Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Coming up, China demands fairness as the United States bans new drones from DJI and others.
Radioactive water leaks at Japan's decommissioned nuclear reactor as the country prepares to reopen or restart a major nuclear power plant.
Israel's defense minister is engulfed in controversy after saying that Israel will never fully withdraw from Gaza, and Europe stands with Greenland as Trump threat returns.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
China has condemned the US action to add all foreign-made drones, including those from Chinese company DJI, and key components, to a list of untrusted suppliers.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said on Tuesday that this very decision is stretching national security claims to suppress Chinese corporations.
He was urging Washington to correct its ongoing practices and provide a fair, non-discriminatory business environment.
China's Ministry of Commerce in the meantime has also called the US measure quote-unquote, market-distorting and unilateral bullying, vowing to take necessary measures to protect the legitimate interests of Chinese corporations.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Professor John Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Professor John Gong.
The claim of the U.S.
Federal Communications Commission is that foreign-made drones are deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.
Is this concern in line with reality?
This is totally ungrounded as far as I understand.
I think there are various ways to verify that the drones provided by Chinese companies, particularly TGI, do not pose any national security risk at all.
I mean, there's ways of monitoring data collected.
There's ways of preventing data collected from sending back to somewhere, various ways to make sure that these drones are being used in the United States according to the regulations.
I think what they really mean is that, let me tell you what it really means, an unacceptable risk.
I think the extremely competitiveness of these Chinese drones from DJI have basically rendered US domestically manufactured drones totally uncompetitive on the market.
They are a lot more costly, more expensive.
They're not as good.
So in the U.S. market right now, these drones are not competitive at all.
The customers are buying DJI drones.
Now.
Over the long run, this creates a problem for the US industry, because drones are increasingly used not just as a civilian product, but also as a defense military product.
So, without a domestic drone manufacturing industry, the United States drone applications, drone usage based on domestically produced drones, will be in big jeopardy in big jeopardy, essentially.
I think this is what it means by unacceptable risk to the national security.
So in other words, they want to still keep a domestic drone manufacturing industry.
That's what they are doing, I think.
This is the sense of this whole idea, in my view.
Yeah, we will talk about this a little bit later on.
But before that, we know, over the past year or so DJI has actually written letters to American officials, including the current Defense Chief, Peter Hack, says welcoming scrutiny and the necessary examination of its products.
But as we take a look at this latest measure taken by the US FCC, do you think it is based on transparent and comprehensive examinations? well this issue actually have been discussed for many years i remember several years ago there was already an article a new york times talking about this issue i mean the u.s government certainly doesn't like to see more chinese drones being sold on the market but they didn't take actions back then because there's a lot of pushback from users from uh for example municipal governments that are you know extensively using dji products they're much much better than u.s domestically produced products and they're a lot cheaper i mean when we talk cheaper it's you know several magnitudes of cheaper several orders of cheaper i mean it's not just a little bit cheaper So it's against that backdrop that at the time the US federal government didn't take any action.
But I think now they are seeing this development to the extent that there would be no domestic drone industry anymore.
So that's why they're very much concerned about this.
So I think DJI certainly is trying to do things to remedy the current situation.
They're writing to the FCC to argue that there are various ways about protecting US national security interests.
Try to comply with the regulation.
Try to make sure that no sensitive data, no sensitive information is actually being acquired, obtained and sent back to China.
I mean, there are certainly, you know, easily, there are many ways of doing this.
But I think they're probably missing the essence of this problem.
This is not so much about collecting data and safe use of data.
This is more about indigenous domestic drone manufacturing industry, which is the foundation for defense applications, for defense-related drones manufacturing.
So I think this is the real problem.
Yeah.
So, talking about this real problem that you have been referring, we know, in June President Donald Trump signed an executive order to accelerate the commercialization of drone technologies and scale up domestic drone production against the so-called coronavirus quote-unquote foreign control or exploitation.
But here i guess there is a question.
By banning the import and sale of all those new drone models manufactured by foreign brands, foreign manufacturers, can the united states really, you know, boost the competitiveness of its own drone technologies?
Well, it won't guarantee it, but at least offers an opportunity, I guess, and a chance to fight against foreign competition.
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
I'm a little bit skeptical whether in a protected world, whether you can have a competitive domestic industry and whether it can catch up with the rapid development in drones technologies.
But you know, compared to doing nothing.
You know, this is must be a politically correct decision here.
An option, because if you I guess you know standing from the perspective of the United States government, if you don't do that, you're just going to see the demise of the domestic industry.
That's probably something for very difficult for the politicians in Washington to swallow.
Now, like you mentioned earlier, this so-called concern about Chinese-made drones and DJI are not really that new in America.
And I think the latest measure looks more like an official ban following earlier campaign rhetoric, earlier executive orders and several pieces of earlier legislations in the United States.
So how do you expect DJI to adjust its business footprints and supply chains in response to this US ban?
Well, I hope the U.S. government might take a step back and reach a compromise with DJI.
Maybe, based on the appeal from DJI, they can reach some kind of a compromise to allow some drones to be still sold in the United States.
You know, maybe those lower end drones that U.S. domestic manufacturers can still compete.
You know, something like that might be possible.
On the other hand, I think DJI needs to adjust its business model and, you know, prepare for totally forgetting about the US market.
There are other great markets in the world.
Drones are being increasingly applied and used around the world for both civilian and defense-related applications.
DJI is a dominant company in that space.
So I hope that DJI can still thrive in a global market in spite of the American ban.
Hmm.
Looking at the bigger picture of the China-US economic or trade relationship.
On one hand, of course, we're seeing this latest US ban on Chinese-made drones, especially those from the DJI, this Chinese company.
But on the other hand, the US, or the Trump administration, has just decided to delay planned new tariffs on Chinese drones, semiconductor products for at least 18 months, till the June of 2027, which some say signals that the Trump administration is probably seeking to cool any trade hostility between the US and China.
So what is your observation of the bigger picture, Professor?
And do you see this latest drone ban by the US FCC as a milestone in terms of the US-China strategic competition and technology decoupling?
Why or why not?
Well, I think these are two separate things.
I do believe that, after the summit meeting between President Xi and President Trump, Sino-US relationship is seeing some signs of at least, if not turning around, but at least stop from further sliding down.
I think President Trump does have a willingness to, you know, cultivate and maintain a a better relationship between the two countries.
He doesn't see the fierce competition and even borderline confrontation with China yields much benefits to the United States.
He has a very different view about America's China policy.
But nevertheless, I think the implementations of his thinking is quite problematic.
I mean he's essentially fighting against the deep state.
There are a lot of people within Washington, within the government, that essentially take fighting against China as their life career.
I mean, anti-China is an industry in itself.
And therefore there must be a lot of resistance in various branches of the federal government that don't think like that, don't have this vision, as President Trump does.
And I think this delaying of imposing tariffs is something that has already been worked out and negotiated.
So this is just a follow up on this.
Now, I view FCC's this ban as a little bit different.
I think it must be coming from people in a deep state, people who don't want to see a normalization of the two countries' relationship.
President Trump may know about it, may not know about it.
Professor Zhang Gong joining us from the University of International Business and Economics.
Coming up radioactive water leaks at Japan's decommissioned nuclear reactor, as the country is preparing to reopen a major nuclear power plant.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies.
World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics economics business, technology and society.
World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies.
I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Water that contains radioactive substances has leaked at a decommissioning site of a nuclear reactor in central Japan.
The Japan Atomic Energy Agency says the leak occurred on Tuesday and is now stopped.
A total of 20 milliliters of contaminated water leaked from a pipe during dismantling work.
The operation of the reactor, located in Fukui Prefecture, stopped in 2003, and it has been decommissioned since the year 2008.
The leak came a day after a local government in this country voted to restart or reopen a major nuclear power plant that has been in a kind of closure since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Rong Ying Chair, Professor at the School of International Studies, Sichuan University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
So first of all, let's clarify that this leak on Tuesday didn't take place in the nuclear power plants that Japan plans to reopen.
But do you think the leak itself should still raise concern about nuclear safety?
Very much so.
I think it definitely makes the news on the decision of the Japanese government to restart the decommissioned nuclear actors I think big news in terms of the concerns of the safety and the security.
I think, talking about the nuclear sort of reactors, safety things, one cannot but recall the images, the bitter memories of the disasters in the wake of the earthquake and tsunamis at March 2011.
And, as a former diplomat who had worked in japan, even though just six months after the uh tsunami, i mean the, the disaster i still clearly remember the concerns the, the stories that the images related to that.
So, and to make this, these concern even more, I think the restarted I mean the reactor that going to be restarted has also in the process of preparation for that has undergone at least two sort of occasions where raised the question of security and safety.
First one.
It was reported that back in 2021, when the decision was going, preparation was done.
Then they found that there are some serious security safeguard problems.
And the second one.
It was Again back in January, the 1st 2024, an earthquake took place in the nearby region.
So I think that raised many unanswered questions which definitely not only I mean recall the memories, but also the concerns of that wisdom and the safety of of nuclear reactor in Japan.
Yeah so, based on what you have elaborated, based on what you have said, we know this very Kishiwazaki Kiriwa plant that Japan prepares to restart or reopen is located some 218 kilometers away from Tokyo.
And once it is restarted, it will somehow help provide power and energy to the populous capital city.
Now actually, a recent opinion poll showed that more than 60 of the local residents here felt that conditions for this plant's reopening had not been met.
So why do you think the local government still voted to greenlight its reopening?
What kind of political message or messages do you think the local government wants to send?
Yeah, it is true uh, while the decision has made by the ninata um prefecture, i mean the parliament assembly, which cleared finally uh, cleared that uh, the decision, but in the meantime, as rightly said, that over 60 percent of the people that have been asked, i mean the opinion pool had they are not ready and over 70 percent of the public and they do not trust i mean the operator, the tokyo uh electrical power company, the typical to operate that, given the i think this the stories and also the irregularity that has been exposed in the wake of the fukushima daichi and back in march 19 2011.
And, having said that, I think the reason or the factor that contributed the decision, or the green light, looks like.
There are huge debate taking place in Japan.
At least I think those four, the decision goes like the several argument.
The first argument is so-called energy security argument, right?
Japan won't have to improve its energy security by uh sort of reactivating these, by reintroducing new act nuclear power which was shot and totally shot in the wake of uh the tokushima fukushima, daishi incident.
There are also argument for fighting the climate change.
They need, I mean, to fulfill its so-called international obligation.
The last, I think, argument which is very much related personal, I think the prime minister Dakaichi herself is a strong supporter of resumption of nuclear powers.
And the last one related to that is, I think, the financial problem situations of tobacco, which I think they would have thought that with the reopening of these nuclear actors they would have helped them to address problems.
In the wake of that.
So I would see that I can be say for sure that the local government uh ninata and a huge pressure, political pressure and, of course financial, uh so and other pressures to go ahead with that clearance.
So a lot of debates and very controversial decisions.
Yeah, so this very nuclear power plant that Japan is planning to reopen and this now crippled Fukushima plant I think it's important to note here that they have the same operator, this TAPCO, that you mentioned.
Now, probably one thing undeniable is that, on a national level, memories of the 2011 nuclear disaster are starting to fade in this country 15 years after that very accident.
So do you see this as a legitimate ground, as a legitimate reason for TAPCO to restart this plant?
No, definitely not.
I think the fading memories uh of the irregularities, of the problems of by typical i mean, were not the average uh japanese, particularly those uh victims, that has been affected.
There are still a lot of people.
They will have to be moved out of the, the region, the so-called uh their home, their homeland, their home.
They're becoming so-called exclusive uh sort of areas.
I think only those politicians pretend that their memories has been sort of they're not remember that.
And this is definitely a political decision.
And I think the only thing, if you look around and the only thing that the trust issue, I think the tobacco facing remains.
And I can see Again I know very well by reading and looking at the debates.
Following the debates, I think the public in general don't have any sort of trust of TAPACO in operating this actors.
I take your point.
So the final question before we let you go, Dr Rong, we know the Japanese government has a plan to double the nuclear parts of this country's energy mix to roughly 20 by the year 2040.
So how would you look at this particular goal?
Some say if Japan increases its dependence, its reliance on nuclear power, that will delay its transition to renewable energy sources.
What is your take briefly?
I think just an excuse for pushing that resumption or restarting of those commissioned nuclear reactors, and for political reasons.
I should have mentioned that Prime Minister Takahichi's idea or the position, for that you know, very much sway i mean determined by her concerns of the economic side, which i think should help campaigning on the reason that is the the resumption of nuclear powers nuclear sector will help drive down the cost of electricity bills and also help her to address the inflation problem.
So definitely it is not a safety argument.
It does not concern the safety.
Rather, it concerns her political agenda, the economic argument, which I think is really not good.
And politically selfish, maybe.
But thank you very much for joining us.
Dr Rong Ying Chair, Professor with the School of International Studies, Sichuan University.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
We'll be back after a very short break.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Kautz, says the government has no intention of establishing settlements in Gaza.
The statement is contradicting his earlier remarks that the Israeli military will never leave all of Gaza and plans to establish military units.
He said in his letter statement that this very reference to military units was made in a security context only.
Hamas has accused the Israeli Defense Minister's announcement of violating the ceasefire agreement and going against US.
President Donald Trump's peace plan.
Israel's Security Cabinet in the meantime has approved the establishment of 19 new settlements in the West Bank.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry has denounced this very decision as a dangerous move aiming to tighten control of a Palestinian territory.
So joining us now on the line is Professor Wang Jing from the Northwest University in Xi'an, China.
Thank you very much for joining us.
It's my pleasure.
So, first of all, in your understanding of the whole situation in real practice, is there any difference between establishing military units in Gaza and establishing settlements in Gaza for Israel?
Well, I think maybe from the Palestinians or from international perspectives, these things are the same, because this means the violation of Palestinian people's legal rights in the Gaza Strip and the direct challenge to the Palestinians' legal rights on the land of Gaza Strip.
But from the perspective of Israel or from maybe, the the possible opportunities for peace, i think we should notice that these remarks are quite different, because when we are talking about establishment of the military presence or, for example, the military bases, military posts, these things, that means these posts and presence could be withdrawn.
For example, that after 2009, when Israel decided under the Sharon administration at that time they decided to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza Strip.
They actually withdrew the military presence and just dozens of the families of Jewish settlements in the Gada Strip.
And so that's why, on the other hand, when they're talking about the establishment of the Jewish settlements in the Gada Strip, it means that the withdrawal of the Jewish settlements would be very difficult or nearly impossible, which means that I should also remind us that In 2005, when Israel decided to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip, military presence with your is easy.
But the major obstacle at that time was the rejection from the Jewish settlements there, although they were just maybe just one hundred families of the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.
But they become a very, very major obstacle for the unilateral withdrawal which finally led to the very forceful withdraw from the Israeli government to make them back from the Gaddafi.
So that's why we say yes.
From maybe the different perspectives there were some kind of no difference, but let's restress that it is actually different points and perspective hold by Israel.
So Israel is expected to head into an election year in 2026 and settlement expansion is likely to become a key political issue for the election cycle.
So is that a key context for us to understand the Israeli Defense Minister's latest remarks, as well as this latest decision by the Israeli Security Cabinet?
I think maybe the upcoming elections would be the major factor affecting the Israeli decision-makers' opinions.
But I think we cannot forget or ignore the very, very strong motivation in Israeli society that they hope that some kind of presence both from Israeli military forces and Israeli society could be maintained and could be restarted in the Gaza Strip.
Because actually, from Israeli perspective, the Gaza Strip threat is still there.
The Hamas is still there and might come back again.
So, when we are talking about the political motivations yes, there were some kind of the individual political leaders, their calculation, but I think the major points should not be forgotten and ignore is that the social political understandings are the major motivations that I think we should take into consideration.
So under this peace plan that was signed by Israel and Hamas in October this year, the Israeli military would gradually withdraw from the Gaza Strip completely and Israel would not reestablish civilian settlements in the Strip.
So I mean, if Israel ultimately fails to fulfill its obligations under this peace plan, what could be the consequences for Israel and beyond?
I think the peace plan is actually still far away.
Landscape, because right now, I think Israel is still focused on the very recent future, immediate recent future, the prospects.
From Israeli perspective, they believe that, on the one hand, they should enhance their security establishments that has already presence in the Gaza Strip, as well as further enhance and strengthen their military presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to protect them from further being attacked by the neighboring areas.
And also, on the other hand, I think, Israel still believe that it's very difficult to reach the comprehensive peace both with either with the Fatah of the Palestinian Authority or with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
So that's why I think maybe peace is a very future possibility, but I don't think the possibility is high.
So if the Israeli military does not fully leave Gaza or withdraw from Gaza, will that be helpful in terms of say, enhancing Israeli sides' wish regarding eradicating the Hamas in Gaza completely?
I think that's related to another issue.
It means that everybody knows that ceasefire right now and these really present in the Gaza Strip.
It should be understood as a very, very temporary peace rather than a permanent peace.
Because, as you mentioned, if we want to reach the permanent peace, we should establish a comprehensive ceasefire and comprehensive deal over, including withdrawal, including the kind of the security enhanced between Israel and the Palestinian people.
But I think in the Middle East, particularly in the issue of Palestinian Israel issue Actually, the temporary issues always become permanent.
For example, Palestinian Authority should be regarded as a very, very temporary political establishment that should be expired before 2000, I mean year 1999.
But then you lost it until now.
And, for example Israelis, their so-called Jewish settlement and their military forces.
West Bank should not be lost.
It should be regarded as the very beginning after the Third and the Fourth Middle Eastern War, but actually they are still lost until today.
So that's why the temporary thing in the Gulf Stream although we may believe they are not legal, they are not justified, but actually maybe from the realistic perspective maybe unfortunately, they will become more and more lasting, maybe permanent.
Thank you very much for joining us and for your perspectives.
Professor Wang Jing joining us from Northwestern University in Xi'an, China.
Coming up, Europe stands with Greenland as Trump threat is returning.
This is World Today.
We'll be back.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
European countries are voicing strong support for Denmark and Greenland in the wake of US appointment of a special envoy to the autonomous territory.
France Spain Belgium Slovenia Portugal, Ireland and the Netherlands, along with the European Union, have reaffirmed their commitment towards respecting Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland.
They emphasized the importance of territorial integrity and international law, stressing that the island's future is a matter for its people and Denmark to decide.
And the solidarity is coming after U.S.
President Donald Trump appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the new US special envoy to Greenland, citing the territory's strategic significance.
Both Denmark and Greenland have rejected any suggestion regarding selling this very territory.
For more.
My colleague Xiao Wen spoke with Dr George Zagopoulos, Senior Fellow of CIFE, a European research organization.
Professor Zougopoulos, President Donald Trump has recently appointed this special envoy to Greenland with the explicit goal of having Greenland become part of the United States and citing national security as a core concern.
In your view, is the US so-called national security claim a legitimate concern or a disguise for geopolitical expansion and resource plundering?
Well, to start with, President Trump reiterates from time to time his interest in Greenland, and the recent remarks made by the American administration, including the appointment of the ambassador to deal with the issue, are placed in this context.
Obviously, we are living in a world characterized by power competition.
And I would say that the American foreign policy vis-a-vis Greenland is linked to that.
So national security is certainly a frame that the United States is using in order to serve its interests at the international level.
And the Greenland question is placed within this framework.
Professor, we have noticed that Denmark and Greenland have jointly stated that the US cannot annex other countries and demanded respect for their territorial integrity, while the EU, including France, Spain and a few other Nordic countries, have shown a united front to support Denmark and Greenland.
Given that the US and Denmark are both founding members of NATO and share a strong defense partnership, how do you assess this unprecedented situation where a NATO member intends to seize territory from another ally?
And how will this incident shake the foundation of NATO's security framework?
Well, you are completely right in outlining the dynamics of the current problem between the United States and Denmark.
And certainly the unity and the cohesion of NATO depends on the agreement of its member states about several questions.
So, taking into account that currently the United States and Denmark are strongly disagreeing about the future of Greenland, it is indicative of problems which are existing between the two, with the capacity of those problems to damage the cohesion of the alliance.
However, it's also important to mention that the calls made by President Trump concerning Greenland will not necessarily lead to the annexation of Greenland by the United States.
So I would rather focus on the rhetorical tensions between the two rather than about deeds that could certainly have a different impact on NATO.
We have also observed that a recent report released by institutions from Shanghai, titled 2025 Trend of US-EU Relations, points out that relations between the United States and European Union have evolved into a new stage where structural tensions have become the new norm affecting security, the economy and ideological fields.
Under this background, the US attempt on Greenland has further exposed the rift between the two sides.
Do you think the dispute over Greenland will become a key trigger for the further deterioration of US-EU relations, where the current status of relations between the United States and the European Union is marked by several disagreements?
And certainly the issue of Greenland is one of those disagreements.
Obviously, Ukraine is the most important area and issue where the United States and the European Union cannot agree.
But generally, the European Union is concerned about the fact that President Trump does not value its role at the international level.
So I would expect that in 2026, transatlantic relations will still be characterized by that type of disagreements.
And as far as Greenland is concerned, what remains to be seen is up to what extent President Trump will proceed with facts because his policy is very often based on different statements which are not necessarily followed by practice.
So we have to wait and see up to what extent he will proceed.
Professor, some reports have suggested that the US has tried to infiltrate Greenlandic society through multiple means, such as sending high-level officials to visit and conducting influence campaigns, and the Danish Defense Intelligence Service even labeled the US as a potential security threat.
How do these practices of the US violate the basic principles of international law, such as territorial integrity and sovereignty?
Well, to start with, according to international law, the United States cannot annex Greenland, because Greenland is part of Denmark.
So for Greenland to become theoretically part of the United States, Denmark needs to agree, which is not the case right now.
But even in the future, if Greenland is to become independent, then the discussion obviously will be different.
But again it will be a matter of negotiations between a theoretically independent Greenland and the United States.
So according to international law, it is impossible right now for the United States to annex Greenland.
So this is what international law is suggesting according to the two different scenarios.
And then, with the increasing tensions between the US, Denmark and Greenland over territorial sovereignty, how do you think things will play out in the future?
Do you think the US will keep trying to influence Greenland, or will the pressure from the EU and other countries force the US to change its approach?
How do you think Denmark and Greenland will handle all of this when it comes to protecting their sovereignty and dealing with their international allies?
I believe that Denmark and Greenland will continuously insist on their standard position, which is that Greenland will not become a part of the United States.
And obviously, as far as Greenland and Denmark relations are concerned, the issue of the theoretical interest of Greenland to become independent will certainly be on the agenda.
So we start with that.
And as far as the United States is concerned, I would suggest that the United States is an actor which is active also militarily in Greenland.
And I expect the American presence to be solidified but not to lead to any type of annexation of Greenland.
So I expect the United States to continuously place emphasis on projection of power, not for this projection of power to lead to any change in the status quo of Greenland.
And lastly Professor, with US behavior.
What impact will they have in the global governance on the Arctic region?
Well, once again, I would say that President Trump insists on unilateralism because he believes that this way, American interests could be better served.
So, as far as the Arctic region is concerned, certainly this unilateral approach is is having an impact on the effort of other players and countries to work together.
And again we have to place that into context, because it's not only the Arctic region where this unilateral approach is to be tested, but other areas in the world.
So there is a big discussion, which is right now leading to a flourishing debate, up to what extent it is multilateralism and the UN framework that matter more, or the unilateral approach, and to what extent the latter might lead to more competition and conflict in the international system.
Dr George Zagopoulos, Senior Fellow of CIFE, a France-based European research organization, talking with my colleague Xu Yawen.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
China's electric vehicle battery giants are tightening their grip on the global market by taking automation to the next level.
At the world's biggest EV battery maker CATL, humanoid robots have begun working at scale on factory floors, performing high-risk and high-precision tasks.
Powered by AI and able to adapt in real-time.
These machines start work as China is deepening its push into advanced manufacturing.
Chinese battery makers now control nearly 70% of global EV battery installations.
So what does this new wave of embodied artificial intelligence mean for say productivity jobs, as well as global competition?
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Andy Mauck, a professor with Beijing Foreign Studies University.
So Andy, CATL has the world's first large-scale deployment of humanoid robots on its battery production line, and this production line is at its Henan facility.
So what makes this different from the conventional industrial robots already used in the factories, and what can they do?
Well, that's a great question, Zhaoyang.
So I think the headline temptation would be to say robots that look like people working alongside people.
And that is kind of eye-catching.
But I think what's important to point out here is that it really is the industrialization of embodied artificial intelligence.
So robots that can sense, decide, and act in the physical world under real constraints.
And I'll give you an example of why this is so important.
So if we look at modern electric vehicle battery packs, they run at very high voltages.
And if you make a small mistake it can have big consequences, not just in the factory but downstream.
So a battery may degrade faster than expected.
In the worst case, it can overheat or catch fire.
So it's very important to get this right.
And when humans do it.
Of course, humans can be very good at this kind of very precise, careful work, but people do get tired.
There can be lapses in attention, et cetera.
Also, people can get hurt, et cetera.
So you can replace them with robots.
What happens is, what matters more is not reduction in labor costs, but actually reduction of uncertainty.
So this is really, really important.
I think this is the real interesting thing that's happening here when CATL deploys humanoid robots.
And if humanoid robots can work three times the daily workload of humans and with a 99 success rate, what does it mean for a factory and how will it reduce costs for manufacturing sector?
Right.
Well, so you know again.
I think there are opportunities to complement a human workforce and that could result in less production expense in terms of salaries wages, benefits.
Certainly, I think that is certainly very possible.
But again, I think the really expensive part of running a factory is reduction in uncertainty.
So you avoid line stoppages, you avoid wastage or defects that have to be reworked.
And I think this is really what matters, especially when you're a company like CATL that is manufacturing, you know, just so many battery packs on a daily basis.
So this is, I think, an incredibly important advancement for advanced manufacturing in China.
And China already controls nearly 70 of the global EV battery market.
As CATL and BYD surged this year,
So what are the main factors contributing to these two companies' success?
Well, Zhang, I think they're pursuing very, very different business models and strategies.
So CATL really is positioning itself in an infrastructure role.
So it is customer agnostic, meaning it'll supply, you know, anyone that has a requirement and is able to pay.
They're also very, very process driven and scale obsessed.
And I would say here they're a lot like TSMC in that TSMC really said look, we're going to be the best, the highest volume, the lowest cost, highest quality chip foundry.
We won't do anything else.
So I think this is the path CATL is pursuing.
BYD, on the other hand, is winning through vertical integration, meaning that it does the batteries, it does other components, it assembles the cars, it distributes them.
It even sells them.
And the idea here is really deployment dominance under price pressure.
So these vehicles that they're creating regular vehicles, internal combustion engine vehicles which are being phased out, electric vehicles and ultimately, smart vehicles as well.
But they're really just competing to be price competitive globally.
And here I think one way we can understand BYD is they're a hybrid between Toyota, you know, which of course became very successful in the United States and globally by offering a very, very cost competitive, high quality product and Foxconn's scaling instincts.
I think they're pursuing two very, very different but, I could say at the China country level, complementary strategies.
And South Korean and Japanese battery firms are losing global market share.
So is their challenge mainly about technology, scale or what else compared with their Chinese counterparts?
Well, I think certainly it is not because of a lack of technology, but I think really the terrain has shifted or the game has changed, in that it really is about enormous scale, speed and iteration.
And here, uh, you know, again, as we've seen, I think there are different winning strategies.
Um, CATL is one, uh, BYD, uh, is another.
So, um, I think, again, this is, I think, what we see going on.
And some Chinese automakers are also moving quickly to robotics and automation.
The Cha'an Auto recently invested 32 million for a 50 stake in its robotics unit, and EV maker Xpeng just unveiled its next generation humanoid robots.
So are they moving into humanoid robots to stay competitive, or are they to redefine what a car company is?
I think it's really the latter Zhao Yang, in that I think what we're seeing here is that batteries, autonomous vehicles, factory robots, humanoid robots are really no longer separate domains, but they're actually converging into a single technological and industrial stack.
And if we look at say Xpeng, for example, going into the robot space, I think we can understand this as the view that autonomous vehicles really are just an example of embodied artificial intelligence or AI powered robots.
So if you can build a smart car, it's really not that great elite to build other kinds of embodied AI devices.
I guess we could call them.
And so again, it's really kind of a stack extension and that cars are really just the starting point and not the end point.
And in this way, we can see parallels between Xpeng and Tesla.
Tesla also said they're not really an electric vehicle company.
They also have these very grand robotic dreams.
But the question I think really becomes who is better positioned to execute at scale.
And you mentioned the autonomous driving and smart car.
China has recently approved two electric sedan models with level three autonomous driving systems for public road use.
So how significant is that in practical terms?
And what does it mean for the future development of the EV industry?
Well, you know again, I think we're here looking at not just electric vehicles, but autonomous vehicles.
And your level three just means that a vehicle can have periods of time where it is completely responsible and it's shared between human and machine.
So there can be switch offs or handoffs.
Now I think that it's important to point out that from a technological perspective, you know, this is not as significant, because we really are going into a world of level four or level five, meaning level four is where cars are fully autonomous within bounded regions, maybe a particular city, a particular district, for example.
Level five means that the car can drive itself anywhere.
So I think that is the ultimate endpoint.
But still, this level three development is important because I think it's a legal threshold and it's an important signal to say that China is moving forward from L2 to L3 and, I think, ultimately L4 and perhaps one day L5.
So this is also.
It signals to mass market companies that really This is a market they can feel confident in investing in.
So this would be suppliers.
This could be certification pipelines, insurance, et cetera.
Andy Mauck, professor with Beijing Foreign Studies University, talking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching for World Today.
And for further discussion, you can also follow us on X at CGTN Radio.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
