taiwan should have paid the United States for protection.
So, I feel like in many ways TSMC US investment plan can be seen as a $100 billion US dollar protection fee.
And the report about Donald Trump asking for $200 billion US rather than $100 billion is further illustrating this protection fee nature of this whole deal.
And lastly, let me also briefly mention Vivek Ramaswamy who was a Republican presidential candidate during last year's U .S. Presidential election.
He once openly suggested in 2023 that the U .S. could abandon the defense of Taiwan when the U .S. no longer depends on Taiwan on chip making and chip manufacturing.
How to get rid of these dependents?
The answer is of course by trying to lure companies like TSMC to invest in America.
Now Ramaswami is more or as a political ally of Donald Trump.
So it's interesting to see whether Trump shares the same idea with regard to Taiwan.
Well, TSMC's existing facilities in the U .S. are worth about US $65 billion.
Do you think its move to increase U .S. investment by an additional US $100 billion has a basis in business logic?
No, it doesn't have a business logic.
TSMC is simply moving to appease Donald Trump's ego as well as his make America great again.
He's America first agenda.
The company's existing operations in the United States continue to be troubled by issues like project delay, cost overruns, skilled labor shortages, disgruntled workers, and inefficiencies in terms of the logistical issues as well as a kind of immature supply chain ecosystem in America.
We just need to hear from Maurice Chung, who is the company's founder and a former chief executive officer.
He has openly admitted that the cost of making trips in the US state of Arizona is at least 50 % higher than the cost in a similar Taiwan factory.
And when the companies the latest U .S. investment deal was announced, its equity price actually tumbled by almost 5 % on the same day.
One reason why TSMC made its previous investment in America was because of this Chips and the Science Act enacted under the previous Biden administration.
Under this law, TSMC has been promised 6 .6 billion U S dollars in government subsidies.
Now Donald Trump is actually calling on the U S Congress to scrap this particular piece of act.
So now it seems to be unclear whether TSMC will eventually access the proposed subsidies.
So in a business perspective, in a business sense, I don't understand why TSMC should further increase its investment in America by whooping US $100 billion.
Okay, so is there any evidence that the DPP authorities could have played a role in TSMC's move to boost investment in the US?
Well, on the surface, we have seen the Lai China government saying that it will review the deal with Taiwan interests in mind so as to ensure that the company will keep its most advanced manufacturing processes within Taiwan.
But to me, that's only the surface of the whole situation because the open statement of the DPP government seems to be at out with the saying when Trump and TSMC announced their deal at the White House earlier this month.
TSMC's chief executive, Tszisie Wei, said at the time that the deal means that his company will be producing the most advanced chips on the American soil, and President Donald Trump also declared at the time that the most powerful AI chips in the world will be made right here in America.
So who knows whether there is any behind the scenes quid pro quo between say the Trump administration, the DPP government, and the TSMC?
One thing on the novel is that it is really under the DPP authorities that Taiwan is giving away its semiconductor crown jury to the United States.
Also, let's keep in mind that it is DPP that has been stoking this crowd streets tensions between Beijing and Taipei since the year 2016 due to its pro -independence agenda, and this tension has really created a bigger leverage for the US Government in terms of pressuring companies like TSMC to relocate their resources away from Taiwan to America.
So what do you think could be the major losses for Taiwan if the island's semiconductor industry is hollowed out by the US?
Well, there will be a major industrial loss for Taiwan that's for sure.
But one thing worse for the island is that it is being placed in a situation where it can be entirely at the mercy of the United States, like you mentioned in your introduction.
If we take a look at the US approach to the Ukraine crisis, from Biden to Trump, things could have really changed very very quickly.
The US promise of commitment can't be really taken so seriously.
And the minerals deal that Donald Trump is attempting to get with the Ukrainian side It tells a lot about how he might deal with Taiwan and the island's cherished semiconductor industry.
So I think Taiwan authorities really need to come to realize all this and have a better understanding and really stop making troubles for the island itself.
Ok, thank you. You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back. This is World Today.
I am Zhang Yang. Indonesia will join the New Development Bank, a multilateral institution developed by BRICS member nations.
The decision follows a meeting between Indonesian president Puroboo Subiantel and NDB president Dilma Rousseff.
Puroboo said he hoped Indonesia's membership could encourage the acceleration of national development.
Rousseff described Indonesia as an important partner in the region and beyond.
She noted that the country's development priorities align with the NDB's focus areas, particularly in infrastructure connectivity and energy transition.
For more, we are joined by Zunach Metcane, Research Fellow at the Center for China and Globalization.
Zun, thanks for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
So what do you think have motivated Indonesia's decision to join the new development bank?
Well, absolutely. First of all, BRICS is a representation of what matters most to the Global South.
BRICS is a collection of countries that are willing to work together, partner on issues that matter for their development and also seek creative solutions.
That said, you know, NDB is obviously part of BRICS.
It's going to help Indonesia further its development goals, like you mentioned, infrastructure development, energy transition—I think more or less, you know, a major priority for Indonesia is also to be well -connected with the Global South at large, focused on its own development goals, such as energy transition, greener transformation, hunger, alleviating hunger, food security, and also trade diversification in general.
So being part of BRICS, which Indonesia joined as the latest member of the organization, and then just now with the announcement of NDB, what we can understand is that for Indonesia, NDB can really be a solution to the national priorities that the country holds as an importance.
Well, the NDB president said Indonesia's development priorities align with the NDB's focus areas, like infrastructure connectivity, energy transition.
Could you explain more on how this partnership could support Indonesia's long -term development goals?
Well, Indonesia, the current Indonesian government, you know, one of the things that they have deeply emphasized on is to realize their potential as one of the greenest economies to also address development challenges, not only domestically, but also globally.
They have specifically, for instance, mentioned zero hunger as a country's priority.
And in essence, you know, what Indonesia is looking for as a significant member of ASEAN, as the largest economy within the ASEAN region as a major trading partner of China being a big economy which has connected with the east and the west with the global north and the global south the next step for Indonesia is really to modernize its economy.
So the current membership of BRICS is also a collection of countries that are looking for transition whether it's a greener energy whether it is better development following the Sustainable Development Goals, hard infrastructure, which is obviously the best way to address development challenges.
This is where NDB, as a development bank, which is not going to put political conditions, but instead prioritize the country's national goals and also think of how developing countries can better find solutions amongst each other as countries that are equally respected in the global order.
This is where Indonesia, which is seeking to modernize, find solutions in a world where challenges obviously exist, the NDB has a similar priority.
And let's also mention here that for Indonesia, Indonesia has been a priority partner, a priority country which has been an advocate for challenges, for addressing challenges that the global south faces, and Indonesia's own national priorities also align with a vision which connects better development for the country and the region.
So I think, given that the NDB has played a significant role so far in existing BRICS members development aspirations, Indonesia sees a similar future for itself as well.
Well, Rousseff also emphasized that NDB has a different approach compared to other international financial institutions, especially that it can provide loans or funding according to the needs of member countries without strict conditions.
I mean, is this particularly appealing to countries like Indonesia?
Absolutely. You know, the global South for the longest time has been demanding equal treatment, not being treated as recipients of decisions made in developed parts of the world, but being respected for its own creativity, for its own ability to find solutions, and parts that suit it.
Indonesia, let's also remind ourselves that Indonesia was the heart of the Bundong movement, which started in the 1950s for better respect, better recognition, and also representation of the global South.
Today with BRICS, with platforms like BRICS, with platforms like the Shanghai Corporation organization, and I'll also mention ASEAN, that multilateral approach to gaining the recognition respect but also the decision -making capacity of developing countries has been realized to a major extent.
So when we talk about Indonesia but so many other countries, developing countries in the global South whether they're in Asia, Africa or parts of Latin America, they seek to be partners in development with organizations and institutions that meet them where they want to decide how they will be able to develop their country.
So of course, Indonesia is seeking the expertise and also resources from the NDB.
It is also going to openly figure out what are better ways to achieve its national goals of development and modernization with reference to, with dialogue and discussions and learning from other BRICS members and other developing and developed countries.
But at the end of the day, the biggest difference, the biggest difference and approach that NDB is offering countries like Indonesia is equal respect, is allowing and respecting the country's autonomy in that process.
Well, but we know that Indonesia has long adopted this non -aligned foreign policy.
Then how do you see Indonesia balancing its participation in BRICS and NDB and its relationship with Western countries?
Personally, I think that perspective that a country cannot cooperate with the global North and the global South at the same time, I think it's a relatively redundant idea, especially when we see an increasing number of organizations, for instance even look at how far BRICS has achieved a larger economy than the G7 combined since 2018.
This is an example of the increased significance of developing countries which previously saw themselves outnumbered and at the same time rather weak in terms of determining what they want to move forward with.
Today, I think that balancing acts, so to speak, is not as difficult.
Why? Because Indonesia is an opportunity.
The Global South is an opportunity.
Indonesia's decision to be members of the NDB, to seek collaboration and also assistance facilitation from the NDB can balance very well with Indonesia's existing partnerships with other financial institutions, because they also see Indonesia as an opportunity.
Agreed that we are in an increasingly polarized world and there are many countries that might be nervous about expanding their collaborations with developing organisations with the global south.
But I think for Indonesia, which is in a way a central country at the heart of ASEAN and also an important player, a strategic player in the world.
Indonesia is one of the biggest populations of the world.
Indonesia offers various opportunities.
So I think Indonesia does not see any misalignment or any contradiction with its existing partnerships with the World Bank and also expanding to the NDB.
On the contrary, I think traditional organizations that were facilitating developing countries will realize that they need to stop imposing political conditions.
They cannot coerce developing countries into following a path that is not domestically determined.
And it is because of alternatives that are respectful that we can expect traditional donor organizations and international development banks, multilateral development banks, to be more cognizant to the agency of the country that's the recipient of their collaboration.
Okay. Thank you, Zun Ahmet Khan, a research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization.
This is World Today.
We'll be back. Johnny's electric vehicle maker, BYD's net profit beat 73 % in the fourth quarter of 2021.
The company saw a surge in revenue last year surpassing the $100 billion U .S. dollar mark and beating Tesla as it accelerates its overseas expansion.
The Shenzhen -based company has emerged as the leader in China's EV market, the largest in the world.
Then what are the main reasons behind BYD's overtaking of its competitors?
How competitive are China's new energy vehicles on the global market?
it. For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Chen Xiaohu, Chief Investment Officer and NorVIEW Markey Technologies.
Zhao Xiaohu, thank you very much for joining us.
BYD has reported annual revenue for 2024 that surpassed Tesla, so what do you think this tells us about the shift in the EV market?
What we have seen is that BYD has been giving out an annual report that contains not only a large amount of profit, but also give out a pretty good dividend to shareholders.
And this really tells us that the EV industry, including successful companies like BYD in China, this has really turned from a rapidly growing industry that keeps absorbing capital from the market and shareholders toward a mature and more competitive industry.
Then if you look at China's EV industry right now, the leading position is being taken by a few successful companies, and this market structure is becoming more and more mature and stable, so this really shows the progress of how China's EV industry has been growing.
And last week, BYD founder Wang Chengfu announced a new battery -charging technology which could charge an EV in five minutes.
So can you explain what does that technology mean and what does that tell us about the current state of competition between BYD and other EV makers?
Well the charging of the EV, especially what we say is the charging speed of the EV, is a very important technology for the growing of new energy vehicle cars especially the electrical cars.
Basically, that's also a reason why BYD has been getting a successful leading position in the EV industry because BYD started from building batteries.
It was a small factory back then, before they entered the automobile industry.
It was actually a small company that was concentrating on the production of batteries.
And with this technology, BYD has been really a successful company building upon its technology of building batteries.
And if you look at the competition between Tesla and BYD, BYD is still using this leading advantage that is really good as batteries, which Tesla does not have as much as BYD has.
I mean, Tesla's got its own advantage as well.
Another leading position that BYD has actually got is competitive advantage compared with Tesla, is basically because it got a lot of engineers coming from China.
They got a very large base in China, tens of thousands of very good engineers working day and night for this company.
That is something that Tesla does not have. Tesla employs people in the United States, but if you look at the population of China and the United States, the amount of university graduates between China and the United States, then BYD really has got this advantage compared with Tesla.
And what do you think is the secret of BYD's success?
Some analysts said BYD's cost of production for EVs was lower than that of European competitors.
So how do you view it?
And how do you see BYD's expansion and the global competitiveness?
Well, when we talk about why BYD has been a successful company, many analysts just say, OK, you've got a lower cost. It's not the case.
I mean, if you talk about lower cost, you can go to India, Vietnam, Indonesia.
You find a much lower salary today compared with China.
The people in Vietnam getting the salary about 20 to 25 percent compared with an average Chinese walker.
So you get much lower cost in those countries, but why don't you have BYD over there, but you have BYD in China.
So you can see that most successful competitive advantage of BYD and other companies like this, you know, like Huawei, Xiaomi, or Media, these kind of companies.
The most leading successful advantage that they are having is the large group of very very well educated engineers that they're employing.
They build very automatic factories, what we call the lights -out factories, which means you don't have to turn the lights on.
Then the factory operates on itself because it's got no personnel in it.
This is actually the leading advantage of these Chinese companies and the global market, not because it got lower salaries.
I mean, if lower salaries are the most important thing, why don't you have them in other countries, which if you go to India.
I mean the salary is much lower there.
The per capita of India right now is about 1 fourth or 1 fifth of China.
So it's a much lower salary that you can get.
It's much lower cost that you can get because of the lower salary.
So it's not the case.
The competitiveness of Chinese successful components in the world basically comes from the engineers that are employing the innovation that these people generated and the efficiency of the factories that they have built.
And as the EV market continues to evolve, what are the key factors that will determine the long -term success of companies like BYD?
Well, if we look at the long -term competition of the EV industry, it will be a very competitive industry.
I mean, if you look at the automobile industry, I mean, this industry has been fulfilled with competition in the past 100 years.
So even if when we say BYD has been got a leading position in the even industry not only in China but also in the world.
I mean if you look at how much cars China is exporting right now to the global market they have got a very good position but they will face a lot of competition on the way.
I mean it's always competition there.
So to remain a successful company they have to do many things right.
I mean they have to work hard, they have to increase the efficiency of the factories, has improved the number of machines that are used in the factory, reduce the kind of labor that you use in the factory, and employ more successful and smart engineers, which is critical, and again in the markets such as China, Europe, Southeast Asia, these kind of markets, build your good reputation.
It's many detailed things to do.
And if you look back at China's policy support for the EV industry, what has the government done right in developing such an important industry?
What China has done right in the very beginning I mean if you look at the at this moment I mean China's EV industry has been growing into a very large industry it's really currently if you look at China's selling of automobile the EV is taking more than half of the new sale of automobile right now so it's a really mature industry right now so government doesn't really have to do much things at this moment.
But the success of China's government is that it looked out about more than a decade ago saying that, okay, we can't rely on traditional cars anymore because of the air pollution, because of the using of oil, all these kinds of things.
We can't keep on relying on traditional cars.
We have to go to the even industry.
So, back about more than a decade ago, they started encouraging companies to join into this market.
They started giving subsidies to this market.
They build a very large domestic market basing on the EV.
And this what we call the venture capital of the government took billions of money and a very long vision of the government to look at that, which has been really amazing.
I mean, to be honest, back about 15 years ago, when I heard the story, I didn't really take that too seriously.
I didn't thought 15 years later, we would get a market as much as this.
So the long -vision of China's government back more than a decade ago was really a successful sign for growing China's heavy industry.
That is Chen Zhahe, Chief Investment Officer at Norweimar Key Technologies, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
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.
