Both US President Donald Trump and the European Union set their sights on Ukraine's mineral resources.
Study shows China remains an attractive destination for investment despite growing concerns over Sino -US relations.
And Iran and Russia's foreign ministers have condemned the unilateral sanctions by the US and the West.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Guh Ennan in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
Ukraine and the United States have reportedly reached an agreement on a deal that includes access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals.
It's part of Kiev's efforts to win security support from Washington.
U .S. President Donald Trump says the minerals deal will recoup the billions of dollars owed by Ukraine in military aid.
Ukraine President Vladimir Zelenskyi could sign the deal during his visit to Washington as early as Friday.
Meanwhile, the European Union also proposed a new deal aiming to seize the peace of Ukraine's resources.
During European Commission President Earthland Alliance visit to Kiev, she presented an agreement on critical materials to Ukraine, in which 21 of the 30 critical raw materials required by Europe can be sourced from Ukraine.
So, for more on this, let's have Kamal Mikiliyaliyev, affiliated researcher at Raul Wuhlenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden.
Kamal, first of all, President Trump has insisted that the U .S.
should receive, quote unquote, returns for its assistance to Ukraine in resisting Russia, demanding access to resources like, rare -earth minerals and oil.
How does this stance reflect the US's true position in the Russian -Ukraine conflict?
Well, because Trump insists on the returns that the US should have in forms of like rare earth minerals and oil for its assistance in Ukraine, it actually signals this fundamentally transactional and what people used to call a realpolitik kind of approach to the conflict.
So, rather than viewing it as an aid or moral strategic imperative or moral duty, Trump used this as something that American support should yield tangible economic benefits to the United States.
Otherwise in practical terms that wouldn't reflect his America -first idea." Not just the United States, the EU has also proposed a quote unquote win -win agreement with Ukraine, emphasizing that he will never ask for a non -mutual agreement.
But, given the power dynamics, can the EU truly offer an equal and mutually beneficial agreement?
What deeper strategic intentions might lie behind this proposal?
Yes, I agree. Kind of it's present as a win -win, but there is of course as you say, there is a power dynamics behind it.
You asserts that its proposals are based in reciprocity, but it also builds a lot of economic and political influence over Ukraine.
And that influence can of course shift negotiations in favour of European strategic interests.
On the other hand, there are also an understanding that securing resources is important for the EU.
And behind the rhetoric of mutual benefit, there's also strategic drive to secure very long term access to Ukraine's mineral wealth.
And this could help you diversify the supply of chains of rare earth minerals, from other regions of the world, of course, and reduce the fantasy on other global players, right?
And at the same time it would kind of push Russia even more out of the European region in terms of resources.
In other terms, you also publicly disavow the loans that the president of France, Macron was very vocal about, right?
But that stands in contrast with efforts to lock down resource agreements.
So what is it actually a charity or it's actually agreement on resources from European side.
Ukraine has yet to respond to the latest statements from EU officials, but following President Trump's announcement that the US and Ukraine are close to reaching an agreement, President Vladimir Zelensky stated Ukraine will not sign a deal that would burden future generations, but he also stressed the importance of security guarantees as part of any mineral agreement.
What do you think of his position given the external pressure and Ukraine's development needs?
How can Ukraine protect his interests and sovereignty in negotiations over resources where the US and the EU?
Well Zelensky's declaration is of course showing that he wants to both protect Ukraine's long -term sovereignty but will also secure some kind of economic well -being for the country that has been so severely ravaged by war.
Zelensky is trying to pull kind of a balancing act, right?
He's also very much aware that there is immediate need for the support to counter the Russian aggression but he also insists that the deal must preserve Ukraine's future.
So it's kind of this trade -off that we're talking about.
And the demand of this kind of robust security guarantees as a part of mineral agreement then secures for him this goal of balancing national security but also not sacrificing long -term economic development.
And that's the whole idea behind the balancing act.
We would be turning to the long -term strategy, right?
Because this call for the agreements, it can provide immediate benefits, but we would also lay groundwork for sustainable growth.
That's a question because Ukraine's natural wealth can both support its economic or domestic development, but it also can flow out of Ukraine and then make Ukraine poorer in the long term.
This is the dilemma that Zelensky is struggling with.
Building on that, if a mineral agreement between the U .S.
and Ukraine is signed in Washington, what impact would this have on Ukraine's foreign policy and international standing?
Will this increase Ukraine's diplomatic reliance on the U .S.
potentially affecting its relations with other countries?
Well, should this agreement be signed?
Of course, we're going to see increased reliance of Ukraine on the U .S., right?
Because that would deepen Ukraine's economic and diplomatic ties with the United States automatically.
But that also might provide short -term stability and resource access, especially the military resource access.
But it also risks skewing Ukraine's foreign policy very much towards American interests, right, while there is also EU involved, as we've just discussed.
So that can be potential for skewing the balance towards United States and the Balancing Act might suffer as a trade -off.
There are also strategic -orientation kind of worries, because if this agreement signals that this is Ukraine's only strategic alignment, and the major strategic alignment, it might It's become a destabilizing factor when it comes to the talks with Russia, and it risks positioning Ukraine as overly dependent on the external power in both economy and security, as well as its development.
But from an economic development perspective, how might the US and EU's efforts to divide Ukraine's mineral resources affect Ukraine's future?
What challenges might arise for Ukraine's economic structure and industrial development And as a result of such arrangement?
Well, I would say there are quite heavy long -term risks, right?
There's a risk of overdependence, that right now the capital inflows in technology might spur the short -term development, but over -reliance on external partnerships, it can reduce the opportunities for the future resource extraction and can undermine Ukraine's control over its natural wealth, basically.
This in turn would limit its ability to develop a kind of robust, diversified industrial base that is needed to come out of the post -war situation.
There's also, you know, environmental challenges.
Intensive extraction may lead to environmental degradation and resource depletion, if not managed sustainably.
There is nothing in the previous history that says that extractionist policies in this part of the world have been sustainable.
So, the significance risk that are carried with environmental damage that might occur because rare earth minerals are notoriously hard to extract, sustainably.
This is also one of the risks.
There is also sovereignty and development trade -offs, right?
As said, ultimately Ukraine must navigate the tension between harnessing its resources for immediate economic benefit and then retaining long -term control of them and be able to drive some kind of sustainable development.
How do these developments, with both the EU and the US focusing on Ukraine's resources, impact the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia?
Do these resource deals influence the power dynamics on the ground?
Yes, to a certain extent, of course.
Not too much extent right now, because we're right in the beginning of any process of kind of coming to serious talk about talks between Russia, Ukraine and United States.
So resources are here, the Ukrainian resources here are seen as leverage.
Any resource deals, they can act both as an economic boom for Ukraine, right, but then also drive more into the geopolitical context with Russia.
It can also provoke Moscow, by deepening Western influence in the region in the long term future.
So that might make Russia less negotiable in the short term.
There is also, you know, battlefield situation where the securing resources for Ukraine is needed right now to be able to successfully defend itself on the battlefield.
But that might also be only a short term effect of all this.
There are no dynamics that is showing that Ukraine can turn this into a strategic win on the battlefield.
And of course there's more strategic calculations for Russia in a shift of resource control away from its influence.
It also represents economic and even symbolic loss on the battlefield right or the things that Russia would not be able to secure and this could of course lead to more heightened tensions and again make Moscow less interested in seeking you know at least a ceasefire if not peace." But as the US and EU risk to seize the peace of Ukraine resources, what can the international community do to prevent exploitation of smaller nations like Ukraine?
Well, international mechanisms around the resource wealth are not really there in the world, because resources are genuinely and fundamentally seen as a part of the sovereignty of each and every state that has them in their sovereign position.
So that means that whatever the state decides to do with them remains within the state's sovereign decision making and the international community doesn't have any kind of control or overseeing mechanisms.
It's usually decided through bilateral or multilateral diplomacy.
And that's why when the once country finds itself in the kind of more vulnerable position, the bigger actors that can provide necessary means can then exploit the resources.
And we've seen that with the countries of so -called global south going through this again and again, since the process of decolonization, when they are struggling with issues like conflict, poverty, lack of development, and then they trade their natural resources into financial aid from the countries of the global North.
And unfortunately, that doesn't lead to a sustainable development, but also leads to more problem and more extractionists and this kind of vulnerability of those states.
So it's a huge global question about how we can make the system more sustainable.
That was Kamal Makilly Aliyev, affiliated researcher at the Raul Wolemberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden.
Coming up, study shows China remains an attractive destination for investment despite growing concerns over Sino US relations.
This is Raul today, stay with us.
Gold prices are soaring, – hitting new highs more than 10 times this year.
How unusual is this?
What's driving the search in addition to America's tariff plan?
We'll also explore the ripple effects on the global economy and how rising gold prices could impact our daily lives.
Get it all on this week's Chat Lounge on your favorite podcast platform and CGTN radio.
You are listening to Road Today.
Despite the growing concerns over China -U .S.
relations, China remains an attractive destination for investment.
According to a recent survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in southern China, U .S.
firms in the Asian country are continuing to expand their operations.
It says American companies are setting aside about $50 billion for reinvestment in China over the next three to five years.
That's a nearly 34 % increase from previous figures.
Among all businesses surveyed, nearly 90 % of American firms reported profits last year in China, higher than 87 % for Chinese companies and 81 % for other companies worldwide.
Hele ZHeiring, chairman and the president of the chamber, says businesses are increasing their commitments in China to secure a stronger foothold in this critical market.
So to delve into this, let's have Dr. Yao Xiujie, Changkong professor of economics at Chongqing University.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Hello. Professor, despite ongoing trade tensions, why do you think American companies continue to reinvest heavily in China?
China. What are the biggest factors of driving foreign firms to stay committed to China, despite challenges?
The biggest driving factor is China providing a very conducive environment for following multinational companies.
And the figure actually saw the confidence of the American company investing in China.
Ninety percent of them make profit.
I mean, this is significantly Even higher than other comparable companies in China or within the domestic markets.
So profitability is the major factors for a multinational company and their confidence.
Another factor is political stability.
China provided the most stable political stability for foreign investment since it opened up the door to the foreign company a few decades ago.
And the third factor, I think of course, is the Chinese attitude, the government attitude to continue to protect the interests of foreign invited firms and foreign investors, including foreign experts who are working in China.
And so these three factors together provide probably the fairly stable environment for foreign investors in foreign companies.
And seeing this is why the American firms are so confident in investing in the Chinese market.
Professor, the surge in reinvestment with a 34 % increase from U .S.
companies I think reflects not just a reaction to the past year but also a strong signal of their long -term confidence in China's market, right?
Could you please elaborate more on this?
What does this surge tell us about the future prospects that foreign companies see in China?
Yes. 34 % increase is quite a significant amount, and it's higher than we expected.
I think this is because the Chinese economy has a very strong resilience, not only during the COVID -19 pandemic period, but nowadays, I think the economy is recovering fully after the COVID pandemic.
And this provides a very stable business environment.
In also China in college, much more investment into different areas of industrial and services, also including agriculture of course.
So it opened a fairly wide window for a foreign investor to spot opportunity of making investment.
But nowadays I think China is probably encouraging the high -end manufacturing and high -end services, including financial services and logistic support.
So this gives a fairly significant opportunity for multinational companies to make profit while they expand their operation in China.
While we can see the confidence from foreign investors, there are still some challenges ahead.
China -U .S. relations played a crucial role on the investment, the survey shows that only one quarter of respondents are optimistic about the future of US -China relations with optimism among American companies dropping to 25 % while 27 % of them hold a pessimistic view.
How do you interpret this growing pessimistic view on China -US relations especially among American firms?
Yes, I think we are living in a very dilemma environment.
On the one hand, China provides a very good environment for American investing firms.
On the other hand, the China -US regulation has undergone a very turbulent field of development, particularly in the first term of the Trump administration followed by Biden and now followed by Trump again.
So foreign business, they are highly pessimistic about the legitimacy, this is more or less like the political motivation of the US administration.
It doesn't actually affect the sentiment of investors in foreign companies, because foreign companies, as long as they are legally operating within China, and they also legally protected by the U .S.
government, they should be able to make steady investment into the Chinese market and make business as well as profit.
Now, the U .S. government, of course, they are fully aware of the advantage and benefit of U .S.
firms invested in China, because the U .S.
state or the government can actually get lots of benefits from this investment in China.
So I don't think they are going to stop U .S.
operation in the Chinese market.
They will probably just increase some more difficulty.
For example, Liberia, Telly for domestic manufacturing firm from China exporting into the United States.
But on demand, despite the pessimistic attitudes of the firms, I think China is still doing the best to make them feel optimistic.
This is a long -term, uncertain relationship between the United States and China.
I think in the future, both side they should realize they should provide certainty and support for bilateral directional investment between China and the US and the US to China both way.
So this is the long -term trajectory that we can predict.
There's no point of polystyrene investing to enter into the Chinese market.
So although the attitude is pessimistic about the political relationship, but in their mind I think business perspective they are still fully optimistic.
But looking at this from an industrial perspective, where are American companies focusing their investments in China right now?
Because given the current state of US -China relations and the ongoing trade tensions.
For example, Trump had signed a memorandum to further restrict a two -way investment between China and US enterprises.
Do you foresee any changes in the sectors where American companies will invest in China in the near future?
Yes. The US companies invested in China are focusing on the traditional industries, for example, traditional manufacturing.
And now, to some extent, over the recent years, they then moved to the upper -end manufacturing, high -tech manufacturing.
But for the fairly high -end, for example, semiconductors and other things, and computer software, AI, and the related industry, I don't think the United States would be allowing lots of companies to enter China because they fear that high technology could be learned and from by the Chinese counterparts.
So this is a dilemma phrased by the business and the U .S.
government. But this doesn't mean that the traditional industry would be curtail, because you look at the profit they make, they can invest into China to expand the traditional manufacturing.
As you mentioned, like car manufacturing, car components, and low -end semiconductors, and production services, and agriculture technology manufacturing machinally, those are the kinds of investments that the U .S.
still have some competitive advantage in the Chinese market.
But of course, these US companies are facing fierce competition from the domestic firms, the Chinese domestic firms have made huge progress in terms of technological advance, but there is still lots of compete mentality between the US multinational firm and the domestic company in China.
Thank you very much, Professor, for insightful opinion.
That was Dr. Yau -shu Jiechun, professor of economics at Chongqing University.
More to come. Iran and Russia's foreign ministers have condemned the unilateral sanctions by the U .S.
and the West. If you're listening to RØDE today, we'll be back after a short break.
You've been listening to Road Today with Mika Anna in Beijing.
Let's continue our discussion on Iran -Russia's relationship.
Russia and Iran have aligned their positions on Iran's nuclear program, days after Moscow hold initial talks with the United States on the Ukraine conflict and bilateral ties.
During his one -day trip to Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met top leaders in Tehran and reaffirmed Moscow's backing for diplomatic measures to resolve issues around the Iran nuclear program.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi dismissed any chance of direct nuclear talks with the United States, as long as Washington continues what he calls aggression.
The US earlier announced sanctions on more than 30 vessels and people accused of shipping and selling Iranian oil.
So for more on this topic, let's have Dr. Wang Jing, associate professor at Northwest University in Xi 'an, China.
Professor, thanks for joining us.
We know Russia and Iran have aligned their position on Iran's nuclear program, just days after Moscow held initial talks with the United States on the Ukraine conflict and their bilateral relations.
How do you interpret the timing of Russian foreign minister's visit and what message does this send to the United States and the international community?
I think the timing is very critical because as you mentioned, the United States and Russians are now actually improving their relations and their stances and attitudes toward the Russian -Ukrainian War now become more and more close.
So during the very critical time now the Russian foreign minister visited the Iran to hope to enhance the bilateral relations and to further improve their bilateral shared ideas over the over the international and original issue.
Particularly, we have to know that during this year and I mean 2025.
Particularly before October that Iran nuclear related countries, I mean not only that we're talking about Russia, we're also talking about the United States, we're also talking about the European countries, they have to conclude very new shared understandings about how the Iran nuclear issue should develop and what stance should be reorganized.
So that is why against this very particularly a backdrop that Iran's – Iran and the Russian foreign minister, they met each other and they hope to share their views on the international ongoing transformation situation and also share their view on what should be done in the future to safeguard or to reach a new understanding over the Iran nuclear issue and other related regional issues?
Professor Yuan has stated that it would not negotiate with the United States under threat, but following the recent improvements in U .S.-Russia relations, do you see a possibility that Iran and the U .S.
could resolve the nuclear issue through diplomatic means?
I think everyone hopes that the diplomatic way could work, and we all believe that diplomatic means should be considered as the only reliable solution to end the crisis or end the disputes between Iran and United States over the Iran nuclear issue, and we all hope that there might be the new possibilities of restarting negotiation between Iran and the United States over Iran nuclear issue.
But the problem is that, as you mentioned, on the one hand, the United States still impose new pressure, particularly new sanctions, against Iran and threaten to do more.
And on the other hand, Iran is very strongly and assertively resisting the pressure from the United States, and inside Iran, the public idea, although divided, but the political voice are very coherent and very united that Iran will continue to resist the dialogue with United States unless United States give up their sanctions and soften their stances.
So again, so this backdrop, I think there may be possibilities between the two countries to restart the dialogue and negotiation, but that would happen only when the United States with draw some kind of the very assertive or aggressive means towards Iran.
And also Iran will also make some concessions of which would be very unlikely in the recent future.
So we hope that the nuclear issue through weak diplomatic means could be reached.
But I don't think it is very realistic at a very particular time right now.
Then Professor Iran and Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement in January over the country, covering political, security, economic, energy, and military cooperation.
How do you assess this agreement in helping both countries overcome the challenges posed by U .S.
and Western sanctions?
I think that their comprehensive strategic partnership agreement in January is very signal to the Western countries, including the United States, that they will closely work together to resist the pressure against the West and also they hope to violate the efforts of the West to contain and to constrain Iran and Russia so that's why this is a very major signal that they will work closely with each other.
Although maybe we know that the two countries, their bilateral cooperation might not be so covered, so many areas will not cover everything although they are in the documents, they actually promised to do something more, but although that in reality that they cannot fulfill all the promises that they made and all this areas that they hope to cover, but it would be considered, should be considered as a signal that the two countries will continue continue their partnership closely with each other to resist the pressure from the West.
And the two countries will also continue to work closely to share their shared understandings over the faster transforming situation, not only on the international level, but also in the regional level.
The building on this, Iran and Russia have signed a transport and transit cooperation roadmap, as well as a supplementary agreement for the Rashed and Astatara Railway project, from a geopolitical and economic perspective, what long -term impact will this transportation project have on the regional landscape and economic ties between the two nations?
We're talking about the railways, the project, particularly the Rashed and Astara railway project.
Actually it's the major project connecting in the future not only between Russia and Iran, but also include for example Azerbaijan and also maybe particularly in the future they hope to include India.
And also it's the major the railway big system and very comprehensive and overall system, where connecting the Indian ocean, and done with Russia.
So actually, it's a very real waste system with political and geopolitical importance.
But we know that this real waste system project has been proposed as very early of the 21st century.
But then, although a lot of discussion has been made, and a lot of document has been signed, and a lot of promise has been made, very little process has been pushed forward because no country has enough money to realize this project according to the timeline.
And also no country has a very strong determination to invest enough money to push the forward.
So that is why now every country, in particular Russia, and Iran, they re -mentioned this project and that could be considered as a determination or the willingness for the two countries to further cooperate with each other, particularly the railway system.
But given the difficulties that we have already mentioned, I don't think it would be easy project and maybe suggest the political shared understanding, but it should not be considered as an easy task, particularly from the perspective of economic perspective.
Thanks for your analysis.
That's Dr. Wang Jing, Associate Professor at Northwest University in Xian, China.
Coming up, Syria's interim president has called for unity, and the rebooting of the fractured nation will be back.
Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombieffs de Shader.
I'm a Professor of Public Policy Management at Xinhua University in Beijing.
I am a great listener of The Wall Today.
In my opinion, The Wall Today is one of the best China Radio programs.
In The Wall Today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world.
So please, come join us.
Welcome back to World Today.
C Real's interim president has called for unity in the rebooting of his fractured nation.
Ahmad El Sharra made a call during the National Dialogue Conference just three months after the fall of President Bashar Al -Assad.
The interim leader also struck the need for armed groups to integrate into the military and for the state to have a monopoly on weapons.
So, for more on this, our Zhao Ying joining us in the studio.
Thanks for joining us, Zhao.
Thanks for having me.
Could you please explain the key goals of this national dialogue, and how significant is it for the country's future?
I think this is a pivotal step in the country's journey toward rebuilding and establishing a more inclusive democratic political system.
The key goals of the dialogue are to address Syria's fractured political landscape, foster national unity, and chart a clear path toward the formation of a new government.
And a significant focus has been placed on drafting a new constitution that reflects the country's diverse ethnic and religious communities and that promotes principles like justice equality and freedom and one of the most crucial aspects of this dialogue is its attempt to reconcile different factions within Syria, the dialogue seeks to lay the groundwork for a government that includes all Syrians not just one group or sect and the significance of the dialogue lies not only in addressing immediate political questions but also in setting the tone for Syria's long -term stability, whether it can pave
the way for a system that respects the rights of all its citizens, including minorities and women, and whether the government can follow through on its promises of fostering an environment where all Syrians feel represented and heard.
And moreover, I think the dialogue will also have important implications for serious relations with the international community, countries like Russia, Iran, Turkey, as well as the U .S.
and European nations, they are watching closely to see what would come next for this country.
We know the Syrian leaders have promoted the conference as the first step to drafting a new constitution for the country.
Any idea what the new constitution will look like?
Well, the new constitution will be a cornerstone of Syria's political transition, and while While we do not have all the details yet, there are some clear expectations and themes that are emerging from this national dialogue.
Ahmed Al -Shara's have emphasized that the new constitution must reflect the diversity of Syria's population, and this includes ensuring that the country's many religious, ethnic, and sectarian groups, such as the Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Druze, Christians, and Kurds have all have a voice in the political process and also at its core the new constitution is better to establish a system based on justice, equality and the rule of law and there's been talk of creating a balance of power between the different branches of government to ensure a fair distribution of authority to prevent any one group
from dominating which perhaps has been a major issue in the past.
Another area of focus will be human rights and freedoms.
The new constitution will likely include stronger protections for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and other basic civil rights.
There's also a strong emphasis on ensuring that women's rights are protected, like there are calls for greater female participation in politics and society.
If you look at the closing statement of the dialogue, it actually highlighted the importance of rejecting discrimination based on gender, race, and religion.
But that being said, the process of drafting this new constitution is still in its early stages and the timeline for completion is uncertain, and some suggest it could take several years to finalize, especially given the complexity of the issues at hand, and ultimately, it will serve as a blueprint for Syria's political future, and how it balances these competing interests will be crucial for the country's long -term stability.
But Ahmed El -Sharah emphasize that non -state armed groups had to disarm and hand over their territory.
Is it realistic to expect such groups to give up their weapons and accept essentialized control?
Well, that's really one of the key challenges in this transition.
Although al -Shara has spoken of the need to unite Syria's many diverse groups to build a new nation, many are still skeptical of the country's new Islamic leaders, and some have criticized the lack of minority representation at the conference.
And we know the Kurds make up about 10 percent of Syria's population, and some of them were actually invited to the national dialogue.
But the Kurdish -led Syrian Democratic Forces, or the SDF, was not invited.
and the SCF controls large swathes of Northern Syria, including areas that are rich in resources and are strategically important, and they have been a crucial ally to the US in the fight against ISIS, and the interim government has demanded that the militia disarm and join this unified national military force as a condition for joining this dialogue.
But the group kind of affairs, losing the autonomy they have ganged over the past several years, especially as many in their leadership see the Syrian government as deeply sectarian and are likely to offer fair representation to Kurdish and other minority groups, and also the SDF has political aspirations and their vision include more local autonomy, even if they aren't necessarily pushing for full independence, but for them giving up their weapons and control would likely feel like a surrender to a government that you have historically been at all with.
But that said, the Syrian government's insistence on a unified centralized state is non -negotiable in their view because it is a question of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
So in short, while it's clear that a deal on disarmament would be a key step toward stabilizing the country, the practicalities of getting the SDF and other groups to give up their weapons and accept central control will be an incredibly challenging task.
But the country we know is still facing severe sanctions from Western nations.
How can the new Syrian government gain legitimacy both domestically and internationally?
Well, I think domestically, legitimacy will largely depend on how inclusive and representative of the new government can prove itself to be, because after years of war, displacement, and suffering, Syrians will be looking for a government that addresses their grievances and provides tangible improvements in their daily lives, and this means prioritizing economic recovery, offering justice for the atrocities committed during the conflict, and fostering national reconciliation between the country's various sex and ethnic groups.
groups, and if the government can succeed in these areas, it may earn domestic support for Syrians who are wary of the long civil war and yearning for stability, economic opportunity and peace.
But internationally, legitimacy is more complex. The West, especially the U .S.
and the EU, they have long pushed for democratic reforms in Syria, and imposed sanctions, and these sanctions are hindering reconstruction efforts and are exacerbating the suffering of millions of Syrians struggling to access their critical rights.
But we know that the EU actually recently lifted some of the sanctions on Syria as part of a broader effort to support the country's political transition.
But the United States, on the other hand, continues to enforce economic sanctions against Syria, despite some exemptions introduced in January.
So I think more sanctions need to be lifted, which will be the first step to alleviate the suffering of Syrian people and help with the reconstruction efforts in Syria.
Thanks, Zhao. That was my colleague Zhao Ying.
The German economy contracted in the final quarter of 2024.
Official data shows Europe's largest economy shrank by 0 .2 percent from October to December, compared with the previous quarter.
Exports of goods and services were down considerably, falling 2 .2 percent.
This is also the sharpest decline since early 2020.
what are the main factors that have contributed to the slowdown of the German economy, what measures are needed to move this economy forward, more on this, where Zhang Yang spoke with Yang Liang, Professor of Economics at Willamette University.
So Germany's economy shrank by 0 .2 % in the final quarter of 2024.
So yeah, what are the main challenges the German economy is facing now?
Thank you. Right, so this negative 0 .2 % of growth, actually it's over all of 2024, followed by a negative 0 .3 % growth back in 2023.
So two years in a row, the German economy has been in recession, right, negative growth.
So I think there are long -term structural issues that have been facing the German's economy for quite a while, and that includes, for example, population aging and labor shortages.
It was estimated by the IMF that the German economy is losing 0 .6 percentage points of its working population in the next five years, and that is not offset by immigrant workers.
So that continued to be a problem for German's economy.
But there's also other problems like the lack of public investments.
And that's due to the self -imposed physical discipline.
So, for example, public investment as a percent of GDP was only about 2 .6 percent in Germany between 2018 to 2022.
And that is much lower than countries like US, France, Norway, and others.
And so this lack of public investment means there is a shortage in a lot of these critical infrastructures like the digital economy and also in renewable energies.
And finally, I think the long -term structural issue has to do with some of these red tapes an inefficient bureaucratic system.
So for example, it takes about five to six years to get permits in Germany to build an onshore wind farm, and it takes more than 120 days to get a business license, which is double the OECD average.
So all these long -term structural issues are coupled with the more temporal kind of shock, right?
With the Russian -Ukraine war and the rising energy cost.
I think all of these are basically dragging down the German economy in the past few years.
And the exports of goods and services fell 2 .2 percent in quarter 4.
This is the sharpest decline since 2020.
So what are the main reasons for that?
Well, the biggest reason is that there was a weak, I think, foreign demand for manufacturing goods.
So for Germany, as we know, it has been really reliant on, for example, automobiles exports, that has been under some kind of tension, under some hit because on the one hand the energy cost has been rising, and on the other hand, they have been seeing competition from China in the automobile industries.
And Germans auto industries also slow in adopting some of these changes, including transition to the green, you know, the electric vehicles.
None of the top sellers in the EV vehicles is actually German brand, and also they're slow in integrating some digital technologies, AI technologies, in terms of for example autonomous driving in their vehicles.
So I think this just represents the challenges for some of the industries that Germany used to have a leadership sort of role, not to mention some of the energy intensive production like machinery and chemicals and also papers and many of these industries that rely on, you know, the cheap energies in the past to gain competitive advantage now no longer have that competitive edge.
So I think all of these weigh on Germany's export performance, right, because the demand side and the supply side both are, ways of working against Germany's export prospect.
Germany was once seen as Europe's economic powerhouse, but now the economy is in slump.
You mentioned the manufacturing industry, but what about those new industries like digital economy, chips, AI, and what about the green industries?
Well, I think that's exactly the problem, which is that the traditional industry that Germany has the comparative advantage now that advantages eroding.
And yet at the same time Germany is making very slow transition into this sort of new growth engines.
Right. So you mentioned you mentioned things like you know the digital economy A .I.
and renewable energies in none of these industries.
I think Germany is currently leading.
And so I think that isn't that's a major problem.
And again I think there are some problems that are quite structural for example the lack of skilled workers, but also the lack of public investment in the digital infrastructure, and also the green economies.
So none of this is easy to sort of make a swift change in the short term, but nonetheless, I think this is important because without these new, innovative firms to make breakthrough developments in these new industries, German's economy will continue to suffer.
And what measures do you think need to be taken by the German government to make its economy to be able to really moving forward or how to jump start the German economy again?
That's a great question.
So as we know there has been political obstacle to have a three -party coalition in the government to put forth consistent policies.
But the new election that just happened again, I think hold some promise to bring the CDU, the to the U .S.
around 67 percent. And also the debt to GDP ratio in Germany is 62 .7 percent, which is way lower than countries like France, U .S., and any other sort of advanced economies at this point.
So I think they could really ramp up their physical spending to build these public infrastructure that is very much needed for their digital economy and their renewable for energy and other AI industries and so on and so forth.
But of course we also talked about monitor policy.
I think it used to be relatively restrictive because of the high inflation.
Now that inflation gradually goes down, then it's expected that the monetary easing will continue on and that would be helpful for its economy.
And finally, I think to be able to streamline some of the regulations and bureaucratic institutions, to make them more efficient.
Like I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of efficiency in their system to be able to grant business licenses to the businesses, encourage more investments in Germany.
So I think at least those are the, I would say, three or four things that German government can do to really help their economy back on track.
And what about German economy fitting into the wider European landscape?
Well, that's a great question.
So as we know, both Germany and France, two largest And some economists look forward to this kind of and hopefully that would be helpful for them to continue to take a lead role so even if you know Italy and Spain are doing better but they're still relatively small in terms of the size.
So I think Germany and France are still needing to be, sort of, the locomotive for the European economy.
So if they continue to slow down that's not going to be good news for the entire European economy.
That's Yanliang, Professor of Economics at Tooelemet University.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today, a quick recap of today's headlines.
Both US President Donald Trump and the European Union set their sights on Ukraine's mineral resources.
Study shows China remains an attractive destination for investment, despite growing concerns over China -U .S.
relations. Iran and Russia's foreign ministers have condemned the unilateral sanctions by the US and the West.
C -Reel's interim president has called for unity and the rebooting of the fractured nation.
You've been listening to Road Today.
I'm G -E -N -A in Beijing.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Bye for now.
