Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Coming up, Xi Jinping stresses Scientech's self-reliance in building modern socialist country.
China says it will push for a clear, substantive outcome document at this year's APEC summit.
And we're going to explore how Epson files are raising questions about U.S. elite ties.
Indian farm unions in opposition vow to fight against the India-U.S. trade pact.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
Chinese President, Xi Jinping, has stressed the self-reliance in science and technology, hailing it as the key in building China into a great, modern socialist country.
He made a remark on Monday during a visit to an information technology innovation park in Beijing.
At the park, the Chinese leader learned about information technology applications and innovations, as well as the ongoing efforts to accelerate Beijing's development as an international scientech innovation center.
He emphasized that giving full play to China's strength in terms of mobilizing resources, pulling high-quality resources to tackle key challenges and speeding up the efforts to address prominent weaknesses so as to achieve China's national strategic goals.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Professor Jiang Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Gom.
First of all, what signals do you read from President Xi Jinping's tour to this high-tech park?
Well, I think it signals the fact that China pays a lot of attention to high-tech development.
I think you know one of the cornerstones of the fifth five-year plan is really about developing high-tech technologies to be a leader in high technologies around the world and also be a competitor to the United States.
Resolve all those choke point issues.
And China's economy is increasingly becoming like a developed country economy.
In this kind of a new environment, economic growth really comes from productivity gain.
And the productivity gain is primarily driven by innovations, by technological breakthroughs, by improvement in production.
You know all these things that are tied to high tech areas.
And let alone that we are entering to a, you know, very critical AI age and China doesn't want to be left behind.
China is at the forefront of AI development.
Now in 2025.
China's value-added high-tech manufacturing grew by 94 as compared to the previous year.
Industrial robot output surged by 28 and new energy vehicle sales reached an increase of more than 28.
Do you think these are signs that innovation has already become the primary driving force of China's economy?
Well, we have made great strides in driving those new high-tech developments.
I think fundamentally China's growth model is undergoing a great transformation.
It's no longer relying upon this old real estate development, for example, old manufacturing.
It's really starting to be driven.
I would say starting to be driven by these new things you've just mentioned.
I think the challenge is really because of the share of these new technologies, after all, are still quite small.
Percentage represent a small percentage of the total GDP.
And the challenge is to wait to see these new developments in high-tech areas to be percolating down, to be spread over into other parts of the economy, so that this high-tech stuff can be a leading locomotive to pull the economy, to be a driving force of China's economy.
Now, from 2010 to 2025, China's ranking in this Global Innovation Index rose from 43 to 10.
So Professor, what do you make of the role, or make of the roles played by industrial policy and this national capability in terms of mobilizing resources in China's technological progress, especially from a long term perspective?
I think in the realm of economics, you know, we have this controversy, this sort of debatable issue about whether industrial policy is really helpful or not.
And I'm in the camp that it definitely helps.
I think it depends on uh you know different circumstances especially i think industrial policy in infant industries in rising areas in new technologies they're definitely helpful uh let's just you know talk about one good example a lot of the great technologies are coming from for example the defense industries right um you know that historically you know plenty of examples of great technologies as an offshoot of defense technologies.
And who can argue that there's no industrial policy in the defense technology area, right?
Of course, there is going to be planning and industrial policy in defense area.
So inevitably, I think many countries and also historic precedents have demonstrated that industrial policies can be successful as long as they are applied appropriately.
They applied the right time, they applied in the right areas.
And certainly, I think electric vehicle, for example, China has achieved huge success in this area.
And this success is indispensable without the help of industrial policy that the Chinese government implemented earlier.
Apart from industrial policy on the part of the Chinese government, What else do you think has also played some vital role in terms of boosting China's innovation capability?
For example, I guess we can talk about, for example, the capital markets.
But I guess, compared to government policy support, the financial power from capital markets sometimes um tends to be more, you know, speculative and profit driven and short-term i guess.
Well yeah, it is very important.
An american example of you know, the silicon valley is vitally dependent upon a vibrant venture capital model or venture capital driven innovation model, and the same thing can be said about china.
I mean, we also have a very vibrant venture capital community.
Uh, some of it funds coming from overseas, some of these funds coming from domestic investors, some of the funds coming actually from local governments.
This VC community plays a very important role in propelling fundings into these new areas, into new technological development.
I guess the best example is DeepSeek, right?
I mean, DeepSeek is funded by private investors.
And you know this is a great example of you know the importance of private investors, venture capitalists, playing an important role in innovation.
So can you put your fingers on some of the existing prominent weaknesses when it comes to China's pursuit of self-reliance in science and technology?
Well, I mean coming from a university community.
I would argue that There's got to be more leeway, more freedom imparted upon researchers so that they can do things free.
They can do things they want.
I think there's a bit of probably too much of a planning in the research community.
A lot of the research projects are tied to proposals, tied to government-directed fundings.
And typically, these projects have a specified and well-defined goal.
But in history, looking back, it's apparently clear that some of the innovations, the great innovations inventions, are made accidentally, actually not as originally planned for.
So, you know, innovation is something that is as a result of a perfect storm, actually, right?
So I think it's very important for researchers to have their will not subject to much interference from outside, to the freedom to do the things they want, and also have the resources to do the things they want.
So I think probably in this area you know, there might be some more things can be done in China to make sure that the researchers have more freedom to do the things, to pursue the things they want.
So in what ways can China's goal to strengthen its innovation capabilities enhance other economic goals of the country, such as boosting consumption and improving people's living standards?
One of the old problems in China's innovation is that we have a lot of things in the lab.
We have a lot of patents.
But in terms of transforming these things for commercial usage, to industrialize these things, there's a lot of potential.
Another way of saying it is there's a lot of things that haven't been turning to great success.
They're only great success in a lab.
They're only great success on paper, but not in terms of having a real impact on society, on the economy.
I have an old saying, this is something that I wrote about many years ago.
Great innovation is about turning money into great ideas, but also about turning great ideas into money.
So it has to be a sort of a good cycle of things happening on both ends of the value chain, in the lab as well as in the market.
So I think these areas is probably something much desired for.
What do you make of China's mentality in terms of international science and tech cooperation?
I mean, Professor.
At a time when technology has really become a key focus, a key area in global major power competition, China's pursuit of self-dependence in science and technology is, of course, I guess, first and foremost important, really aimed at safeguarding its own development interests.
But when China itself is becoming a tech powerhouse, do you think China will practice technological hegemony or hegemonism to other countries?
Well, I think every great inventor, every Great party of innovation always stresses the importance of intellectual property protection.
I think this is something that has been talking about for decades.
Now, as China becoming more of a technology development powerhouse.
There's also an issue of intellectual property protection from the angle of an intellectual property right owner, from the licensor perspective.
This is actually increasingly becoming a very popular phenomenon here in China.
Chinese companies used to be mostly on the licensing side.
Now they are more on the licensor side.
Interestingly, I'm also an expert witness.
I've been testifying in many cases involving things like this called the standard essential patterns.
These are patterns that are essential for standard.
In other words, once you apply the standard, these patterns are essential.
Inevitably, automatically invoked right automatically, inevitably being used and applied, and typically the implement as a palace have to pay royalties.
No, Chinese companies used to be mostly on the licensees I mean meaning paying money to the license source right owners but increasingly, you know, more companies are becoming licensors, like Huawei, even companies like Oppo, Xiaomi.
I used to work with them all the time.
They're actually becoming important contributors to the 3GPP standard setting organizations in a standard setting process.
So I think these are what's happening in the IPR, also called the intellectual property rights protection area.
But nevertheless, these are noticeably different from technological hegemony you're talking about.
I think this is entirely different.
Technological hegemony means that to leverage the dominance status in the space to essentially sabotage and hamper other countries developing technologies.
This is something that China's not gonna do.
It's a red line that China's not gonna cross.
I think history shows that the Chinese companies typically don't do things like that.
Use an interesting... historic story about this.
It used to be in a figure skating area.
There's this big contest between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding.
It turned out that Tonya Harding later on hired somebody to deliberately hit Nancy Kerrigan's leg so that he cannot compete in a world championship tournament.
This is not something that China is going to do.
We compete like Nancy Kerrigan.
We're not going to compete like Tonya Harding.
Interesting analogy.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Professor Jiang Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.
This is World Today.
Stay tuned.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi says China will push for a clear and substantive outcome document at this year's APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting.
Speaking at the opening session of the first senior officials' meeting of APEC China 2026 in Guangzhou, The senior Chinese diplomat said that China will work to advance the free trade area of the Asia-Pacific region and help draft a blueprint for upgrading regional connectivity.
He added that China will also promote digital, intelligent and green transformations among AIPAC member economies and deepen practical cooperation on development-related issues.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Zhong Mi, senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
So, first of all, Dr Zhong Mi, why do you think China is committed to pushing for a clear, substantive outcome document at this year's APEC summit?
Well, we know that APEC is a kind of a very open mechanism.
So in this mechanism, the leaders of all the member economies will gather to try to discuss and try to find some consensus on certain issues.
But the world is facing so many difficulties, so many uncertainties, so many changes.
So how can we just try to still believe that the cooperation will be one of the most desired goals for all the APAC members?
It's really a problem.
So this year, as we are seeing that China is playing a very important role in the global supply chains, especially when the uncertainties are so large last year, I think that many economies really believe that they are going to have more common understanding with China and also with other APEC economies.
So the principles should be.
I don't want to say it's very different from what we are now doing in the WTO, in the multilateral system, but they have to do something else.
So we have to stick to some of our commitments in the past and at the same time, we need to find some new areas for the cooperation.
So our meaningful results are really what the world wants to have or expect.
And I think that these voices of these AIPAC members will really give the world some of the hints that what we really want to have in the coming year and also in the coming years,
So, talking about this particular mission to advance the free trade area of the Asia-Pacific region, what do you make of the main existing obstacles?
Well, the obstacles really are too many.
First of all, do we still believe that the cooperation in the form of the free trade areas should be our priorities?
As we know that free trade agreements or regional trade agreements are some of the exemptions in the WTO framework.
WTO allow its members to negotiate the free trade agreements or original trade agreements, because they believe that this kind of agreement should be WTO plus.
So that means that we have to base on the mutual understanding and the mutual commitments to the multilateral system.
But now we are seeing some countries are not just trying to follow its commitments in the WTO.
So still do we have to, or can we find some very useful paths based on the WTO is a really a problem?
And the second I would say, that is, do we have to the authorization from the Congress, from the legislative a branch, that we can negotiate or discuss some kind of free trade agreements, because it is a commitment?
It is legally useful or have a lot of authorization from the Congress.
Before they could have the authorization, I don't think that we can really start to do the negotiation.
And the third one.
I think that the world is under a lot of change.
So the change is coming from the reconstruction of the global supply chains, which which means that the modes that we're doing businesses with other economies, our training partners, may be different from the previous ones.
So we have to find some general principles and we have to start from that point that we have some, you know, mutual understanding and the expectation for the cooperation that is really difficult in such a scenarios in the global reconstruction of the supply chain.
By the way, do you think the Asia-Pacific region can count on the mechanism and the frameworks surrounding this RCEP, namely the world's largest trade deal, to advance their wider ambitions for regional free trade?
I would say it's possible because we know that RCEP is the largest free trade area in the world.
So it means that you have enough coverage about the members.
And it's not a close one.
We can expand the memberships to other economies or countries want to join that.
So it has a lot of openness to welcome or trying to gather more economies in this platform.
And second, I think that RCEP is really our world coverage about the different areas trading goods, trading services.
And also, it is possible for us to discuss about some new areas, cooperation.
I would say that is really important because the members are so diversified.
They have special interest in different areas.
We can base on this framework to reduce a lot of efforts to reach some consensus about the ways to promote the free trade.
And the third one, I mean, the RCEP is not an aesthetic one.
Many members are trying to promote its evolution, and I would say that new rules will be introduced in this mechanism which will bring some new elements, like what we can expect from the digital areas or green areas or other kinds of corporations.
So, in terms of promoting digital intelligence and green transformations among AIPAC members, what do you think China is able to contribute to these missions?
China is really our practitioners in all these three areas.
I think that in Chinese market we are seeing so many emerging economies.
Sorry about the companies.
They are really playing a very important role to give the world so many new ideas, like the DeepSeq, some of the robotic companies who are really performing quite well in not just trying to do something from the start, but they are also trying to cooperate with other partners in doing better in the innovation.
So another area is about the green economy.
I think that the world is facing so many challenges.
The carbon emission is really a problem.
But we cannot just sacrifice our development because of we're not using the fossil fuels.
So can we just provide the world with alternative solutions?
And I think that many Chinese companies are really doing that.
They are not just produce those solar panels or the wind turbines.
They really have a package of the solutions from the generation of the power to the transition or storage of this power.
I think that is a really affordable for many economies.
So for the green transformation, i think it's not just about the idea, it is about the abilities, about the cost.
We need to balance all these areas.
I mean, china is really good at that and we have already doing a lot of businesses with trading partners all around the world.
I believe that we can do more to have a better impacts on the APEC economies and even wider range of the trading partners.
Lastly, in about one minute or so, following the phone call between President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump last week, Washington actually signaled that it would play an active role in APEC mechanism this year.
What is your understanding in this regard?
I would say that is good news, good signals coming from the US side, because the US is now going to have the G20 summit this year.
So I mean, all these platforms are really important for the world, especially when we're going to reach some more consensus.
I mean, we can do more by the cooperation between China, United States and also other APEC members.
We can try to contribute to the world openness and have a better development in the future by all of us.
Your point is well taken.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Dr Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
More to come.
We're going to explore how Epstein documents are raising questions about US-elite ties.
You're listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
We'll be back after a short break.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Nearly seven years after his death, Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast a shadow over parts of the American elite, not only because of his crime, but also because of the exposure regarding how power, wealth and privilege can intersect with weak accountability.
Epstein was deeply connected to a network spanning politics, business, technology, and academia.
As more documents emerge, prominent figures are facing renewed scrutiny over how the convicted sex offender was able to move freely within the elite circles.
Former US President Bill Clinton, and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have already agreed to testify before a congressional committee.
Microsoft co-founder, Bill Gates, says he regrets his association with Epstein following this revelation that Epstein may have arranged meetings with women for Gates.
In the meantime, records also show that Epstein was in contact with many influential figures in the American tech industry, including many of the current chief executive officers.
Elsewhere, former U.S.
Treasury Secretary Larry Summers resigned as president of the Harvard University before the latest release, and the list goes on and on.
So, joining us now on the line is Professor Qu Qiang from Minsu University of China.
Thank you very much for joining us, Professor.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
So of course being mentioned in those published Epstein files does not necessarily imply wrongdoing, but I guess still it can be very much compromising.
So first of all, why do you think the rich and powerful in the U.S. couldn't say no to Epstein?
Well, I guess actually they can say no.
You always have a choice.
Nobody forces you to do so.
But I think there are lots of you know attractions or the suites lying behind this network of relations.
I think number one is about, you know, Linking with all kinds of the capitals.
Even Bill Gates, I think the richest person – well, at least there used to be the richest person at his time used to admit during the latest interview that the first purpose that he tried to contact Epstein is just try to raise fund for his global health charity fund.
So I think, even for the super wealthy people billionaires, they even need through the Epstein's network to meet more of this kind of a rich people.
So that can really solidify their name as a philanthropist.
And I think secondly is about all the kind of the social capitals, just more than the money, because Epstein actually has been –
You know, fabricated of a whole network across the politics, businesses, academics, and also the showbiz.
And he has the private jet.
He has a luxury condo and all kinds of the islands.
And for that is actually a elite club.
So when you are, you know, having contact with epstein basically means you are one of the elite.
But if you are excluded from that circle, basically you're in the top players.
So everybody rushes to you know, get into that kind of a small private club.
And also, i think epstein, once you get into his circle, get into his network.
He's like a spider, you know, have all this kind of a web, So this kind of a web will glue you to it.
For example, he's very good at collecting all kinds of the blackmail information, saving all kinds of the dialogue with you, and then take all kinds of the photos and the camera videos and all that can have them with the power to blackmail all those people in power.
So they have to stay with him to feel safe.
So actually yes, Epstein really knows how to manipulate people to stay with him and use his network to profit himself.
But on the other hand everybody first to join his network actually have lots of agenda hidden of their own.
So they can't say no actually, but they choose to follow their profit and follow their pure lure to do so.
Now.
A Russian government spokesperson recently said that the case of Epstein has exposed the high level of corruption among Western elites.
Do you think she has a point in the context of the American elite?
And do you agree with this point that what have been revealed by those published Epstein documents are just a tip of the iceberg?
Oh, yes, I fully support that.
And also the fact it is so.
I think currently we can see through all of the evidence revealed.
Epstein, actually after the 2008, after he said, you know, plead guilty.
He's still very active in his private circle.
And also before the 2019.
He has been arrested and reported several times about, I think, the jurisdiction.
A jurisdiction system in America actually failed to detain him.
And also his network has a very large size and covering so many aspects of the whole American society.
And also, according to the latest exposure of all kinds of documents, it shows that his network covers basically from the top, you know, of the government to, you know, the top of the universities or to the top of the business world.
It shows that that kind of a monopoly and this is kind of a corruption happens in every corner and every circle in American society.
Well, a lot of people will argue, well, Russia probably are not that clean as well.
But hey, Russia never say they are the beacon of the civilization of the West.
But America instead always says that.
So I think this is a time we need to understand what's really going on and we need to know more through this kind of the exposure.
Lastly and briefly Professor, do you think the Epstein case will trigger a soul searching in the United States about the words and deeds of the elite?
Oh, yes, I do think so.
This kind of crime will really cause for more of the responding and pondering on this kind of behavior.
So I think, even though the bipartisan consensus has been made and also a lot of the young voters are trying to vote even more of the untrusted issues towards this hierarchies, But actually I think this kind of a pathology will still exist in American society and they still need to work even harder to reform the jurisdiction system to root out this kind of a situation before it's spilled over to the rest of the world.
Your point is well taken, and thank you very much for your insights today.
Professor Qu Jiang, joining us from Mingzhu University of China.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Indian farm unions and opposition parties have called for nationwide protests against a new trade framework between India and the United States.
Critics warned that the agreement could put India's farmers at a disadvantage, as increased imports of heavily subsidized US agricultural products may end up depressing domestic prices and threatening rural incomes.
The Indian government has pushed back against those claims, saying key staples like rice, wheat and dairy products are excluded from the deal and that the framework could benefit Indian exporters by improving access to the US market.
For more.
My colleague Xu Yawen spoke with Joseph Gregory Mahoney, professor of politics and international relations with East China Normal University.
Professor Mahoney, this week, a nationwide protest led by one of India's largest farmer groups will take place against the interim trade deal between India and the US.
And they were concerned about the deal could open the door to subsidize the American farm imports and hurt India's domestic rural incomes.
Why has the trade deal become such a political flashpoint for Indian farmers?
And what exactly are they demanding from the Modi government this time?
Well, I think the number one thing that we've seen in their demands is they want the commerce minister to be ousted.
They also want to see either this deal abandoned or its terms renegotiated, in the sense that we're still in the interim stage.
Clearly, there are specific regions where the economic pain of this deal would be concentrated.
And certainly it speaks to a number of strategic national interests that many Indians feel would be undermined not just rural incomes, but other aspects, potentially like food security, as well as geostrategic positioning.
So we do see a significant pushback and the hope that something would change.
That said, I would suggest that, while we may see these developments as bringing considerable risk to the Modi government, it may also be the case that this will strengthen the Modi government's negotiating position vis-a-vis the US in so much as it can say look,
We're having this outcry.
This is going to be untenable.
So we're going to have to soften this a bit if you want to get anything at all.
So this may ultimately end up helping Modi strike a better deal.
Well, under this trade deal with the US, we have noticed that India has agreed to cut or remove import duties on several American agricultural and food products.
And the Modi government has defended the pact saying farmers' interests are protected by by excluding imports of rice, wheat and corn.
But farmers groups say the pact would seriously hurt Indian farmers, who are far more vulnerable from their American counterparts.
So to what extent are farmers reacting not only to economic risks, but also to the feeling that India is giving up strategic ground to the US?
?
Well, there are other agricultural products that India farmers are concerned about.
Apple apples, cotton.
Any relaxation on the imports here in cotton would be disastrous for the economies of Jammu and Kashmir as well as other regions.
That said, you know, this is not, and by the way, there are many other products there.
Those are just a couple of examples that are of concern.
But, you know, this is not a new issue.
Modi was unable to lead India into RCP in 2020 for largely the same reasons.
And we saw other attempts to reform the agricultural sector falling short, again because of similar concerns.
That said, the agricultural sector has declined steadily in India.
For example, in the 1950s, 81 of India's population depended on agriculture for their livelihood, which then accounted for more than 55 of national income.
By 2018, the number was about two thirds of the Indian population, which depended on agriculture.
And today, estimates are about half.
But that half of the population, which was clearly the biggest overall sector of the economy in terms of population, is contributing only 17 to GDP.
At the same time, According to the 2025 Global Hunger Index, India ranks 102 out of 123 countries where there's sufficient data to calculate GHI scores.
And with a score of 258 in the 2025 Global Hunger Index, India has a level of hunger that is considered serious.
Consequently, we've heard a number of people who support this deal saying that the fact of the matter is not enough.
Indians already are getting enough food.
And while the Indian economy is restructuring, and fairly quickly, it's struggling to keep pace with with hunger as well as geopolitics.
Now, as for whether or not India is giving up strategic ground to the US, I think this is a little hard to determine at this point, because we don't know all of the terms of the deal.
In fact I would say overall, India has taken a much stronger stance strategically with the US, but also advanced better relations with Russia, China and Europe.
You know, we just saw this really big deal between China and Europe.
And, to be fair farmers, specifically in the dairy industry, are already sensitive to the new opening to Europe, feel that the pressure coming with more agricultural or, excuse me dairy, or we should say lower dairy protections for Indian farmers will create too much of a burden for them to move forward.
But I would say nevertheless that India's stronger stance has pressed the US to make a better deal.
And here I think we should keep in mind that previously the US was really pressing India with a strategic alliance this old Indo-Pacific nonsense, which is largely something that we don't hear that much of anymore from New Delhi.
So on the whole, I would say India has done a reasonably good job of representing its interest in the face of US aggression, although certainly it has lost some ground.
But again, this is an interim deal.
We don't yet know the implications for Indian oil purchases with Russia.
But at the same time, it's it's widely expected that there's no way that India can abandon the amount of oil that it buys from Russia, that there's no way the US can really compete price-wise, and that we may see India going back to what it was doing last year, which is buying a symbolic amount of oil.
And maybe that will be enough to placate Trump so that this deal can move forward, at least in the first year or so.
Professor, Prime Minister Modi has built a strong nationalist image at home while deepening ties with Washington.
But this upcoming protest shows a rising backlash from voting blocs like farmers and organized labor.
So how might this kind of domestic pressure reshape India's foreign policy, especially when it comes to balancing US demands with protecting India's own economic sovereignty?
Well, first I think we should take the general position that what's truly good for India is good for the world.
We say the same thing about China.
And while there will be critics who say the Modi government has always been out of touch with the Indian poor, in fact Modi has always depended on support from farmers to stay in office.
And we've seen him backtrack before, and we may see that now.
At the same time, I'm fundamentally sympathetic with Indian farmers and socialist political parties in India who are now resisting this deal.
But at the same time, I'm somewhat confident that Modi will either find a way to placate his critics or we might see him abandoning the deal the same way that he abandoned our CEP.
Second again, Modi has stood firm against the US on many other positions, while Trump has aggressed against other countries.
Indeed, US aggressions against China and India have encouraged in part the reconciliation that we're now seeing between New Delhi and Beijing.
And certainly Trump, has been trying to disrupt these developments as well as India's close ties with Russia.
But these have failed thus far.
Furthermore, because China stood firm, because Brazil stood firm, the US has had to soften its position.
And in this milieu, India has been able to reach a deal that it feels it can work with.
Now whether or not that's true.
Again, we all have to see the details and what happens politically over the next several days.
But at the same time, I think we have to see These developments is consistent with the geopolitical realities of a multipolar world and thus consistent with China's overall vision of geostrategic development.
Joseph Gregory Mahoney, professor of politics and international relations, East China Normal University, talking with my colleague Xu Yaowen.
This is World Today.
Stay tuned.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
China's ice and snow academy used to be seasonal and tied to geography.
Now it's a year-round business worth 140 billion, spanning everything from professional sports and tourism to indoor ski resorts, kids' training programs and lifestyle consumption.
Traditionally, ski resorts and ice sports were concentrated in Xinjiang and China's northeast.
But the map is changing.
In southern China, the city of Shenzhen is hosting one of the world's largest indoor ski resorts.
In Yunnan province.
Indoor ski resorts are attracting tourists from Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Malaysia.
So what's driving China's booming in ice and snow economy?
And how did a traditionally northern sport turn into a southern lifestyle?
For more.
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Li Lun, assistant professor of economics with Peking University.
So Professor Li Lun, thank you very much for joining us.
Ice and snow in China have become a year-round nationwide engine of growth.
It has already reached 1 trillion yuan or about 140 billion US dollars in 2025.
So what are main drivers or factors behind the booming of the ice and snow economy?
Yeah, so I think this is not a new phenomenon, ever since, you know, the beijing 2022 winter olympics, basically it turned the winter sports into, you know, a mass participation sport.
So, you know, the two-week event in 2022 basically, you know, triggered all of the consumer interest and also, you know uh, encourage the building of these winter facilities.
And I think the full industrial chain is forming.
So basically we are seeing you know training, you know sportswear equipment events hotels, and also you know retail and food.
So everything around skiing and skating around in the local economy, that's like the first step of the industrial industrial chain of the ice and snow economy.
But later on, you know, we are seeing the expansion of infrastructure which makes winter sports more accessible to especially southern part of China.
So, for example, by the end of 2024, China already have close to 2700 ice and snow sports venue.
So that's counting everything, including skating and ski venues nationwide.
So more venues also means lower barriers for consumers to enter and also more repeat consumption.
So finally, I think our policy from the government is also giving a long-run support.
China is planning to target 12 trillion yuan of winter sports by 2027 and 15 trillion yuan of ice and snow economy by 2030.
So meaning that the government is meant to give a durable support of the industry.
So I think everything combined more access and more supportive policy and also consumer habits, are turning these very seasonal sport into a modern service industry.
And traditionally the ice and snow sports were concentrated in Xinjiang and China's northeast, and now it's changing fast to southern and eastern part of China.
So what is driving the boom of indoor ski resorts in southern China?
Are they just borrowing a northern pastime, or are they creating an entirely new southern version of winter culture?
I think naturally there's more scarcity and more interest of ice and snow economy in the southern part of China because it's relatively rare to see.
And I think You can understand the ice and snow sports in southern part of China as winter as a lifestyle, not winter as a weather, because you know there's a novelty element to it.
There's also a social experience element to it.
So you know, something you can do with friends, you do with your colleagues, and it's something that's relatively fancy or relatively new to, especially to the southern part of China.
And I think the indoor resorts or the indoor, the construction of these infrastructures, are removing the constraint from the season element.
So it's becoming from a winter specific activity to a year round activity.
So you can think of someone go to skiing every week instead of only once a year.
So we can see there's a fast increasing in demand, for example in Shanghai's you know construction of the indoor ski resort, also in terms of the Shenzhen's construction of these indoor resorts as well.
And there are similar resorts in Guangdong and Yunnan as well.
So I think it's becoming to follow your question.
It's not borrowing a northern pastime so much as to repackaging it into a global and urban lifestyle kind of consumption.
And I think that's a more interesting transformation that we're seeing.
Well, as you mentioned, Shenzhen now hosts one of the world's largest indoor ski resorts.
And talking about the business model, to what extent can the construction projects like this become sustainable in business models?
Yeah, so I think the business model will only work if it's not just skiing.
So we see these mega projects are increasingly combining.
So winter sports with retail, with dining, with hotel and, you know, with other kind of events.
So we're not talking about a venue just for skiing.
The venue are also for consumption in all of these areas.
So I mean scale is good because, for example, Shenzhen's ski resorts is one of the world's largest, but also it means high energy costs and also maybe high ticket costs.
So energy is, I think, a very important variable to make sure whether it's sustainable.
So I think Basically, there are two things that we need to measure.
One is utilization whether the venue can stay busy on weekdays as well, not just weekends and holidays.
Also, the second part is efficiency.
Can it basically reduce the energy cost per visitor?
Can it basically increase the insulation?
Also, do they have the smart controls and also using cleaner electricity?
I think right now with the emergence of the clean energy, Pengfei Xue, Ph.D.:
: Especially in terms of you know the source of the power generation in China, I think the efficiency and utilization can also be you know address to make you know these very large scheme indoor ski resorts more commercially sustainable.
And in Yunnan, the indoor resorts are attracting tourists from Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Malaysia.
So what is driving that cross-border appeal?
So, as I said, people from the southern part of China or from Thailand and Malaysia.
They can rarely see natural snow in their hometown.
So I think Yunnan, as a gateway is, is basically the nearest travel destination for these people from South-Eastern Asia countries, because the flights are shorter and also it's easier to do the planning.
Also in terms of the food.
It's similar to the people from South-Eastern countries like Thailand and Asia.
And I think people do not only go to Yunnan for skiing, of course.
They also go there for the broader travel appeal, for example, to see the scenery and also to travel around and taste the unique food and also experience the good weather.
So I think also another important reason is the connectivity improvements in direct flights, improvement in the hotels and improvements in infrastructure.
So these are all supporting factors for Southeast Asian tourists to increasingly travel to Yunnan for the good experience.
And young people are now the fastest growing participants in winter sports.
So what is driving their interest and how does this impact the spending in China's sporting goods?
And with this year's Winter Olympics in Italy underway, do you think Chinese sports brands like Li Ning, like Anta, can become global lifestyle brands?
I do think so because For example, right now, the timing is really good.
The Olympics, especially happening in Italy, in Milano, it's very naturally attracting a lot of attention to winter sports and also for these brands.
Basically, we're seeing that the Anta is already having a lot of momentum in this scale.
For example, both Greece and Singapore are wearing Anta in the opening ceremony.
And also, I think Anta, because it has a lot of China's domestic market as well.
Anta had about 23 of China's sportswear in 2025.
So these strong domestic performance also comes before global expansion as well.
And I think part of the challenge for Li Ning and Anta to become a global lifestyle brand is to basically help to translate the cultural image to become more attractive to global consumers.
For example, when we look at Canada goose, we can have the image of an Arctic explorer.
So similar things, similar product image and brand image need to be established for Anta and Li Ning as well, to better accommodate to the local culture.
But I'm very confident that, in terms of the supply chain, in terms of the local technology to support these new products, Li Ning and Anta are definitely the world leader in this area.
Dr Li Lun, Assistant Professor of Economics with Peking University, talking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching for World Today.
For further discussion, you can follow us on X at CGTN Radio.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
