Daily News and Analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. Coming up, the 17th BRICS Summit takes place in Rio de Janeiro.
With its growing influence on the global stage, what role can BRICS play in reforming global governance?
U .S. President Donald Trump has signed his huge tax and spending bill into law.
What's in it and who stands to gain or lose?
Elon Musk says he has formed a new U .S. political party, the America Party.
Can it gain traction and reshape the American political landscape?
Chinese Premier Li Qiang says BRICS countries should strive to become the vanguard in advancing the reform of global governance.
Speaking at the 17th BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Premier Li called on the bloc to safeguard world peace and tranquility and promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
The Chinese premier also said BRICS countries should actively spearhead development cooperation and tap into the growth potential of emerging sectors.
Brazil is hosting the summit as the rotating chair of the bloc.
Leaders at the summit adopted a declaration on strengthening global South cooperation.
They condemned all unilateral coercive measures that violate international law and opposed any sanctions not authorized by the UN Security Council.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kun Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.
Premier Li Qiang caught on BRICS to become the vanguard of global governance reform.
In your view, how much influence does BRICS actually have on the global stage today?
And to what extent can the bloc shape international norms institutions and policies in the last half century the global economic and politics was highly dominated by the g7 nations united states and the britain germany france italy and canada japan also now um the after the global financial crisis there are some interesting changes.
The world had the so -called G20 countries and also the BRICS countries.
Regarding the BRICS countries, China and Russia, they are members of the core security members in the United Nations.
In terms of the top world economy, China and India are now on the top five.
Russia, Brazil, and other countries, they are in the top 10 or top 15.
The second change is the BRICS country is about to include a few more countries, which could be up to 12 countries in the near future.
And population -wise, I think even China and India, these two countries combined, it has a population weight of over 35%, which is double the size of all the OECD member countries.
So the significance of these countries may not be understated.
Not only the population, the GDP share in the global economy.
And the need for the South country, for the developing country, to change their fortunes.
Because led by the G7 country, the global economy are divided into two different worlds.
The rich and the poor.
The have and the don't have. Now, this is because of the development model of the G7, they are highly selfish and also dominating.
But the British countries have different agendas.
They want to be prosperous, but they also want to be prosperous for all the people, especially the less advanced countries and the let -beyond countries.
So this is a very different dynamic, powerful force at the global stage in the 20th century.
Well, Premier Li highlighted the vision of global governance based on extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits.
How does this vision differ from the Western -led frameworks and how well does it resonate with other BRICS members and the broader global South?
Yes, I just mentioned the world was highly divided before, and into the 20th first centuries, we are feeling pleased that the British country and also the Bayeux Laird countries in the global South, they are picking up the economy momentum.
So, the dynamism of the British countries is just not for themselves, but also for the common prosperity of human beings on earth so this this uh you know development objective of the British country is fairly different uh from the development objective of the rich uh powerful world dominated by G7 which tend to be you know put themselves as one elite elite club at the expenses of all the poor country.
This is why the world economy development have been so divided, which is according to a professor in the United States, Professor Joseph Glitzelich. Now, I think Lee Chang has rightly pointed out the British country is not going to become a club just for the club itself, but also to get prosperity for all the people on Earth.
Yeah, and Premier Li mentioned that China will establish a China BRICS Research Center on New Quality Productive Forces this year, and he also announced a scholarship program for BRICS countries.
How significant are these initiatives?
This is a new initiative.
I think this should have a long -term powerful effect on the common progress of the BRICS countries.
countries, new productive forces is a concept presented by President Xi Jinping in his visit not too long ago, which has been attracting lots of attention, not only by the government officials, but also the academic researchers and all the Chinese people within China.
The so -called new productive forces is that you will change the labor, the productive, you know, materials and also the production mechanism and production connections.
By using research and innovation as the basic driving power behind the economic development, development, this to form a new situation that even the poor and developing countries, they can master the high technology which can prepare not only the economy development, but also improve the general likelihood of the people under concern, especially the less developing countries as we just mentioned particularly the Southern countries and the British countries the bear and low countries in imminent the establishment of the center is to have a full understanding how technological innovation can promote
economic development and also the training of people and the people -to -people exchange is a great idea so that China can open the door and China's successful development experiences could be shared by all the people outside China.
BRICS nations issued a joint declaration condemning unilateral coercive measures and sanctions not authorized by the UN Security Council.
What message do you think the bloc is thinning with this statement particularly to the united states the united states play a dominant role in the in the global economy and politics it certainly have a testimony power to influence almost every country including china and in the smaller country they are highly you know vulnerable including US, you know, airline countries in Europe, and also South Korea and Japan.
Now, Donald Trump in the second term, based on the first term, geared up a lot of activities, including trade, you know, tariffs, and also technological embargo.
This provide very turbulent power force in the global economy.
I think it's highly antagonizing to the globalization process.
And this unilateralism is very harmful, particularly for the smaller, vulnerable, less developing countries in Africa, in Latin America, in South Asia and Southeast Asia.
Now the British country, they got to be fully aware of the potential damage that created by Donald Trump in the second term.
And by understanding the damage, the potential damage and the harmful effect of unilateralism, then people can prepare and let by the British country, particularly China and India, Russia, how to counter the anti -globalization process and how to increase the economic resilience to the external powerful shocks created by Donald Trump.
Well, Trump has threatened a 10 % tariff on countries aligning with anti -American BRICS policies.
How should we interpret his threat?
Well, basically Donald Trump is using every possible argument to elect tariff against any Many countries they feel that may threaten his American first policy.
I think something in mind is China.
For example, China is now the biggest competitor to the United States.
Although China is still not yet up to the US standard, there are still lots of vulnerable point but the size of China is in neglect, knowledgeable.
Now, the latest negotiation between the United States and Vietnam is a very good example.
Now, another example at the, in front of the British communications and the summit, it, Donald Trump has another threat to this member state.
But in my view, I think Donald Trump's actions, although at the moment it is very powerful, but I think in the longer term, the United States may not win at all.
Okay. But is there a growing risk that BRICS could be perceived as an anti -Western or anti -American bloc?
No, in my view, this is not anti -American or anti -Western bloc, but in Americans' terms it is.
Because America wants to be just herself, for example, America first, Big and Beautiful America, or it's totally selfish because it doesn't care about other countries countries in life and death.
It just want to be in the richest countries, get everything it wants, rather than care about the common prosperity and the human being on earth.
It is a non -responsible attitude of large nations.
In contrast, I think China is trying to be more responsible, much more responsible than the United States.
And this is why the Americans consider that the bridge is anti -American, anti -Western.
But from the perspective of the global and human beings' point of view, China is doing exactly the right things to counteract, you know, American's damaging, you know, policy at the moment.
That is Dr. Yao Shujie, Changkun Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.
This is World Today.
Stay with us. Welcome back.
This is World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. U .S. President Donald Trump had signed his landmark policy bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill, into law.
It is expected to add around $3 .3 trillion U .S. dollars of deficit through 2034.
The law represents Trump's agenda policies including tax cuts and funding boosts for military expenditure and border security.
So what are the details of the bill?
Who wins and who loses?
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Yen Liang, professor of economics at Weylamet University, to unpack the economics, the politics and the global message behind this legislation.
So, Yen, first of all, what are the main pillars of Trump's big, beautiful bill and what is your assessment of it?
Well, I think this big, beautiful bill, as we know, it has over 800 pages and it's quite complicated as a tax code.
But what it essentially does is to address three things.
One is to make the 2017 Tax Cut Job Act permanent, and second is to increase certain spendings for border securities, defense, and energy production, while at the same time make cuts to health care and nutrition programs. And the last part is to raise the debt ceiling from the $3 .5 trillion to now $5 trillion in order to address the increased debt due to this one big beautiful bill.
And the mega bill calls for tax cuts and increased spending for border security and defense.
So what does it reflect about his policy priorities in the second term?
Well, I think we know that Trump was elected based on these many MAGA supporters who basically sees immigration as a national security issue They basically believe that the U .S. is quote -unquote invaded by illegal immigrants, and therefore they are going to try all means to keep these illegal immigrants at the border or trying to deport them with the mass deportation sort of solutions or measures.
So this bill is calling for a massive increase in the border security, trying to, again, again, deport many of these illegal immigrants that are in the country and also keep other immigrants outside of the country.
So I think this basically reflects Trump's American Great Again or American First principle, which is basically seeing the difference between us and them and, in a way, this is an over 46 .5 billion dollars budgeted for border war construction and related expenses um and 45 billion dollars to expand the detention capacity and another 30 billion dollars funding for training and and other resources for the immigration and customs enforcements so all in all now I think this just shows a very hostile stance towards immigrants and of course this is not going to be just limited to illegal immigrants.
I think in the very recent speech by the Vice President J .D.
Benz, he pretty much clearly says that, you know, we don't need immigrants to come to this country to be professors or servants.
And so that's a very anti -immigrant stance.
And again, it's not just limited to illegal immigrants, which I think is very counterproductive, as I think, you know, the U .S. is prospering based on this very open and and immigrant -friendly policies to attract a lot of talents from the global – from the world.
And now I think they're basically stand to the opposite of what have made the U .S. a prosper and advance economy.
And some supporters of the bill say this tax cut will stimulate investment, will expand the economy.
And, of course, this is the supply -side economy.
But will the reality actually work like that?
because a lot of other analysts say the bill will cut the health and food safety net program.
So they raise the equity issue.
So what's your response to that?
Right. So some of the clauses of the tax cuts in this bill are likely to improve, you know, small business investments and others, because there are some tax reductions or tax exemptions for expenses on investments or on R &D.
so some of these will be helpful but at the same time we know that you know these tax cuts are very aggressive in the sense that even though 94 percent Americans will get a tax cuts but two -thirds the benefit will go to the top 20 percent and one quarter actually goes to the top 1 % so as you said this is a very supply side consideration the idea that if you give the rich the tax cuts they will have more incentives and more money to invest invest into the economy.
But at the same time, because this regressivity, the big benefits go to only a small group of people, not to mention with a lot of cuts to the Medicaid program, which I think the foundation estimated would cause 13 million Americans to lose access to Medicaid within the next decade.
And the CBO also estimated about 11 .6 million Americans will be affected negatively.
And also, as you mentioned, there is a cut to the Fusdam program that would hurt low income families as well.
So it's very clear that inequality is going to rise due to this bill.
And also, I think if this bill has affected the great majority of Americans in a negative way, then it's likely this is going to have a demand side, negative impact on the demand side.
So whether or not this can actually boost growth, I think it still remains to be an open question.
But what is clear is this is going to cause widening inequality in the U .S. economy.
And President Trump signed this bill into law, which is expected to add $3 .3 trillion to the budget deficit, given that the U .S. debt already exceeds $36 trillion now.
So how sustainable is this level of borrowing for the U .S. economy?
economy? Well, so we know that US debt is denominated in US dollar, just like Japan and other countries that issue their own sovereign currency.
They're able to run up debt, and they're not going to run into a default situation, but that said, as we know with the high interest rate that the US right now has, this large amount of debt basically increase massively the interest payments, and the interest payments are again, mostly paid to the wealthy treasury bond holders.
And interest payments right now is the second largest categories of federal spending, right behind social security.
And it's before many of other spendings, including, you know, the defense spending and many other important spendings.
So what that means is this is going to squeeze the fiscal space, right?
If the federal government is spending so much on interest payments, then as this bill shows, that they are going to try cuts in other forms of spending.
And so that is not going to be conducive to growth and equality in the economy.
And right now, with the tariff war that Trump is waging and with the inflationary pressure on the horizon, the Fed won't cut rates, and so that really aggravates the problem.
So I think that is really the key is that Uncle Sam is not going to bankrupt because because of these higher debt.
But it does have tremendous negative implications to the economy, both in terms of the federal spending priorities, but also in terms of the inequality, you know, implications.
And how might the global investors react to the ballooning US deficit, especially for those countries that hold large amounts of US debt?
Well, first of all, I think the bond holders would want to pressure for higher yield because they consider this as a higher risk because there's still a chance that if the debt ceiling is not lifted, this could in a way, you know, increase the default risk.
But again, this is a political decision.
It's not an economic one.
The U .S. does not have to default voluntarily, but there is a political backlash in terms of the debt ceiling and other debates.
But at the same time, I think given the high interest rate, as I just mentioned earlier, this does increase you know the bond yields and so that means again more federal government spending would have to go into you know the interest payments at the same time I think there's also concerns about you know the dollar value if the u .s. is you know spending or is increasing so much debt whether or not this is going to weaken the US dollars value against other currencies because we have already seen you know other currencies appreciates against the dollar in the recent months.
The U .S. dollar has depreciated about 11 % since Donald Trump got into office.
So, you know, with the higher yield, with the weaker value, I think this would really make investors rethink how much they already hold the dollar assets and whether or not there is a large amount of risk and then that would urge them to diversify, which we're already seen you know in the recent weeks that central banks are diversifying away from dollar assets and trying to buy other commodities like gold and also other countries currencies denominate the assets and so are some of the exporters there's some reports about exporters now don't want it to receive dollar in payments they wanted to
have your roles they won't have the end they want to have Chinese yuan and other forms of currency payments so I think all of all of these would weaken dollars' role and also the credibility and desirability of dollar -denominated assets.
That is Yan Liang, professor of economics at Willamette University, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
Coming up, Elon Musk says he has formed a new U .S. political party called the America Party.
Can it gain traction and reshape the America political landscape?
escape. South Korea's prosecutors has filed a request to detain ex -president Yun Seol -kyeol.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. Tech billionaire Elon Musk has announced the formation of a new political party.
Musk says the America party will laser focus on two or three Senate seats in eight to ten House districts, a strategy he believes could tip control in a narrowly divided Congress.
U .S. President Donald Trump caught the move ridiculous, saying Elon Musk is completely off the rails.
For more, we are joined by Harvey Zeldin, former vice president of ABC TV Network.
Harvey, welcome back to the show.
Thanks very much. Happy to be here.
So Elon Musk has now formally announced the formation of this America party.
How significant is this move in the context of U .S. politics and how serious should we take it?
Well, he's announced it, but hasn't notified the Federal Election Commission.
I suspect he'll do that formality in due course.
But anything can happen in U .S. politics, especially these days, because voters in many contests, the votes in many contests are razor thin.
It's just another destabilizing variable in what's more and more the untied states of America.
But third parties in American history mostly act as spoilers and don't establish themselves.
themselves. It's ironic that the only party in American history that has been able to take power was the Republican Party that replaced the Whigs, as they were called, in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln's election.
Yes, but I mean, this is Elon Musk.
He is like the richest man in the world, and he also has eggs.
So does that make any difference?
Yeah, well, it's very possible that Musk and his money might make a difference in the midterms. It's not unfair to say that he bought last year's presidential election because he contributed nearly $300 million to his then buddy, Donald Trump, who won 49 .9 % to Kamala Harris's 48 .4%.
It's not the resounding victory that Trump claimed, but it was enough.
In fact, without Musk's money, if Harris could have won Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan, the Democrats could have won.
And in next year's congressional elections, if the Democrats can flip just four seats in each chamber, they could effectively block Trump.
And so Musk has very wisely decided to laser focus on only two to three Senate seats and about eight to ten House seats.
Can he succeed? Given Trump's sinking ratings, it's a realistic scenario that at least Musk can be a spoiler and flip the Congress.
So what do you see as the primary motivation behind his decision to form the America Party?
I think there's two reasons.
One's personal, or maybe I can say it's ego, and the other motivation is ideological.
But let's say that Musk, like Trump, is a political chameleon.
It's hard to believe, but in some aspects, Trump used to be a liberal.
And Musk has even previously described himself as the political moderate, as half Democrat, half Republican.
But he's moved very much to the right lately as a libertarian and fiscal conservative.
I think it's a battle of billionaire egos where each one sees himself as the winner and the other as the loser.
But it's also ideological.
Musk has taken issue with the big, beautiful bill that's now law that balloons the federal deficit, as we heard with your last guest. And it takes aim at Tesla and at the same time as anti -green.
Yeah, so actually he says this party will give a voice to the 80 percent in the middle, which he believes are the majority who feel unheard by the current two -party system.
I mean, how would you interpret that ideological message of this party?
Like, is it clearly distinct from the Republican platform or is it more of a vehicle for anti -Trump sentiment?
I think it's because there's two MAGAs in America.
There's Musk MAGA and Trump MAGA.
Trump's MAGA is a cult based on him as a savior.
year. But Musk's appeal is different.
Trump built a fake narrative on how rich and smart he was in The Apprentice and in his books that were ghostwritten.
Musk built a real business success through innovation, and he's a genuine but flawed visionary.
When it comes down to it, Musk is running to capture the never -Trumpers and the voters who desperately want change.
And those are the people who are going to be willing to roll the dice with about the same odds of success at one of Trump's casinos before they all went bankrupt.
Yeah. So does Musk's party pose a greater threat to the Republicans or Democrats in the near term, you believe?
In the near term, the greater threat is going to be to Republicans.
Because with Musk's laser strategy, Democrats are very likely to flip the House and they have a very good chance to flip the Senate.
That isn't a winning strategy for Republicans.
But I have to say that Democrats have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
And the Democratic leadership, if you can call it that, is unpopular in the extreme.
But I do believe Musk's party poses a much greater threat to the Republicans at this point.
Okay, but could this move backfire because muchas companies rely heavily on government contracts and subsidies.
So how might his political activities with the America Party impact those relationships?
Significantly, I would say.
So let's paraphrase an old saying, hell hath no fury like a Donald Trump scorned.
Trump, he's so full of grievances and could could easily go as far as self -destructing in pursuit of rivals and perceived enemies.
He's clearly shown himself to operate more like a mafia don than anything else.
If I were Musk, I'd definitely stay far away from the high floors of hotels or skyscrapers.
Okay. And do you think this could encourage other wealthy figures or tech executives to follow suit and form their own political movements or their own parties?
Could this signal the beginning of a new era of billionaire -driven politics in the U .S.?
No, I think it's already billionaire -driven.
So those people would be crazy to do it because in Washington, money talks and BS walks.
So with their armies of lobbyists and dark money that hides all accountability, affordability, the billionaires have control already.
So why go through the exercise of getting the votes of a fickle public when they can buy the votes of decision makers without the public knowing the truth?
So I think there's nothing in it for them to start a party.
They already have control.
OK, well, thank you, Harvey Zoden, former vice president of ABC -TV Network.
This is World Today.
Stay with us. Welcome back.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. South Korea's special prosecution team has sought a warrant to detain former President Yoon Sol -yeol on charges related to insurrection.
It requested to keep Yoon in custody for at least 20 days.
Yoon was apprehended in the presidential office in January after his martial law attempt.
He was then indicted under detention and released as prosecutors decided not to appeal against the court's release approval.
The Constitutional Court upheld a motion to impeach Yoon in April and remove him from office.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Lin Tai -Wei, who is from Soka University in Tokyo, Japan.
Dr. Lin, thanks for joining us.
It's a pleasure. So now South Korean prosecutors have filed a new request to detain former President Yoon So -yeol over his declaration of martial law last December.
How significant is this legal move?
Well, the special counsel team has been investigating former President Yoon's martial law declaration in December 2024.
And they have sent a request to the Seoul Central District Court to detain him on allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
So they are going to also look at additional charges against him, who is already on trial for insurrection due to his martial law declaration.
So the detention warrant request was forwarded based on the grounds that he might be a flight risk and also anxieties by the prosecution that he may interfere with witnesses.
Therefore, we have the latest detention warrant requests against him.
So the insurrection charges are actually among the most severe under South Korean law.
law. So can you explain what constitutes insurrection in this context and why prosecutors believe his actions meet that threshold?
Well, the insurrection is based on his short -lived martial law.
And so the special prosecution needs to prove that he has intentions to declare that martial law with perhaps some would say the thinking of potential coup.
In addition, he has also been accused of mobilizing presidential guards to stop the authorities from arresting him.
So based on these kinds of actions, they seek to prosecute him on insurrection and abuse of power.
Right. But Yuen's legal team argues that the special prosecutors lack credible evidence for the charges.
So what specific evidence might prosecutors need to justify the detention request?
And how challenging is it to prove insurrection in this case, especially given the severity of potential penalties like life imprisonment or death penalty?
In very broad terms the prosecution would have to prove very broadly abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
They would have to have very good sterling witnesses that can testify to these two allegations against him and also produce documentary evidence, evidence, based on chains of commands and also documents the events that happened in sequence in order to substantiate the investigation against him.
So, the burden of proof is rather high given that he is a high -profile person, former prosecutor and also president of, former president of, the country, therefore it is likely to be a very complex and difficult trial with perhaps many twists and turns.
And this special prosecutor leading the investigation was actually appointed just days after President Lee Jae -myung took office.
So how might this timing affect the public perceptions of the investigation's impartiality?
Does you see any concerns about political motivation?
Well, South Korea has been a polarised society, very much traditionally divided along the lines of conservatives and progressives.
Therefore, this is unlikely to change this binary or this polarisation.
So this polarisation is likely to complicate the trial, given that he has hardcore supporters supporters that support him and also the traditional animosity that the conservatives may have against the Liberals.
So it remains to be seen how the prosecutors will want to strategize, being seen as objective and not politicize the trials, and you know some are already sort of observing how the the new leader, after election in June, this year, has been coming up with additional charges against former President Yoon.
So all these will be perceived politically, and given South Korea's unique political system, it may invite retribution if there's a change of power, as it has done in the past. So these are all very complex factors that will affect the perceptions as well as outcome of the trial.
Okay, so how is the South Korean public responding to this detention request and the broader investigation?
Like, is there a clear divide between those who see it as a necessary pursuit of justice and those who view it as politically motivated retribution?
His hardcore supporters are probably going to be like the defence team, saying that there is no evidence against President Yun.
The Conservative Party is likely to be somewhat divided, given that the martial law came as a shock to many in the society.
And the progressives are likely to want to pursue full investigations and the full strength of the law against the former president.
So, once again, the polarization will continue and will complicate the trial.
So it remains to be seen.
I think time is needed to sort of analyze whether the prosecutions would be able to produce strong evidence against him or will it backfire and be seen as a prosecution against a political rival.
Okay, well, actually, we know that since 1986 of South Korea's nine presidents have faced impeachment or criminal charges.
So does this pattern suggest a healthy democracy that can hold its leaders accountable?
Or do you feel that it kind of points to some deeper structural issues or political instability within the country's institutions?
institutions? Well, it suggests that there is a binary system in place where there's a rotational pattern or tendency for the two political forces, you know, in rotational manner to take power.
And these two forces, the conservatives and the progressives, have very different ideas with regards to domestic policies as well as foreign policies.
This cyclical nature is likely to continue, but one suspects that if you ask a typical South Korean, given that they had a long history of a strongman rule and regime, They may want to preserve the current system, even with the flaws, as well as perhaps the characteristics of a somewhat messier rotational rule between two political forces.
Yeah. And actually, Lee Jae -myung came into office with a promise to unify the country, but how do you think he can really rebuild public confidence in South Korea's political system, especially in the wake of such crisis?
He would have to strategize going after no -detriment policies.
No -detriment policies meaning lifting economic growth in South Korea, tackling any post -pandemic weaknesses, sectors that are still somewhat lagging behind in recovery.
And also to be seen as bringing benefits for majority of the Korean society, whether with regards to moderating taxation or providing more welfare, particularly for rapidly aging population, and also providing affordable housing for the young.
So all these are sort of challenges that cut across political lines.
And if he's able to pull together the perception as well as tangible results of managing these cross demographics challenges, then he may stand a chance of being seen as a unifying force.
Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lim Taiwei from Soka University in Tokyo, Japan.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay with us. You're listening to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. The latest round of indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas have reportedly ended without breakthrough.
According to a Palestinian official, the session lasted for more than three hours and took place in two separate buildings in Doha.
Messages and clarifications were exchanged between the two sides through Qatari and Egyptian mediators, but no progress was achieved.
The negotiations come as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Washington to meet U .S. President Donald Trump.
Joining us now in the studio is my colleague Ding Heng.
Thanks for being here.
Hello. So why do you think the latest round of negotiations ended without a breakthrough?
According to some media reports, the Israeli delegation was not sufficiently authorized to reach a deal with Hamas.
Why was it not fully authorized?
I guess what was on the mind of Prime Minister Netanyahu is that he needs to wait and see what is on the mind of U .S. President Donald Trump before he decides on how to approach the negotiations in Doha, Qatar.
tar. That's why according to some media reports, the talks in Doha could resume anytime soon, even though the latest round on Sunday ended without a breakthrough.
This is one angle. In the meantime, I think it is quite clear that there were still gaps between the Israeli side and Hamas.
They must be breached if we want to see a genuine ceasefire.
For now, Well, Hamas seems to be holding out for essentially the same previous conditions, including the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from Gaza and a guarantee of an end to all hostilities at the end of any truce.
And there is also no major shift in terms of the Israeli position, because what we have heard from Netanyahu before he left Israel for the U .S. Capitol was that he was still committed to three missions, the release and return of all the hostages, the destruction of the capability of the Hamas in Gaza, and to ensure that Gaza will no longer constitute a threat to Israel.
So it's not surprising to see the result of the latest round of negotiations.
Well, some believe that the Israel -Iran ceasefire has sort of created aided momentum for the talks between Israel and Hamas.
So do you think the fact that the last round of negotiations ended without a breakthrough means that they have missed that window?
Well, I think the momentum does exist. I think it primarily came from this perception that Tehran is now in a relatively weak position and focused on its domestic issues.
So it can only offer very limited amount of support to Hamas.
So maybe the timing is good.
The timing is ripe for the Israeli side to reach a deal on Gaza ceasefire as well.
Now, actually, sometime last week, we saw some media reports suggesting that Hamas was actually quite satisfied with the central proposal in the latest round of negotiations in Gaza.
The proposal reportedly included the release of 10 living and 18 deceased hostages over a 60 -day ceasefire, with Hamas agreeing to forego public hostage release ceremonies and the Israeli side agreeing to cease military operation as long as the talks are still ongoing.
going. Now, like I said earlier, Hamas has reportedly signaled a kind of happiness or satisfaction with this Washington -backed proposal.
And President Donald Trump was also increasing pressure onto the Israeli side to put an end to its military offensive in Gaza.
Now, I think the main sources of uncertainty is or appears to be lying on the Israeli side.
So the central question now is really regarding how much does Israel want.
If Israel is perceived by Hamas or any other power as demanding too much, then of course Hamas can't agree to Israel's demands.
So I guess Israel needs needs to recalibrate its demands if we want to see a ceasefire deal.
So do you think at their meeting in Washington, President Trump can persuade Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza?
Yeah, this is a highly watched question.
I think President Donald Trump will, of course, make his move and his gesture in this regard, because if he can make it happen, then the results will become a huge legacy, political legacy for him, something he very much is yearning for.
But ending the Gaza war is probably not a low -hanging fruit for the U .S. president.
And actually, in the days before Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to the United States, Trump, Mr. Trump, seemed to be less certain of the chances of an imminent breakthrough.
if we take a look at his open responses to media questions, reporters' questions.
And my sense is that for his second term in the office, we have seen President Donald Trump adopt a very much different approach to Israel.
His decision to enter diplomacy with Iran earlier this year obviously caught Israel off guard, which was a main reason why Israel launched strikes against the Tehran.
Now, although following this recent conflict between Iran and Israel, we saw President Donald Trump demonstrate a kind of unity with Israel.
This does not necessarily mean that he can persuade Netanyahu to put an end to the war in Gaza.
Trump probably needs to bargain with Netanyahu in this regard. For example, we have seen Trump's recent call for Netanyahu's corruption trials inside Israel domestically to be canceled, and he is probably expecting something in return from the Israeli Prime Minister, namely ending the war in Gaza.
Well, over the weekend, people in Israel once again came out onto the streets, calling on Netanyahu to reach a deal so the hostages can finally be freed.
So how much does the pressure from within Israel matter?
I think the problem now is that the pressure from within Israel is divided pressure rather than unified pressure.
On one hand, polls have consistently shown that a majority of the country's general public wants a deal to bring the hostages home.
But in the meantime, let's also not forget that the existence, the firm existence of those far -right forces within Netanyahu's coalition government, they are key to Netanyahu's political survival.
But they want to escalate the fighting in Gaza rather than de -escalate or any peace deal or fire.
fire. So I guess going forward in the near future, at least we're going to we're going to continue to see some chaos, a chaotic scene with regard to Israel's internal domestic opinion about the gas war.
OK, thank you, Ding Hong.
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 Jiaoying. Thank you so much for listening.
See you next time.
