Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Coming up, Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng calls for stable development of China-US economic ties.
Trump has signed a bill to end government shutdown.
Tai King's historical visit to China signals closer ties and UN officials warn of rising violence and dangerous drift in South Sudan.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.
Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng has called for efforts to promote the stable development of China-U.S. economic and trade ties.
He said the two sides enjoy vast room for economic cooperation, calling for upholding and implementing the consensus and the outcomes of the Busan meeting between the two presidents.
The vice-premier made the remark in a meeting with Alvin Greenberg and Stephen Orleans, the executive vice-chair and president of the National Committee on US-China Relations.
The US side expressed a willingness to play a bridging role in terms of deepening exchange and cooperation between the two countries.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Professor John Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.
Thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Gong.
First of all, do you agree that there is a vast room for economic and trade cooperation between the US and China?
And can you pinpoint a few areas or a few industries where things can be overwhelmingly cooperative rather than competitive or even adversarial?
Well, I think, At the very fundamental level, China's economy and American economy are very complementary towards each other.
In other words, the trade between the two countries has a lot of potential because each side can produce things the other side wants.
In terms of particular industries, for example, agricultural products.
I guess it's more than just soybean, but other agricultural products like beef pork chicken, for example All of these things are in great demand in China.
And I think America has some competitive advantages of producing these things.
On the other hand, more than just agricultural products, you know the traditional export items from the United States, like airplane semiconductor products, all these things.
These are the things that China wants.
And of course, China is a manufacturing economy.
China produces a lot of things that... market consumers are very much enamored with.
So I think at a trade level, it's a very profitable as well as a complimentary trading relationship.
And on top of this, I also need to mention investment.
I mean, that's also an area of cooperation in a sense.
Corporate America's operation in China has been overwhelmingly profitable.
And I also think that there are opportunities for Chinese companies to establish manufacturing presence in the United States as well.
As a matter of fact, President Trump even talked about this.
He said that he would be willing to accommodate say, BYD from China to invest in the United States to set up an operation in North America.
So I think, if the political situation is stabilized and more friendly towards each other, I think there will be a vast room of economic and trade cooperation between the two countries.
Just as Okay, I take your point.
Now, in another recent meeting between Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang and a US business delegation, Li made a point that, Although there are uncertainties in the economic and trade relations between the US and China, China has always been the party that provides certainty and is committed to creating a stable environment for cooperation.
Is this in line with your understanding or was your observation of the situation, Professor?
Well, I guess Mr. Li is China's trade representative.
So I think what he's coming from.
Based on that, I'm guessing he is talking about past history of trade frictions between the two countries.
And you're looking back at every turn of event.
It is invariably being Washington that first promotes things.
It means Washington that first took actions to increase tariffs for companies on the entity list and put restrictions on Chinese companies.
These kind of protectionist measures invariably it's coming from Washington first, and then China retaliates.
So I think this is what Li is talking about.
He's saying that.
You know, looking back, we are not the party for creating uncertainty in the first place.
We are forced to respond.
And Washington is the party that initiates these uncertainties or these restrictive measures at every turn of event in the past few years regarding trade between the two countries.
I think this is where he's coming from.
And I'm totally in agreement with him.
That's a factual statement here.
And it resonates with what's really happened in the past.
Now we understand.
Currently some rollbacks of steep tariffs and export controls have already taken place between the United States and China.
So I think this is a clear signal that the current trade truce between the two sides is actually holding.
In the meantime however, some people say, while there were incentives for both Washington and Beijing to keep this truce in place, the de-escalatory moves that we have seen recently tend to be short-lived.
What is your take on this?
When they say short-lived, they just look at the duration of the agreement that has been reached so far.
And it's indeed for only one year that I'm totally agreeing with.
But I think this is going to be the new normal moving forward, because both sides in this kind of a difficult environment, I guess it's very difficult to sign an agreement of a long-term nature.
You know, due to the political uncertainty in the United States,
So Beijing is not going to sign anything longer than you know, beyond the Trump administration, for example.
And Washington probably also has incentives and also other concerns that they want to be committing to a long-term agreement.
So both sides, they operate in the short-term time horizon.
That doesn't mean that This truth is going to be short lived.
I think this truth is going to be lasting until the end of the Trump administration at least.
But with this agreement renewed every time once it expires.
That's just the nature of the relationship between the two countries.
I think, as I said, it's going to be a new normal.
We'd better be used to that.
During his meeting with President Donald Trump in South Korea, Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized that economic and trade ties should continue to serve as the ballast and propeller of the bilateral ties.
How optimistic are you, Professor, in this regard?
What conditions should be met if we want to see economic and trade ties continue to serve as the ballast and a propeller.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Donald Trump has come back to power in Washington.
I think if you look back for a few more years, looking at the official statements coming from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
This idea about a ballast stemming from the economic and trade ties between the two countries hasn't really been mentioned a lot in the past few years.
As a matter of fact, there are people in Washington who basically abandoned that theory and thinks that the two sides should decouple.
But clearly I think since Trump coming back to power, He seems to have demonstrated a different perspective.
I think he keeps talking about reaching a deal.
When we say reaching a deal, it certainly means to be in the economic and trade sphere.
I think President Trump is a truly believer that the two countries shouldn't be a lock at each other.
They actually shouldn't engage in sort of antagonistic talks sort of hostile actions towards China.
I think he sees it as more of an opportunity to coexist and derive benefits through commercial ties.
So I think it's really against the backdrop of President Trump coming back to power again that this badass theory based on economic and trade ties is coming back again.
And, you know, this time is pointedly mentioned by President Xi Jinping.
So I think here's the difference.
I don't think that this is a popular theory during the Biden administration.
The Biden administration is still very much interested in containing China.
I guess President Trump probably sees things quite differently.
He sees that containing China has already passed the window of opportunity.
Instead of having a antagonistic and hostile relationship with the country, he would rather exist peacefully and try to reach out with some kind of trade deals that benefits both sides economically.
The final question before we let you go, Professor Gong how can US business community play a constructive role in supporting the healthy development of the bilateral economic and trade relations?
And, in the meantime, how do you think organizations such as this National Committee on US-China relations play a bridging role in terms of deepening exchanges and cooperation between the two countries?
Well, first, let me say a few words about the National Committee on US-China relations.
This is a very important organization that promotes friendship, promotes closer collaboration, closer relationships between the two countries.
It's mostly sponsored by stakeholders and companies and parties that have an interest in a better Sino-US relationship.
Many of them are American companies operating in China.
As a matter of fact actually, I'm going to attend an event they're going to hold in Los Angeles just in a few more days.
You know, I'm going to see their chairman, Steve Olin, very soon.
So you know, this is an organization that really contributes a lot to the closer ties between the two countries.
And it's a It is going to continue to play that role, even amidst a lot of pushback from Washington.
There are political forces and elements in Washington who wouldn't like to see the National Committee on US-China relations to be more influential in Washington.
So I think we need to really support this organization to further promote a better relationship between the two countries.
In terms of the role of the US business community.
My view is that you know they really need to speak up and step up.
I mean they have their fair share of sometimes complain about you know, the business marketing environment in China.
But overall they are indeed interested in continuing operating in China, because that's what's very profitable.
I mean there are companies operating in China that generates more profit, does more sales in China than in the United States.
I mean, there are companies like that.
So I think it's not a good strategy to be just silent.
They need to speak up in Congress, speak up within the Beltway.
It doesn't have to be shy about it.
It doesn't have to be timid about promoting a better relationship between the United States and China.
And after all, this is also President Trump's at this point, in my view.
So I think this is something that definitely the business community needs, who are stakeholders in this relationship, should be committing more resources, doing more work among people in the Congress, including the senators and congressmen and their staffs, to have a better understanding of China and promote a better relationship between the two countries.
To have a better understanding of their operation in China, how important it is to these American companies to continue to be present in China and how profitable they are in China.
So I think they need to tell the stories.
Tell stories to American people, to America's political leaders.
Hopefully they can indeed effectively tell a wonderful story.
But thank you very much for joining us, Professor Zhang Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
We'll be back after a short break.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
U.S.
President, Donald Trump has signed a funding package ending the longest government shutdown in the country's history.
It comes after the House of Representatives passed the package to reopen the federal government.
The bill only provides funding to keep the government open until late January, when lawmakers will once again need to find a way to fund the government.
The 43-day shutdown has caused the financial stress for federal workers who went without paychecks, stranded scores of travelers at airports in America and generated long lines at some particular food banks.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Professor Qu Bo, Director of the Institute of International Relations, China Foreign Affairs University.
Thank you very much for joining us, Professor.
Hello, pleased to join the discussion.
So The shutdown was triggered when Democrats refused to go along with a spending bill that didn't include this extension of those health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans.
So, as we look at this fact that this dispute between the two sides of the political aisle has triggered this longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, what do you think this tells us?
So I think this is the 21st funding gap and the 11th government shutdown in more than US history.
And the third to occur during a Trump presidency.
And the first to occur since the shutdown that lasted from December 2018 to January 2019 during the first Donald Trump administration.
So I think, first of all, the shutdown is kind of like Donald Trump's feature.
So in the US political system, both chambers of Congress must approve a spending plan to send to the president to be signed into law.
So the House was able to pass a temporary funding bill to avoid a shutdown, but it could not clear the Senate amid democratic resistance.
So the Republican holds 53 seats in the chamber and needed Democrats to join them in the vote, giving liberals some negotiating leverage.
So the Democratic Party's main demands was that the bill should include an extension of expiring tax credits that make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans.
So this is so.
This is why, from October 1st, that the US government shut down for the first time in nearly seven years.
So this time the Republican Democrats are more divided along ideological line than at any point in the last two decades.
So these trends manifest themselves in varied ways, both in politics and everyday life.
So there is a new survey by the Pew Research among 10,000 idols nationwide.
And this division are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process.
Logical thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past.
So ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished.
Today, 92 of Republicans are to the right of a median Democrat and 94 of Democrats are to the left of a median Republican.
So I think this is the whole background.
So the United States divided it now than ever before.
So we understand a compromise that paved the way to the passage of this short-term funding package is that Republicans have promised to hold a vote by mid-December on the extension of the health care subsidies.
So Professor, are you optimistic that Democrats and Republicans will will be able to find any common ground on this issue before the December vote to be held in the Senate?
So I think this time why they have to finish the shutdown and I think due to the very quick November December, the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas holiday will come very soon and we know the shutdown.
Especially.
In fact, the US flies the airlines and that will need time to recover from the disruption.
So I think this is just a very temporal compromise between Democrats and Republicans.
And we know the bill does not explicitly include what the Democrats most wanted in this shutdown fight a guaranteed extension of expiring health insurance subsidies that affect around 24 million Americans.
So I'm not very optimistic about what happened in December or in January.
There may be more struggles between Democrats and Republicans.
President, Donald Trump is blaming the situation on Democrats, suggesting that voters shouldn't reward the Democrats during next year's midterm elections.
So do you think this government shutdown could have a negative impact on the momentum from the Democrats?
So first of all, I think the Democratic Party isn't leaving this process without nothing.
They got a couple of significant concessions.
So we just mentioned one is a commitment to hold a Senate vote on extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies by next month, a vote that could apply real political pressure on Republicans.
And Democrats also gather Republicans to agree to undo President Donald Trump's attempt to lay off thousands of federal workers and to block any other such efforts through January.
And also we also can look at virtually every poll sold them winning the Democrats, winning the blame game.
The Democrats has been fighting for something, the extension of the subsidy.
Then those polls sold more than seven in 10 Americans wanted.
So about half Americans want Democrat to hold the line, something we just haven't seen in recent shutdown.
But this time, the Democrats compromised.
That may be a little bit influenced Democrats but I think the next December and early January and I think the Democrats they really know now the public really support them.
So I think the Democrats will fall back.
We know in the United States Professor, that this mechanism, this particular mechanism for federal government closure, is designed to supervise government spending or prevent funding appropriation or misuse.
In real practice.
Professor Chi, do you think this particular mechanism has reached a point where its cons have somehow outweighed its pros?
Sure.
And we know even the so-called Western mature democracy like in the United States could decline.
And I think many American experts acknowledge the American democracy is declining.
So we know democracy, especially the Western style democracy, needs some preconditions.
And by now I think, the American politics, that preconditions has been disappearing, such as political polarization, the social cleavage all these things make American democracy cannot function well.
So I think this really gave our license that democracy itself cannot work well and that need accompanied with many preconditions as well.
Lastly and very briefly Professor, how do you think the shutdown this time has affected the US economy?
Sure.
And I think many experts believe the government shutdown isn't just the longest in American history and it's likely the most damaging.
So historically, the economic damage from shutdown is fleeting quickly, reversing when the government reopens.
However, the 43-day lapse in funding that began on October 1 is already dealing a significant blow to the world's largest economy.
So, according to many expectations, the current shutdown looks likely to have the greatest economic impact of any shutdown I record.
So the shutdown likely slowed down the growth of real GDP of United States by 115 percentage points during the fourth quarter.
And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate the shutdown will reduce GDP by one to two percentage points.
So, although most of that decline will eventually be recovered, Obviously that's unfortunate, but our time is up.
Thank you very much for joining us, Professor Xu Bo from China Foreign Affairs University.
We'll be back after a very short break.
Welcome.
I'm Elav Elad, 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 information 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 Han in Beijing.
Thai King Mahavajalalongkorn has arrived in Beijing, beginning a five-day state visit to China.
This marks the first visit to China by a Thai king since the two countries established official diplomatic ties half a century ago.
The Thai government says the trip underlines the deeply rooted friendship and mutual understanding between Thailand and China at all levels.
So joining us now on the line is Dr Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
So China represents...
Thailand's biggest trading partner.
Two-way trade rose by 17% over the course of the first three quarters of this year.
So in your opinion, what is the complementarity between China's economy and Thailand's economy?
Well, we know that China and Thailand, we are neighboring countries but we are not just a border country, adjacent neighbors, so we have some distance in between our two countries.
But complementary is one of the characteristics for both countries to make the better use of its advantages.
Like for Thailand, it is one of the most industrialized countries in ASEAN region and also it has a widespread of the different kind of agricultural products.
So for China and Thailand we have been doing this kind of complementary trade for quite a while.
Well, in the recent years we see that Thailand is trying to attract more investment in renewable energy, like for the new energy vehicles, and also trying to welcome some of the investment along the supply chain.
So I think that the trade between our two countries are continued.
You know the traditional cooperation in agricultural products, like some of the electronics actually to, And also you know we are discovering some new elements, like for the EVs, like some of these companies of China invested in Thailand and they also imported auto parts from China.
And also some of the batteries are built here in China and exported to Thailand.
So the bilateral trade are just one very limited part.
We also extend the trade with other countries. other countries through Thailand.
So it's a kind of very complicated and comprehensive relations between our two countries.
So can you tell us more details?
Like.
Why do you think in your observation?
Why do you think nowadays, the areas of Chinese investment over there in Thailand appear to be extending from traditional manufacturing to clean energy and the digital economy, for example?
Well, we know that cross-border investment especially, you know, when the companies are going to invest in another country in the manufacturing area because they are trying to have the better, you know meeting of the demand locally.
Well, Thailand is a very important country in ASEAN and its development status is pretty high.
So the people there really like to have a more kind of good practices and the beliefs of the grain supply and also development.
So if we're going to put all this kind of development in such a way, they try to find the best one.
So we are going to, you know, in China, the companies in China are able to produce those products.
They're not just creating some ideas.
Many of these practices are already been there in the, you know, in the usage, in the market.
Becoming from the tech knowledge to the market do need some kind of time and the procedures.
So for Chinese companies, they really want to also to try to find better opportunities in Thailand, because the market is super large and it is also our good students of ASEAN and are very good examples for other countries to follow.
So for both sides they really have the complementary demand and also the abilities to meet each other.
Well, another reason is because China and the Thailand government really are very active in trying to do some kind of collaboration along the Belt and Road Initiative and also bilaterally.
So we have some five-year plans between our two countries to try to form our mutual and about what we should follow in the next several years, and that is also giving a very clear signal to the enterprises.
Shifting gears a little bit.
Dr Zhongming, how would you comment on China-Thailand cooperation in terms of Cracking down on those scam compounds operating along Thailand's border with Myanmar?
We know a Chinese national who is accused of building an illicit gambling empire in Southeast Asia is nowadays being extradited back to China from Thailand.
It's really a very good example that shows us how the cooperation between China and Thailand very effective to control the cross-border crimes.
I think that for Thailand, it's also naturally that they want and not to have some support of those crimes.
And for China, many Chinese people suffering from that.
So the digital economy is really a big issues development, but sometimes it also will have some side effects.
So I think that's a cooperation are showing us that if those countries can, who want to do more, they can try to have a better collaboration by the information exchanges.
And also some of this police, And that is helpful for us to have a better social security.
And it's really even better for the investor to believe that the investment could be safe.
Well, I think it's in many ways pretty interesting to note here that the most high-profile overseas trip made by the father of the incumbent, Thai king, were actually to the United States back in the 1960s, when Thailand was seen by Washington at the time as a, for example, as a crucial Cold War partner as well as a vital base for American military operations in this nearby region at the time.
Now, today Thailand is still, officially speaking, Thailand is still a military ally of Washington.
Do you think this is going to create some hurdles for the deepening of some aspects of China-Thailand cooperation?
Well, I have to say that every country has its own choices, and some of them are based on the traditions.
Well, the military bases in Thailand started from many years ago.
They come from the result of the Second World War.
I believe that they are still trying to have some collaboration based on their mutual understanding about the security issues.
But to be honest, I don't think that it's really a big threat to the cooperation between China and Thailand.
But if the US Army or US military troops want to do something else to interfere with other regional affairs, it will be a threat to the cooperation between these two countries of China and Thailand.
Without that, I think that you can also find that China and Thailand will also have some kind of military cooperation in different levels.
So maybe in the future we can just elect a country to make the decisions by themselves where they want to go.
And based on that I would say that the United States has involved in many kind of regional conflicts, know in the past decades, and sometimes it's not just a very good signal to just set the military basis there.
They also are trying to use the forces or impacts to change the balance in the regions.
So for that kind of meaning, I don't think that it is a good way for us to deepen the cooperation between these two countries of China and Thailand.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Dr. Zhongwei, joining us from the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Coming up, UN officials warn of rising violence in South Sudan.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies.
World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics economics business, technology and society.
World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies.
I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
UN officials are sounding the alarm over South Sudan's peace process, warning that it is collapsing amid escalating violence across the country.
The situation is further inflamed by a major recent political shakeup that saw this country's president dismiss his vice president.
The crisis is also compounded by a catastrophic humanitarian situation, with millions of people facing acute hunger.
Rampierre Lacalua, who is the UN Undersecretary General for Peace Operations, said developments in this country have quote continue to move in a negative and possibly dangerous direction unquote.
For more.
My colleague Song Ruixin spoke with Dr He Wenping, African expert and senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Following President Selva Keyer's recent dismissal of his alleged preferred successor, Vice President Benjamin Bolmeo, and the purge of his allies.
Then what does this move reveal about the true nature of power and succession within the SPLM and the South Sudanese government?
Well, this of course means this power competition and how to arrange this power sharing in a balanced way, especially not only within this government itself.
Also, with this long time, these foes remain not resolved.
That is why even after independence so many years.
And then this old problem, old scar now even being reopened early this year.
So basically, fundamental reason, that is the power sharing, how to keep a good power balance between different ethnic groups and even between different interest groups now hasn't been fully resolved.
Does this consolidate Keir's power in the short term or does it intensify the power struggle among the political and military elites?
This means this fragility and the intensified power struggle among those elites.
Of course, even within President Keir's own inner circle of his government actually is not saying everything has been that unity or that kind of consensus building.
Different voice, different thinking, even how to handle this, you know, conflict with the rebel forces or whatever, because they also established, even say, their own stronghold and even linked with the outsider, those players.
Now it's not a fully just.
The domestic conflict now has all kinds of links with outside players as well.
So which means Kyr's power now in the short term is not being consolidated at all.
So, since independence the country's independence in 2011, how have the primary drivers of conflict in South Sudan evolved?
I mean, is there any shift?
Well, in general trend, even from time to time, I had a a chance to meet with the people from South Sudan.
Even this afternoon in my lecture room, there are three guys from South Sudan.
So I even had a short discussion with them.
They are saying in the general parking South Sudan situation is not that turbulent.
They are saying, compared with Sudan, their north neighbor.
Actually, South Sudan situation is not worse, even better than the north neighbor, Sudan.
But the turbulence, of course, always there from time to time.
But not that saying, well, whole the country, large scale, now is in the war.
It's not that case.
Even China, you know, some company remain doing their business in South Sudan in a normal way.
General speaking situation remain can be called stable.
I mean South Sudan.
Why have these all i mean all of these comprehensive documents consistently failed to translate into like fasting peace and development?
Similar, like many conflicts are in the world, like a bigger one, like russia ukraine, like also the israel with the hamas?
So you see, also many, many talks has been done many, many agreements has been signed, but eventually deep, deep roots are those deep roots causes for this conflict remain fragile and remain not fundamentally being taken place in a good way.
Implementation process, any minor problem will come out and even this agreement cannot be continued to be implemented from first phase to second phase.
Similar like Israel Hamas now, even this.
How to yeah, return back those you know hostages, even remain the bodies, now somehow with some problem, and then cannot move into the second phase.
Similar, this South Sudan issue, yeah, has also carried on in this old pattern.
Yeah, mutual trust, not that deep-rooted, mutually suspicious, has been always there.
So, like a, One party asks another, saying, you have to dismiss this army.
How come another fighting group, they want to volunteer to dismiss their army?
They think once they dismiss their army, they lose, maybe completely becoming marginalized.
Similar when we talk about this Hamas.
Hamas also doesn't want to dismiss their army, their weapon fully handed over, and then they lost maybe everything they have in their hands.
So this is all the different conflicts in the world sometimes always carry the same story inside.
What about regional impact?
What is the tangible impact of the South Sudan crisis on its neighbors?
Are we seeing increased refugee flows straying on regional economies or cross-border rebel activity and disruption of trade routes?
Of course, any conflict, even in a single-country territory, always has this bad spillover effect, not to mention Sudan and the South Sudan.
You see the South Sudan, there, this conflict also has other outside players, their hands in.
Like each side, no matter it's Gear or Samuel or the SPRM or South Sudan government.
They all have a backup from forces outside of South Sudan.
So that is why those influence all go beyond the border.
For example, even Sudan, the north neighbor, are now becoming the most refugee country resources from Sudan people.
Also, Sudan now becoming the most serious humanitarian crisis country.
Even more than those humanitarian crisis issue happened in Gaza Strip.
Sudan is the most.
And then South Sudan also, not that... seeing people enjoy the life.
Also those conflict area, of course.
The people becoming homeless, they go other places becoming refugee.
And then other country, the neighboring country, even set up the refugee camps to host this.
You know, the people flee away from their homeland.
So that will influence the border and then security and the neighboring countries, their security and their economy.
So in the whole, will make this regional stability also in danger.
China recently encouraged Sudan and South Sudan cooperation, especially in terms of IBA.
So, given the current internal power struggles in South Sudan, what are the realistic prospects for the two governments to strengthen coordination in IBA, as China encourages?
I mean, who holds the key?
You know it's a very interesting story is Before when South Sudan got independence in the year 2011.
At that time, South Sudan was in the civil war.
And then their neighbor North country Sudan, even offering the helping hand to bring those South Sudan, those two fighting parties together sitting around the negotiation table.
So they have been playing the very active role for bringing the peace together.
Now, you see, at this current time, things go to another direction.
That is, Sudan now is in war, civil war.
Even come up with another government, two governments now separately, mutually not recognize each other, and the people are becoming refugees, running even out of this country.
So now Sudan, South Sudan, now becoming even mediator, to mediate peace building in Sudan.
Even Sudan only allow saying I only trust my South Sudan brother to becoming the mediator even against other countries.
Those special envoy
So this is a very interesting story, which means again these two countries they used to be in one country just after 2011 becoming two independent countries.
But by nature, they are still bonding together.
You see, by all your resources, by everything, the history, whatever.
So they have to cooperation, share the hands and then share the efforts together to bring the peace together.
That is why China encouraged them to cooperate in Sudan, South Sudan to have more cooperation, not only just in Abyei, these detailed places, because Abyei has a lot of oil resources disputes, because the oil itself can also serve as the way, one of the access to cooperation, because we know under the ground of South Sudan there are huge oil resources, but Sudan has this pipe for oil transportation.
So we start the pipe for oil flow and your oil on the ground also has no access to export outside.
And then you can earn those oil revenue back for the people.
So actually the oil itself should serve as the link for those two countries rather than as a trouble for those two countries.
So only the negotiation is the solution for all those conflicts.
And also only the cooperation between the two countries can bring the prosperity to these two countries.
Dr He Wenping, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Talking with my colleague Song Ruixin.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
In Australia...
The first treaty between indigenous people and a government has been signed into law in the state of Victoria.
Victoria Premier Jacinda Allen, has described the signing of this treaty as marking a new chapter in the state's history.
The treaty formalizes the creation of the permanent First Peoples Assembly of Victoria.
In history, British powers entered into treaties with indigenous people in other colonized countries, including Canada, New Zealand and the United States, but no treaty was ever signed in Australia.
So joining us now on the line is Dr Digby James Wren, chair of BICP, a geopolitical risk advisory firm.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Yes, it's very nice to join you, Dean Hung.
So Digby, In real practice, what will this treaty bring to indigenous people in the state of Victoria?
Well, the first is, of course, it's the formalization legalization, legitimization of the role of the first people and the indigenous nation's of australia, but specifically in victoria, and this, this uh, and this is the first time, of course, and it gives them a voice.
I mean a legislated voice or a real voice.
The government can no longer just enact any laws they want, or the agencies of the government can't just act uh in relation to indigenous people uh, any way they want to.
They now must consult the the, the uh, the Indigenous People Group that's embodied now in the actual parliament.
So they have their own offices in the parliament and they'll have resources.
And so this is going to mean I think this is a good, solid basis for forward steps in relation to all of the problems that are afflicting these people.
Mm-hmm.
Australia was colonized by the then British Empire in 1788.
So can you tell us more about the role played by what is Victoria State today in terms of colonization of Australia?
What has made Victoria's premier describe that the signing of this treaty as marking a new chapter for the state?
Well yes, I mean clearly, as we mentioned in the introduction, you know, Canada and New Zealand have introduced these sorts of laws a long time ago.
And Australia has had lots of political opposition to this.
You know, very, very white Australia policy was a strong thing that existed for almost 100 years.
That was gone with the Gough Whitlam era in the 70s.
But it's taken another 50 years to get to the point where there's actually a voice for indigenous populations.
Victoria is leading obviously, but other states South Australia, Western Australia are also trying to enact these kinds of laws and protections.
But Queensland is an outlier.
It has perhaps a larger population of indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders and they are really not going to do that.
And it's also become a bit of a political football, because the right parties, the liberal parties, have long resisted any kind of treaty or recognition of the importance of Indigenous peoples.
So this is really very important for Victoria.
And Victoria has been very, very, let's say, very progressive on this.
And I think it's going to set the standard for the rest of the country as we go forward.
So, as you mentioned, for generations governments in Australia had resisted calls from Aboriginal people for a formal treaty or formal treaties.
What do you make of the fundamental reasons?
I mean, like you talk about political obstacles is one layer, but fundamentally, what went wrong?
Well, of course, the indigenous peoples of Australia were stripped of their dignity and every right they you know they were given no rights at all.
In fact, they didn't even exist in sort of legal terms for the longest time.
And it wasn't until the 1970s that they actually got legal representation or legal status in Australia.
So that's very important.
And so Victoria, of course, has long been championing this, and particularly the Labour Party.
And so this is very important.
But it also gives them a voice in the parliament, which is because normally they would have just had to be elected to parliament.
But here they've got a permanent representation of parliament which is going to feed to policy and improvements, because these are still the most underrepresented group of people in Victoria and in Australia.
They've long sat on areas of the country where there's mineral wealth, for example, or forests, or water and things like that.
And that's been one of the reasons that many of the, shall we say, the liberal parties, the ones that are more economically exploitative in their policies, have long not wanted to recognize this.
But the Labour Party is a much more people-centered kind of party and they have really taken this to heart.
It's been part of their agenda, their political agenda for a long time.
And it's been very difficult to get this through.
So, you know, I mean, this first started, I think they first got this through in 2019.
Then COVID happened.
So that sort of slowed things down.
They pushed it through in 2022 in the parliament.
And now they've finally got to the signing, you know, the governor general and passed legislation.
And so now legitimized legal.
Yes, it's a big step forward.
So, now that Victoria has broken new ground, how does the outlook across the rest of Australia look like?
For the rest of Australia?
Well, there are other states that are looking at this kind of thing.
So they're going to look very closely at the legislation.
South Australia, which has a fairly large, important population of indigenous people.
Western Australia, which has also very large territories, which I mentioned, have mineral wealth and water, forests and so forth.
They are going to be looking at this very closely.
I think they're probably going to follow suit.
They've also got Labour governments, so that's a positive sign for them.
They're more progressive about this.
But Queensland, as I said, is an outlier.
New South Wales is sitting on it.
And the Northern Territory, which has probably the largest population of Indigenous people.
There's no sign that anything's going to happen in the very near future.
But that being said, they have more representation in the parliament there.
So look, I think as we go forward, it is historic.
It sets the basis.
It restores some level of dignity because the people as a nation are now given a legitimate role within the electoral and legislative process.
So that, I think, is the key thing.
And then, at the national level, the federal government.
Look, they've already made the formal federal apology under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
And I think this is going to be another thing for Albanese to look at, another step forward if they can do it on a national level as well.
Thank you very much for your perspective.
Dr. Dick B. James Ren, chairman of BRCP, a geopolitical risk advisory firm.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
