Hello, and welcome to World Today!
I'm Zhao Yang. Coming up, the US and Russian leaders have talked over phone and are planning to meet in person.
It's an end to the 3 -year old Russian -Ukraine conflict on the horizon.
A new report by Munich Security Conference says the world is shifting from US leadership toward multipolarity.
What is driving this transformation?" Jana says it's pleased to see the US and Russia strengthen communications on a range of international issues.
US President Donald Trump says he and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed to begin negotiations to resolve the conflict.
Trump also spoke with his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelensky.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Putin supported Trump's idea that the time had come to work together.
Following his call with Trump, President Zelensky said in a video address that he had substantive negotiations with Washington and believed that America could help with the peace process.
The United Nations has welcomed the efforts.
Meantime, European countries, including Britain, France and Germany, have issued a statement saying they had to be part of any future negotiations on the fate of Ukraine.
The statement followed their meeting with a Ukrainian foreign minister in Paris.
Trump's phone call came on the same day as U .S.
Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth said that Washington does not support Ukraine's bid to join NATO.
He also said it was unrealistic to expect a return to Ukraine's pre -2014 borders.
For more, we are joined by Joseph Sarakuseh, professor of global futures at Curtin University in Australia, and Dr. Jiang Xin, deputy director of the Center for Russian Studies at East China Normal University.
Well, Professor Sierakusa, let me start with you.
What do you think has led Putin and Trump to seek a direct meeting regarding the Ukraine war?
What might be their respective strategic calculations?
Well, I mean, I've been arguing for the last couple years now that we had to bring this war to a close.
I mean, it was a war, I think, that could've been averted.
I think Putin was very concerned about the creeping mission of NATO.
He'd been complaining about it since 2007.
A lot of really smart people like George Kennan and Francois Mitterrand and William Burns argued that it threatened Russia and I always thought it was a problem about the border lands.
It was about the nuclear balance of terror, which of course in 1962 manifested itself in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So I thought in many ways, Putin's concerns were legitimate and I thought he was ignored by various democratic administrations and it was quite clear to me during the campaign that President Trump had a few things on his mind.
One of them was to bring the war to a close in Ukraine stop the killing among other things and to bring the violence or the war in Gaza to a close.
So this is kind of what he's doing that part of you know two parts of the same problem he has And I think an hour and a half phone call I was told today it was 90 minutes.
That's a long time between two world leaders.
And I think President Trump is determined to get these talks on the road.
He wants what we all want.
That is unconditional ceasefire, followed by negotiations.
And he's made it very clear to the Ukrainians that they're not going to get much aid in the future if they don't want to negotiate.
So, that's pretty much where we are.
I think it was, uh, pretty much in President Trump's interest to do this.
He doesn't like all this, uh, this violence.
It, it sort of messes up his head a little bit.
And, uh, Putin, of course, is looking for the off -ramp and, uh, I think Putin's done very well last couple days.
No one's calling him a war criminal anymore.
He's back in the game.
And so, um, I think, uh, you know, in, in the world of negotiations, you have to have some kind of compromise, some kind of, uh, commonality.
and of course negotiations is not about who's smarter it's about leverage and Russians have leverage right now hmm well so Professor John what do you think is driving you know motivating Putin and Trump to seek direct negotiations at this moment I think for President Trump he has always set the ending of Russian Ukraine conflict as a key policy goal in his foreign policy agenda.
So he's trying to make that happen.
And also he obviously see this is the right moment, the opportunity to make it happen.
And on the Russia side, I think it's worth pointing out, officially, Actually, Russian side hasn't sent a clear, very clear message about this in -person meeting between President Putin and President Trump.
So it's not as straightforward or as clear from the American side that this in -person meeting will happen.
So I think it's worth pointing that out.
So if there is interest on the Russian side to seek this direct meeting regarding the the war in Ukraine.
I think the overall situation on the battlefield is obviously in Russia's favor.
But the Russian state is also under pressure, economic, social pressure, from domestic politics perspective.
It is under certain pressure.
So if there can be a realistic off -ramp for Russia, for Russian political leaders to claim a victory, a legitimate victory, I think it's also in President Putin's interest to seek this off -ramp.
Although it all depends on the specific terms and conditions of possible, first a possible political negotiation and then a possible ceasefire, and then lastly a possible political solution for the long -term restructuring of security apparatus in Europe in Russia's relation with the West.
So, overall I think it's also in President Putin's interest to seek this off -ramp and starting to start with an impersonal meeting with the American counterpart.
Well, but Professor Jeong, Trump seems to be pushing for direct negotiations with Russia while sidelining traditional allies in Europe.
What does this say about Trump's foreign policy when it comes to relations with Europe or NATO?
It seems to me quite consistent with Trump's own foreign policy stance, his world view.
His vision about what is the right international system or world order for the United States.
He seems to think U .S.
investment in the European security is way too much.
The European allies need to take more direct responsibility, especially financial responsibility, to resolve its own security problem.
He has been interested in reducing the direct and the U .S.
involvement, especially financial commitment in security apparatus like NATO.
So his recent push for direct negotiation with Russia seems to be all consistent with his long held political view about the right security apparatus in Europe.
From European countries' perspective especially for the current, if I may say, political establishment in Europe, of course it's not in the favour.
For what I see is many of the European leaders, including a lot of the key opinion leaders, see Trump's recent push for negotiation more or less as a step in the back.
So whether that will create actually more incentive for European countries to take up their own security responsibility or to somewhat transform NATO as a security organization with either reduced or different type of U .S.
involvement is a big challenger.
Yeah, and Professor Syracuse, European leaders have said that Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations to end the Russia -Ukraine war.
war. How do you think the absence of European countries might influence this peace process?
I think the Europeans will be involved somewhat.
Just before I came on air here I saw that the the foreign minister in Britain says, you know, there will be no negotiations without Ukraine at the table and Britain would make sure about that kind of thing.
Keep in mind during the last couple of years, NATO has been at war with Russia.
I mean, in regard the Russian war with Ukraine as a proxy war with NATO.
And the United States, that is, Trump doesn't believe that for a minute.
I don't believe that for a minute.
But the Biden administration played into that kind of theme.
And so I think they're gonna have to adjust their views.
And keep in mind, NATO has been around a long time.
It's 1949, three years after I was born.
And it served its purposes.
It was designed to keep you know, the Russians out of Europe and to keep the West Germans in Europe because we didn't know which way they were going to go.
And in many ways, NATO has outlived its purpose to me.
They kind of generated this war fever with Britain.
I've been to Europe a couple of times and I can barely listen to what some of these people were saying.
They weren't looking for a way out, they were looking for a way in, but keep in mind, and I don't know if my colleague will agree with this.
But without NATO, without the United States, NATO is paralyzed.
It doesn't know what to do without the U .S.
leadership. And if Donald Trump wants to take a step back and play peacemaker, I mean, it's very, very odd that Trump, who half the time doesn't make much sense, is making a great deal of sense when it comes to Ukraine.
It might also add to Gaza, places like that.
And Trump's made it very clear that, you know, maybe the Europeans will be involved.
Ukraine will be involved.
And of course, Zelensky has no choice.
Zelensky will either have to be part of the negotiation or Trump will freeze him out.
He's made it very clear there'd be no additional aid to Ukraine, which is, I think, spent about, I don't know, a hundred billion dollars the last couple of years.
there'd be no additional aid until until he agrees to negotiations and keep in mind as you mentioned earlier in your package show somebody has to pay to rebuild Ukraine and and Trump's making it very clear that Europe should have a major role to play here you know the days of the United States opening it's checkbook or any other country single country opening a checkbook to rebuild in another country I think are over.
The American public won't stand for it.
They're very sympathetic with people who fight for their freedoms, but they don't want to pay the bill.
It's something that has to be settled by these neighbors, etc. So I think Europe will be involved, at least some of the top people.
I think Ukraine will be at the table.
Well, Professor John, the U .S.
has dismissed Ukraine's NATO aspirations and it caught restoring the pre -2014 waters unrealistic.
What do you make of this?
These messages from either President Trump or Secretary of Defense of the United States indicated the Trump administration is gradually sort of setting the conditions, possible terms for political negotiation either between United States or Russia or between in United States, Russia, Ukraine, and European, in some Europe in some way.
I think the Trump administration has gradually set up these conditions of terms.
What you mentioned the two things.
One is Ukraine's potential NATO membership, and the other is the possible restoring of the Ukrainian border back to, It's pre -2014 essentially the border before the premier crisis.
So I think these two conditions from the Trump Administration's side have been set.
The part of their deals are put on the table for Russia and Ukraine and possible other stakeholders, just think of it.
Of course, this is not in Ukraine's favor under the current condition.
Because up until now, Ukrainian officials stance on any possible political resolution involves, one, as some sort of a NATO commitment, a membership either now or in the foreseeable future as part of the security guarantee and return to the pre -2014 borders.
So these two things are now by Trump administration's perspective off the table.
But whether these will be completely accepted by either russia or Ukraine, it's not completely clear because we talk a lot about Trump's phone talk with Putin, the one and a half hour talk, a very positive message coming out of that talk from Trump.
But we didn't touch on the talk between Trump and Zelensky.
If I remember correctly, it's about an hour a lot.
That's quite long phone call too.
And all we know about this phone call is President Zelensky said something like that, thank you.
So that part of the conversation, we don't know much about that detail, either from President Zelensky or from President Trump.
So whether Ukraine is interested in considering accepting these conditions, or may make some sort of counter offer to modify these conditions.
We're not clear about that yet.
Yeah, and Professor Sirakusa actually Zelensky said in an interview that Ukraine would need the US to help build up an army as big as that of Russia as a Plan B, if it could not join NATO.
and he said, and I quote, if Ukraine is not in NATO, it means that Ukraine will build NATO on its territory.
I mean, how realistic is it for Ukraine to build such a military alliance within its territory?
I don't think that's very likely.
I mean, it was sort of a a wistful thought on his part.
I mean, he's not going to be building the equivalent of NATO on its soil.
He can't match the Russian army or as a matter of fact and that that's just not going to happen.
I mean, there'd be a lot of pressure among NATO countries, European countries, to contribute to this.
But once again, if the United States vetoes, and you saw when Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense went to Brussels, they all listened very carefully to what he was saying.
And nobody could veto him.
I mean, you know, in NATO – I think he had 27 nations – the United States is the first among equals.
Now, while everybody has an equal vote, not everybody has the ability to say what's going to happen.
and Trump has made it very clear that, you know, there is gonna be no NATO there.
This is something that could have been said a couple years ago.
I mean, you know, all Putin wanted was to make sure that Ukraine did not become part of NATO and there were no advanced weapons systems on their borders.
I mean, that was a very small ask before it became something else again.
And I think the other thing too is, not only will Europeans play a small but vital role, There is also suggestion today that President Trump will be reaching out to Chinese leadership to play a role in this too.
And I think that will come to pass.
As I recall, you guys will know it better than I will, some time ago, Beijing offered a template for a ceasefire in Ukraine.
It was a very sensible plan, by the way, as a matter of fact, and Europe rejected it as self -interested or whatever.
And I think President Trump in reaching out to President Putin and to President Xi has made it very clear that the United States is looking for a great power coalition to usher in this period of peace in this part of Europe.
And of course, Europe, Russia will be turning to Europe and I think China has a major role to play.
Well, Professor Zhang, Zelensky emphasized that security guarantees without the US involvement would not be real guarantees.
But do you think the US is willing to provide such guarantee or what alternatives to NATO membership could the US and its allies offer Ukraine?
I think the United States isn't that interested in providing that kind of security guarantor.
Back in the 2022 Istanbul communique, there was a mechanism for essentially providing that kind of security guarantee through an international consortium with major countries or regional relevant countries involved including, of course, U .S., major European countries, China, Turkey, etc., right.
But that's part that didn't materialize in the end.
The United States is not interested in putting either boats on the ground or a significant financial contribution to supporting some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine.
That's fairly clear.
Professor Sirakouza, the US Treasury Secretary Scott Benson said that a critical minerals deal between Akiv and Washington could leave Ukraine with a security shield once the war with Russia is over.
How do you look at this and how have Ukraine's mineral resources now become a key component in shaping the country's future?
Things that the Americans need in terms of technology and the internet and lithium and all that kind of things.
Countries like Ukraine have got deep pockets of precious metals and stuff like this that haven't even been explored yet.
And so the other day I heard that Trump is going to ask them to put this up as collateral.
The United States had an interest, economic interest, that might take more of a security interest.
But look, that's by the by.
That's something for later on.
That has to be developed.
And of course, as you know from watching the war over the last couple of years, on your been pulverized by Russian artillery.
These places have to be rebuilt.
10 million Ukrainians have gone overseas, some of them permanently, some in neighboring countries, so they've lost probably maybe a third, a quarter of their population ducking for cover, so, you know, who's going to do all this work?
They're going to have to, it's going to have to come from somewhere.
As I say, the president, well, President Trump will be doubling down on the Ukrainians to pick up the bill here.
And I think there's another thing too that we haven't mentioned yet.
Once Trump introduces these various tariffs in Europe, and tariffs are like sanctions.
They may not seem like much in themselves, but they tend to poison the diplomatic atmosphere and the cooperation opportunities.
And it just poisons everything.
So Europeans will become bitter about the tariffs.
And Trump is going to use the tariffs to force the Europeans to do things that he wants them to do.
They are going to resist it.
At the end of the day, Americans will ask what they asked in every generation since 1949.
I mean at what point can Europe stand by itself and protect itself?
The answer is tomorrow if they want to.
They don't have to rely on the United States, and I've never believed that the United States would ever give up New York or Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles for Kiev or Warsaw or any place else on Earth.
This extended nuclear deterrence that President Zelensky wants is not forthcoming, so the expectations are as unrealistic as the terms that he's dealing with.
Well, Professor Zhang, let's look at Russia's position, because it has insisted on Ukraine recognizing the annexation of Crimea and rolling back NATO's presence in Eastern Europe.
How likely is it that Ukraine will accept those demands, or will Russia need to make some concessions in order to achieve a viable peace agreement?
The current sort of shifting geopolitical calculation with all parties involved, particularly if the European side cannot step up and really make some strong move to show it's capable and willing to put in the resources especially in a collective way to support Ukraine and to boast its own security stance.
Looks like these conditions that the Trump administration have put forward, will very likely be the minimum conditions that Ukraine has to accept.
It's not easy to swallow both for President Zelensky and for all the Ukraine militaries who have been fighting on the battleground to accept that Crimea is gone forever, as as well as a large part of Eastern Ukraine.
So that's very likely will be the conditions that Ukraine has to accept.
But the specific role of NATO and the NATO's presence in Eastern Europe, there are really many, many different possibility, different possible policy or institutional arrangements.
So I think there is room for all parties involved to have some give and take, to have some negotiation on the specific arrangement of NATO's presence in Ukraine as well as in Eastern Europe.
This part, Russia may be willing to take some form of concessions, at least on nominal terms.
For example, leaving the range of weapons that can be allowed to be present on Ukraine from NATO country to leave a slightly larger space, leave some slightly more flexible rooms for NATO countries only to military presence in western Ukraine.
That's, I think, possible to imagine as part of a potential Russia concession.
Thank you, Professor Jeon and Professor Tsiolakousa.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay with us. You're listening to World Today.
I'm Jiaoying. A report by the Munich Security Conference suggests that the world is shifting from U .S.
leadership toward multipolarity.
The report was released just before world leaders gathered for the annual security conference in Germany.
It says the re -election of U .S.
President Donald Trump and his rapid transformation of foreign policy has made Washington a risk to be hedged against for other global powers.
The report also suggests that while a more multipolar world order offers significant and promise for a more just and peaceful order, it may also trigger increased geopolitical tensions and conflicts between rival power centers.
For more, we are joined by Joe Bo, Senior Research Fellow of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you. So the report suggests a shift from a U .S.-led unipolar world towards a more multipolar world.
What do you think are the key drivers behind this transformation?
Well, if you think about Munich Caesar Conference, actually, over years, the themes of the conference have been shifting.
I remember how it was once a theme done, is international order falling apart?
That, of course, is a question, right?
But then we have in 2020, the theme called the Western list list.
And the argument is very much impressive, because it argues that not only the world is becoming western, less western, but the West itself is becoming less western.
And this year, the theme of course is much more obvious, that is, the multipolarisation.
So it argues that, although it is far from certain that we have a pose here and there, But few people disagree that the world is moving toward multi -paratization.
So that means the whole world has changed.
And then it remains to see two things.
One, how the United States would fit in in this change the international order, and secondly how China could actually serve as a guardian of the international order.
Well, would you agree that the US is kind of moving away from a global leadership role as the report has suggested?
And if so, what does that mean to the rest of the world?
I definitely would agree to that, because the fact that Trump is a nationalist, a unilateralist, could be reelected.
tells that the American public actually is becoming more isolationist.
Therefore, its concern for the world, its support for the world, would actually be diminishing.
And in the last few weeks we have seen Trump's totally unpredictable and incomprehensible behavior here and there.
I think that is no need for me to repeat what he did.
Everybody knows. I think the United States is moving away from the international system in which most of the rules and the regime were actually built by the West led by the United States.
This is very, very ironic.
But also the report mentioned Trump's suggestions about land acquisitions such as in Greenland, Panama, Canada, which seemed to be more expansionist than isolationist.
So how do these proposals reflect his broader vision for US foreign policy and what consequences could they have for the international system?
First of all, his behavior is imperial, which is normally not something associated with the United States, right.
This is the kind of things driven by a kind of a mentality that seems to be found more in 19th century rather than in 21st century.
So as a result the whole world was shocked, so I think the best way is not to ask what is going to do next, yeah?
But we better ask, by the end of his second term, what is America's international standing in the world?
I think very few people would disagree on that.
That is, America's global image would be further tarnished.
And as a result, its decline, which was once described as a relative, would just go further down the road.
Well, the report also found that while BRICS countries see multi -polarity as a path to a fairer, more just, and more peaceful world, G7 nations are more pessimistic about this shift, and the fairer could increase disorder and conflict.
I mean, how do you look at those contrasting perceptions of multi -polarity between Western nations and the Global South?
I think it is a fact that the world is indeed moving toward the multi -polarization, but but I would say that multiple toleration doesn't necessarily mean that the world is becoming more desirable or even more peaceful, because with more posts here and there actually you need more coordination, right?
Yeah, when the world is unipolar or even bipolar things are under heavier control.
So to some extent, it is easier to manage.
But we have to admit that this is the fact that the world is moving towards multipolarization.
So, as a result, what we need, therefore, is to have more coordination and cooperation.
That is only incorrect conclusion.
Yuh, I mean you mentioned this risk of fragmentation and increasing conflict that might come along with multipolarization.
I mean, can you be more specific on how Or we can build a path forward to prevent such risks or such tensions?
This has a lot of things to do with what the West thinks about international order.
The problem of the West is that they believe that the international order after Second World War is a kind of a liberal international order with the West making all the rules and regime.
They even believe that China has benefited a lot from this international order.
Yes and no. The point is China has certainly benefited tremendously from globalization, which is rooted in the international system.
But you cannot describe it just as a kind of a liberal international order, because even after the Second World War, what could you see?
You About 50 African countries, and you would see the rivalry of two camps led by the Soviet Union on one side, and the United States on the other side.
You would see China's huge influence in the Third World countries.
You would see China's exorbitant rise since the reform had opened up.
All of these are major, major events, that just cannot be simplistically concluded in this kind of liberal international order.
So, if the West believes that international order is a hybridization of different kinds of society, different social systems, and, above all, different civilizations, they would get rid of this kind of necessity of feeding about themselves.
Right now, the United States is looking for enemies, in part because the hope for American dominance is dashed, so they're looking for enemies.
Instead I believe they should recognize this is a sunset of the so -called TAX American comment.
So that is the peace under America.
So they should become more realistic and become more cooperative with all other countries.
Well what specific issues do you think will be on top of the agenda during the Sirius Munich Security Conference?
I think everybody will see what kind of speech American Vice President -in -law is going to make because this government is hawkish, and so everybody, including most of the U .S.
allies, would really, really be interested in hearing what he might say.
Because, You see, when Chinese foreign minister goes there, of course, the peace speech will also do a lot of covertions.
But normally Chinese position on the major international issues are well -known, right?
Yeah, but this kind of speech, you know, from Vice President of France, could really be an opener.
Let's wait and see.
Okay, thank you, Joe Bose, senior fellow of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University.
city. This is World Today.
Stay with us. You're listening to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. Canada's provincial and territorial leaders are making an unprecedented trip to Washington to make their case against the tariffs that President Donald Trump has threatened to impose on Canada.
This is the first time all 13 of Canada's premiers have visited the U .S.
capital. Trump paused his threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on all goods from Canada after the northern neighbour of the U .S.
adopted new border measures.
However, the U .S. President added another threat on Monday, valuing to levy a 25 -percent tax on all global steel and aluminum imports.
Canada supplies the U .S.
with more steel and aluminum than any other country.
Joining us now is my colleague Ding Hung.
Thanks for being here.
Hey, Zhong -ing. So, the Canadian Premier's overall message is that the US and Canada are better as economic allies, and Canada is a secure partner of the US for commodities like energy, metals, and critical minerals.
Do you think the Trump administration will buy this message?
I don't think the Trump administration will buy this message, and I am also quite skeptical tactical about the effectiveness of this Washington visit by these Canadian officials.
It is difficult to tell what exactly US President Donald Trump will be satisfied with.
Think about this. The US has continued to announce these steel and aluminum tariffs even after the Canadian side made promises regarding tackling transnational crime and fentanyl smuggling in order to temporarily avoid the first round of American terrorists.
And although the Canadian premiers this time claimed that they had a constructive meeting with the White House officials, let's now forget that this was actually a last -minute meeting that they were given by the White House — not a meeting with Donald Trump himself, but with some advisors to Trump only.
I think on the of Donald Trump, he doesn't really care about the partnership with Canada for supply of commodities, and his rationale for tariffs is that tariffs will be good for growing the US economy and will be good for protecting jobs in America.
And as you said, Canada is dominating the US imports regarding both the steel and and aluminum.
So Trump's rationale means that Canada is really the first and foremost target of Trump's steel and aluminum tariff.
It's really difficult and challenging for the Canadian side to be exempted.
Well, in Washington, Ontario Premier Doug Ford caught China, the common economic enemy of the U .S.
and Canada, saying that Canada is ready to help the U .S.
decouple from China.
what do you make of this comment and why are Ford and a few other Canadian premieres playing the China card on trade.
Well here, I think Ontario Provincial Leaders core message to the United States is that do business with us and then we will help you in your fight with China that's the core message.
And in China's view this is of course pretty lovable.
That's where it is probably more of an opportunist rather than a politician who governs by genuine principle.
That's my impression.
Ontario is Canada's manufacturing heartland, and it is holding a provincial election later this month.
So, Ford has made pushing against Donald Trump's as a central part, a central pillar of his reelection campaign to run for a third term in his office.
So at his home soil, he has some tough talking against the Trump threat.
But when he is in Washington, DC, his talking point seems to be totally aimed at satisfying and pleasing the United States.
That's why I see him as an opportunist.
That's being said, the hostile sentiment about China is really no secret in Canada nowadays, and Doug Ford's talking points about China look more like a repackage of the existing policies for the sake of pleasing the United States.
In the meantime, I don't think there is absolute consensus regarding China among all those 13 Canadian premiums, because Canadian provinces differ in terms of their level of trade with China.
The province of Manitoba, for example, accounts for only 5 .4 % of Canada's exports to China.
But in the case of the western province of British Columbia, this province contributes a significantly larger share at more than 29%.
Well, actually in recent years we've seen Canada moving to align with the U .S.
strategies related to China.
For instance, following America's lead Canada imposed 100 % tariffs on Chinese EVs.
Canada has also taken a hit at TikTok and banned China's Huawei from installing equipment in Canadian 5G networks.
So is this policy direction on the part of Ottawa in the best interest of Canada?
By no means, that's detrimental for sure.
I really think that Ottawa has had a very misguided China policy in most recent years.
It's interesting to note here that actually in October, twenty twenty three, Canadians, Foreign Minister Melanie Jolie, once provided details about Canada's goal to carry out pragmatic diplomacy, to engage with countries of different values, different perspectives in order to prevent an international conflict.
I'm quoting her here, unfortunately, there is a large gap between this vision and the actual practice.
When we talk about Altawa's actual China policy.
Somehow, I think we can draw a parallel between Canada and Australia.
Australia has nowadays come to realize that its China policy under former Prime Minister Scott Morrison was misguided.
So under the current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, there has been some rethinking and resetting.
Now, of course, compared to Australia, there is a smaller trade in economic stake when we talk about Canada's ties with China.
However, when we talk about such a scenario where the United States accounts for some 80 % of Canada's foreign trade, think about this.
There is a huge risk for Canada here when you have a US president like Donald Trump sitting in the White House.
So, with that in mind, a trade diversification is urgent for Canada and in this regard, China can be key partner for Canada.
Well do you think Trump's tariff threats and also his comments about Canada becoming the 51st US state were prompt Canada to rethink his relations with the US?
Absolutely there will be some rethinking that's for sure.
Among average Canadians we're already hearing and seeing some calls to boycott American products in some average Canadian supermarkets and and that some Canadians are already hot in their trips, their planned trips to the United States.
We have also seen many Canadian politicians from some mainstream political parties actually using a pretty harsh, harsher than usual rhetoric against the United States, say they are promising to defend Canada's economic interests and sovereignty, et cetera.
Canadians are really, I think overwhelmingly, rejecting Donald Trump's push to make Canada an American state, even though that sometimes look like a joke from American side.
A recent analysis, a recent opinion post in Canada found that the proportion of Canadians who say that they are very proud of their own nation, of their own country, jumped by some 10 percentage points from from 34 % to 44 % between December and February.
And that's simply because that's only because of Donald Trump threat to make Canada the 54th state of the United States.
Well, thank you, Ling -It, thank you for being here.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay with us. You are listening to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying.
Gold prices have reached some record highs recently amid fears of a global trade war spurred by U .S.
President Donald Trump's fresh tariffs and threats of more duties.
This week, Trump unveiled an additional 25 % tariff on steel and aluminum imports and announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on countries that tax U .S.
imports. economy. Economic uncertainties are driving some investors straight to gold as a safe haven asset.
According to Bloomberg calculations, gold holdings have risen 1 .2 % so far this year, hitting the highest since November.
For more, we are joined by Liu Ji -jin, Senior Fellow of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Er thanks for joining us.
Yes, good evening. What do you think are the main drivers, or main factors, driving up the gold prices in recent weeks, and also do you think gold will continue this climb in the near term.
Yes, I think there are some major factors that are driving the price increase of the gold market, and also, I am sure that in the short term in that the price will still have space and room to climb up.
In my opinion they have some major other factors, but in my opinion two factors are the most important.
One is that the recent information shows that the CPI in the United States has been slightly have increased because compared to the previous month.
So we see concerns in the market that some - the price hike will come back to the market and also will influence the basis of the smooth development in the United States for economic recovery.
And actually this impact will continue to expand into other areas.
For instance, the tariffs that are imposed by the Trump administration to all major countries, even to the whole world.
So, that makes a greater concern and provides more challenges for the stabilizing of the price.
So, this is the basis that the preconditions for the the gold price increase, but that And they have some other factors, but this is, in my opinion, the major tool driving force for the Gold price increase.
Well, the recent US inflation data came in hotter than expected, and also in the meantime, Fed Chair Powell suggested that Fed was not in a hurry to cut interest rates.
How do these messages affect Gold's appeal?
Yeah. And this question just now, I want to continue with the first question.
Why? I see the CPI increased the cost to major concern because the result of the increase of the CPI will have more concerns about inflation.
Nowadays, the market has already shown and feel that the pressure on the inflation and the people that are much concerned.
And when the private investors have concerns, they are afraid of losing the value of the capital and assets that they have to buy more gold as a result to resist any possible risks.
So, the inflation is also another major concern.
Of course, the U .S.
credit is not inherent to reduce or to lower these interests.
I think they will take some time, at least two or three weeks to see what's happening for the inflation.
If the inflation's still becoming more serious and more strong, I think they will take a that are very possible and positive measures to maintain the interest rate in suitable point of the week because in order to cut off this pressure of the inflation.
So this is a very important decision will be done by the U .S.
Federation. Well apart from the uncertainties in the economic sector, are there other geopolitical risks risks like the tensions in the Middle East or the developments in Ukraine, are they likely to impact gold prices?
Yeah, that's true. The geopolitical tension has a great influence on the gold price.
As we know, as before, every time when the Middle East has a war or a conflict serviced 20 or 30 years before, I think it has really very strong influence on the gold market because the Middle East is more sensitive and more key influencing than the other areas.
So, we will see that the Middle East attention could be really soft in a soft way that could have a very good impact on the Gold market.
And of course, we see Ukraine conflict is also another part of this inflation of this also influencing the golden market, but not so big as the Middle East.
I think Middle East is the powerhouse for the golden market.
This is very essential.
Yeah. And also as gold prices approach new records, we're seeing the return of a kind of, the so -called gold rush mentality where people began to buy simply because others are buying?
And do you think, how can we distinguish between a true bull market driven by fundamentals and a speculative bubble in gold?
Frankly speaking, I should say that at the moment, the gold price has already some bubble influence.
We see that because of the reality and the real value of the gold is not should be so high as today.
But there is another Other fact I have to mention here is that it is because the market is afraid of the tariffs that could be imposed by the Trump administration on precious metals, including gold.
So, many market analysis shows that maybe next step or the step next one, that the Trump administration will also increase the tariffs on precious metals.
that could still have a very strong influence on the gold price.
So I think when the gold price at historical record, I think that many people are trying to see what's happening for the next.
And I don't think that there is a good time to hash to buy more gold as a result because we have to see what real measures could be taken to prevent such a bubble to be continued.
Well, thank you, Luo Jijin, Center Fellow of Chongyuan Institute for Financial Studies at Rianming University of China.
That's all the time we have for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, You can download our podcast by searching world today.
I'm jiaoying. Thank you so much for listening.
See you next time THE END
