Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomes more Finnish companies to explore Chinese market.
China ranks among global leaders in active AI patents, as IP-intensive industries play a growing role in economic growth.
And U.S. exit from key UN climate treaty criticized as self-septage by UN climate chief.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Ge'anna in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
Our top story.
Chinese President Xi Jinping says China welcomes Finnish companies to explore the Chinese market and enhance their global competitiveness.
During talks with Finnish Prime Minister Petri Orpo in Beijing, President Xi said China will continue to pursue high-quality development and expand high-level opening up.
He also emphasized that China and Europe are partners, not rivals, and expressed hope that Finland will play a constructive role in promoting the healthy and stable development of China-Europe relations.
For his part, Prime Minister Orpo said Finland is willing to deepen exchanges with China and contribute to the proper resolution of trade issues between Europe and China.
For more on this, let's bring in Dr Joe Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Dr. Joe, I'd like to start by looking at this visit from Finland's perspective.
Some media say Orpo has devoted most of his schedule to business meetings and his team is very selective.
What do you make of this?
And what are they saying about Finland's domestic priorities and why they came to China at this moment?
Well, I think that his actions are really representing the ideas of the Finland government on the businesses, on the relation between the markets and also some of the politics.
So in this regard, I would say that most of the activities that the prime ministers have attended are having something to do with businesses to discuss with Morfcom about the possible mechanism that between these two governments on how can we try to support the enterprises in a better and more certain ways.
So in this regard I think that is not just the temporary kind of reactions according to the fluctuation of the geopolitical reasons or other trade issues.
It is the idea of this government, very practical.
They want to try to find better connections with one of the major markets in the world and try to reduce their impacts from the uncertainties.
So the priorities, I think that are several priorities.
First of all, that is, how can we try to strengthen the traditional cooperation between these two countries, like in the agriculture, in the wood or timber related industries and in some of these equipment or machineries?
And another priority is about how can we try to give some of the innovative cooperation between these two countries.
So in my understanding that most of these activities are focused on this kind of two really important sectors, and I think that is not just for Finland or the companies from Finland, but also it's really needed for China, for Chinese companies,
President Xi says Finnish companies are welcome to quote-unquote, swim freely in China's market and enhance their global competitiveness.
How might Chinese market opportunities translate into stronger global competitiveness for Finland and other international enterprises?
Well, first of all, I would say that Chinese government is very firm about the innovation supporting policies.
They're creating a very important policy environment which the companies can do more.
Focus on the innovation, don't have to worry about the uncertainty of the policies.
And that brings Finland's companies more kind of technology support or kind of intelligence like the artificial intelligence support.
And second, I think that Chinese supply chains are really strong and widespread.
So the Finnish companies can cooperate with Chinese supply chains embedded in the supply chains to have a better and more predicted supply from the different materials to even some of the parts or intermediate products of these manufacturing products.
And the third one, I think the Chinese market is really important for the export of the Finnish companies.
And the Chinese market is getting bigger and bigger and the consumption is going to require more products.
So we can also benefit from importing more things from Finland.
I think that both parts are really benefited from this cooperation.
They will reduce the uncertainties and make its resources put in the cooperation more efficiently used.
President Xi has also called on China and Finland to deepen their friendship through cooperation in winter sports and the ice and snow economy, saying Finland is strong in this area and China is catching up fast, considering China's rapid growth in the ice and snow economy in recent years.
What practical cooperation can be expected during this visit?
And what significance does it hold for both countries?
Well, I mean, in my understanding, there may be two levels.
The first one is that the levels of the sports or kind of, you know, the athletes' cooperation.
Maybe we can try to introduce more coaches from China finland, and they can teach chinese company uh sorry, they can teach chinese athletes the better skills on dealing with the ice and snow related sports.
Well, the second is, you know, the sports to do with people, ordinary peoples, chinese people are really are trying to experience more things, like we call it.
The snow and the ice consumption is one of our priorities and it's very popular here in China.
So people can also go to Finland to enjoy their experiences about the snow and ice.
And I think that people from Finland also come to China to share their experiences.
The interchange of the people can also benefit for the consumption and to create better room for the trade and investment cooperation.
Dr Zhou, we know Finland has set a carbon neutrality target for 2035, aligning closely with China's dual carbon strategy.
So how will the two collaborate in this realm?
Could this cooperation go beyond business deals and lead to aligned standards and policies between the two countries?
Definitely, I would say that both China and Finland will have the same goal to try to make the climate change as least as impacts the economy and the society.
Well, Finland has its specialty in the water-related industries and also are good at the wood recyclings and many areas.
But China also have our special characteristics, like the new energy vehicles, the solar panels and wind turbines.
So for the corporation.
I mean it is so complimentary for both sides to reach the same or similar goals by both countries.
So I think that, based on these kind of complimentary advantages, we can try to improve the standards, collaboration and trying to make it good examples for different areas for the better and more sustainable development under the climate change challenges.
So for China and Finland, I think it's likely that we can not just try to focus on the ideas.
We can do more to improve the collaboration on the standard criteria levels and, which is real important for the companies to be involved in a more sustainable ways and have a more certain future of the ways or directions of development.
Apart from the areas we talked about, are there any other sectors where this visit has broken new ground or set up exciting new cooperation points between China and Finland?
I think that we mostly covered the mainstream, but there are still more things for both sides to discuss, because Finland is one part of the Eurozone, so it has very important infections in the Eurozone to have a stable economy.
Valuation of the euros.
And China is trying to improve our currencies usage in other countries and in international trade and economic corporations.
Maybe we can do more to have a better swap-based kind of mechanism, to have a settlement by both central banks.
Well, for another area, I would say that China and Finland.
We can do more on the marine economy and also on the water transportations, like what we are going to discuss about the Arctic.
You know less channels for the transportation or logistics.
We can do more to try to reduce the impacts of the geopolitical tensions in certain areas and do more to strengthen the cooperation between these two countries, while also benefiting the countries on the way between these two countries.
Dr. Jiro, one last question.
Orpol says It's important to keep EU-China ties constructive and wants Europe to have strategic autonomy while supporting free trade.
How do you see Finland's role in all this?
I would say it's one example, one very special one, because Finland is in North Europe.
Well, it's repressing some part of you know the eu or the europe parts.
They really want to do more to focus on the real problems instead of just some of the values or kind of other criticized the different culture issues.
So the cooperation between China and the EU are really huge.
We want to strengthen that cooperation.
We are going to support the companies to fulfill their target based on the market.
So, in this regard, I think that China and the EU we do have so many differences is true, but we can also benefit from the differences, because complementary advantages by both sides are really giving us more room or spaces to have a better collaboration.
We can try to stand, set up several rules, trying to benefit from the mechanisms like the, you know, certain kind of agreements.
I think that is very important for the world to benefit from.
Not affected by the uncertainty is caused by the so-called reciprocal tariffs or other protectionism.
Thanks for those valuable insights.
That was Dr Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
This is Road Today.
Stay with us.
Welcome.
I am Chuchu Zhang.
Deputy Director at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University.
On the World Today program.
We will dive beyond the headlines to uncover the stories, trends and impacts that connect states across the globe.
Join me on World Today.
You've been listening to Road Today.
China currently ranks among the world's leading countries in active artificial intelligence patents.
Last year, high-value innovation patents expanded significantly faster than overall patent filings, driven by advances in information technology, computer science and medical technologies.
Many of these AI patents are already being deployed in future-oriented sectors.
So with more.
My colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, a professor of economics at Willamette University.
So Yan, thank you very much for joining us.
China ranks among the global leaders in active AI patents.
So why can China make it and how meaningful is it, when we talk about technological leadership, in practical terms?
Well, I think this leadership in terms of the AI active patents, I think this is meaningful in the sense that, as we know, technological development needs to be really sort of adopted in the broader economy.
Right.
And to really serve the broader economy, because when it comes to, you know, high tech sector, it's not an isolated sector.
It needs to be widely adopted.
It needs to be diffused into the broader economy.
So I think right now in terms of AI, China and the United States are leading.
And even though I think the US still has some advantages in terms of their foundational research.
But I think China is definitely very quickly catching up in not only technology development but really excels in terms of speed and scale to apply AI technologies in the broader sectors and economy.
So I think, in this sense, China is not only able to develop AI, but really utilize AI to drive economic growth, to drive productivity growth and to really commercialize the value of these technological developments.
And so I think this is much more consequential than only having sort of a technology development in and of itself.
And patent-intensive industries now account for over 13% of China's GDP.
So what is driving this steady rise?
And what does it mean for the country's industrial upgrade?
Yeah, so this is a quite rapid development.
The paid intensive industries now has exceeded 18 trillion yuan in China.
So the share of GDP, as you mentioned, reached 1338 in 2024, which is a growth from the 1197 just in, you know, 2020.
So four or five years ago.
So I think you asked the question.
You know how this is.
I think again, for one is because China is very quickly developing its technological capacity to achieve the technological self-reliance to have innovations and breakthroughs in the tech industry.
And, on the other hand, it is again quickly applying these technologies into the broader economy, into the various industries.
So this is what you mean by patent-intensive or knowledge-intensive or tech-intensive industries.
So again, this is not just about development in technologies per se, but really in terms of applying these technologies.
So this is not only about know having a lot of tech talents or having you know large amounts of r d spending, but importantly is to have enterprises right and have these innovative entrepreneurs who are willing to adopt these technologies and quickly commercialize these technologies so able to, for example, develop the ai large language model, is one thing, but how you quickly apply this large language models in, for example, your e-commerce or apply it in your tourism industries I think this is where you can derive the real economic value from these technological developments.
Yeah, and China is filing co-patents in quantum tech, bring computer interfaces and 6G.
So which of these areas is most likely to deliver the real economic impact?
And how will they be touching people's daily life?
Well, I think all these three technologies that you mentioned really have great potentials to generate real economic benefits.
So I think, when it comes to 6G, China is now in the RD, but also in the standardization phase, with the goal to commercialize 6G by 2030.
And I think you know, this is really foundation for industrial Internet, for Internet of Things, for AI integration.
And China is now holding 40% of the global 6G patent applications.
And it is now launching test satellites using the 6G technology.
So in that sense, I think the 6G technology is really full of potential and could have a wide ranging impact, because it is a general technology that can be applied or to be utilized in all these various technologies, including AI.
So I think this is definitely an important technology.
Now, quantum technology, I think, again, that is also another general purpose sort of technology.
So there are a lot of practical applications, for example, in logistics, in financial modeling, in pharmaceutical discovery, and all of these are already having some applications right for these quantum computing technologies.
So right now, again, China is investing heavily in the quantum computing industries.
And so some of the applications are expected to scale up rapidly by 2027.
And finally, I think that the brain computer interface is experiencing also high growth.
It is still small in terms of the market size, but it is growing quite rapidly and is projected to reach over 500 million by 2025.
So it is considered as a very critical, the so-called future industry.
And so I think it will have, quite a bit of applications, especially in medical areas.
But I think its impact is probably a little bit less widespread than 6G or quantum computing at this point.
Yeah.
And at this year's Davos Forum, the conversation shifted from whether to how the AI will shape the society.
So what do you think has changed and how do you think AI will shape or reshape the society in the near future?
Well, I think the reason is that, you know, AI is no longer a concept and it's not at the sort of laboratory right.
Now AI is being developed and applied in various economic sectors, as we just mentioned.
So I think that's why you're seeing that AI is already impacting society.
So according to the IMF, they talked about how AI has already impacted 40% of global jobs.
So this could be positive or negative impacts.
So in a way, you know, AI is already very significantly affecting the job market.
And so with that, I think it's also affected many aspects of our production system, our lives, our society.
So I think there are definitely positive impacts of AI, because when you apply AI into various sectors right be it in the you know, for example, in education, in healthcare, in manufacturing, So the knowledge production, all of this produce certain positive impacts.
That said, I think there are also concerns about the negative impacts.
So at Davos, for example, they have produced a global risks report, and misinformation and disinformation is the fourth highest ranked risks facing the global economy and society.
So with AI, you could have this danger of misinformation and disinformation.
Not to mention, I think the job displacement effect of AI is also very alarming.
But I think at the same time, we need to implement policies, programs and ways to allow AI to also create jobs, to transform jobs rather than simply replace jobs.
So in a way, I think there are positive and negative impacts of AI.
And of course, another big, I think, potential negative impact of AI is the gap, is the AI gap.
I think the IMF, again, mentioned about this.
They talked about, on average, 25% of the population is using AI.
But in terms of Global South, the share is only 14%.
And for every one data scientist in Africa, there are 14 in Europe.
So as we see, the AI gap is widening.
So that could be another potential negative impact on the economy and society.
So, yeah, you mentioned the AI's impact on the employment.
And, from your perspective, how should China prepare its education and training system for the large scale AI adoption?
Right.
So I think there could be jobs that are created because of AI revolution, but definitely there are also jobs that could be lost due to it.
So, according to the World Economic Forum, they looked at, for example, job growth in various sectors.
And they point out, for example, AI and machine learning specialists, AI analysts and scientists and business development professionals.
Those are the sectors or the occupations that are likely to see net job growth.
Whereas when you looked at, for example, assembly and factory workers, or administrative assistants and executive secretaries, those are the sectors that are likely to see large decline in jobs.
And then you have some in the middle, like general and operations managers.
This sector probably will see some job gain and some job loss.
So I think the overall sort of takeaway from this is that I would definitely reshape the job market.
Right.
Some of this low skill, repetitive routine kind of jobs are going to be gone.
Even some of the entry level sort of white collar jobs are also in danger.
So what that means is that, you know, economies and societies need to be prepared for that.
So what that means is you need to rescale, upscale your population.
You need to prepare. you know, sort of general educations, right?
The educations that does not teach you one single skills, but really transportable and also more of the interdisciplinary and flexible, with the kind of skills that can, you know, move from one job to another.
So I think it's a major undertaking, I would say, to really think about the new sort of education system, the new job market and the new social safety net that we need to prepare ourselves from the risks of job placements.
That was Yan Liang, a professor of economics at Willamette University, speaking with Zhao Yang.
More to come.
Washington's immigration policy faces widespread opposition after the fatal shooting of another US citizen.
This is Road Today.
We'll be back.
You've been listening to Road Today with me, Gaena, in Beijing.
U.S. withdrawal from key UN climate treaty, the Paris Agreement, is expected to call the country significant benefits from global climate action.
Simon Steele, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, voiced concern that the US officially departed the court for the second time on Tuesday.
U.S.
President Donald Trump signed the executive order to leave the agreement on his first day back in the White House last year.
So, to delve into this and more, let's have Changhua Wu, president of the Global Climate Academy and the chair of the governing council at the Asia-Pacific Water Forum.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
First of all, the UN climate chief caught America's exit from the climate treaty colossal own goal.
Do you think that's just diplomatic talk or does it really show how the US is shooting itself in the food strategically and economically?
Where will the impacts hit hardest?
Well, it is a very strong language, but it is accurate.
And the own goal isn't moral, it is strategic.
As we all know, the US weakens its economic competitiveness, raising long-term costs for households, and loses the influence over global standards that directly affect American companies by withdrawing from the global climate system.
It's definitely harm will be done, and particularly from three perspectives.
Firstly actually, if you look at the industrial competitiveness clean energy EVs batteries, hydrogen grids, carbon markets you name it are all rule-based global industries.
Rules, standards, disclosure, and finance are shaped inside UN-linked processes.
If you're not there, others will set the rules and the US companies will have to adapt later at a much higher cost.
Then, if you look at the capital and the insurance cost perspective, climate frameworks underpin risk pricing in global finance.
So less credibility means higher perceived risk, which also means higher insurance premiums, borrowing costs and infrastructure financing costs there as well.
Then, if you look at the national security, climate cooperation supports stability in food system.
Migration disaster responses you name it.
Disengagement increases systematic shocks that directly affect the US security interests.
Basically saying you cannot win the next industrial race by walking away from the rule book.
That's where the U.S. stands today.
We know, Washington previously withdrew from the Paris Agreement and now it has further departed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a cornerstone of global climate cooperation.
Does this signify a shift from not participating in specific emissions reductions to refusing to recognize the global political framework for climate action?
How does the nature of this shift differ?
Well, to put in a simple matter, so withdrawing from Paris Agreement.
So Paris was about emissions targets, right.
UNFCCC and IPCC are about recognizing the system itself.
So when you withdraw from Paris Agreement, usually you're saying we don't like these commitments at all.
But then when you exit from UNFCCC and IPCC, Basically you're saying we don't recognize the global process that defines climate risk science and coordination at all.
So UNFCCC is the diplomatic architecture.
IPCC is the scientific backbone.
So leaving them is not a policy disagreement.
It is institutional.
Withdrawal isn't opting out of a policy, but the US literally has opted out of the system.
Within the United States, this decision has sparked a domestic debate.
On one hand, Washington emphasizes cost-benefit analysis and American first.
On the other hand, critics worry that by stepping back as global green value chains and new energy roles are established, the US is giving up global leadership in green tech and future industrial and employment opportunities.
How do you look at this debate?
Are these two sides really that opposed at heart?
Well, cost-benefit analysis is always legitimate, but the devil will be on the details.
It really depends on what costs you count and over what period of time, the time horizon.
The critics' concerns are very reasonable because we all know clean energy and resilience are growth industries, not niche sectors.
Global value chains are forming with or without the US.
Standards, taxonomies and procurement rules shape where factories are built, where capital flows and where jobs go.
U.S. now is out of the system, meaning America first doesn't mean America alone, right?
The markets don't really wait for the politics there, because major economies are pretty much aligning their trade, finance and the industrial policy with the climate frameworks already.
So you started to see the divergence actually between the U.S. and the rest of the world.
According to report, the United States has also withdrawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where American scientists have played a key role.
Does that mean American scientists are cut off from the world's top climate research?
How could this hurt science, forecasting and long-term competitiveness of the United States?
Well, the scientific community in the US has been hurt tremendously ever since Trump actually takes office in the last year.
And it's not because American scientists disappear, but really more about because American influence actually sort of dramatically diluted decreasing, declining there as well.
Particularly look at the Trump administration's budget for scientific research, which has been dramatically reduced there.
Now on the practical side.
Actually, we all know IPCC is the global reference points for disaster modeling, infrastructure standards, insurance risk, long-term investment planning.
Reduced engagement means less influence over methodologies, less access to shared global data and a weaker integration into global research networks.
So that's why this matters not only scientifically, but also economically.
On the economic side.
As we all know, forecasting accuracy affects grid reliability, agricultural productivity, disaster preparedness, even military and coastal infrastructure planning.
So, at the end of the day, science does not stop at borders, but leaders can.
That's where the American scientific community stands today, which is a really, really stuck and embarrassing situation.
One last question.
For ordinary Americans, what are the consequences?
Because recently, we know, winter storms across the United States have caused widespread snow, ice and extreme cold, leading to blackouts, travel disruption and emergency alerts to millions.
From a practical standpoint, what are the negative consequences of this for ordinary Americans today and in the future?
As you said, Americans are literally living in it, right?
Literally seeing, feeling the costs already today in the winter storm.
And on the Tickle side, actually, there are a few things to reflect this sort of rising costs.
One is the higher household costs, because the insurance premiums are higher.
Utility volatility, their taxpayer-funded disaster recovery they all add up actually to the higher household costs.
The Americans also started to feel weaker resilience because they have less access to global best practice on climate resilient infrastructure, slower learning from international experience.
And also it's reflected in economic instability.
Climate shocks disrupt the food, energy, water, logistics, you name it.
So costs are pretty much passed to consumers.
So at the end of the day, Climate risk shows up first on people's power bills and insurance statements.
That's how we feel it.
Thanks for the clarity and in-depth perspectives.
That was Changhua Wu, president of the Global Climate Academy and chair of the governing council at the Asia-Pacific Water Forum.
This is Road Today.
We'll be back.
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've been listening to Road Today.
Washington's immigration policy is facing growing backlash after the fatal shooting of another US citizen by federal agents in Minnesota.
37-year-old ICU nurse, Alex Prady, was shot and killed during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, marking the second fatal federal shooting in the city this month and triggering nationwide outrage.
Some Republicans have joined Democrats in calling for a full and urgent investigation.
Following a phone call with President Donald Trump, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey says some federal immigration enforcement agents will begin leaving the city on Tuesday.
So for more on this, Xue Wen spoke with Harvey Zoding, former vice president of ABC TV Network and a senior fellow of the Center for China and Globalization.
Harvey, Minnesota has now experienced two fatal ICE-related shootings in just three weeks.
Both in Minneapolis, a city with a history of strong opposition to tough federal immigration policies.
Why does this seem to be happening repeatedly in Minnesota?
Well, Yavin, this is a terrible situation, these shootings coming so close together.
The reasons are numerous, actually.
First, it's a state with an historic liberal tradition, like President Lyndon Johnson's Vice President Hubert Humphrey.
And this is a tradition that goes back really to the beginning of the 20th century, and that liberal state.
It's also though, a personal grievance of President Trump against Governor Tim Walz who, by the way, taught in Foshan China, some decades ago.
Now, Tim Walz was the running mate of Kamala Harris, And so Trump has a grievance against them.
Also, there's a large number of refugees from Somalia in Minnesota.
A few of them have been accused of corruption, but most of them are law abiding citizens.
But another reason besides the Somalians as a group is one person in particular, and that's the ultra liberal Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar.
And Trump does not like her, I guess you could say.
Now Trump hates immigrants, which is strange, because his grandfather Friedrich, was an immigrant himself.
And it's said that the apple never falls far from the tree.
So like President Trump, his grandfather was a draft dodger.
And he later went to Alaska and he opened up a hotel that involved prostitution.
And ironically, under President Trump and Stephen Miller's policies, the grandfather would never even have been admitted to the US.
I find that very, very interesting.
Well, let's look into the case this time.
Video evidence from the recent ICE-related shootings seem to contradict the federal government's claim of self-defense.
Video evidence from multiple angles show federal officer took gun away from Alex Preddy before opening fire.
So how credible is the federal government's claim?
And what impact might these conflicting accounts have on public trust in law enforcement?
That's not credible at all, because in his first term, President Trump had over 30000 verifiable, proven lies.
And this permeates his whole administration, both the first time and now.
But putting that aside, what's interesting here is that the federal government has not cooperated with local police both of them and state authorities, as was the case in the first assassination and I call it an assassination a couple of weeks ago.
So there's actually now even a state-sought injunction issued by a federal judge barring the investigation from destroying evidence.
So it's clear that there's a worry that evidence will be destroyed by the federal government.
And so this injunction intends to prevent that.
So, after the incident, Democrats accused ICE of systemic law enforcement brutality, While some Republicans and the federal government defend the actions as self-defense and label the victim as domestic terrorists.
How does this fragmented political response contribute to the escalating tensions surrounding the incident?
Well, some of them have actually said it's more than domestic terrorism.
Stephen Miller called the latest victim would-be assassin, which has no basis in fact at all.
It's their phony narrative.
But it completely does contribute to the partisan divide and does escalate tension in America.
So as I've said on many occasions, even well before this, We're the untied states of America.
There's a political divide, but Trump's actions are turning off more voters, and they're Republicans as well as Democrats as well as independents.
But I worry that Trump is doing all this to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow federal troops onto the streets, suspend elections and so on.
I don't think Trump is very smart, but I think he's smart enough to read polls.
And the polls show that his popularity is plummeting.
They started to plummet after the invasion of Venezuela and it took a big hit recently, most recently this weekend, with this assassination.
Then, beyond partisan disputes, as you have just mentioned, what gaps or flaws in the current oversight mechanism of ICE law enforcement have been exposed by these consecutive shootings?
And how can such mechanism be strengthened to avoid similar tragedies?
It's very easy.
If the United States Congress, the House and the Senate, where the Republicans have slim majorities would only do their job and that job is partly to provide oversight to investigate just such incidents.
I'm really horrified by these murders, but I'm very positive that because more Republicans, Republican lawmakers, are now pushing back against ICE and against Trump's shootings, that there will be investigations.
And in fact there's a movement in Congress this week, especially among Democrats, but joined by independents and some Republicans, to not fund ICE.
It's a deal that was made a couple months ago to continue the government's operation.
It may be that the government will have to be shut down for some period of time because of this.
But the situation has gotten so bad that these lawmakers some of them, and more and more of them are now willing to take the chance and to make sure that ICE is not going to perpetrate these outrages any longer.
And lastly Harvey, now with large scale protests, cross party political condemnation, including former presidents like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and also calls for investigation.
What do you think the likely political or legal outcome of this crisis will be?
And could it lead to changes in ICE protocols, or will they deepen the political division over immigration enforcement in the US?
Well, hopefully in the best case, but it may not happen, but I think it will.
There will be changes in ICE protocols involving both training and permitted conduct.
One of the things that Trump administration has done is devoted huge amounts of money to recruiting many of their base to become ICE agents and federal law enforcement.
But they've cut back on the amount of training.
They've cut back on the qualifications for these people dramatically.
You'd have to say that before the last couple of years, these officers were given sufficient training and they were selected for being good citizens, not for being partisans.
But today many of them have become Nazi SS stormtroopers with little training and many of them are ultra-MAGA.
What I find interesting is that one of the leaders even wears a trench coat reminiscent of Nazi stormtroopers.
But you know what, Yavin?
Life sometimes can be ironic.
The Trump border patrol leader is called Greg Bovino.
Now, Bovino in Italian means bull.
And this troubled man is full of hate.
He's full of rage.
He's full of BS.
Another thing I find ironic is that Trump partisans accused the victim here, the nurse, of carrying a gun to do harm.
But that's BS, too.
First, he was licensed to do so and second, it was the same conservatives that overturned the right of individuals to not be able to carry guns, as opposed to the militia, who were allowed to.
So interestingly, the National Rifle Association, who led the constitutional change to allow citizens private citizens to bear arms, They're now complaining even themselves about ICE action.
They're worried that ICE action may even end up infringing on this right that they fought so hard for.
That was Harvey Zoding, former vice president of ABC TV Network and a senior felon of the Center for China and Globalization, speaking with Xu Yawen.
A leading Chinese university has launched a new school of space exploration, underscoring China's broader push to secure technological leadership in space.
The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences says the program is designed to train talent in support of national priorities, including deep space exploration.
So for more on this, joining us on the line is Dr Zhang Fan, Associate Professor of Astronomy Department of Beijing Normal University.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Hello.
Professor, the report described the next 10 to 20 years as a critical window for China's leapfrog development in space exploration.
From a strategic perspective, what are specific gaps or bottlenecks in China aiming to overcome during this period?
First and most would be rocketry.
So the development of reusable rockets would substantially lower the cost of sending stuff into space.
So if you want to do substantial missions, you need lower cost.
And in the coming year, and not even the next 10, in just this year there will be two large national team rockets that will be tested, that will ultimately become reusable.
There's a whole bunch of commercial ones coming up as well.
Besides that, if you want to go further for example, you want to go to Mars carrying people with you, you want to get there fast enough, so you need to develop new propulsion technology, the so-called high specific thrust technology.
Um so, carrying very little fuel but pushing, giving those fields so much energy that it pushes, pushes you forward really, really rapidly um, so that kind of technology it still needs to be developed.
So that's uh, that's a more sort of a further in into the future thing and other things like in in situ resource utilization on the moon, and and And.
There's a whole bunch of stuff that needs to be developed, basically.
Then how will the establishment of the School of Space Exploration help address China's challenges going forward?
Right.
So this particular university is affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which contains a whole lot of institutes.
In particular, there is an institute called the National Space Science Center.
So basically, the students coming from this new college will go in there and what their task will be is not to develop the mature engineering stuff that the institutes from those space launching vehicle companies are developing.
So they're looking more towards science, the more frontier things.
So, for example, the propulsion technology, the in-situ sort of utilization stuff, the kind of thing that hasn't been a problem before, that people haven't been worked on before.
So they're one step ahead of anybody else in terms of the research topic.
We know talent cultivation becomes such a decisive factor in deep space exploration today worldwide.
How will this establishment of a new school address the long-term human capital challenges in China's space programs?
So China has always been very deliberate in terms of looking ahead, cultivating the people that's necessary for future sort of future missions.
And one thing that's really changing in the Chinese space program is in the past, because China is just trying to catch up in terms of technology to the US, to European nations.
It really is a technology driven approach.
So basically, once there's a breakthrough in technology and then people think of what kind of emissions can be done with that technology now available,
But right now, China is basically on par with everybody else.
So it is developing new technology.
So the whole thing gets turned upside down, it becomes a mission driven.
So people think of what's What scientifically viable, interesting mission would there be?
And then people develop technologies to accomplish that mission.
So with that kind of change in mind, so people with a broad set of knowledge in terms of deriving the scientific goals and evaluating whether the technology is available to do that and how to develop that,
So this whole interdisciplinary knowledge becomes necessary.
And this is what this college would provide.
Professor, we know the school covers 14 first-level disciplines, including aeronautics, astronautics and planetary science.
How important is this interdisciplinary structure for future breakthroughs in deep space exploration compared to where the traditional single discipline training?
So whenever you go to space, the demand of robustness and accuracy and all that becomes so overwhelming that it's never just a science issue.
For example, I had been in discussion to with the space agency to put sort of science monitors on the moon to detect gravitational waves.
And for that we discovered we need to know geology, lunar geology, of how the lunar sort of quakes work as noises, and where you put things.
And you need to learn optics design, materials design the materials that can withstand the cold and hot temperatures on the moon.
And then during the launch, there's vibrations.
And the demand from the space agency is that you need to withstand 1000 G, even though it doesn't really get there.
They need redundancy.
And all that it just boils down to.
It basically touches every possible element subject in the university that you may want to learn.
And we ended up having to learn not properly.
So this new college, the interdisciplinary college would provide proper training.
So the next generation of scientists trying to put stuff into space will be much more knowledgeable and capable than we had been.
Thanks, Professor, for those valuable insights.
That was Dr. Zhang Fan, Associate Professor of Astronomy Department at of Beijing Normal University.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
A quick recap of today's headlines.
Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomes more Finnish companies to explore Chinese market.
China ranks among global leaders in active AI patents.
As IP intensive industries play a growing role in economic growth,
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
I'm Guiana in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
