Israeli has carried out the deathless attacks on Hamas targets in Gaza since the January ceasefire.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called for strengthening ties with China, and Chinese cities have strengthened policy efforts to help stabilize rail estate markets.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Ge -Anah in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
Over 300 people have been killed and 1 ,000 others injured, as Israeli military carried out extensive airstrikes in Gaza.
It's by far the deadliest attacks since Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in mid -January.
But the two sides are unable to agree on how to sustain the next -phase ceasefire.
Hamas says the Israeli race targeted densely populated presidential areas as well as camps for displaced individuals.
To delve into the latest developments in Gaza, let's have Associate Professor Zhang Chuche, to deputy director at Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University.
The Israeli forces launched their largest airstrikes on Gaza since the ceasefire on January.
What do you believe were Israel's primary strategic considerations in breaking the ceasefire at this time?
Well, from my observation, Israel's decision to launch its largest airstrike on Gaza since the January ceasefire likely stemmed from several factors.
So above all, I think according to the ceasefire deal, when entering the second phase, Israel needs to totally withdraw from Gaza in exchange for the release after the rest of the hostages.
So Netanyahu refuses at the moment, and Hamas also does not want to make further compromise.
So we can now see that the ceasefire negotiations are deadlocked.
So at present, Netanyahu is trying to use military pressure to force concessions of Hamas.
And secondly, as the United States has recently launched its military actions towards the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Netanyahu believes this as an opportunity to pressure Hamas given that its allies under attack self and can hardly provide support these really prime minister's office stated the airstrikes were aimed at dismantling Hamas military and governing capabilities and rescuing hostages from a practical standpoint can such large -scale airstrikes realistically achieve these goals what unintended consequences might arise from this escalation well in fact from a practical standpoint and i would say large -scale airstrikes are very unlikely to fully dismantle Hamas military and governing capabilities or secure
the release of hostages.
And in fact, Israel has already been launching a very large scale of airstrikes for a long time.
And it has still not achieved its goals.
And also, it is very hard to differentiate the Hamas activists from the local people.
So, I think there are a lot of challenges, and right now, Naitanya, whose purpose is to keep aiming at the leadership and commanders of the organization, undermine it as much as possible, and make the local geopolitics more fragmented.
And I would say that possible unintended consequences could include radicalizing more local residents and exacerbating a humanitarian crisis, and also I think there is the danger of increasing the risk faced by hostages.
Then building on that point, a senior Hamas official claimed the attack signaled Israel's unilateral termination of the ceasefire agreement.
What irreversible impact could this have on the regional peace process?
do further diminish the prospects of resolving the Israeli -Palestinian conflict through peaceful negotiations?
At the moment, Hamas's claim of unilateral ceasefire termination could severely damage rust in future negotiations.
Because let's see, the January 2025 ceasefire, brokered by United States, Qatar, and Egypt, was very fragile, but it's at least represented a rare pause after 15 minutes, months of war.
So at least it was somehow an achievement, but right now it's sort of collapsed with massive airstrikes, might convince Hamas and its supporters that Israel prioritizes military dominance over diplomacy.
and this can actually demotivate both sides from further negotiation, and it can push them toward escalation of conflicts.
So I think in some, this escalation could further infringe both sides, and which reduces the ceasefire second phase to a very distant hope.
Then, turning to diplomatic dynamics, an anonymous Israeli official stated the Israeli government had informed the Trump administration in advance about the airstrikes and their military objectives.
Could you please elaborate more on the role that the U .S. played in this escalation?
How significantly has Washington's stance influenced Israel's action?
I think the United States role is, of course, very pivotal.
We all know that the United States has always been the most important supporter of Israel.
But right now Trump and his team have prioritized hostage release and countering Hamas.
Recently, we have seen Trump, who has proposed a U .S. takeover of Gaza, while also suggesting a permanent displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.
Meanwhile, the United States has also launched attacks towards the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
And we have to note that the Crimean administration has minimal criticism of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza so all these actions are very likely to embolden Israel to act.
Thanks, depending on the issue of ceasefire negotiations, Wenya Hamas is much more committed to the initial ceasefire agreement, which was supposed to enter its second phase earlier this month.
And as you mentioned, according to this phase, Israel was expected to fully withdraw from Gaza and agreed to a permanent end to the war in exchange for the release of remaining hostages.
But we also witnessed Israel's reluctance to proceed with the second phase.
What deeper attitudes and intentions does this reflect regarding the conflict?
How might this distance affect the long -term stability of the region?
I think Israel's reluctance to enter the ceasefire second phase signals a deep -seated rejection of any outcome which could preserve Hamas power.
So I think the current and ongoing airstrikes in Netanyahu's rhetoric about increasing military strength reflect his intention to prioritize security through force over compromise.
And in the meantime, we should also note that Netanyahu's coalition includes a lot of far right elements and obviously, he faces pressure from them.
So right now these far right elements advocate Palestinian displacement, advocate the continuation of war.
So right now, I think it is very unlikely for Israel to make further concessions.
And this stance risks long -term instability.
So in general, I would say that doubling down on military solutions might lead to the continuation of cycles of violence.
In light of this tension, U .S. Middle East envoy Steve Whitkoff had proposed a transitional plan to extend the first phase of the agreement for several weeks, during which Hamas could release five hostages.
But Hamas rejected this proposal.
What do you believe were the key reasons behind Hamas' refusal?
Well, I think Hamas likely rejected this proposal because it did not address its core demands, which is permanent ceasefire and a voice really with full from Gaza.
So Hamas insistence on immediate phase two talks reflects its distrust in Israel's intentions especially after strikes during the truce.
Also, I would say releasing hostages without guaranteed concessions might also weaken Hamas leverage, particularly right now with not many believed alive among the hostages.
So, meanwhile, accepting a temporary extension could also undermine its narratives and its image in the region.
So all these reasons has actually an a very strong influence on Hamas refusal of the proposal.
Now, finally, turning to the humanitarian crisis in the region, the large scale airstrikes have reportedly resulted in at least 300 deaths enjoying a widespread international condemnation.
Then what actions can the global community take now, and how might Trump's approach to Gaza influence the international community's response to this situation?
From my perspective, I think the global community faces very limited options at this stage, and also it is very uncertain whether Qatar, Egypt and are able to continue the mediation efforts.
So obviously there are many challenges and a more worrisome scenario is that humanitarian aid can be even more interrupted.
So I think France's approach at the moment is not very helpful for reaching an international solution, and right now I think the immediate mission for the international society is how to bring the two sides back to the negotiation table and how to reduce the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
That was Associate Professor, John Chu Chu, Deputy Director at Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudanik University.
Coming up, Indian Prime Minister -in -Ran and Moody has called for strengthening ties with China.
This is Barbara Today.
Stay with us. Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombieff -Seixeda.
I'm a professor of public policy management at Xinhua University in Beijing.
I am a great listener of the world today.
In my opinion, the world 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 Road Today.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called for strengthening ties with China.
When talking to a U .S.-based podcastor, he emphasized that India and China should engage in a healthy and natural competition, while ensuring that differences do not escalate into disputes.
Speaking on India -China relations, Modi highlighted the deep historical ties with China in global trade and cultural exchange, stating that both nations have learned from each other first centuries and were once economic powerhouses together.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs later responded, the prime minister's positive remarks are appreciated, and China is willing to work with India to fully implement the consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries and promote the healthy and stable development of the relationship.
So, for more on China -India relations, joining us on the line is Rong Ying, Chair Professor with the School of International Studies at Sichuan University.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Thank you for having me again.
Professor Prime Minister Modi emphasized dialogue over discord and the need to ensure differences don't turn into disputes.
How do you interpret this statement in the current geopolitical context?
Well, let me first make a point that the the context and the background of these remarks.
I think the fact that Prime Minister Modi made these remarks on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the established diplomatic relationship certainly is very much noted.
As your question, I think, alluded that in the current uncertain and fast -changing world where geopolitics create a lot of uncertainties and also a lot of challenges.
The very fact that India's relationship, India with China, was one of the largest neighbours, And also a very important, I think, country for India which over the past years, particularly the past five years since the Galawan incident, has been thought of some difficulties.
While last year, when the two leaders met, they have more or less taken a different approach, but the momentum, I mean, is not very stable.
So, the fact that the Prime Minister himself came up and made a statement in emphasizing many important principles, and also, I think, about how to manage the question of cooperation and competition, how to ensure differences which is natural between neighbours.
In this case China and India that would have not become a dispute and how to ensure the disputes or problem differences will be managed through dialogue.
And more importantly, I think they emphasize the historical cultural exchanges and the China -India cooperation.
The role of the significance that for the region and the world.
Last but not least, of course, the boundary issues.
He also mentioned about the coming back to the normal CSO, and so forth.
So, taking as a whole, I thought it was a very positive and important statement.
Naturally, it's been responded by the Chinese side that which I think would prepare the ground for the coming celebrations of the 75th anniversary.
And the other expected interactions even at a the various level, particular the highest levels, if you look at the agenda of both China and India.
Professor, let's delve further into your assessment of these remarks made by Prime Minister Modi.
We know Modi has rarely made public remarks about China -India relations over the years, with tougher stance typically voiced by his foreign minister.
What key factors do you believe contributed to this change?
What political, economic or strategic considerations within India might be driving this shift?
I just do. I think Prime Minister Modi has rarely made public remarks in the past five years.
But I think when he spoke usually, the remarks, the statements are very much important.
Talking about the factors contributing these remarks or statements, I think politically India and of course China want the relationship to become stabilized.
And this is very much I think the consensus, the agreement that has been reached by President Xi and Prime Minister Modi, when they met in Qatar on the sideline of the BRICS conference.
So that is very much important.
Secondly, I think if we look at the diplomatic front, it certainly makes sense for India as now pursuing a kind of a multi -aligned sort of a strategy want to, by developing a kind of a relationship, stable relationship with all the major countries, of course, more or less on its terms. And economically China has been one one of the major sort of partners in terms of trade.
And arguably, I think, if you look at the potentialities, investment, even though, over the past years, we have seen India has made some restrictions on Chinese investment and trade, but it did not stop the growth, rapid growth of that.
And so, a stable relationship, both in terms of a certain sense, in terms of India.
And, of course, I think domestically, if we look at the domestic political dynamic, this is the second year of prime minister, the third term, so he is more or less, I think, very much in control.
So I think it is alright, or it makes political sense for the BJP government and Prime Minister Modi to make some gestures or in the hope that a stable relationship with China would help more Prime Minister Modi to fulfill its own domestic agenda, political, economic and diplomatic.
Professor, about ongoing issues or challenges, like you mentioned, the border dispute, India has maintained a firm stance on resolving these matters bilaterally.
Interestingly, during Modi's visit to the United States last month, U .S. President Donald Trump reportedly offered to help in ending China -India border dispute, but Modi rejected the offer, emphasizing that a bilateral approach is the best approach. How do you interpret India's position in this regard?
What does this decision suggest about India's desire for greater autonomy in managing its relationship with China?
I think that to be fair, India has always wanted to be a meaningful power, a power to be reckoned with.
And for that, India, I think, would have to, diplomatically, would have to exercise greater strategic autonomy.
me. And related to that is, of course, those major issues, issues of great significance in terms of political economic, and certainly I think related to relations with China has to be, I think, under control.
And it had always been very consistent, that the policy of India that its disputes or its with China, boundary disputes and others.
They look for a kind of bilateral, so -called one to deal with in a bilateral way.
So bilateralism, and all with that.
And India has consistently that reject any third party intervention.
So it's understandable, in the face, of course, it is also very significant for Prime Minister Modi to reject when President Trump offered that.
And, of course, it is also, I think, the positions of China, of the Chinese, that bilateral issues should leave left with the countries, I can say, in this case, China and India, we feel we can address, manage our issues.
And if you look at the past decades, particularly in the past two decades, and when China and India reached an important agreement on the political guiding principles and political parameters on addressing the boundary issues.
So they are very important and consistent sort of understanding that the political approach. So this is I think a very important position, very important principle that was proposed by India and of course, by China.
Professor, I think dialogue alone may not be enough to improve China -India relations right, especially given the challenge of rebuilding mutual trust between the two nations.
Now, with Modi's recent positive remarks and China's expressed willingness to expand cooperation, how do you think both sides can leverage this opportunity to enhance people to people exchanges and economic cooperation and to foster greater mutual understanding between the two nations?
It is true. I think dialogue is important but not enough.
Most importantly, I think given the importance, the complexities of the relationship between China and India, I mean, cultural exchanges, people -to -people interactions and so on and so forth, would very much help.
And this There are a lot of effort that you made, and there are mechanisms called high -level, cultural, and people -to -people interactions established.
Unfortunately, that has not been fulfilled, I mean followed through because of the incident.
The first few steps or sort of efforts made by the two governments after the two leaders meeting in bringing the relationship back is, I think, one of the priorities, is people to people and the culture.
And this is very much important, because China and India are both, I mean, with rich culture and very much, I think, are neighbors.
And we need to have better understanding.
And this is, in this context, I think, while the political dialogue, economic engagement the government and that diplomatic negotiations going on, people to people interaction, cultural exchanges becomes important and it is very good for Prime Minister Modi to mention in his remarks the importance of cultural ties by looking – I mean, going back to the history.
But the most important that I believe that we need to look ahead to the future and the I mean, not only the such society as whole, but, most importantly, I think, the younger generation, the future generations, that should be the priority areas where China and India focus on, when we talk about cultural exchange and people -to -people relations.
Indeed. Thanks, professor, for your insight of analysis.
That was Dr. Rong -In, chair professor with the School of International Studies at Seojoang University.
This is Road Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
Welcome back to Road Today with Mika Anna in Beijing.
Official data shows that commercial home prices in China dipped slightly in February, in China's 70 large and medium -sized cities, amid the Spring Festival's sales off season.
The National Bureau of Statistics says new home prices in first -tier cities, including Living Beijing and Shanghai increased 0 .1 % from a month ago.
In second tier cities, prices of new homes stayed flat, while those for resold homes dropped by 0 .4%.
Since the start of the year, cities including Shenzhen, Dalian, Suzhou, and Beijing have introduced new policies for housing provident funds.
In China, housing provident fund is a government policy that involves both employees and employers in contributing to savings for housing purchases.
So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Zhu Qiang, founder of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzu University of China.
So Professor Qiang, first, what is your assessment of the housing market in China's 70 large and medium -sized cities this year?
Well, I think, from the January to February at least, according to our latest data, we've been observing that the performance in the 70 major cities in China.
Actually we could call it divergent.
Why is that? It's because within the current mix of our data we find out some of the cities have actually been very stabilized and also some are even minor rising up but some others are slowing down and also drop a little bit.
So there is no clear pattern in here.
For example, I think in first year cities, they are still very much stable and a bit strong, like in Beijing, like in Shanghai, like in Shenzhen.
We'll be finding that their turnovers for the housing market actually has been moving up, and also the second hand home has also been rising.
But some of the second tier or third or fourth tier cities are very much different.
For example, in the city like Suzhou and Chengdu, those are very, very strong second tier, or And then their turnovers and the rising of the prices are even faster than Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.
But for some other third and fourth year cities, for example, in the England city or in the western regions, our sales slowing down, or still continue with the drops.
So it's very hard to say that the whole market in the housing sectors are stabilized.
But what we can tell is that in the major cities, because there are economic fundamentals, because of the inflow of the population and we can say their housing market are basically okay right now.
And since September, China has announced a series of policies to stabilize the property market.
So, professor, do you expect there will be more housing market supportive measures this year?
Well, I do think so.
I think last year, Chinese government has really made a very unprecedented move towards the housing market, for example, our, you know, front payment ratio has been cut into the historic low, and also I think the mortgage ratio has also been dropped continuously in the hole last year.
And starting from this year, and I think we just wrap up the two sessions, and according to our observations on the two sessions, I think a stabilization of the housing market still has been mentioned frequently.
So, according to this guidelines and policies, I think we're probably going to continue the trends of last year.
So even though the upfront payment ratio is already low in history but still compared to as much foreign market like Japan, like South Korea, like Western European countries, I think we'll still have the leeway to cut more of the front payment.
And also talking about mortgage rate, even though right now I think it's very very low according to the Chinese own historic data.
But compared to some other markets, as I just mentioned, like Japan, like the United States, like the European Union.
I think we still have the further space to cut out LPR.
For example, in the lowest time, I think in America, you only need to pay like 1 percent of the mortgage rate.
And in Japan, it is even much lower, like 0 .5, or like 0 .1 percent of the mortgage ratio.
So, I think we still are rather high compared to the average ratio of the mature market.
So, And more than that, I think the government allows a larger leverage ratio if you've got to provide a fund.
And also, I think most of the major cities can also have what we call the administrative method.
For example, in big cities like Beijing and Shanghai, Shenzhen, they still have some limits on the numbers or on the house numbers, or how many years of the social credit you need to pay or the taxation you need to pay to the local government so you can buy the houses.
And now, I think they probably will have more of the space to remove all the spam to attract more of the people to come into the market to buy the houses.
And as you mentioned during the two sessions, the government work report said, quote, we will introduce the city -specific policies on adjusting or reducing the property transaction restrictions.
So how should we understand that?
Well, I think China is the very, very large market.
It was probably the largest, what we call the qualified buyers of the houses which India is basically also a very large market, but not many people can buy the city houses.
In America, they only have 300 million population, and their city's number is much smaller than China.
So I think which makes Chinese housing market regulation even more difficult.
So, I think right now if we will have just one answer or just one regulation or policy towards the housing market, let's say, remove all the ban, and lower the rate, lower the limits to the bottom line.
Immediately, I think the city like Beijing and Shanghai and Shenzhen, their house market probably would not only have been stabilized, but rather to rebound very brutally.
Probably, the house prices will skyrocket again.
That's something the central government don't want to see.
But on the other hand, some smaller cities, even though we will allow them to have very, very favorable policies that lower the ratio to the bottom line, but probably, people wouldn't go back immediately to buy the houses because they are not still prepared in the economic fundamentals of their job market, and also their whole industry is not prepared.
So the government wouldn't want to see that happen because there will be a major turbulence in the whole housing market.
So I think the current policy, which is side -best step across the river by filling the storm, is absolutely correct.
We want to smooth the curve of the rebound, but also we don't want to cause major disruption towards the whole housing market and further the financial market.
And local authorities like Beijing and Shenzhen.
they have issued some policies easing the purchasing requirements or mortgage rates.
So what does it mean for people who are looking to purchase a property, especially who want to sell their original one and buy better ones?
And what does it mean for the housing market?
Well, I think this is a very important the policies that facilitate the turnovers and the whole turnover volumes and turnover rate to speed of the whole market.
Well, we have to understand the market like Beijing and Shenzhen, are quite different.
Just imagine London, Los Angeles, New York or San Diego or Paris.
Well, in there, the housing market or the sheer price for each house are very, very large.
So it's not very easy to attract, like the homebuyers, to buy their first home to pay full, and there was such a large amount.
It's not easy in anywhere in the whole world in a city like Beijing, Shanghai or London or Los Angeles.
But I think the second hand or what we call the improvement of home buyers are still there and they have very large base numbers.
For example, I have already got a rather smaller house or big house in the suburb.
I want to switch it for a better home as the city center, where there was a bigger float area.
Yeah. So I can, you know, sell my own original home and just add up a more, a little bit more of the mortgage or some money borrowed from my relatives.
So I want to buy a new one to improve my living condition.
And I think that is very, very doable.
So I think the government realize that well, if it's difficult to track, you know, like the first home buyer, but how about we revitalize the home market by, you know, helping those second home buyers or improvement home buyers.
So I think that's the purpose of releasing all these policies in the first place is reducing their burden, and help them with you know, financing and the lower their threshold of the market entry, and also improve their living conditions with a bigger home, you probably were considered about a better interior decor and also to buy some new furniture, house appliances, and that means another round of the boost in the consumption.
There was Professor Zhu Chang, a fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Manzi University of China.
Coming up, the new Canadian Prime Minister has picked France over the United States for his first foreign visit.
This is Road Today, we'll be back.
Hi. I m Einer Tange, a political and economic analyst and senior fellow at the Independent Taihe Institute.
The world today is news without the hype and business commentary that is informed and up -to -date, presenting the facts and asking incisive questions.
So, join us if you are someone who needs to know what is happening in China as it is happening.
Welcome back. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says his country must reduce its reliance on the United States and will turn towards its reliable European allies.
Instead of making his first foreign trip to the United States, Carney headed to Europe, where he first met French president Emmanuel Macron in Paris.
He then headed to London and met British Prime Minister Charles Dahmer.
Carney said Canada is also looking to ease its reliance on the U .S. for security and is seeking alternatives to its $13 billion deal to buy 88 U .S. fighter jets.
The former Bank of England Governor, also a former head of the Bank of Canada, became the leader of the ruling Liberal Party this month by depicting himself as an outsider with a history of tackling crisis.
So to talk more on this, let's bring in Professor Joseph Mahoney, professor of politics and international relations at East China Normal University.
Professor Canadian Prime Minister Carney chose France and the UK for his first official visit emphasizing the need to strengthen ties with reliable alliance.
How do you interpret this significant shift in Canadian foreign policy amid strained U .S.-Canada relations?
What strategic implications does this diplomatic shift hold for Canada?
Well, first, I think it's a bit amusing to recall that in the past, Canadians sometimes took umbrage with U .S. Presidents who made London on their first official foreign visit with American leaders pointing out the US -UK special relationship when doing so.
And Biden also did this after taking office in 2021, meeting with Queen Elizabeth.
Now, despite the fact that the British monarch is Canada's head of state, this did little to assuage the ruffled feathers in Canberra.
And it's amusing to recall this as the new Canadian prime Minister also privileges France and the UK as his first trip abroad, thereby touching the two European states that have the biggest cultural influences in Canada, despite the much more important relationship Canada has with the US.
Second, obviously, is that Trump's trade war aggressions and comments contrary to Canadian sovereignty have made a trip to Washington politically toxic for Canadian leaders.
leaders and all the more so because both Trump and his vice president have shown a willingness to attack foreign leaders above all allies whether hosting them in the White House or while traveling abroad.
And as for reliable allies, we've heard European leaders pushing back against Trump's annexation rhetoric could direct against Canada and Greenland.
And this is a clear example of a reliable versus unreliable ally.
Third, Canada's frustrations with Trump are especially acute, for another reason.
During the first Trump presidency, Canberra bent over backwards to accommodate Trump's demands with respect to NAFTA.
But Trump has recently violated that agreement through his new trade war.
Now some believe that former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was too deferential towards Washington.
And it's clear that many Canadian voters wanted someone who would stand stronger.
I think consequently, even though Carney might have more in common with Trump politically than Trudeau did, this would also require him taking a stronger stand.
And above all, because when you reach a deal with Trump, you can't expect him to honor it.
Professor, during his meeting with President Macron, Carney made some intriguing remarks.
He said Canada is the most European -like country outside of Europe and a poll by Abka's data reviewed that 44 % of Canadians believe Canada should join the EU, while 34 % oppose this idea.
What does this suggest about Canada's self -perception today and its attitude toward Europe?
How might this shape Canada's future role in global affairs?
Well, you know, Canada is also unfortunately at risk for political polarization, with some actually favoring closer relations with the US and others favoring them with Europe.
Now, some Canadian business leaders actually criticized Trudeau for not doing what Trump wanted in recent months.
More recently, we've seen the premier of Alberta, who has long harbored separatist sympathies, has been trying to cut a deal with Trump behind closed doors independently, rather than holding the line.
Now joining the EU unfortunately would present Canada with a number of challenges.
For example, the UK is not a member of the EU anymore.
So how strange would it be for the British monarch, post -Brexit, to be the head of state of an EU country.
Now let's assume that wouldn't be such a big deal.
The broader problem is that joining the EU doesn't change the fact that the US will probably remain Canada's largest trading partner and the EU, like Canada, is already in a security trap vis -a -vis American control of NATO.
Furthermore, I just returned from Rome a couple of days ago and despite the huge pro EU solidarity rally there on Saturday, the general mood in many European capitals is that the EU is unable to respond collectively in an effective way to confront growing challenges associated with the return of great power competition above all that coming from Washington.
So in short, while many in Europe still want the EU to work, not many have much faith that it can do so.
Consequently, joining the EU might bring more problems than solutions.
Now, finally, I was discussing these developments with a Canadian professor who says he doesn't think the Canadian ruling class seriously wants to join the EU.
And meanwhile, joining the EU is actually favored by less Canadians than people in Turkey.
Additionally, Carney, who I think as you mentioned, was the governor of the Bank of England and Canada, the latter during the financial crisis, he understands the liabilities and lack of autonomy imposed by European central banking, something that would be a very significant at risk if the conflict with the US accelerates.
That said, these kinds of unity narratives can help reinforce, rhetorically at least, already strong ties and encourage new trade agreements.
Then Professor, looking at Carney's European visits, could you please elaborate what a specific support is he seeking from European allies in response to US tariffs and sovereignty concerns?
How might European allies respond to Canada's requests based on their own interests?
There's a lot of room to promote free trade between Canada and Europe, and this would certainly help offset some of the increased costs and risks both sides are facing from Washington.
Aside from the rhetorical support for Canadian sovereignty, and given the fact that it's not clear the US will sustain its role in NATO, we might also see new strategic partnerships between Canada and Europe that could strengthen Canadian national security.
Professor during a press conference in London, Carney sued his strongest criticism yet of the U .S. President Donald Trump demanding that Trump hot disrespectful remarks before engaging in negotiations and Carney then stated that he currently has no plans to visit the United States but is open to dialogue while also holding back on retaliatory tariffs.
How would you assess this strategy from Carney given Canada's economic size?
Does it realistically have the leverage to confront the United States in trade disputes?
Well, Canada is greatly disadvantaged due to the size of its economy and its higher level of exposure to US trade, along with other concerns like dependence on the US for security.
Nevertheless, Canada is a developed nation.
If Trump decides to wage an unrelenting trade war, and if Canada fights back, experts believe prosperity could be restored after a deep and painful process of adjustment.
Unfortunately, this could take 10 to 20 years, and it's not clear that most voters are willing to make that sacrifice.
However, we already see these kinds of scenarios being discussed in Canada, as well as their potential upsides.
for example extreme economic hardship might also promote national unity to face that crisis and this could help discourage separatism being promoted by some in Alberta, Quebec and a number of indigenous regions.
Thanks, professor, for your time and insights.
That was Professor Joseph Mahoney, professor of Politics and International Relations at Eastern China Normal University.
This Welcome, I'm Elaf Ellat, 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're listening to Road Today.
U .S. consumer sentiment plunged to a nearly two and a half year low in March amid policy uncertainties and tariff whiplash.
The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index plummeted 11 percent in March, the third consecutive monthly drop and the lowest rating since November 2022.
The survey also showed inflation expectations were rising both for the year ahead and over a five -year horizon.
The data comes as President Donald Trump has declined to rule out a recession.
He said the country will see a period of transition as his policies take effect.
So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Ying is joining us in the studio.
Thanks for joining us, Zhao.
Hi, let's start with the bigger picture here.
American consumer confidence has taken quite a hit lately.
What's driving this sharp decline?
Well, as we can see in this report released by the University of Michigan, consumer confidence has fallen sharply as Americans of all ages, income groups, and political affiliations turning the more downbeat about the trajectory of the economy.
And it's not only about personal finance, but also the job markets and stock markets.
And I think there are multiple factors driving this trend.
First and foremost, Trump's tariffs.
tariffs policy or front and center.
He's been rolling out these sweeping tariffs like 25 % on goods from Canada and Mexico, threats of 200 % on European wine and cognac and then playing this on again, off again game.
One day they're imposed.
The next they are suspended and then they're bag with a vengeance and actually nearly half the people surveyed on 48 % pointed to tariffs, as a big reason they are expecting prices to climb.
That unpredictability is a nightmare for anyone trying to budget or plan ahead.
Then there is the fear of inflation.
Consumers are now expecting 4 .9 % inflation over the next year, which is the highest since late 2022.
Over 5 years they are bracing for 3 .9 % a level we haven't seen since 1993.
On top of that, you got a stock market that's been on a roller coaster.
Also, there's Trump's government efficiency push through slashing federal drops and threatening cuts of things like Social Security, as well as his plan to order the American immigration system.
I would say this drop in consumer confidence is largely driven by Trump's policies, even though Trump claims this is just a period of transition for something very big and whether it's temporary or not we need to wait and see but the pangs are real are we actually seeing people cut back on spending or is this more about consumer anxiety and uncertainty well I think this is not just a psychological reaction we are definitely seeing hard evidence that consumers are cutting back for instance according to retail next account consultancy foodfall to US stores dropped 4 .3 % year on -year in early March. Placer
.ai aggregates signals from consumers' mobile devices.
It seems fewer visits to big -box stores like Walmart, Target, and Best Buy in recent weeks.
According to the Commerce Department, retail sales in February only ends up 0 .2%, that comes after a 1 .2 drop in January.
And if we break it down, department stores down 1 .7%, restaurants and bars down 1 .5 % and gasoline stations down 1%.
And also according to revenue management solutions traffic to US fast food restaurants was down 2 .8 % in February with breakfast trips tanking double digits because the consultancy said, breakfast is the easiest meal to make at home or just also just skip entirely.
And even the airlines are flagging slowdown with leisure travelers pulling back.
So all of these figures show that it is not just in people's imagination, because US consumers are really cutting back on their spending.
But of course the psychological side is also real and is actually amplifying all this.
There are talks and reports that lower income households are feeling the most pressure.
How is this economic strain playing out across different income groups.
Well, lower income consumers are definitely taking the hardest hit right now.
For example, Dollar General's CEO said that their customers who are mostly lower income them, are so squeezed by inflation that they are down to just the bare essentials, sometimes even sacrificing basics like food or household goods.
But it is not just them because economic anxieties rippling across all income groups, just in different ways.
If you look at the wealthier Americans, the ones who are driving a lot of consumption, about 60 % of them own stocks.
stocks. And the stock market's recent tumble has dented their investment portfolios and that's real money they are counting on for retirement or big investments and is shaking their confidence too.
So everyone is feeling the impact, although the low -income groups are always the most vulnerable.
Now, US President Donald Trump's been calling this a period of transition and refused to rule out a recession.
But with people feeling real financial pain, do you think that could change how his supporters or the public more broadly view his leadership today?
Yeah, Trump's calling this a period of transition.
It's just a tough time before things get better.
And yes, it declined to rule out a recession but I think the real pain people are feeling could definitely change how they see him as a leader, even his biggest supporters like mega crowd.
And his tariffs, like the tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico, are making everyday things more expensive because half of the U .S. fruit comes from Mexico.
So your grocery bill might jump 20 to 30 dollars a week for things like avocados or berries.
And gas could cause more if Canada fights back on oil and cars might get pricier because the auto parts also come from there.
And for Trump's base, those who really believe in him, this could get messy because they voted for him because they thought he'd make the economy stronger.
It was the top issue of his election campaign, but if things don't turn out as they expected, if they're paying more for food, gas, and losing jobs or benefits, they might think twice on whether they'll continue to support him.
And, of course, Trump may shake the blame, shift the blame on China or Democrats, but if the pain gets too big like a recession where jobs vanish, stocks crash more, and people cannot afford their basics, his supporters might as well turn away and his prom - promise them a better life for Great America.
But when they feel this squeeze every day, it's tough to keep cheering for him.
Thanks, my colleague Zhao Ying.
That's all the time for this edition of Wrote Today I'm Ghe 'enay in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
