Hello and welcome to the panel discussion of World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is the latest leader of a US ally to visit China in pursuit of renewed ties.
As the first British leader to set foot on the country in eight years.
Stommer says it is vital to build a more sophisticated relationship with China.
Apart from Stommer, China has hosted South Korean President Lee Jong-un, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Finnish Prime Minister Patrick Orpo and Irish leader Michael Martin since the start of 2026.
All these countries have been hit by Washington's so-called reciprocal trade tariffs over the past year, and a few have found themselves at odds with US President Donald Trump over his desire to take control of Greenland.
In this edition of the program, we will explore why some of the closest traditional allies of the United States are looking to China for a reliable relationship.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
So joining us now on the line are Muhammad Ali Nasir, professor of economics at the University of Leeds in Britain and author of the book Off the Target The Stagnating Political Economy of Europe and Post-Pandemic Recovery.
Liang Lingling, Director of Communication and Research with China Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, and Professor Cui Hongjian from the Academy of Regional and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Nasir, Professor Cui, and Director Liang.
Professor Nasir, to start with you, let's begin by talking about Prime Minister Keir Starmer's China visit.
What new opportunities do you think dramatic shifts in geopolitics are creating for China-UK relationship?
Thanks for having me.
This visit which came after eight years, has brought a lot of opportunities.
For the last few years, the relationship between Britain and China, they were on ice.
And so this visit has restarted or reignited the relationship.
And, of course economically politically, there are opportunities for Britain, for China, And on the both side there is consensus that these two countries, they need to engage with each other and facilitate each other, cooperate with each other where possible.
So UK, that economy has been struggling for the last few years.
You can need investment in various areas.
Similarly, China, Chinese businesses, And people, they can also benefit by cooperating with UK.
And geopolitically.
As we saw in the recent years, there's been use of trade policy recklessly by US.
And some of the closest ally, including the UK, have borne the brunt of that reckless trade policy.
And I will say reckless policy geopolitics.
So in that environment, it is also appropriate for the UK to have a better relationship with the rest of the world, and specifically China, which is, by some measure, the world's largest economy and, some measure, the world's second largest economy.
Therefore, this visit, I think, is very important.
So directly, I'm going to you.
As we can see, China and Britain have agreed to commit themselves to developing a long-term consistent, comprehensive strategic partnership.
The two sides have also agreed to build a high-level climate and nature partnership.
So as U.S.
President, Donald Trump royals, the world order.
Why is Beijing able to provide London with a consistent relationship that is centered on trade and on cooperation regarding global issues such as climate change?
Well, Ding, thank you for having me.
Indeed, I think the one very fundamental, the very fresh outcome of the visit is about the evaluation of bilateral trade relations.
I fully agree with you that the context of this question.
And I think for me, one key reason that China is able to provide the UK with consistent relationship on trade and climate cooperation is policy continuity or predictability.
And China's approach to trade and climate cooperation is rooted in long term planning.
And whether it's about the carbon neutrality targets or industrial upgrading or opening the services sectors.
These are policies designed over decades, not years.
And for the UK in particular climate and green finance China is a very important partner.
I believe that China is the world's largest investor in renewable energy and a critical player in global emission reduction.
And don't forget I'm very proud to mention that the Chinese manufacturers are.
They excelled in producing the green products.
Let's say
So I would say that all of this had made the cooperation not just desirable, but necessary.
So in a voluntary global environment, while this credibility of the policies and cooperation itself become very important.
It is a strategic asset okay so professor, going to you um, prime minister starmer says britain does not need to choose between the us and china.
Now, i guess this is a voice that we have previously heard a lot from many non-western countries, such as some particular country in southeast asia, that hope to maintain workable or cordial ties with both Beijing and Washington.
Why do you think London is sending this message right now?
Actually now not only the UK and also some other countries.
Perhaps they try to go beyond or get out from this so-called dilemma that they have to make a choice between China and the United States, or namely they have to take the side between two major players in the world, especially for the UK.
Also, you know, the UK used to be the so-called special partners with the United States.
And the UK is one of the Western countries who used to stand close with the United States.
Even now yes, as you know, because of the tariff issue, because of the geopolitical tension, and there are more and more I mean divergences between the UK and the United States.
But still I think that now maybe the most comfortable situation for the UK is trying to stand in between the United States and China, because once the UK quits, you know, fulfill this purpose and then to find out the so-called space for a middle power like the UK.
Certainly it could get some, maybe benefits from both China and the United States.
But now I have to say that because of the more and more unilateral or more tough attitudes from the United States towards its islands, including the UK, I think that the UK maybe have to try to keep the balance between two major powers.
But at the same time, it has to make clear that it's not just a choice between two major players.
So I think now the question for the UK and some other countries, in the name of a so-called middle power, I think it's not an issue to how to make a choice between China and the United States.
I think it could be an issue for them to make a decision.
How could they continue or keep their development once they have to follow the so-called new rule proposed by the United States?
More unilateral, more protectionist.
I don't think that there will be space or there will be more opportunity for their development.
On the other side.
Once they could make some joint efforts with China and to insist this kind of globalization or kind of more fair and more how to say more fair and more pro-development policy, I think indeed they could make some more progress.
Yeah, I think the core idea is Let's cooperate and share our differences and see what we can do together, realistically speaking.
So Director Liang.
Some say choosing between Beijing and Washington is actually a false dilemma, because any independent country is supposed to be sovereign enough to manage multiple relationships, including multiple relationships with major powers.
Do you agree?
Yes, definitely.
I mean, for any sovereign country, managing multiple major relationships is not a weakness.
It's a sign of strategic mutuality.
An idea that the countries must align exclusively with one power reflects a cold war mindset that no longer fits today's interconnected world.
And we see a lot of recent statements I mean, we heard that a very signature speech and that was from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about talking about the choices for middle powers.
So I think this is uh what I think this kind of reality that a lot of countries are faced with, and uh most economists today rely on diversified trade, investment and technology flows, so treating the international relations as a uh, as choices in North economics.
I mean, if you have to choose between two, and I have this very substantial and also, of course, in North economic reality and limits policy options.
So I think this is not something that the UK is faced with that.
I mean, I'm talking from the continent, just across the channel over the US.
So this is kind of a sentiment now flowing on the other side of the channel as well.
So it's not about choosing the side, but it's more about really did about that reconnections.
And to some extent, this is the kind of reality that needs a lot of countries to reconsider recalibrate.
And this time, at the moment, we do sense this kind of urge, not only from the UK, but also from Europe, from the continent as well.
So, Professor Nasir, domestically speaking, we understand.
Prime Minister Starmer's government has somewhat struggled to deliver the economic growth that it has promised and to ease a cost of living crisis for millions of households in Britain.
And a key goal of his trip to China is to seek to diversify the UK's overseas markets and the supply chains for its industries.
And we saw the two sides having agreed to hold a new round of economic dialogue over the course of this year or within this year and to strengthen their two-way trade and investment.
So from a purely economic perspective, do you see necessity for Britain to engage with China now?
Yes, indeed.
I mean, the last few years, the UK economy has faced various shocks.
So we had COVID, we had Brexit, where we left the European Union, and that has affected the economy negatively.
And before that there was global financial crisis, difficulties in the European economies, which is our largest trading partner.
So in that climate it is very important that UK seek partners in the other parts of the world, and asia, particularly east and south asia, has been growing very fast in the last few years, so there are a lot of opportunities for the british businesses and industries.
Uh, britain uh also need uh investment.
For the last few years the investment outlook has not been very good and the public sector, or the government, is holding very large level of And therefore the cost of borrowing for the government is pretty high.
It is more than the double what the Chinese government has to pay to borrow.
In that climate, the government is constrained to invest.
So in that climate then it is an appropriate strategy to seek partnership with other countries and businesses and industries in other countries to seek business opportunities and do business with them.
Therefore, it can't be a better timing for the visit and it can't be better timing in terms of enhancing cooperation, business to business, government to government and people to people between China and UK.
So direct liang, we understand the um.
The services industry, such as finance and the consulting etc.
Is one area where britain enjoys some advantages or strength.
Actually, britain is running a trade surplus in services um in terms of its trading relationship with china, and china's policy directives are nowadays focused on boosting domestic consumption, with a shift towards services industry from physical investment in physical infrastructure.
And China is also committed to further opening up its services industry to foreign businesses.
And during Starmer's visit, the two sides explored establishing a financial working group and holding a forum on insurance, for example.
So overall, what do you make of the opportunities that China may be able to provide for Britain's services industry?
Well, you are totally right.
And I think I just read the Longstreet's press release that he hailed the achievement of that about the progress that the Swiss has made regarding the service sector, for instance, that the two sides also try to explore further service and trade agreements.
So that's quite important because we see that for Britain, the service sector accounts quite a big share of its GDP and excel in finance consulting education, insurance.
And london, despite brexit, the london states are still there, one of the world's finance hubs.
So um, we do observe that the focusing on these services this trip has really attached quite an important emphasize in this part.
So the opportunities that china can offer it's Enormous.
Let's conclude it like this.
That, for instance, the finance.
We do think, if I'm not mistaken, that UK is the country that China established very, very first uh, finance offices overseas for bank of china, basically this like very historical landmark um, earlier than any countries of the world.
So it enjoyed quite a special, special status for the finance sector.
And we do think that the now, if you have a look at the delegation, the business delegation that uh, that the uk prime minister has brought to China, among these over 50 business companies and whatever,
I think there are quite a lot of household names of big banks.
So this sector is quite of a lot of significance, at least to say, but of great potential.
And of course, there are other side, for instance, consultancy and education.
There are quite a lot.
And you are quite right that China now has blooming middle class, that and we do think that not only UK runs service trade in surplus with China, but also Europe as well.
So basically that if you think about the market needs in China, such a huge size of markets and then the service sector, it starts to grow and I can imagine that how promising the market is for for european countries, including uk.
So just to conclude, i think uh, first of all, the opportunities are immersed, huge giant, if i can put all those uh, all those adjectives and uh into that means in concrete areas and i think finance, with highlights in this trip.
And of course, as I just mentioned, consultancy, education, insurance, we can name a lot.
The list could be very, very long.
So, Professor Cui Hongjian, I mean both David Cameron and Theresa May when they were in office as the British prime ministers, they used the term a golden era to describe ties between London and Beijing.
But later, ties between the two sides went through many years of twists and turns.
Looking back, do you think the deterioration of the bilateral ties could have been avoided?
As we know, this was by the prime minister to China in the background.
Now, both sides will not accept this current situation, especially the kind of long distance and a little bit of cold on the level of political and diplomatic exchange.
But of course both sides also try to, you know, make some joint efforts to help the business and also economy and trade to have some more area or some more, you know, potential to be released.
So, yes, here is the so-called golden era purpose for both two countries, nearly 10 years ago.
But maybe now it's not time to go back to so-called golden era.
I think that now it's time to find out more pragmatic attitudes from both sides.
If we look at these common grounds, this time for both two countries, we can find that to help both sides to understand the value of the bilateral relations and to try to expand the benefits of the cooperation not only to country and also to the peoples, I think could be very, very important purpose.
So now, how could China and the UK to keep a very pragmatic I mean location in the name of a comprehensive strategic partnership?
I think it's now very, very important and also even more realistic issues because, as we know, recent years, some European countries they try to change the perception about China and even they try to reshape its policy towards China and even try to change the location, with China as a strategic partnership.
So I think it's time for China and the UK to play a role, to help other European countries and or even Western countries, to understand how could China and the Western countries could achieve something.
The China-US relations are not the whole of the China-Western country relations.
So yes, I think the UK could play a more active role to help this close exchange with China, and also even to help China to understand what's a real demand, what's a real mindset from Western countries.
So once something happens that way undoubtedly it could be very, very I mean posting factors for the current geopolitical situation and even geoeconomic cooperation.
So, Professor Nasir briefly, before we are to take a short break in the middle of our show today, what lessons should be learned if we take a look at the several years of twists and turns in terms of the bilateral China-UK relationships?
Yeah, I mean, what lesson we can learn by looking at, let's say, the last 16 years.
So the first half of these 16 years, you can say that the relationship on upward trajectory.
They were on upward trajectory and we saw cooperation between China and UK increasing and there were benefits of that.
We saw increase in the business activity, we saw an increase in engagement between two economies, but then the second half of the last eight years or so, we saw that the relationship, they went cold and that led to then an outcome which was not optimal.
But now we have reignited that relationship.
So I think lesson what we can learn is definitely that engagement is very important, particularly in the current climate when there's a lot of uncertainty and the economic tools are used for political purposes.
And even there are risks coming from the closest ally of Britain.
So in that environment it is, I think the only thing it is sensible to do is to have a good relation with China.
So I think, yeah, that is the lesson I think we could learn by looking at the recent history.
Your points well taken.
And let's take a very short break here.
And coming back, our discussion will continue.
Stay tuned.
You're back with World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Today we are talking about what is driving some of the closest allies of the United States to foster closer partnership with China.
Joining our discussion Muhammad Ali Nasir, professor of economics at the University of Leeds in Britain.
Liang Lingling, director of communication and research with China Chamber of Commerce to the European Union.
And Professor Cui Hongjian from the Academy of Regional and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Professor Cui Hongjian, going back to you, it seems in terms of, or according to our recent memory, for example, if we take a look at the situation in 2023 and 2024 after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.
De-risk was a popular talking point on the part of some European leaders, European politicians, when they discuss how to deal with the relationship with China.
But looking at the leaders from US allies that China has hosted recently, especially Prime Ministers of Britain and Canada, Can we put it this way that Washington's recent policy moves, including on tariffs, Greenland etc.
Have triggered a wave among its closed allies to recalibrate their policies, to de-risk from the United States?
Certainly.
I think that even now, maybe some European countries how to say?
They are still reluctant to realize or recognize that The United States has been, I think, the biggest game challenger for this so-called rule-based order.
Also we remember that during the Biden administration, some European countries and also Canada.
They tried to cooperate with the United States and to put every I mean claims about China and our capacity, or some China is destroying the law-based order, or something like that.
But now I think that the Trump administration and its policy not only very, very clear, make America first policy.
I think now it's becoming European countries as a victim of American interests.
So I think it's out of the expectation of European countries and how to define alliance with the United States.
The Greenland issue, I think, gave a very, very big shock to European countries.
I think it's the first time for this country to realize that the United States could do everything, even the military behaviors, to protect its interests and to destroy the co-interests of European countries.
So I think now it's not.
The issue is China is trying to play a game and to get some more ferret from European countries.
I think now it's the United States is push European countries to the other side.
So I think it's not just the issue, just like I mentioned before, for the European countries to take a side between China and the US.
They have to get some more closer relations dialogue, exchange with China, once they try to protect their own interests well and once they try to get some more space for the foreign policy and for security concerns.
So I think yes, perhaps the biggest change of this current world order could be that the United States is doing something to make a so-called Western group into a collapse.
Okay.
So, Director Liang, it is not just China that some of those traditional US allies are looking at as they try to diversify relationships away from Washington.
The newly signed trade agreement between the European Union and India is a clear signal that countries like India is also playing a big role in this new multipolar world.
And between the EU and some Latin American countries, plan is also underway for a trade deal, despite some internal opposition from some individual EU countries.
But in the case of China, what do you think China is capable of offering to the Western countries that still have faith in rules-based international order, international cooperation, dialogue and consultation, and a multipolar or multilateralism?
Well, this is really a good question.
And nowadays, when we talk about multilateralism and the global order itself, it sounds a little bit nostalgic sometimes.
But the thing is that to believe is powerful, right?
So China's belief in the multilateralism and the UN global world order itself are absolutely powerful.
And China itself is deeply embedded in global institutions from WTO to climate frameworks.
And it remains a key driver of global growth.
I think that EU itself is a steady defendant of dematerialism.
So we do see a lot of interaction between China and Europe, including the UK, on the multilateral platforms.
So basically, let's say that, again, China is there.
So if you think about all the global world and the multilateral system, you realize that China is there.
So it's not uncertain.
This importance of certainty, and it's absolutely essential for the believers of multilateralism.
And again, that China benefits from the order.
I mean, from the trade economic perspective, that China now grows as a major manufacturer of the after it joined WTO.
So we'd also see that China has launched a lot of global initiative at the UN platforms and so on.
And this has been quite a hit topic for a lot of countries, including a lot of European countries.
So indeed, again, as I said, to believe itself is very powerful and China, it is there.
You can sense that the effort from China That is to support the system.
And this is essential.
This is exactly like the business confidence.
So you have to believe in something.
And what China can offer, it is the confidence itself.
So Professor Nasir, let's be frank about this.
I mean for close allies of the United States, the traditional close allies of the United States.
Their move to try to engage with China in a closer manner actually carries a risk of offending Washington.
For example, President Donald Trump has warned Canada that He would slap 100 tariffs on all Canadian goods if a trade deal between China and Canada went ahead.
And I am not sure how President Trump himself or White House officials would comment on Prime Minister Keir Starmer's visit to China this time.
How can these US ally countries cope with the pressure from Washington?
Yes, that is the way the US has been doing business for the last few years.
The way America conducts its foreign policy and its trade policy and economic policy is different from, let's say, countries like China, where China actually promotes cooperation and is happy for other countries to engage with each other and do business with each.
In the case of United States, we see that very often United States push other countries to follow its desire in terms of maintaining their relationship with the rest of the world.
And same.
This was just one example where Mr Trump threatened Canadians that 100 tariffs could be imposed on Canada in case of a trade deal between China and Canada.
But if we look at the practicality of this threat and what happens if the US really imposes 100 tariffs on Canada?
That would be disastrous for the American economy, because America is dependent on Canada in terms of energy.
And Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States.
So tariff policy or tariff threats, they don't really work or they backfire if you implement them.
We did see under current administration that trade policy is used and is being used for the political purposes.
And we also saw that so far it has not delivered any positive outcome.
So if Mr Trump goes ahead and imposes tariffs, that would not be a good thing for not only the Canadian economy, but also for the American economy.
If I can bring to the attention of your listeners I mean anybody who's interested in the consequences they may read a paper we wrote recently with colleagues at University of Leeds.
The title is The Economic Consequences of a Three-Front Trade War in which we empirically showed that the US, Canada and Mexico among them.
There is an agreement which we call USMCA United States-Mexico Canada trade agreement.
And if US violates that agreement and imposes tariffs on Canada, Mexico or China or any other country, that would have negative consequences for the US economy.
So there will be definitely cost and 100 percent tariff is really, I think, too much and it will be a big economic and financial crisis for not only Canadian economy and Canada being the closest ally of the United States.
So politically, there will be consequences, but economically, there would also be consequences.
One thing I, if I may mention that as compared to the predecessors of Mr Trump, I mean there is always political pressure from the US on other countries, or the economic purposes, or political purposes.
But what we see under Mr. Trump is that these things are now, announcements are made publicly.
There are public announcements made about what US is going to do if this country is doing that or that country is doing that.
And the trade policy is used very recklessly.
And that is also a reason we do see that not only canada, but the uk and the other allies, they are a little bit uh, i could say frustrated with this policy and they are trying to de-risk to some extent and have better relations with china, with india and with the global south.
So, in other words, i guess, to paraphrase what you have elaborated, I guess there is a limit or there is a ceiling in terms of how far Washington can go in terms of placing pressure against its traditional allies not to forge closer ties with China, or India, for that matter.
Now, Professor Tui Hongjian.
Going back to you, we know between China and the United States there is now a period of relative stability, following a top leaders meeting between President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump in Busan, South Korea, last year.
So, when some of the close allies of the United States are taking a sort of pragmatic approach and resetting their ties with China, what do you make of the possible impacts that such a scenario might generate for the bilateral relationship between Beijing and Washington?
Also, you know, according to a Chinese purpose, certainly to find out the approach to support a kind of general stable and also, you know, peaceful coexistence.
And then to even explore some more opportunity of cooperation.
I think could be a general expectation from China side.
So, as we understand, If we take a long-term vision, from the first administration of Trump to Biden administration, now the second term for Trump administration, I think the whole process or the whole change roughly.
I mean in the expectation of China.
So I think now China become more confident when it faces so-called competition from the United States.
And even now, as we know, Trump administration is reshaping its strategy worldwide and also regional level.
So I think it will give us some more, perhaps new consideration for China how to deal with this new policy or new strategy from the United States.
Undoubtedly, I think the upcoming planning summit between President Xi and President Trump could make a very decisive, will play very decisive role to help both the countries to understand even I mean the middle term.
How could they reach some common ground or consensus to stabilize the relations?
If we look at this change of tone from Trump administration, I think now there will be some more positive factors to support these expectations from both sides.
And I think now it's time for both countries to realize that China-US relations is not just an issue of a bilateral level.
It's also a very, very regional and global issue.
Once China and the US, they could find out a way to manage their tensions and even try to grow up some more cooperative factors.
Undoubtedly it could be very, very helpful for the general situation and even maybe less geopolitical tension and more and more cooperative spaces for every country in the world.
So Director Liang.
On one hand, we saw Washington's policy moves.
Indeed seems to be prompting its traditional Western allies to seek more stable partnership or stable relationship with China.
But, on the other hand, some of them continue to have this concern that China's manufacturing prowess and Chinese imports will undermine their own industries, and I think this concern is particularly noticeable with regard to some individual European countries.
China says it has never deliberately pursued trade surplus, pledging to increase its imports of high-quality foreign goods.
For example, during Prime Minister Keir Starmer's visit, China agreed to lower its import duty on British whiskey from 10 down to 5.
How can China and these countries manage their difference, or manage their different perceptions regarding trade or industrial policies?
Well, you see the Stammer's version itself is the answer, isn't it?
So dialogue negotiations, engagements are absolutely key from the point of view of the business perspective.
And that you are absolutely right that China has stated it does not pursue the trade surpluses deliberately.
And during this trip, China lowered the tariffs on British Scottish whiskey to 5 from the previous 10.
And we do register a lot of these similar agreements, for instance, during the year, the Canadian prime minister's visit to China as well, regarding the electric cars.
So dialogue negotiations again are key.
And then I would like to particularly stress, from this perspective I mean talking about from Europe, that's not only UK that we do also see that China and Europe as a whole are in talks regarding a lot of issues uh, economic and trade matters.
That, for instance, on again, but on the tv talks that only the a couple of weeks ago that the china, china and the eu reached the framework agreement regarding the price undertaking of this.
So this is, i i think, uh it will bring us to the um, you know the very interesting dynamic that sometimes i mean you can't deny that uh well, different economies, different powers, they may use different techniques for negotiations and and whatever, but down to the earth, in the end, we need a dialogue and we need negotiations to to promote and to manage the differences.
And i think again, the uk's prime minister trip itself is absolutely telling and evident itself.
So this could apply to other Western countries and other countries with trade relations with China as well.
So I also quote what Europe observes about the trade with China.
So majority of the trade with China stays not problematic, but we have probably small issues regarding specific areas.
But we do believe, I mean we do hope that this will be under control, I mean under the framework of dialogue, and we need more and more engagement like this.
Hmm.
So, Professor Nasir, Chinese President Xi Jinping has long been talking about the world undergoing great changes unseen in a century.
And, quite coincidentally, during his address at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, also warned of rupture to global order.
Now some say the current paradigm shift in terms of the international politics, in terms of the global order, actually creates a bigger room for some particular countries to shelve their ideological differences, to shelve their differences in terms of value, for the sake of pragmatic cooperation.
What is your take on this?
Yes, there are some and economic realities in 21st century, in 2026, which need to be accounted for when we talk of the global order.
And Prime Minister Carney just acknowledged that fact, coming from a former central banker.
He was governor of the Bank of England previously, and before that he worked as an investment banker and he worked in industry.
So he is more pragmatic and realist, I think, as compared to maybe his predecessor.
And it is very important to take that fact into account that the world has changed.
So I think, President Xi, what he said is accurate and that is a true reflection of how the world stand, and we should be real.
For many, the rule-based system was never really there in the form many people perceived.
Big powers like US.
They did whatever they liked in the past, but that was the time what we called, which could be best described as the unipolar movement.
That unipolar movement is gone.
Now there are other major powers in the world, including China, politically or militarily also Russia, and emerging other countries around the global south, for instance India, which are economically, politically or geopolitically, militarily in better shape than, let's say, 40 years ago.
So these are the realities of 21st century. which Prime Minister Carney acknowledged in his speech.
And recognizing those realities is also.
He has visited China and improved his visit definitely improved the relationship between Canada and China.
And there's been a great tension going on between Canada and China.
Started mainly the trade war between China and Canada was started by his predecessor, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
So Prime Minister Carney being, I would say, more realistic, has resolved some of those issues with China by engagement and through engagement.
And I think that is the best way forward for the other countries.
And that's the reason you are seeing before Mr Carney, President Macron and now Prime Minister ES.
Tamer has visited.
And in the near future, I could expect that there would be more visits from the Western leaders and more engagement with China.
So that is the way forward.
Of course, there would always be differences between and among countries, and we cannot resolve all differences and disputes overnight, but the best way forward is to engage, and that is something that is the message also given by President Xi when he was welcoming Prime Minister Salman that we should engage and we should talk and you are welcome in China, and that is the way forward.
I think that is a very sensible policy and Prime Minister Carney was just being a realist when he made that speech.
Okay.
So, by the way, Professor Nasir, do you think a scenario in which US traditional allies are looking to diversify relationship away from Washington means more stability for the overall international order?
Why or why not?
Yes, that's a good question.
I think what the allies are really seeking is to balance a little bit.
We can look at the relationship in two aspects.
One is the geopolitical aspect and dimension, where they are very happy to be aligned with the US on the geopolitical matters and the security matters.
But then there's also an economic side where they would like to balance a little bit.
So they would like to have a better relationship with China, India and other countries, other emerging economies.
So there is some element of be risking economically.
So if US uses the trade policy or economic policy as an instrument to lament its foreign policy or geopolitical interest, so at least some of his allies can derisk themselves economically from the consequences of that policy or that stance.
So therefore, in the foreseeable future, we should not expect that these countries would delink themselves or divorce the United States completely on the geopolitical matters.
But economically definitely they're trying to derisk and mitigate or hedge some of the economic cost of reckless US trade policy.
That's how I see it.
Hmm.
So Director Liang, the final question goes to you.
I mean President Donald Trump's policy is certainly a leading factor, or one of the main factors, pushing some traditional US allies closer to China nowadays.
But over the long term, how do you think China and these countries can reinforce or solidify their partnership, their relationship, to a point where they will be resilient enough and won't be affected too much by whatever policy coming out of Washington?
Happy to pick up the last questions.
I think it's very beneficial to do it by institutionalizing the cooperation.
And I think the long-term resilience comes from the agreements, dialogue mechanism, business ties and people to people exchange.
So when cooperation is rooted in real economic activity, it becomes harder to reverse due to short-term political change.
So that's how partnerships survive political circles.
Well.
A big thank you to our panelists Muhammad Ali Nasir, Professor of Economics at the University of Leeds in Britain, Liang Lingling, Director of Communication and Research with China Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, and Professor Cui Hongjian from Beijing Foreign Studies University.
That's all the time for this edition of the program.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
