Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Zhang Yang.
Coming up, a Boao Forum report projects Asian economic growth at 4 .5 % in 2025 while striving the steady growth amid global uncertainties.
Johnna unveils regulation on implementing anti -foreign sanctions law.
What message does it send out?
Greenland's leaders have caught US officials' visit highly aggressive.
What are the Trump administration's real motives behind such a controversial move?
A report projects Asian economic growth at 4 .5 % in 2025, up from 4 .4 % in 2024.
The Asian Economic Outlook and Integration Progress Annual report released by the Boao Forum on Tuesday suggests the ratio of Asia's GDP among the global total measured by purchasing power parity is expected to rise from 48 .1 percent in 2024 to 48 .6 percent this year.
The report knows that the global reliance on Asian economies for foreign investment has reached around 60 % in recent years, with China and ASEAN being the most attractive destinations.
The annual Bo 'Ow Forum for Asia is underway in Hadang Province.
With the theme Asia in the changing world towards a shared future, participants are discussing hot issues around globalization amid political and economic uncertainties.
For more, we are now joined by Dr. Yao Shujie, Changkun professor of economics at Chongqing University.
The Wall Report projects Asia's economic growth at 4 .5 % in 2025, up slightly from 4 .4 % in 2024.
What factors do you think are driving this steady upward trend amid global economic uncertainties?
Yes, the Asian area is one of the most rapidly growing regions in the world not only in the present time, but also for the last two decades or even three decades partly due to China and of India, where the economic growth had been significantly above the global average.
The global average is something like between 3 to 3 .5%.
But Asia led by China, India, Vietnam and also the other populous countries where they have a huge population.
But economic growth is above the global average.
This is why Asia is 4 .5 % which is significantly higher than the global average.
This implies that the share accumulated by the Asian economy at the global level is increasing steadily over the last few decades.
And why this is such a driving force?
I think there are a number of factors.
The first factor is the population base.
The second factor is, Asia especially India and China are the average per capita income is still significantly lower than the most advanced economies such as Europe, the United States.
So there is a cutting -off process between India and China, with the advanced industrialized economy.
So there is a huge potential for these two most populous nations in the world.
The other factor is technological progress, particularly the AI, big data, digital economy, economy blockchains and new energy industries which are emerging as the most popular industries in the world and China India they are able to utilize this new industrial especially the newly emerging industrial development to boost their economy development.
In the case of India where they have a huge population base, particularly the young people in China, it's not only the large population, but also the gradually improved technological innovations.
some of the technological innovation have been catching up with the advanced country and even becoming the most frontier runner of technological innovations.
So this is another factor in globalization.
The globalization and the regional multilateral cooperation, particularly RCEP, and also the Asian Pacific Economic Corporation, the Shanghai conference, and so there's a multilateral government effort to mitigate the kinds of international trade fictions and reduce the cross -border investment and trade costs.
So these are another important factors, despite the kinds of global confusion between the advanced nations, such as the United States, but Asia as a block, as an economy block, where there is a huge population and there is a huge potential.
Well also, according to this report, Asia's share of the global economy is better to reach 48 .6 % in 2025, if measured by a purchasing power parity.
So are we witnessing a fundamental shift in global economic power towards Asia, and what might be the implications for the rest of the world?
Yes, of course. I mean, you know, you go back about a quarter century ago, and the Chinese share in the global GDP is negligible.
And nowadays, China's share in the global GDP, if you measure in the PPP term, it's the biggest in the world, which is more than 25 % in India, although measure in nominal term is low, but measure in PPP term, it can count about 13 % of the global share.
These two countries together, plus the traditional industrialization economies such as Japan, South Korea, And also, the Southeast Asian nation, the ten member states, they are probably the fastest growing country in the world over the last two decades.
Well, the report knows that global reliance on Asian economies for foreign investment has reached about 60 percent in recent years.
What makes Asia, and especially China and ASEAN, so attractive to global investors?
This question is in Antutuang is the previous question about the global economy share.
In terms of the global economy share it is almost a half.
But investment share is 60%.
This means that in the longer and medium term, Asian economy is going to becoming more influential and bigger at a global level.
This is why investment is 60%, which is higher than the share of the economic GDP.
Now, there is a very attractive place for the following investors to come to Asia.
As I just mentioned before, Asia is the most populous continent in the world.
And the population is large.
And there's still a lot of development gap, particularly infrastructure, energy, transportation, and also many other area, like high -end manufacturing, artificial digital economy.
There are lots of new emerging industries where it could be highly beneficial for profitable investors investment by following multinational companies.
And this is why Asia is a magnet in terms of attracting foreign capitals.
Another reason is that China is emerging to become a major foreign investor itself.
So China can invest to foreign countries.
And I think the country who benefit from the foreign investment directed from China is the number of countries, Asian countries, Asian Pacific regions.
These are the so -called integration of the Asian economy in particular.
So integration within Asia and also interconnection in America, Africa, Latin America, and also Africa.
So, these are these kinds of integrations at the global level.
Cross -border investment become a part of globalization, not only international trade, but also investment.
So the money actually goes to where you can generate more profit.
And in order to generate more profit, I think Asia presented a fairly good opportunity for those multinational companies.
You mentioned integration, the report also highlights this deepening regional economic integration through agreements like RSEP and CPTPP.
But how are Asian countries sustaining their own model of economic integration in the face of rising unilateralism and protectionism worldwide?
Yeah, unilateralism and protectionism are more or less utilized by the most advanced economy in order to maintain hegemony or the so -called monopolistic power in international trade, technological development, and also investment.
Now this is basically driven by America because America is the number one superpower or probably the only superpower in the world at the moment.
And being a superpower, it has to do everything possible in order to protect the existing interest. And in order to protect the existing interest, the WTO framework may not be totally suitable for the so -called American first policies.
Americans, particularly during the COVID -19 pandemic, are excited to decouple from China, from Asia, and even from the close airlines in Europe to my surprise.
Europe itself is not a very uniform economy identity because it consists of 27 member stay in the Euro -dock and also the Brexit in the UK and some other countries is not a unified economy identity.
In order to protect their interests sometimes their policy could be highly anti -globalization.
Now China and the rest of Asia also have different approach. You know, China has benefited from the integration to the global economy and from the globalization process.
And China is an emerging economy, I think is particularly important for China to continue to be open, not only to penetrate into the rest of the world, but also to learn from the advanced technology countries and also to increase the resilience of external shock.
This is because China have a huge market and China still have potential for it.
Likewise, India, of course, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, to name it, these countries I just mentioned they have large populations, and they need to catch up with the advanced economy.
So, these countries are more open -minded, because they need to cooperate with the rest of the world.
So, there are confusions between the advanced economy, and the emerging or developing economies, because they have different objectives.
And these different objectives, It presents a very conflicting picture for us.
The first point is that, yes, you see some sorts of Protestantism and unitationalism by some countries, but also people who are very eager to be integrated, through RCEP or CCPTT, this kind of cooperation is required for the second group of countries.
So it is a dynamic competitive process.
It's not a single citric trajectory.
It actually is a very complicated trajectory faced by different countries with different condition and with different objective in their mind.
Thank you Dr. Yao Shujia, Chongkong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.
Johnny's Premier Li Qiang had signed a state council decree to unveil the anti -foreign sanctions law.
Johnny would enhance its countermeasures and their enforcement.
The regulation stipulates that organizations and individuals subject to countermeasures may request suspension, modification, or cancellation of the imposed measures, if they rectify their actions and mitigate the consequences.
For more, we are joined by a Professor Qi Qian, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzou University of China.
Professor Hsu, thanks for joining us.
Thank you. So, we know this anti -foreign -synchronous law was passed in 2021.
The one is China releasing these detailed rules on its implementation at this particular time.
Oh, actually, we have been passing this law in 2021, and also you see more details coming up in this year.
I think basically it's because international situations have been changing, that are very turbulent and very, very messy.
So, I think, recently, America probably and also some other Western countries, frequently, posing unilateral sanctions towards China, including a very wide range of spectrum, for example, trade, technology and finance.
And I think they have been accusing Chinese enterprises as well as individuals for foul reasons, and have been infringing our legal benefit and also has been breaking down the very normal orders for international relations as well as for trade.
So China has been in a very fast development phase in technology and economy and in trade.
So I think it is time for China to get more mature and a legal system, rule of law to protect its own sovereign security as well as for the benefit.
So I think that's the reason why we've been doing so.
And also I have to say more is besides American and Western countries, also developing nations, they think, well, China's probably their hands has been tied to have been busy doing all kinds of these legal arguments with the United States or other Western countries.
So some emerging markets are also trying to you know, hijack China among this moment.
So I think that this law is actually not only towards certain Western countries, but also towards every country who is going to illegally infringe China's benefit.
OK. So if you look at these very detailed regulations, what are the major take -aways and what message is China sending to those foreign governments and businesses?
Well, I think the major takeaway is that China have been very, very dedicated and resolute to protect its own benefit in a legal way, in a transparent way, and based on a very fair foot standing.
Look, we're not going to hijack.
We're not going to rob other country.
We're going to not weaponize this legal policies towards some other countries for our own gain.
But we're doing this is to anti or counterfeiting some other countries, robbery behavior, some other countries, illegal and foul actions.
Their impertinence will not be indulged.
So I think this is showing a very strong message.
We're going to fight against all kinds of hegemony and a power of politics.
No matter what kind of alibi or excuses you have and want to interfere with China's domestic policy or just simply to hijack China or rock China in the economic game, I don't think it will work in a future, so China absolutely will use lots of the details of the policies with very targeted manner to make sure that the other people trying to use their laws to put China in a very negative situation, will deserve their own damage or losses.
So I think that this is loud and clear.
And I don't think this is a bad thing because with a large China, a large country, an economy like China stands out representing all the global South nations to fight against those hegemony in the trade and economy.
Eventually they will help the whole world to maintain a rather balanced and equal and fair play global trade system to make it things on equal footing with equality and transparency.
So it's been protecting everybody's benefit, not only China.
Okay, and we noted that the law allows individuals or organizations that are subject to counter measures to request suspension or modification if they correct their behavior.
But how will China evaluate such requests and how transparent will this process be?
Well, as you're probably going through all the details in the law, you'll find out in the law and in the clause that's been very clearly stipulated that once any organization, corporation or individuals are corrected or canceled what they're doing and also erected the negative result, they can also apply for the Chinese authority to suspend or change or even cancel our counterfeiting measures towards them.
And I think the reason why we clearly and also very importantly put forward this clause is because we want everybody understand that this is toward the behavior itself.
We're not going after any different culture, different race, different institution or ideology.
No, this is not what we're doing.
We're not trying to use our law and arm of jurisdiction to use the excuse of trade and economic cooperation to weaponize our hatred or to retaliate on people who are different from us.
What we're doing is the only problem that you're going to influence trying as benefit in economy, in trade, and also trying to harm individuals in the corporation and that's it.
So if you can change, if you can correct what you're doing, you definitely deserve another chance and we wouldn't go after some other reason.
Yeah. But how might these regulations impact foreign investment in China?
Could they inadvertently deter businesses that are wary of heightened risks from engaging with China?
Oh, of course. This is going to be a due result, as it already happened in America, right?
Just take a look at how many times in the past five or six years when American authorities try to weaponize all their policies in alarm jurisdictions, you see the special name list and also all kinds of 301 investigations.
They're not only hurting the other trading partners outside American, but also some innocent trading partners or corporations try to handle the trade between the two nations in American and other nations.
They are afraid to get into the trouble.
So They quit the US market.
So I think this actually has been making a great trouble towards American trade, trade, and also what American trade should actually earn.
You see the huge trade deficit on one hand is about economic structure, but also on the other hand, it's about the kind of indulging of these foul policies.
So it scared people away.
Those people, honest and fair players in a trade -on economy, sometimes they don't want to get troubled, so they quit.
And also they made the whole price like imported services and good and even more expensive.
So I think a similar situation is going to happen in China as well, but also they're going to create what we call the innocent third party growing up effect.
What does that even mean?
It means there are some other third party countries that will take over those businesses, left and right sensitive players.
And also because they think, okay, we're from a third party, we have nothing to do with all these — there's kind of a sanction, so we're clean.
So, they will deserve more opportunities and earn more money, and also we have seen similar situations happening as well.
So, people can and also other people will go.
Yeah, okay, but in a scenario where China and the US engage in escalating sanctions and counter -sections, what would be the global economic fallout?
Well, the economic fallout will be something we need to adapt to and also try to get used to.
For example, international technology corporation, international supply chain.
And also international economy itself, like the demand and the supply, will all be affected.
I'm trying to be very honest because this kind of policies, also like tariff, and all these kind of punishment policies will be like a wedge.
You smashed into the global trade.
People are getting afraid whether I will go wrong or not.
What I'm doing is sensitive or not.
So in order to play very, very safe, they're going to stay very far away from the bottom line They will not touch the red light not even just getting closer to it They were just to stay very, very far away from it that would mean, you know, some corporation Which should be okay for people just get afraid to do so.
It's gone and also some trade It should be okay for people just get afraid of it They're gone and also international supply chain because of the people or investment are getting afraid of it So, people would rather to build their own share of the supply chain of their own country or safe region to make every supply chain every part to be redundant and oversupply rather to share supply chain in a more efficient way.
So there are going to cause oversupply, redundancy investment, slower cooperation and research on technology and more instability in the supply chain.
That is some consequences we're going to face.
But I think China has considered that.
That's the reason why we mentioned towards our friendly nations.
We're going to have more cooperation with them, for example, among the RCEP partners.
For example, among the CN nations, we're going to have better and more improved cooperation with a lower threshold, lower tariff, lower investigations, which can allow better, faster, efficient corporations and research and technology and supply chain to grow up, to compensate you've seen what could be lost among China and those nations who are going to be sensitive and become the target of the retaliation.
Thank you Professor Quchian, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzil University of China.
If you're listening to World Today, stay with us.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhang Yang.
In the United States, a coalition of nearly 300 business groups is calling on the Trump administration to drop a proposal to charge a fee of up to 1 .5 million USD on Chinese -made ships visiting US ports.
In a letter to US Trade Representative's Office, the National Retail Federation and other groups, warned that the proposed actions will directly herd American businesses and consumers.
The office on Monday held a public hearing on the proposal and will convene another hearing on Wednesday.
The US government began drafting the proposal last month, with an aim to boost domestic ship manufacturing.
For more, my colleague, Ding Ho, spoke with Professor Jeong Gong from University of International Business and Economics.
Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Gong.
The argument of the U .S. government is that China's subsidies to its sharebuilding sector harm American businesses by limiting competition and investment opportunities while also posing economic or national security risks by creating dependencies that they believe China could weaponize in a potential conflict.
Is this a legitimate concern on the part of the U .S. government?
Well, I think the subsidy argument needs to be taken into the broader consideration against the history of China's development.
I mean, I think whether this is legitimate or not, whether it's up to the standard of WHO is all very debatable.
You know, if you really dig into this, the Industrial Policy Association was, you know, some central government subsidy, local government subsidies is actually in the sort of in the gray area in my view.
I'll give you one example.
The United States and the European Union have been engaged in the litigation at WTO for decades regarding respective government subsidies to Boeing program, to the Airbus program.
So I think, first of all, I would like to say that the subsidy issue is debatable.
Okay, and if there is an issue, the US government can take the case to the WTO Epley Court and seek a verdict on this, right?
Nevertheless, it's taking unilateral actions against China.
The second thing is the issue about the so -called national security risks by creating dependencies that China could potentially weaponize this.
And this is a very typical American thinking, I would say.
This is very typical Washington thinking.
It thinks this way because it has done that before.
In the past, U .S. has weaponized a lot of things in its toolbox.
And it's basically thinking the same way that China would do the same thing.
But this is actually another hypothetical issue, you might, that doesn't how much water in any case.
So I think from these two perspectives, I think the answer to the question is whether this is legitimate concern or not, well, I guess, you know, from the perspective of the loose space international order, I don't think it's legitimate, but from Washington's perspective, I would certainly understand what is coming from.
Because according to their logic, according to their historic thinking, that's the way it is.
But it's so unfortunate, I guess.
Now some business groups from American maritime, export and agricultural sectors are warning that if the proposed fees became real, then the impact on US businesses will be even more damaging and even more disruptive than the global tariffs imposed by Donald Trump administration what is your take on this.
Well we have to take these words, statements very seriously, I've seen some reports that you know some people are going to be affected by this, I'm making serious concerns.
According to them it's going to cause a profound impact on the US economy, because you know if you look at the the entire international or the global freight capacity.
Some people said that more than 50%, some people said 60 % of the entire global cargo on global level is transported by either the Chinese freightliners or other countries' freightliners that are using ships built in China.
So in both cases, they're being affected by the proposal of these fees.
And talking about a lot of money for each shipment of cargos, the United States imports a lot of things from the world.
That basically will, the same as tariff, even more severe than a tariff, raising the cost for the downstream users of these products, and certainly will contribute to inflation.
You know I'm pretty sure that's going to happen if this thing indeed goes through.
So frankly speaking, can the United States boost or revitalize its domestic shipbuilding industry simply by imposing very expensive and high fees against Chinese -made ships visiting American ports?
I don't think so. I think it's a much, much more competent issue than just a simple cost comparison, I mean, first of all, where's labor gonna come from.
I don't know if you have been to a shipbuilding yard. I've been there a couple of times.
It's actually a quite labor intensive process.
You have these welders essentially walking under the sun. I mean, this stuff cannot be done indoor because these are huge pieces, welding under the sun. It's a labor intensive process.
Where are these workers coming from?
Well, we're willing to take our jobs like this.
And it's also the issue of the entire supply chain surrounding the shipbuilding industry.
It's actually a quite fairly deep value chain.
Hundreds of companies working this very chain being suppliers to the shipbuilding industry, but the eventual shipbuilding and eventual assembly of the ships.
Then many more companies involved in this building various types of products being used on a ship.
But all of this that's missing on in the US right now, and you're talking about reconstruction, the entire value chain, talking about employing, you know, those very labor intensive hardworking jobs.
It's going to be very difficult.
It's more than just, you know, the cost issue.
I think if anything, it's going to happen.
It's basically directing, you know, the ship building orders to other countries like Japan and South Korea.
But the problem is that most countries are running out of capacity.
It is reported that the backlog at shipyards in South Korea is getting to the 2028.
You know, if you want to build a new ship, then earliest time from a Korean builder will be sometime in 2028.
And I don't think three companies can wait for that, right?
So, you know, it's not going to make a huge difference in the domestic shipping industry in the United States in any case.
So it is reported that the proposal to levy fees has actually gained widespread bipartisan political support in the United States.
But if we are to think about the kind of backlash against this proposal from the U .S. business communities, do you think it is fair to say that the US politicians are largely out of touch with the business reality?
Well, I mean, a lot of U .S. politicians are totally out of touch with what's going on.
They think that this is a great idea.
Everybody jump on the bandwagon to do something about China.
But in reality, you know, the proposals they made in their offices and their chambers, it just cannot be implemented.
Or if indeed implemented, it would just cause a disastrous effect on the U .S. industry and, you know, business communities in the United States.
And in the end, American consumers are going to pay for this.
So it's very unfortunate that they have no idea about what's going on, what's the real situation.
But I think this hearing process, this open public hearing process is very good in the sense that it's actually, give them a reality check essentially, letting them know that there's a real impact, there's real consequences if something like this indeed happens.
So I think there, there's going to be some pushback.
People coming out, businesses coming out against this thing.
And we have to see whether these politicians will ever listen to what the American people will speak out.
Professor Chung -Goon from University of International Business and Economics speaking to my colleague Jing -Heng, this is World Today, stay with us.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying.
The US Federal Reserve has caught its growth forecast for the US economy as President Trump's trade policy is way on the outlook.
The Fed's open market committee expects growth of 1 .7 % this year, down from the 2 .1 % it predicted in December.
The US stock market has seen volatility recently as trade tensions threaten the US economic expansion.
Meanwhile, this year, the US dollar has lost 4 % against a basket of currencies.
For more on this, my colleague Zhaoyang spoke with Yan Leng, professor of economics at Will Lam met University.
So Yan, the Federal Reserve, has cut its growth forecast for the US economy to 1 .7 % this year.
It also expects the economy to be weaker and inflation could be higher, so why is that and what are the main reasons contributing to it?
Well, I think the main reason has to do with Donald Trump's economic policies that have really imposed a lot of uncertainty and also a lot of precarity in the market.
So we know that the US, the so -called hard data when you look at job clay job creations back in February, and also when you look at inflation number, the US economy seem to be still holding up quite well.
but if you're looking at some of the indicators that are dependent on business sentiment or consumer sentiment, that have shown really pronounced weakness.
So when you look at, for example, the Michigan State consumer sentiment survey and also look at the conference board, it overwhelmingly shows the consumers feel uncertain about economy and they also ranked in their spending when you look at the first, when you look at the data in February, The consumer spending, in the real sense, discounted by inflation, has gone down by 2 .5%, so I think this just shows that the sentiment is getting weak because of a lot of these policy announcements, be it tariff or the doge cuts of the government programs. All of this, I think, weigh on the economy when it
comes to the confidence.
You mentioned Trump's economic policy.
So, how could Trump's tariffs and trade policies impact the U .S. economy, and which sectors will be mostly hurt?
Well, I think Donald Trump's tariff policy at this point is quite widespread.
We know that he has already imposed additional 20 % on Chinese imports.
But he was also on and off, and on and off, on the tariffs on Mexico and Canada.
media, he also slashed 25 percent tariff rate on imported steel and aluminum, regardless of where they are from.
And we know that the next big sort of announcement is expected on April the 2nd, where he's going to announce the so -called reciprocal tariff on a wide range of economies.
And he actually backed down a little bit these days and said that, you know, he might give some more exemptions to some countries and so and so forth.
But still, I think if the tariff is so cross -the -board, it's going to affect many economic sectors.
So that would range from consumer products to industrial products as well.
So I think, again, the market is really holding the breath at this point and really waiting for this April 2nd announcement.
Other policies, as I just mentioned, you know, the Doge and the Trump's directives have really slash the federal employees and in a way cut a lot of government programs and departments.
As a matter of fact, some of these cuts are really skeptically unconstitutional.
So I think all of these, in a way, slash the business confidence and really have a real negative impact on the economy because we know the US government has been running expansionary monetary fiscal policy to about 6 % of the deficit to duty pre -racial.
And that has really been driving the economy.
So now with all these cuts, and more to come, I think this is going to affect the economy in a really significant and negative way.
And for the Federal Reserve, although the window of interest rate cuts this year hasn't closed completely, it has narrowed. So, Trump himself has responded urging the Federal Reserve to cut the interest rates as a kind of backstop to his tariff agenda.
So, what do you make of it, and would that work?
Well, I think at this point, it's quite dubious.
This political pressure is going to have any impact on the Fed's decision.
Remember, the Fed's policy has to be more sort of data -driven, and I think that is what Jerome Paulwell had been emphasizing all the time.
And so I think at this point there is so much uncertainty in the economy and it really depends on whether or not the economy is going to be experiencing more inflation because of the tariff policies or it is going to seem more recession possibly because of all these federal government program cuts and all these impacts on the economic and business sentiment.
So when you look at the numbers in February, the US economy added about 151 ,000 jobs, which is lower than the 12 -months average of 168 ,000.
And then the unemployment rate has ticked up to 4 .1 % in February from 4 % in January.
So it is possible that the economy is going to slow down.
The labor market is going to decelerate when it comes to job creations.
So that's one of the reasons, I think, when you look at, for example, Atlanta Fed, they have projected the first quarter of the US economy is going to contract by 2 .4%.
So, you know, if the economy does slow down, this will justify some rate cuts.
On the other hand, inflation number has came in quite healthy in February, reached the 2 .8 % down from 3 % back in January.
So again, the inflation number shows that the Fed has more room to cut rates.
But that said, again, if Donald Trump really imposes cross -the -board tariff rate, this could very easily create higher inflation in the economy.
So I think that it's really watching the data.
And they need to be really careful when it comes to what's the next policy move.
Because if they don't do things properly, it could, I think, create the sort of staff inflation scenario in the US economy.
And the U .S. stock market has seen volatility and losses this year.
Goldman Sachs says such large and persistent falls in Wall Street stocks and the currency are unusual.
So what do you make of the selloff in the U .S. dollar and the equities?
Well, I think that is exactly the manifestation of the uncertainty that the economy is suffering from.
We know the greenback has lost 4 % against a basket of six currencies so far this year, and the blue chip S &P 500 has also tumbled about 4 % so far this year.
So we know that the stock market and the currency market are the ones that are really affected by the confidence, sentiment, and so on, and so they're really the sort of forward -looking indications of how people feel about the economy.
So, with all these policy uncertainties, I think it's very clear that this kind of idea of U .S. exceptionalism is under, you know, increasing doubt.
And so, I think that is one of the reasons why you're seeing the stock market is giving away after very strong rally in the past two years.
And the greenback is the same scenario, right?
This idea that if the U .S. economy is not doing well, then this is going to depress its currency value.
Now, there are also other, I would say, external factors that affected the US stock market.
For example, the Chinese deep seek launch has really, I think, attracted a lot of investors' attention to the Chinese stock market.
And now, with Germany, it has a new plan to increase military and infrastructure spending, defying their long -term ultra -conservative fiscal stance.
I think that also attracted more investors to look into European markets.
So I think those are also the reasons why you're seeing a decline in the US stock market as well as a currency value.
And forecasters have raised the possibility of a recession.
What do you make of it?
And even some say there may be stagflation looming ahead.
How do you view it?
Well, I think at this point, it's still hard to tell, right?
Because there are still so many moving pieces.
I think for Trump, it really depends on how his tariff policy is going to look like, how his mass deportation policy and his federal government deficit cut, all of these, I think, would weigh on the economy.
So tariff could really inflate the economy, but the federal spending cuts could weigh down on the economy.
So I think there's just so many moving pieces.
But suffice it to say, with all these policy uncertainties, they're not going to be good for the economy.
That is Yan Lam, professor of economics at Wollamu University, speaking with Zhao Yang.
This is World Today, we'll be back.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Yang.
Greenland's prime minister has caught a planned visit of U .S. officials to the island highly aggressive, in the wake of U .S. President Donald Trump's threats to take over the island.
U .S. National Security Adviser Mike Walls and Second Lady Usha Vans are scheduled to arrive at the autonomous Danish territory this week.
Trump insists the visit is about friendliness, not provocation, and claims the US team was invited.
However, Greenland's government says it has not extended any invitations for any visits, neither private nor official.
Danish foreign minister also said the visits are particularly untimely as there have just the elections in Greenland and there's no regional government.
For more, we're joined by Dr Tye -Hong -Jian professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Dr Tye, thanks for joining us.
Hi. So what do you think are the real motives behind sending such high -profile figures to Greenland, and how does that fit into Trump's long -standing fixation on the island?
as we know since the Trump administration issued the message that the United States is trying to kick over Greenland I think now is time for the so -called second lady and also some senior officials from this government to operate in this island.
I think it's just quite to show the style of the Trump administration to keep its promise and of course to impose some more pressure in the form of a soft heart to the people living in the island.
I think it's a very, very, indeed, an important message from the United States towards Greenland and also Denmark.
But of course, as we know, the background is also important as we know, the election in Greenland just finished.
And now some related parties are talking about the possibility or format to have a new government, I think it's a very important time for Trump administration to try to exaggerate its influence and also its pressure against the island.
As you said, this is a post -election period, while the Greenland parties are still negotiating over forming the island's next administration.
So how might this time amplify the perception of US interference in Greenland's political transition?
And also, why do you think the Trump administration chooses this moment for high -profile visits?
Is it strategic miscalculation or deliberate provocation?
Indeed. As we know, it's a very critical time for Greenland, especially after the election.
Last week, and now, this time, the Democratic Party won the election.
But even this party has a very clear attitude to get independence from Denmark, but as we know, this party has a very clear attitude towards any solution in the future to be part of the United States.
But, of course, now it is still some chance for the United States to have some political influence on the Greenland.
As we know, the second winner for this election, another central right party, compared with I mean the Democratic Party, this party has some more preferred attitude towards the relations closely with the United States.
But the event, there are some differences among the major parties in Greenland.
But if we look at the survey in this generally, it is suited to nearly 85 % of people living in Greenland.
There are not any interest in to be part of the United States.
I think certainly this time is kind of a political intervention from the Trump administration.
It's a very, very clear, I mean, a strategic miscalculation about the situation.
Yeah. You mentioned this survey, which I believe is very interesting because the election were won by this party that wants a slow and gradual independence from Denmark, but given the overwhelming opposition to US annexation among Greenlanders, could the US approach inadvertently strengthen the bonds between Greenland and Denmark?
Yes, undoubtedly. I think now very clear approach from the US administration to deal with the Greenland issue it hard to have some influence on it's a domestic politics.
And even as we know they are not just so clear and also a solidarity I mean are we saw an issue among all those parties in Greenland.
But I think that even now the Toronto administration had a very, very clear mistake about the logic that even there There are more people in Greenland who want to have independent status with Denmark, but it doesn't mean that they will want to be part of the United States.
Right, of course, American governments are trying to find some maybe joint between those two logic which means that, okay, once Greenland will leave from Denmark, certainly, it could to be, it could take the United States as a bad choice.
But so far we don't find any proof about that.
Well Trump hinted at leveraging NATO to support a takeover of Greenland, and also in the meantime we see Vice President JD Vans slamming the Danish government by accusing it of not doing his job and not being a good ally by limiting U .S. access.
How might this affect U .S.-Danmark relations within the alliance and also the U .S. relationship with NATO partners?
I think besides these approach to have some influence into the domestic politics in Greenland, Another approach for United States is to impose some pressure against Danish government, even to criticize the government and even to put relations between two counties in attention.
But indeed, I think that it looks like the American government is taking a bigger and bigger risk to deal with issue by taking use of bilateral relations.
As we know, even so far, Denmark and the U .S. there are still allies.
I'm wondering how could it take the price?
The United States tried to take the agreement over from the Danish government at the same time.
How could you could deal with this, so any time for this.
Yeah. Very good questions.
Thank you. Doctor Jue Hong -Jian professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
And that's all the time for this edition of World Today.
I'm Jau Ying. Thank you so much for listening.
See you next time. You
