Daily News and Analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today, I am Ding Hen in Beijing.
Coming up, China and Indonesia have held the first meeting of a joint bilateral foreign and defense ministerial dialogue.
China rolls out guidelines regarding upgrading Free Trade Zones pilot program.
Harvard is suing the Trump administration to stop the freeze of more than 2 billion US dollars in grants, and China has added 29 new undergraduate university majors covering cutting -edge technologies.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called on China and Indonesia to push bilateral ties to a higher level.
The senior Chinese diplomat made a remark in a meeting with his Indonesian counterpart Sugiano here in Beijing.
Wang Yi called for jointly developing emerging industries like green energy and digital economy, saying that both sides should uphold the spirit of free trade and promote two -way investment.
And for his part, Sugiano said Indonesia is deeply committed to deepening ties with China, adding China represents Indonesia's largest trading partner.
China and Indonesia held the first meeting of a joint Foreign and Defense Ministerial Dialogue on Monday.
The two sides agreed to strengthen maritime cooperation to promote regional safety and security.
Joining us now on the line is Dr. Rong Yin, chair professor with the School of International Studies, Sichuan University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
Professor Rong, we know this is China's first -ever 2 plus 2 foreign and defense ministerial dialogue dialogue with another country.
So why do you think Indonesia is actually the first country with which China has built such a dialogue mechanism?
Well, first of all, I think the idea to have a kind of such a high -level high -quality strategic dialogue and communication, so -called two plus two, between the two foreign ministers the two leaders and the defense minister of the two countries, is being the consensus reached by the top leadership, President Xi, President Boro Ngo, and in other words, that mechanism represents the consensus and it is meant to implement a strategic sort of agreement between the two leaders.
Secondly, I believe that if we look at the result, the outcome of this dialogue, I think it is fair to say it is very much live to the kind of understanding.
As we have seen that the dialogue of the two countries of the four ministers, not only in depth, but also I think substantial very much helped in further deepening the strategy strategic political trust and security issues.
And last but not least, I think that the two sides, the two countries also signed and the kind of MOU to establish that mechanism.
In other words, it had become institutionalized and they also announcement that's been made that this mechanism will be held.
I mean, second round will be held.
So all in all, I think that the two sides plus two marketism between China and Indonesia represents new efforts, new major sort of development in the bilateral relationship between China and Indonesia aimed at further deepening, expanding to the strategic partnership, to a higher level and high quality level, so that the vision of building a community shared features between China and Indonesia will be put into real practice making sort of impact not only for the region and I think the world at large.
So against the backdrop of Washington's unilateral bullying practices in terms of trade for example, what do you think China and in Indonesia can do together to safeguard the spirit of free trade?
Safeguarding the free trade and also the multilateral trading system has been one of the major sort of issues, the major topics of that two plus two dialogue.
As a matter of fact I think the two sides, the two countries has reached a wide range of understanding on that issue.
Now they are only in terms of I think condemning and upholding unilateralism, the abuse of tariffs by Trump administration, but also I think that they pledged that they, by literally they will work together to deepen their trade and the investment.
This is very important to area.
And related to that is, of course, the two sides also very much, I think, reiterate their commitment for open and regional cooperation in the context the way RCEP and others.
So all you know, I think China and Indonesia are very important sort of economies, developing economies, emerging economies, you just name it.
And also with the joining of Indonesia in BRICS.
The two sides have also agreed to cooperate in infrastructure, construction, minerals development, and joint security in the South China Sea, for example.
So, how do you think China and Indonesia can cooperate in the South China Sea in a kind of comprehensive and sustainable manner?
South China Sea issue has also been a very important subject of this dialogue, and also I think between China and Indonesia bilaterally.
And we know that China does not have a territorial dispute with Indonesia.
But since the two countries have some overlapping claims in certain waters of the South China Sea, I think the efforts have been made in the past and agreement has reached that the two sides will work for a joint development of these waters.
And the documents have also been signed.
And during this round of a meeting, a dialogue, I think that the important, one of the important outcome is that the two Coast Guard would work together for peace and stability.
And most importantly, I think there's also commitment by the two sides for a joint development on those areas we are talking about.
So that is a very positive development in the question of the South China Sea, and I think it would have set a very good example for building together, I mean working together with all the countries concerned for making the South China Sea a sea of friendship peace and cooperation.
So when we talk about Indonesia and look at this whole issue from a sort of historical perspective.
We know exactly 70 years ago, between April 18 and April 24 in the year 1955 this historic Bandung conference was held in Indonesia's Bandung where the newly independent Asian and African countries at that time envisioned a new world order.
Now, fast forward to the present day, how do you think China and Indonesia today can jointly work together and try to carry forward a spirit represented by the Bandung conference?
What is your understanding about the Bandung spirit in the context of today's international order?
That's a great question.
I think in today's fast changing and uncertain world many changes, many transformations and challenges are very much I think become an issue for developing countries, for global south like China and Indonesia.
And this year marks the 70th anniversary of the convening of that Bandung Conference and the spirit of Bandung Conference featuring friendship, solidarity, friendship and cooperation remains very much relevant.
And I would say even more important in this context.
So during the dialogue, and also I think as far as China is concerned, the symposium was held a week ago and also I think the reception was also being held in Beijing to commemorate that.
And I think dialogue of the two sides, China and Indonesia, again has worked together to pledge that the Bandung spirit, the Bandung conference, and together with, I think, the five principles of two civil coalitions, becomes kind of a norms of international relation and as playing a very important role as a principle guiding sort of kind of building of a new sort of international relation and very much important for developing countries and global South.
China and Indonesia are all members of that.
I think the commitment or the real commitment to that spirit helps a lot in the same, in terms of how to ensure the solidarity, cooperation and the friendship will remain important for not only for their, I mean the diplomacy, for foreign policy of the two countries and the global as a whole, but the more importantly, I see certainly good example, making sharp contrast with the unilateralism, the hegemonism and the divide and the confrontation that they're now facing in this world.
So very briefly, in a sentence or two, why do you think unilateralism is detrimental to the world of global sales today?
I think the major sort of challenges or risk threat that's posed by unilateralism is the fact that a major country or big power like the United States tends to impose their views, their ideas, of more weaker developed or less developed countries.
So, the world today becomes so plural, the challenges we are facing are of global nature, so that no single country can handle or manage themselves, and there's no way for them to either go back, like President Xi said, to the dark room of unilateral isolation.
So we are living a globalized world.
So we need global solutions, global efforts for global challenges.
We really can't go back to isolationism.
I think that's a clear message from China and from Indonesia as well.
But thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Zhongying, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies, Sichuan University.
Coming up, China rolls out guidelines regarding upgrading of the country's pilot free trade zones.
You are listening to World Today.
Stay Tuned. You are listening to World Today.
China has issued new guidelines to enhance reforms for the country's pilot free trade zones.
China is looking to make them key hubs with regard to a dual circulation strategy of the country which balances domestic and international markets.
The plan has outlined measures to boost the competitiveness of domestic companies in global trade with a greater role for digital tools.
It also seeks to attract more companies to the pilot free -trade zones for innovation and supply chain collaboration, encouraging some particular zones to serve as test -bats for Internet -connected vehicles and autonomous aviation.
In the meantime, China's Commerce Ministry has also announced a new round of pilot programs to further open up the service industry.
China is going to launch more than 150 pilot projects in key industries including telecommunications, finance, and healthcare.
For more, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr. Zhou Mi, senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and economic cooperation.
So Dr. Zhongmi, thank you very much for joining us.
China's State Council issued guidelines to enhance reforms for the country's pilot free trade zones.
So tell us more details of this and why is it now?
Well we know that free trade zone is a kind of a very innovative practices of China.
We are trying to give some aspiration to the local governments and trying to make some of a very special discoveries of the new methods of development.
So So for the past maybe more than 10 years we have seen that free trade zones have already covered almost all the coastal areas and the provinces in the borders and also some of these inland provinces.
So we are seeing that they are already having some of the experiences of doing something to do with opening up and trying to benefit for investment.
And now I think that it is the time for us to try to upgrade to the free trade zones, trying to give their more authorities to open and trying to be better interconnected between different regions and the different sectors.
So it's very important right now because we are seeing the world under pressure with a lot of uncertainty.
For the better opening up, we should find some suitable way, not just the trying to open the door, but also trying to give some more strength for the specific sectors are trying to benefit the Chinese people.
So it's a very important time.
And the free trade zones, the countries aiming to make them key hubs in China's dual circulation strategy.
So how significant is dual circulation for China right now?
Well, we know that is always our strategy.
In this regard, I would say that for Chinese domestic market, we are going to support an integration among the different provinces and regions.
So for the free trade zones, there are just a window, not only the window for the outside world but also the windows between different provinces.
So, like for China, we see that so many regions are trying to have a better integration.
They are giving more strength for the flow of different resources.
So, for the dual circulation, first, we have to strengthen our own abilities.
Well, for the other side, I would say that it is also important.
We are going to give the foreign investment and the flow of the trade, I mean the goods, the services, the technology, capital, and also the talents.
I think it's very important for us to keep those two sides connected with each other, the domestic one and the foreign one.
So free trade zones could be the windows and also the doors.
And it also seeks to attract more companies to the zones for innovation and supply chain collaboration.
So could you elaborate more on that?
Well, it is true that FDI are trying to get better benefits from China.
So in the past, many of them are, you know, using their own technology to commercialize that in China's market and some of these markets, I mean the products are, you know, then sold be sold to the foreign market.
But now they are seeing that China's market is growing very quickly, so they want to make the better use of Chinese domestic market.
But on the other side, I think those FDIs are going to have a better support from China's local sectors and the supply chains.
So when we are trying to give them this authority in the freight train zones, I think they can enjoy a better support and that they know our directions for attracting the sectors like the medical care, something to do with telecommunication, artificial intelligence.
So they know our targets and it's better for the complementary cooperation by both sides.
Meanwhile, China has announced a new round of pilot programs to reform and further open up the service sector.
So why expanding the opening up of the service sector is crucial for China's development right now?
We know that service is a little bit more...
I don't want to use the word of advanced, but it's in the next stage of most of the countries.
They started from the manufacturing and they move on to the service sectors.
For China, many of these leading cities, like Beijing, Shanghai and also Guangzhou, they are having a much stronger service industries.
If you are looking at the GDP, they may contribute to about 80 or even higher of the GDP.
so they are going to make the better use of their advantages and when we're trying to enable this development for the opening up for the international trade, I think the FDI can play a very important role so for us to attract the foreign FDI in these regions are very important for them to improve you know China's abilities to be involved in the global service trade and also benefit themselves also.
So what are the highlights of this pilot work plan for accelerating the service industry opening up?
I think there are several characteristics.
First of all, we are giving our solution to the local cities.
They can do a very advanced development and trying to open the door and also to make it easier for the FDI to come to China and stay here and second I it's more complicated by the integration of different regions and sectors.
Like we're going to support the trade in services to support the manufacturing.
So these are really important.
And the third one I think is not only a just limited in a very limited area like the free trade zone.
There are only several or dozens square kilometers.
For these pilots zones, they are much larger.
So is even easier for the development experiment to be done to attract the FDI from other countries.
And for this services opening up the country will launch over 150 pilot projects in key sectors including telecommunications, finance and healthcare.
So Dr. Zhou, why are these sectors focused?
Well, we know that it is one of our very certain directions for attracting FDI's.
In the past almost 10 years, we have, you know, showed that directions that we want to open, like the health care, the telecommunication, the finance, because we really think that these sectors are really important for our economy.
Well, as you may find that from W2 commitments by all the members, there are several specific nexus to the agreements of the treating services and includes the telecommunication, finance, and other things.
So it means that these sectors are very important to the members and it is also very sensitive so it's not just a you know task we can do just overnight, we are having better opportunities and more longer term to try and do more experiments.
And for example the medical and healthcare sector opening up, how will this benefit Chinese healthcare industry and consumers?
Well we know that many countries, I mean the enterprises in the United States in the Europe Union, they are having a very good ability to develop the new medicines and pharmaceutical industries in many countries are very advanced.
So with the cooperation, I think that the speed of new medicines to enter the market will be shortened and I think that is really helpful for us to deal with the health -related problems. And on the other hand, I think those companies really want to give more profits by investing in China because they have put so much money in the previous years.
They want the returns and the sold of the medicines will also give them a very important market support.
Why are these financial sectors opening up so important?
Financial is crucial, so for the development of the trade and the real economy.
But financial sectors are also very risky because we can find that for the global financial crisis started from the financial sectors.
So how can we balance these two things, for the development and for the risk of control?
It's a really critical thing.
I think that for the better development we are trying to have stronger abilities to balance these two targets and have a more important support for the development of the real economy in China.
And China has approved 11 provinces and cities for service sector liberalisation trials since the year 2015, and now we add up another nine cities like Ningbo, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Xiamen, et cetera, et cetera, so why adding those cities into this categories that were opening up?
Well, first of all, we have more experiences after we have, you know, almost 10 years of the experiment.
And the second, I think that for those cities that you have mentioned, they are developing very quickly, like, you know, Herfe as one example, they are developing very strong automobile industries.
For this new industry, they really need more financial resources.
So the, more experiment of these areas can support these sectors and the cities to develop, which is a very important part of the integrated domestic market of China and I believe that is also well contribute to our experiences for data opening in the pilot cities that already opened in the past 10 years.
And the initiatives also include visa -free transit, permanent residency and payment convenience.
So, how will those policies benefit the foreign investors in China?
First I think that they can come here to China much more easier.
They don't have to prepare for such a long term.
So it is easier for them to make a deal with the Chinese counterpart and we can reach the commercial activities much easier.
Second, I think that is also helpful for them to look at China's situation and know more about China.
so the better understanding will reduce information symmetry.
I think that is also very important for them to make the decision.
They can come here to look at China's development and they will have more confidence.
So the facilitation is really important for both sides of Chinese stakeholders and foreign counterparties.
We can build up more trust in a even shorter term." Welcome.
I'm Elaf Ehlat, economics professor and member of the data science and AI center at New York University Shanghai.
On the World Today program, you can find in -depth and impartial insight as well as critical commentary on key trends in the Chinese economy, financial technology, business and blockchain.
To prepare for the world tomorrow, Join me on World Today.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Heng in Beijing.
In the United States, dozens of leading economists have signed a public declaration warning that President Donald Trump's increasing use of tariffs could trigger a self -inflicted recession.
The letter says the Trump administration's so -called reciprocal tariffs are calculated it using an erroneous and improvised formula with no basis in terms of economic reality.
The Declaration had gathered more than 1 ,300 signatures as of Monday afternoon.
The signatories include Nobel Laureates Dr. James Hochman & Dr. Vernon Smith, as well as Harvard professor Greg McQueen, who once served as the Chair of the Council of Economic advisers on the President George W.
Bush. Joining us now on the line is Dr. Yao -Shu Jie, Chiang Kong Professor of Economics with Chongqing University.
Thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Yao -Shu Jie.
In this letter, these economists emphasize that trade deficits are widely misunderstood by the Trump administration.
They say, quote, contrary to widespread fears U .S. trade deficits are not evidence of U .S. economic decline or evidence pointing to unfair trade practices abroad, nor do these deficits inflict the damage on the U .S. economy.
Quite the opposite is true." What is your take on this point?
Yeah. I think the Trump administration's 2 .0 is fairly erotic in a sense.
Not many people follow the logic.
International trade is to exploit the comparative advantage of different nations.
So I think Donald Trump has quite a few points that are misleading the public.
Number one, I think the reciprocal tariff is a very strange idea because the percentage of the tariff calculated is mainly quite, you know, artificially by Donald Trump rather than based on the very scientific figures.
Number two, I think the merchandise trade imbalances is only one of the imbalances in the US economy.
The US service trade with the rest of the world actually have a significant surplus.
Another factor is that the US multinational company have invested heavily in the global market.
they generated lots of surplus, which are ploughed back into the US economy, which are not calculated in the official trade deficit.
The amount of deficit in absolute term is large, but in relative term, relative to the US economy, it is actually a fairly small percentage.
This means that the US can quite easily bear a certain level of trading balances, especially you know the U .S. dollar is the dominant multinational currency.
And the second problem is that it actually, you know, integrated the political and personal emotion into the tariff war because he's saying that United States has a fully dominant position in the global markets, so whatever the U .S. does, actually it would hurt other people, not the U .S. economy itself.
And this calculation I think is probably mistaken and this is why there's lots of symmetry you see in the letter.
This means that the people, not only just the economists, but I think the ordinary public in the United States as already fairly concerned that these kinds of trade war could actually fire back to hurt the domestic economy of the United States.
So, talking about the ways in which this trade war might backfire for the United States domestically, would you agree with this particular point in this particular letter we are talking about, that average American workers will incur the brunt of these misguided policies in the form of increased prices and risk of economic contraction.
Yes, I think the immediate effect is the high chain of domestic prices.
Because imagine that you suddenly raise the tariff by 20%, 35 % is not over 100 % to China.
I mean China is the third largest exporter to the United States, but the U .S. also imposed very high tariff on the first and the second largest exporter to the U .S., Canada, and in Mexico also.
Immediately the domestic price would increase by the same or or even double the amount show by the tariff rate and the consumer is going to you to suffer.
And the people who import the goods, they will also suffer.
That means the loss of employment will be damaged.
And certainly I think if the consumer suffered, the consumption will be suffer in the percussion effect.
The whole domestic economy would have a very strong impulse effect, negative effect from the border to the production line in the United States.
Mmm. So in the meantime, some US economists are warning that the Trump Administration is somewhat repeating the mistakes made by the United States in the 1930s.
We understand back then there was a protectionist trade act called Smooth -Hawley -Terriff Act which many economists argue was one of the triggers for the Great Recession at the time.
Do you think it is making sense to draw a parallel between what's going on nowadays and what was going on surrounding the situation in the 1930s?
I think there are some similarities, but there are also some differences.
We refer back to the 1930s, there was a great depression in the capitalist countries represented by the United States, Europe.
I think the main economy engines in the 1930s is basically North America and Western Europe.
Now, because of the in the early stage, after the First World War, there is a fairly strong recovery of economy to war in the 1920s at the end of the 1920s.
But it's a subject because of the incoming equality, because of overcapacity.
is a sign of the economy in succession purely due to the Western economy running into the economy bubble.
Now the adjustment was very painful and there were two senators in the United States at the time, Mr. Smoot and also Mr. Hawley, who recommended to the US government, saying that we have to increase the tariff law.
you know the trade tariff against western Europe to protect the domestic productions.
So they generally adopted the very strong tariff rate at the time, but you know the outcome was disastrous.
I think the global trade system was totally disrupted, and the trade policy erected by the United States didn't actually achieve the design objective.
So the the world economy run into a serious depression in modern history, the most serious depression in modern history.
In a one third of the labor was lay off, they became redundant and put that in branch, the stock market branch by one third or even more.
Now this time, the US economy in different respect, it turned out to be quite healthy to me, although there are some potential danger because of the trade imbalance, because of the high debts.
I think Donald Trump is actually taking a method to contain the debt levels, to contain domestic inflation and creating a macroeconomic stability.
I think he is probably bargaining the wrong trade.
He is actually thinking that the potential risk of the United States is because of the decline of manufacturing which is due to the integration the globalization.
So the so -called american first in manufacturing going back to the United States is something deeply you know going into Donald Trump's mind but the way he's doing is actually counter highly counterproductive whether it is going to trigger another global great depression is debatable.
I don't think it's likely to to certainly have some sort of mild crisis or medium crisis not only in the United States but in the global economy.
Certainly the global economy is going to slow down The final question before we let you go and briefly what could be the consequences if a government doesn't listen to the voices from serious mainstream economists?
Yeah, I think the consequences of the one issue should be visually I see the US democracy is facing significant challenges.
I mean, the President is elected by the people, but the President doesn't actually care too much about the electorate and about the public voice.
This is the limitation of the so -called democracy represented by Donald Trump and by not listening to the voice of the economy, I think sooner or later I think the US economy will have a backfire and there will be some sort of price to pay, a fairly heavy price to pay.
Thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Yao Shou -Jie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.
Coming up, Harvard University is suing the federal government to stop a freeze of more than two billion US dollars in grants, this is World Today, we'll be back.
You're back with World Today, I'm Dingheng in Beijing.
In the United States, Harvard University is suing the Trump administration in order to prevent the federal government from freezing more than two billion US dollars in grants.
In a letter to Harvard earlier this month, the federal government called for broader government and leadership reforms within the university as well as changes to its ongoing admissions policies.
It also demanded auditing views of diversity on campus and stopping recognizing some particular student clubs.
Harvard refused to bend to those particular demands.
And hours later, the federal government froze billions of dollars in terms of funding.
And Harvard is actually the 5th Ivy League school targeted in a particular pressure campaign by the Trump administration.
The federal government has also paused the funding for the University of Pennsylvania, University of Brown and University of Princeton to force compliance with its particular agenda.
So joining us now on the line is Dr. Joseph Siracusa, professor of global futures with Curtin University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you. So, why do you think the federal government is attempting to limit activism on campus in America.
And by the way, do you buy this narrative with this rhetoric from the government that somehow Harvard has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculties from anti -Semitic violence and harassment, quote unquote.
No, I'm not buying that whole thing.
The Trump government or his administration has decided to go after Harvard because it detests the criticism that comes from higher education.
And nobody really does it better than Harvard University.
And they're using this antisemitism, this case that Harvard failed to protect its students from antisemitism.
And that's ridiculous.
Probably 40 percent of the students at Harvard are Jewish anyway.
So it doesn't make any sense.
And so, this is the interesting thing.
The government threatens Harvard and then the Trump government on last Friday or so sends a list of demands.
Now, the Trump government argues on Monday morning that it was a mistiming.
They weren't supposed to send those.
But by Friday night, Harvard had taken the demands and published them so you know these starting points about how they were going to negotiate were published.
And then very shortly after that, Harvard University says the Trump administration, as well as Robert Kennedy, Jr. and other people arguing that the attack on on on Harvard is attack against their freedom of First Amendment, that is the freedom expression, what they can teach on campus and the like.
And that has no connection to do with holding billions of dollars in funding.
Now, Harvard has over $60 billion in endowment, but there are across 14000 accounts that can't exactly pick up the bill.
And of course, the Trump administration has threatened to up the ante here.
that is to take away Harvard's tax status, that is that it doesn't pay taxes right now because it's a university or school.
And so he can make life very, very difficult for these people.
But look, Harvard regard this as an attack on their operating principles, on their integrity, on the First Amendment, and the Trump people are arguing that Harvard has failed to protect its And they're also arguing that they want a greater say about whom Harvard hires, about diversity, exclusion.
They want those things eliminated.
They want the professors investigated for plagiarism, that old thing.
And so they want to get involved in the day -to -day operations of Harvard. And of course no organization worth its salt can allow the US government to come in and them how to do business because pretty soon they would be giving the lectures to.
So Harvard is doing the right thing.
They're fighting back and Trump's attack on higher education is just frankly, to me, slightly out of hand.
So back to this lawsuit filed by Harvard University.
How do you think this particular case might proceed in the foreseeable future?
Well, you see, the thing here is is that it may take a long time to get through the courts.
It goes through the appeals courts and then it goes through the regional courts and then it goes through the Supreme Court of the United States.
I mean, these things can take two or three years to get their way to the top.
I mean, Harvard would like to settle this.
That is, they'd like the Trump administration to get off their backs.
But Trump is already committed on this and, you know, so both of them have very, very bad starting points here, but it could take years and years.
It will have an impact on Harvard's balance sheet one way or the other.
How would you view this idea that American universities' autonomy, which arguably has been granted by the Supreme Court in America, is under threat because of the existing government the existing federal government's action.
I mean, when we talk about, say, university autonomy, there is a limit with regard to how far, like how free is free, right?
Yes, well, you see, I'm old enough to remember that in the 1950s, the American government went after universities, particularly the Ivy League universities because they thought they were too pro -Chinese, you know, it was all about who lost China and Yalta and things like that.
So the government has tried this in the past, but they haven't tried it in recent years and they tried guess in the 60s during the Vietnam War when I was at university, they tried to interfere with campuses or with universities, but look, I believe, and I've been a staunch critic of the United States all my life as a scholar, there are two things you don't touch. You don't touch the Olympics and you don't touch higher education in America, because then you're mixing politics with sports and politics and higher education and it's a very very bad mix.
In fact, it's a deadly brew at the end of the day.
In a bigger picture sense, Professor, what do you think this episode regarding elite universities versus the federal government tells us about the broader ideological or political or social divide in America?
Well, I mean half of Americans have never stepped foot on a campus, it was part of the American dream to get a university degree and then, you know, get a good job and buy a house and have a family and all that.
So half of America resents the other half that may have gone to university.
I understand that they don't want to pick up the bills for other people.
So there is that kind of natural divide.
But you know, it hasn't reached anything like the temperature it has under the Trump administration I mean, Trump has appealed to most Americans who vote, and there are a lot who don't vote, without a degree.
I mean, he got most of the Americans who don't have a university degree in the last election where he got 31 % of the vote, Kamala Harris got 30%, but keep in mind, and your listeners should keep in mind that in the last election, 36 % of the American people didn't vote at all for a number of reasons, and many of them just reckon that the system is rigged, and you know they started giving up on government.
But look, Trump is going after everybody here.
He's going after the refugees, he's going after the borders, he's going after individuals, and he's going after higher education.
And he's also threatened, by the way, to revoke the status of the visas.
And I know a lot of kids from Asia and other places go to the United States looking for an experience, and so that's very dangerous.
Yeah, dangerous indeed, and a lot of trouble for them.
So, what do you have to say to these kids?
For example, there's kids from China or elsewhere in Asian countries who still want to pursue a dream in American higher education institutions very, very briefly.
Well, I'd say that, try to ignore this right now and apply to these universities in Australia, Britain, and the United States, and that this will pass.
This is a part of a political phenomenon that's going on, but I think in America and in other places, the pendulum will swing in the other direction, and the soft power afforded by children who go to foreign universities is just unbelievably positive, and so don't give up the dream.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Joseph Sierakoussa, Professor of Global Futures with Keating University.
Coming up, China has added 29 new undergraduates University majors covering cutting -edge technologies.
We'll be back. Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombiews Kleschade.
I'm a professor of Public Policy Management at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
I am a great listener of The Wall today.
In my opinion, The Wall today is one of the best China radio programs. In the world today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world.
So please come to join us.
You're listening to the world today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
China is moving fast to try to reshape its universities, preparing a new generation of talent for the country's high tech future.
This year undergraduate students in this country can choose from nearly 30 newly added university majors, many of them focused on cutting -edge fields like Artificial Intelligence and a faster -growing, low -altitude economy.
In the meantime, there is also a push to try to meet real -world industry demands.
New programs in International Cruise Management and Aviation Sports are designed as well with the job market in mind.
So, for more, my colleague Ge Anh spoke with Professor Wang Junshui from the School of and administration, Zhejiang University.
Professor Wang, to start with, what's your take on the introduction of these new majors.
From your perspective, what do these choices say about China's current social and national priorities?
Well, I think they look quite interesting.
Most of them are trying to bring the education, higher education, university education, to integrate with the advance in technologies, and science, and contemporary lifestyle.
So I see a lot of them are about AI, about digital technology, about bioscience and biotechnologies, so that's quite telling about the change in technology and lifestyle in China.
then let's zoom in on the AI -related majors like AI education and intelligent audio -visual engineering.
How do these programs align with the broader push for tech -driven growth and digital transformation in China and what kind of role will these graduates play across key sectors in the near future?
I think AI and digital technology are just like you know when they are becoming indispensable tools, you should just say.
So many fields, many kind of jobs must be able to employ these new technologies and new tools.
When I was looking at this new list of majors, I was thinking, AI and digital technology are just like 20, 30 years ago, when I, when we went to university, everyone has to learn computer, Everyone had to learn computing technologies, had to somehow learn how to do a little bit of programming, how to type on a computer, and I think today, the new generation of university students, they must acquire certain literacy in AI, in digital technologies.
So that's how I see this new addition of the academic majors.
Indeed. Each generation faces unique demands, shifted by the times.
For example, there are also new majors like international cruise management and aviation sports.
What do these choices tell us about changing consumer trends and shift in industrial development?
Yes, you would say like cruise management, it fits quite well in the general field of tourism.
So I see this comes out as a new major in tourism under the management field.
So that makes perfect sense because the cruise is a potentially very large market for Chinese residents.
And China has recently become the latest country that can build cruise ships.
So you can see the cruise business will be growing very fast. And same with the aviation sport and actually many kinds of sports is growing very fast as Chinese living standard are rising.
More and more people are going to enjoy various kinds of sports.
So I think it's good that some universities will offer, at the moment, still saying quite fancy academic majors to attract students.
Mmm -hmm. programs, what stands out about China's newly added majors and in today's globalized world how can these programs help China cultivate talent that can compete internationally?
So this is a very good question because in other countries especially I think if you compare Chinese university with American and European universities you will think in those countries universities, major, academic majors, mostly emerged from the university themselves.
And here in China, of course, they, you have university professors and faculty.
They propose new academic majors, but it eventually is the Ministry of Education.
After consultation, after lots of academic research studies, they eventually, they make the decision.
They and what are the important and indispensable new academic fields for universities to work on to produce new graduates.
So in this sense, there is a much stronger government vision involved in directing the universities towards certain areas that the state, the country believes are important.
So looking at this list, you do feel the important field of AI, of digital technologies are in line with the national industrial and manufacturing strategies.
Then professor, we are seeing all these exciting new majors being introduced.
But let's be honest as some older ones probably are not keeping up with the times, right?
what majors do you think are starting to feel outdated or may not fit future development needs?
Well I haven't looked at what are the remaining list of academic fields, so it will not be surprising if we bring out this current list of the existing major fields.
We will see something appeal quite outdated you know just out of my head maybe anything related to traditional coal technology they say, because you know in terms of energy transition we are quickly moving out of coal era and I don't know whether they're still a subject field about like typing, typist. That must be a skill that was necessary 30 years ago but now it's complete out of date.
Professor Wang Zhenxi from Zhejiang University talking to my colleague Gee Anan.
That's all the time for this edition of world today, I am Dinghe Ling Beijin, thank you so much for listening, bye for now.
