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, Hong Kong sentences Jimmy Lai to 20 years in landmark case.
U.S.
Justice Department is under scrutiny for revealing victim information and concealing possible enablers in Epstein files.
Israel's president mourns anti-Semitic massacre in Australia, where fury over Gaza still divides, and Saudi Arabia deepening ties with Syria through major investment package.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
First up.
The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has sentenced Jamie Lai to 20 years in prison.
Lai was an instigator of anti-China riots in Hong Kong in 2019.
He was found guilty in December on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials.
The court in Hong Kong issued a verdict in a national security case involving Lai and the three companies linked to the now-defunct Apple Daily.
The trial began in December 2023.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Wang Xingsong, associate professor from the School of Government West Beijing Normal University.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Wang Xingsong.
First of all, why are colluding with external forces and publishing seditious materials?
Fair charges against the Jimmy Lai.
Well, I think when a lot of people hear these charges, probably many would assume that they're about suppressing public opinions.
But legally speaking, that's not what the court is looking at.
And in most common law systems there is a clear distinction between expressing criticism and actively coordinating with foreign actors to pressure or harm the state.
So the same goes for sedition.
It's not about unpopular speech.
It's about conduct that incites hostility towards the constitutional order.
And in Jimmy Lai's case, I think the court examined whether there was a consistent pattern of actions like communications with external political figures, public advocacy aimed at foreign governments and related publication activities.
Altogether, these activities and evidence met the legal threshold set out in the law.
So the fairness of the charges comes from applying the existing legal definitions rather than judging someone's political stance.
Okay.
So, in other words, Jimmy Lai has a questionable statement when he says that he is a political prisoner facing prosecutions.
Well, that claim probably resonates emotionally, but legally it's a different matter, because political prisoner is not a legal category.
It's a political label.
From a legal standpoint, what really matters is whether someone was prosecuted under laws that were enforced and tried in a reputable court and given procedural safeguards.
So courts don't rule on whether someone's views are popular, moral, or political.
Courts rule on whether actions violated the laws.
Of course people can argue that the law itself is having issues, but the debate doesn't really automatically turn a criminal conviction into persecution in legal terms.
Okay, I take your point.
So why is this 20-year sentence effectively defending the rule of law in Hong Kong rather than destroying Hong Kong's legal system, in your opinion?
Right, that's related to what I just said.
I think the real rule of law is whether the sentence was imposed according to law after a proper judicial process.
And in national security cases worldwide.
Actually, courts often impose heavy penalties because the perceived harm is not about one individual.
It's about the risks to the entire system.
And the rule of law isn't about just guaranteeing leniency or based upon popularity of a political figure or whatever.
It's about consistency and predictability.
So if the courts were to adjust the outcomes based on political pressure or international opinion, what have you?
That will actually weaken legal authority.
So what could be the consequences if Jimmy Lai didn't receive a fair trial in this case?
Well, the consequences could be very serious if the trial had not been fair, because an unfair process would damage confidence in judicial independence and raise doubts about whether national security laws are being applied arbitrarily.
And that would weaken governance rather than strengthen it.
And this is why the courts, in sensitive cases like this one, emphasize on procedural formality, which means reasoned judgments, rules of evidence and the possibility of appeal.
And especially in national security issues, fairness is not just about the defendant.
It's about maintaining the credibility of the legal system itself.
So once the media say the case against Jimmy Lai has drawn international concern, is that the case in your opinion?
Well, there is no doubt the case has attracted international attention, but that attention isn't uniform or purely legal right.
Because much of the coverage is shaped by the broader political tensions between the Western countries and China.
That's going on.
And those geopolitical lenses often influence how the facts are presented.
For example, similar national security cases in Western countries, which also involve terrorism, foreign interference sedition secessionist, subversive acts, rarely receive the same framing.
So that doesn't mean you know.
I think it does mean you know we should read reports very carefully and distinguish legal questions from political narratives.
And media coverage often mixes the two.
So how would you look at Western media reports about this case in general?
Well, in general, I think the Western media is playing the talking points of Western governments which, in general, are looking at China from a lens that is oftentimes biased, because Chinese political system and Chinese political participation are not following the same pathway as the Western style or Western institutions.
And for that reason, and also for the reason of the rising geopolitical tension between China and the West, I think the Western media, as well as many Western politicians, are not able to play a fair hand when it comes to viewing and making comments about cases like Jimmy Lai's.
So, by the way, Dr Wang, what do you think listeners who have never or who have rarely heard about Jimmy Lai before should know about this person?
Well, Jimmy Lai is.
First of all, he is a corporate mogul behind a very influential tabloid-style media called Apple Daily in Hong Kong.
But during and after the 2019 Hong Kong riots, which seriously damaged the national security as well as social stability in Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai and his companies and his colluders all together worked with foreign governments to instigate more riots.
But more importantly and more damaging is that they worked with foreign governments and foreign elements to instigate more punishments and sanctions and and damaging activities toward China's interests, Hong Kong's included.
So this is why this case has attracted so much international attention, as well as Chinese attention, and it certainly applies to the national security of law in Hong Kong.
In a bigger picture sense, talking about Hong Kong's national security law under which the trial of Jimmy Lai has been conducted.
What do you think the law has really brought to the city over the past more than five years?
Well, from a practical governance perspective, I think the most visible change has been the return to social stability, because the prolonged unrest that dominated daily life in 2019 and afterward in Hong Kong really damaged the social stability and the predictability of Hong Kong being a An area featuring rule of law and predictability and attractions for foreign investment and so forth.
So these issues are now handled within the court system rather than through prolonged confrontation on the streets.
At the same time, I think the law remains a very important stabilizing force, because what it has done is to really bring national security firmly into an institutional and judicial framework where disputes are resolved through legal processes rather than ongoing social conflict.
Professor Wang, the final question before we let you go.
From an international relations perspective, Hong Kong, including this trial against Jimmy Lai, became a source of tensions or frictions between China and Britain several years ago.
If we take a look at some of the most recent developments, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led a very huge business delegation on a very high-profile visit to China.
It seems the bilateral ties between Beijing and London was warming up once again.
What do you think this tells us?
Well, what this tells us is that the overall structural relationship between China and the UK is going pretty well, because both sides feel that, under today's circumstances of ongoing geopolitical tension and uncertainties, both countries are seeing a lot of prospects of cooperating with each other.
And so Jimmy Lai's case.
I don't think it has any big influence on the bilateral relations between China and the UK because, if you think about it from the legalist point of view, in the UK the National Security Act passed in 2023 as even a stricter sanction and penalty on national acts involving national security dangers and threats.
And the UK law actually doesn't only pay attention to the impacts, but also to the risks and potential influences and intentions, which is even more strict than the national security law of Hong Kong.
In Jimmy Lai's case, the national security law which is being applied actually looks at the evidence of the impacts, which has fairly shown that he was behind many of the activities of subversion and secession.
So overall I think back to the China-UK relations I think the overall trajectory is going to be very prosperous.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Dr. Wang Xingsong, Associate Professor from the School of Government with Beijing Normal University.
You are listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Foreign tourists are flooding into China for Spring Festival, and the numbers are staggering.
Flight bookings are up over 400%.
Travel numbers from Argentina, Russia and Europe are all surging.
What's driving the boom?
Is Spring Festival becoming a global holiday?
And what does it mean for China's cities, economy and culture?
We break it down and share three must-dos for first-time visitors on this week's Chat Lounge.
Tune in wherever you get your podcasts and on CGTN Radio.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
The U.S.
Justice Department is under scrutiny for revealing information about many of Jeffrey Epstein's victims and concealing the details of individuals who may have aided the convicted sex offender.
Last Friday the department released what it said was the last of the Epstein files that it is required by law to disclose.
The documents have prompted widespread outcry about a continued lack of transparency and justice for Epstein's many survivors.
Attorneys for some survivors in this case have sent a letter saying that the DOJ's failure to properly redact the victim's information had triggered an unfolding emergency.
The documents released on Friday include the names of numerous high-profile figures who interacted with Epstein.
All have denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein and have never been charged by law enforcement with any crimes.
Some survivors say that the files appear to shield those who specifically enabled Epstein's abuse, as well as others who may have been named in the survivors' statements that were completely redacted.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Ina Tengen, Senior Fellow with the Center for International Governance Innovation, a Canadian think tank.
Thank you very much for joining us, Ina.
Thank you.
One survivor says that quote publishing images of victims while shielding predators is just a failure of complete justice.
There's this deep sense of betrayal when the systems meant to protect you becomes the one causing all of this harm unquote.
So, Ina, what is your understanding of this sense of betrayal and frustration here?
Well, it's real.
I mean, if you're one of the victims who was trafficked and there are many of them they feel outraged that once again they're being victimized.
This is very common in these kinds of cases.
But in this particular instance, you talked about this fact that when you start looking at the disclosures, they seem to have been carefully curated.
And obviously it's in the control of Donald Trump's administration and the people who work directly for him.
As a result, there are sneaking suspicions that the documents were literally searched and then names were erased or redacted.
And the reason they believe that is, if you start looking for something with a D-O-N.
Donald or something like that, you'll see that there are very some odd sentences in the documents themselves which indicate that there was a search and replace that went on there.
So right now, you know Donald Trump is setting up a legal battle and it's you know Congress is not taking this lying down.
They sense the American public is, you know, outraged.
Not only the victims, but people in his own base feel that there is a betrayal going on, a cover up.
And the indications are very strong that's true.
So I know when we talk about the published documents revealing information about victims, in this case, and concealing some of the possible details regarding wrongdoers or enablers.
Is this due to a technical problem on the part of the DOJ, for example, or do you see there is a deeper level systemic problem?
It's a deeper level systemic problem.
What you have here is, you know, you're asking if...
If you're asking my attorney and I'm the person being accused to deliver documents that will incriminate me, obviously as acting as my attorney, you're not going to.
You're going to try to push any kind of negative attention towards others and we've seen that and there have been repercussions.
I remember from Norway to Great Britain, etc., So, you know, there's real gaps here.
Now, people should understand what was released in these files.
They were flight logs, depositions and testimony from civil cases, contact lists and address books and court filings.
Obviously, in these court filings, you know, Donald Trump is part of those.
And it seems to be as much as possible, his involvement has been minimized.
So why is it out of six million documents is it seems that only the things that point towards other people in a very serious way are being actually disclosed, while others aren't.
Now,
The Justice Department is trying to say, OK, well, we have ongoing investigations.
Well, that's interesting, since you know you had a stream of his officials get up and say oh, there's nothing here.
There's nothing to charge anybody.
Well, how is it possible there's no one to charge?
And yet they're sitting on top of six million pages and all of a sudden they want to investigate everybody.
Uh who uh?
Well, not everybody, certain people and then use that as an excuse not to disclose their names.
So it's either one or the other.
Either there is nothing here uh, and you know the the files were read or there is something there, but you can't be halfway in between, and Congress realizes that, and that's why Donald Trump is is looking at his worst PR nightmare.
In these types of situations it pays to get out in front of a scandal, to disclose, take the hit and see if you can move on.
What he has done is set up that protracted situation where it looks like he's in addition to whatever he did, that he's trying to cover it up.
And this is not going to do well for him, especially as we start heading into these midterm elections.
Yeah.
So we understand.
The Congress in the United States forced the disclosure of the Epstein files after passing this, the Abston Files Transparency Act in November last year, despite President Donald Trump's initial objections.
And following this latest release on Friday, the bipartisan group of US lawmakers who pushed for the law's passage say there were still millions of files that should be released but have not been released yet.
So what is your take on this?
Do you think the latest release on Friday is the end of the fight over the Abston files?
No, it's as I was just saying, this is just prolonging the fight.
And with the additional part where it makes it, if there's anything in there that pertains to Donald Trump, it's going to make it look like this was a cover up.
The lawmakers are going to get at this information.
Currently, the latest offer from the Justice Department is they're going to allow congressmen to come to their offices and look at unredacted information.
Well, you know, this is six million pages.
How do you look at that?
It would take huge teams of people combing over all of them trying to do it, or a very, very thorough AI search, uh that type of thing, and obviously they're not granting that.
So there's a lot of suspicion here.
As i said, either there's investigations going on and you can protect uh, that work product, although the, the current law that they passed said no, you can't.
You have to give us everything, including the work product of the attorneys, the prosecutors you know what they were saying, the reports they made.
There were many, many reports that were referred to which said look, this guy needs to be charged and his accomplices need to be charged.
And all of a sudden that was completely ignored, especially by Attorney Acosta, who now works directly for Donald Trump in the administration.
He cut a very, very odd looking deal.
He's insisted on one hand that there is nothing there.
And, on the other hand, that this, this guy was too big a fish, that he might be connected to the CIA, etc.
So there are so many conflicting stories.
And this is going to drive the people who are pushing conspiracy theories and also those who want to know the answer.
Yes.
So, in other words, I guess it's very much uncertain regarding whether those high profile names included in the release the documents will be ultimately charged by law enforcement with any crimes.
So, Ina personally, and a final question before we let you go do you still have faith in the US judicial system?
Well, I do at a certain level, but not when it comes to politics.
Now remember, because this has been delayed for so long, the statute of limitations might run on certain crimes.
And so these people could be named, they could be shamed, but in certain cases they will not be able to be prosecuted.
There's a five-year statute of limitations on a number of federal crimes, and this is many, many years thereafter.
So, you know, in that particular case, I don't have any faith.
And you know, having been a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I've seen firsthand where power and influence can change what happens in the system.
But in terms of, you know, regular day-to-day things, it's generally pretty good.
It's just when you, as I said, when you exert power and influence in a society that is, you know, especially run politically on money and connections very, very difficult to see justice done.
And it's a shame these young women were trafficked.
And unfortunately, you know, many, many things died along with Jeffrey Epstein.
Yeah.
Your point's well taken.
Ina Tengen, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation at Canadian Think Tank.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Dingheng in Beijing.
We'll be back after a short break.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Canada has announced a new electric vehicle strategy for transforming the country's auto industry.
Prime Minister Mark Carney stressed the importance of a strategic partnership with China to further diversify trade and catalyze new investments in the country's automotive sector.
Under this particular strategy, the Canadian federal government is going to launch a five-year 23 billion Canadian EV affordability program.
For more, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Professor Qu Qiang from the Mingzhu University of China.
So, Professor Qu Qiang, thank you very much for joining us.
Canada announced a new EV or electric vehicle strategy for transforming the country's auto industry.
So tell us what's the details of it and why is it now think there are uh many details very interesting.
I think number one is affordability.
You know, program for the ev.
I think canada wants to spend five years uh, and about 23 billion of canadian dollars i think it's about 17 billion us dollar uh, you know, to carry out this whole plan and also, i think canada really they're down putting lots of investment in it here because they want to subsidize all the consumers who want to buy And actually if you are rentaling or if you are buying the fuel cell vehicles or pure EV, you can get more than 5000 Canadian dollars for the subsidies.
And if you buy a hybrid vehicle or plug-in vehicle, probably you're going to get half of that.
So I think this is actually very important.
Considering the fiscal condition for Canada government is not that good.
So I think this is actually a very bold move.
And also thirdly, I think they have adjusted their tariff to Chinese products imported into Canada.
So every year there are about 49000 Chinese EV can enter Canada market with the most favorable tariff about 61 and also 100 of the extra tax will be actually exempted.
Well, i think that policy has been since 2004 and now it's gone.
So i think that is a very important move because on after that leverage, you're going to see more uh, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of investment happening between china and canada.
Lots of joint venture is going to set up, a lot of the selling, selling channels has been set up.
So i think this is uh actually, I think we can call it a surprisingly amazing news.
Currently,
I think the reason why they're doing so, I think, number one, America is pressuring on Canada.
So Canada is actually a very brave country.
They always fight for their own well.
And I think Mr. Carney has just mentioned that we have to take care of ourselves.
We cannot control the others.
So i think this is actually a very, you know detailed move to respond to that.
And also i think canada also want to re-industrialize itself, because canada always featuring heavy industry or no industry.
For example, they have oil and gas and mining, but after that they probably wouldn't have much of the supply chain and you know value chain.
And now i think canada actually want to catch up with that, because Canada used to be one of the OEM country for America to build American car parts.
So actually, they have already got some automobile industry, you know, foundations.
And now they've been seeing that EV is the future trend.
And who is the champion in this area?
China.
So I think they want to see this moment and, you know, translate their whole industry towards the next future.
So how significant is this EV strategy in signaling a broader reset in Canada's China policy?
Well, I think this is actually a very, very important signal.
I think this is a fundamental change of the Canadians' policy.
Well, everybody knows that Canada used to follow America really, really closely, especially in Trudeau's government.
They've been closely follow america.
Actually they want to, you know, help america to curb china.
But now it shows that the government of canada actually has been splitting those whole policy you know from previous government and try to, you know, do a more partnership and a complementary you know relation with China and make sure that relations go back to the normal.
And also, secondly I think it's you know their own sovereignty and their own independence has been here and more.
So Ottawa actually are following absolutely more independent policy and diplomacy.
They don't want to follow America because following America only hurts Canada.
Hurt Canada, people right.
And also, I think, another thing is that you know Canada well.
Actually, everybody knows they are the neighbor.
They are one of the closest brother to America.
They are just, you know, two countries sharing one piece of turf and they have no border.
So everybody see them as close brothers, more than even just a friends or something diplomatic alliances.
And now they try to split with America.
It shows how much frustration Trump administration has bringing to all the Western alliances and breaking down of the traditional value of them.
So it shows that China's past you know this pragmatic, you know very neutral, very friendly, cooperation kind of a business model and diplomatic model actually has been winning the other countries respect and they want to work with China.
So I think this means not only just an EV or just some business opportunity, but also it means a huge reconstruction and recovery of partnership strategic partnership between China and Canada.
And also this is a major sign that China can work with more of the nations, regardless of your culture, your system institution, and we can build human community with shared future together.
And Carney said the Canadian government has agreed a new strategic partnership with China to further diversify trade and catalyze the new investment in the auto sector.
And, given China's scale and advantages in EVs, how will that benefit Canadian consumers and EV industries?
And how can the joint ventures with Chinese firms help Canada's rebuild its auto competitiveness?
Well, I think, number one.
For Canadian consumers, I think most direct benefit is just they can't see the drop of the price.
Well, everybody knows the Chinese auto bills EV.
Actually they are very compatible in the price versus quality ratio, right.
Very good quality, but also very affordable.
But the funny thing is that every country is fearing about that.
So they charge huge consumer tax.
Actually, after the import right, for example, a byd's vehicle in china, they only cost you like 20 000 us dollars, but when you sell to japan is 40 000 us dollars just double the price, right.
So actually this is a bad news for the consumers.
But Canada, when they decided to do so 61 of the tariff instead of 100 of extra tax this will much, much lower the price and help the consumers to afford it.
And meanwhile to grow the whole size.
The popularization of the whole market will be growing very, very quickly.
And I think we have already seen the precedent here is in Germany market.
You know, in German market actually, because they've been cooperating with China.
So they've been seeing that EVs, you know, sales has been growing more than 10 times, you know, in the last months.
So this is twice more than Tesla.
And also, I think secondly, it's about technology.
Carney actually admitted China has the probably most efficient EV technology.
And also, they want to work with China to build something together.
So I think that this is a good technology transfer process can benefit local industry, creating more jobs and translating into more of the salaries and a larger market.
This is not only China and Canada.
This is China and Canada go to the whole world.
So I think that is a very important diversification for the monopoly of the Western brands in the EV or even in the traditional auto market.
So we have lots of options to do.
So in the future I think they can get access to the largest supply chain in China all kinds of parts, all kinds of products, you know suppliers they can use to develop the canada industry.
And also they will find out more investment, more of the factory building, more jobs and more technology, and then i think the taxation and also the employment is just a good result after that.
So i think this is actually a win-win and win result for china and canada and the rest of the world.
Professor Qu Qiang from Minsk University of China, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
Coming up.
Israel's president mourns anti-Semitic massacre in Australia, where fury over Gaza still divides.
This is World Today.
We'll be back.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Thousands of Australians have attended protests across the country against Israeli President Isaac Haddad's four-day trip.
Rallies were held in cities including Sydney and Melbourne, with protesters condemning Israeli's military action in Gaza and questioning Australia's decision to host the Israeli head of state.
The Israeli president paid tribute to the victims of last year's deadly anti-Semitic attack at Sydney's Bondi Beach.
The Albanese government says the visit is meant to show solidarity with Australia's Jewish community in the wake of that very attack.
For more.
My colleague Xu Yawen spoke with Dr Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology.
Professor Powell, Israeli President Isaac Herzl is in Australia on a state visit that was meant to comfort the Jewish community traumatized by the deadly anti-Semitic attack in Bondi Beach.
But instead, it has stirred protests and reopened deep national wounds over the war in Gaza.
Why do you think the Albanese government decided this visit was worth the political risk?
And what does that decision tell us about how fragile social cohesion has become in Australia right now?
Well, it tells us that the Israeli lobby, particularly the formal Zionist lobby, has significant influence within the Australian political establishment.
And we know this because the governing party and the opposition party both have longstanding ties to the Israeli lobby.
So it's unsurprising ultimately, that the government acceded to this as a way of currying favour with the influential financial block.
It's not so influential as a voting block, though perhaps in one or two electorates it has some influence, but it is a significant financial block in Australia and makes substantial donations to the Australian political system.
As you say, it has opened up many wounds.
In fact, it is a more divisive move than it is a healing move.
The legacy of the atrocities in Gaza over the last few years remains seared in the minds of the vast majority of Australians, who are appalled by what they've seen.
And they have been similarly appalled by a government that has remained hesitant to silent in the face of this genocide.
The moves to formally invite the head of state of Israel, who himself has been accused of aiding and abetting or encouraging war crimes, really adds rubs salt into the wounds for many Australians, who believe that the Zionists have been prosecuting a genocide in Palestine and is something that Australia should condemn.
What's especially striking is that the backlash hasn't just come from activists on the streets.
But from within the Jewish community itself.
It's reported that over a thousand Australian Jews signing open letter calling Herzl not welcome and saying he does not speak for them, while other major Australian Jewish groups welcomed his visit.
So how significant is this fracture within the Australian Jewish community?
And how will this rift affect Australia-Israel relations moving forward?
It's quite clear that the Australian Jewish community is not unified on this particular question, in large part because many people, many Jews of goodwill, actually can see with their own eyes the atrocities that have been committed in their name and are unwilling to lend their name in support of those atrocities.
They have been protesting against the genocide for the past two years and in fact, have formed formal organisations to speak out on behalf of the Jewish community that refuses to buy into the mainstream Zionist narrative.
So there is a division in the Australian Jewish community, and it's understandable.
The actions of the Zionist regime are unconscionable as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, including many from within the Israeli community itself or the Jewish community itself.
The issue about the Australian-Israeli relationships.
I mean, it exists at many levels, like all relationships of this kind.
The formal relationships at a government to government level, I think, will remain relatively stable and robust, notwithstanding periodic um diplomatic ups and downs.
There's nothing there that would suggest that there is a fracture in the formal relationships at a state-to-state level.
But at a people-to-people level, i think there are some very serious issues that need to be recognized and in the medium term, these issues will remain problematic.
As far as australia israeli relationships are concerned, particularly as the atrocities in gaza remain there for the world to see and, in fact, arguably could get worse with the formation of the so-called Peace Committee, or what have you from US, President Trump?
It looks more like a property development group rather than a genuine multilateral peacekeeping mission.
So Australians are aghast at what's been going on and unsurprisingly, many in the Jewish community are horrified.
President Herzl says the trip is about resetting relations and pushing back against what he calls false narratives about Israel, after months of diplomatic tensions between Australia and Israel, including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly criticizing Albanians last year over Australia's recognition of a Palestinian state.
Is there any real chance a visit like this can actually face the bilateral relationship?
Look, I don't actually think the bilateral relationship at a formal level has been particularly affected.
Politicians on both sides of the fence in Australia remain firmly committed, in truth, to the relationship with Israel.
Politicians on both sides have been silent.
In the face of the atrocities, no one has lifted a finger or said one word in relation to Australian companies that continue to supply critical parts to the bombers that have been used to bomb Gaza.
So at a certain level, I think that the idea that there's a serious fracture is seriously exaggerated.
The real issue here isn't that.
The real issue is that the Australian community at large is appalled by what they have seen with their own eyes.
You can't hide the genocide that has been prosecuted by Israel over the course of the last two plus years.
It is impossible to deny that this has been happening and attempts to do so are treating people around the world as fools, and people will not tolerate it.
That's the real issue.
And the visit by Herzog really reminds people of the atrocities that have been prosecuted by the Israeli government in the name of Zionism.
This is not about a fair solution to longstanding disputes.
This is about wiping out a group of people for who they are, because the Zionists want to take the land for themselves.
And we've seen this for many decades.
And Professor.
All of this is happening as Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has announced that he would move up his Washington trip by a week to meet with US.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday and to wait in on US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman last Friday that Israel fears could leave its core security concerns unresolved.
So, when we step back and look at these moves together, what message is Israel trying to send through their high-level diplomatic outreach?
The Israelis are pushing hard for an attack on Iran.
This has been in preparations for a long time.
As we know, a 12-day war was conducted last year, and the 12-day war resulted in, I think, a number of very important things.
One is that, after the first 24 to 36 hours of disorganization, the Iranians push back and push back, decisively forcing the Americans and the Israelis to seek a cessation of aggression.
So we had a ceasefire.
But that ceasefire has been nothing more than a temporary stop to the hostilities because Ultimately, the Israeli government, together with the Americans, see the existence of Iran in its current form as a threat to their interests.
And the Americans have been for many decades focused on achieving regime change.
And this is something that is consistent with Iran. the objectives of Israel as well.
So, when Netanyahu visited Trump a little while ago, the aim was to urge the Americans to prepare, which the Americans have been doing.
The discussions, no doubt in Washington, will be around the timing and the extent to which the Americans and the Israelis will launch further military aggression against Iran.
And this is unfortunately the state of play in that part of the world at the moment.
And visits such as Herzog's aims to paper over the sources of conflict and paper over the fact that neither the United States nor Israel have any intentions whatsoever of achieving a genuine peace settlement that takes into account the interests of everybody.
Warwick Powell, adjunct professor with Queensland University of Technology, talking with my colleague Xu Yawen.
Coming up, Saudi Arabia deepens ties with Syria through major investment package.
This is World Today, stay tuned.
You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
Saudi Arabia has announced a major investment package in Syria, spanning energy aviation, real estate and telecommunications.
The package includes a fund that will commit about 2 billion to develop two major airports in the Syrian city of Aleppo.
In civil aviation.
A Saudi budget carrier has agreed to establish a new airline in the form of a joint venture with the Syrian side.
Saudi Arabia's largest telecommunications operator, will also invest some 800 million in Syria's telecommunications infrastructures.
These planned investments marked the largest such announcement since the United States lifted sanctions on Syria in December.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Fudan University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
So how much does Saudi Arabia's investment package here matter for Syria, especially Syria's new government?
Well, I mean.
Syria's reconstruction needs vast amounts of money, and Saudi Arabia's package alone, of course, it cannot meet all its needs, but it matters significantly because, on the one hand, This investment package covers multiple sectors, including energy aviation, real estate and telecommunications.
And, as we know, aviation helps improve connectivity, trade and also tourism and also diaspora returns for Syria, and also Tallycom enables digital economic growth of Syria.
So I would say this investment package will be helpful for Syria to create jobs and stimulate its economy.
And, on the other hand, this action also shows Saudi Arabia's political endorsement for the al-Sharaa government and helps it build international legitimacy.
As Saudi Arabia itself is a major regional power, its investment may drive more regional countries to invest in Syria.
Okay.
So in your observation, would you be optimistic that Saudi Arabia is going to reap long-term economic or business gains from its planned investments in Syria?
Well, I think this is a long-term investment strategy.
And so in the long run, Saudi Arabia may reap some economic and political rewards.
For example, Saudi Arabian companies stand to gain from operating concessions in aviation and telecom.
So these are sectors with growth potential once stability returns.
And it would bring passenger traffic data, transit routes between Asia and Europe and also related energy projects and real estate projects.
Also, we have to remember that Syria has strategic location, so it can offer long-term upsides.
For instance, it's very easy to get access to the Mediterranean region and also it has the potential to become a trade and energy corridor in the region.
So all these strategic importances aligns it with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 diversification objective.
But it is worth noting that Syria's economy recovery will be a long-term process.
And furthermore, it also depends on whether Syria can achieve long-term stability.
So, apart from economic and business perspectives, what could be the strategic consideration when we talk about Riyadh's active or proactive move to invest in Syria?
I think that is a very important point because obviously there are profound strategic and geopolitical considerations.
And the first strategic objective is to enhance Saudi Arabia's regional leadership and influence, because right now Saudi Arabia positions itself as a primary Arab patron of post-Assad Syria and it tries to enhance Riyadh's clout in the Levant region and broader Sunna world.
And the second objective is to secure stability and security, because Saudi Arabia wants to focus its economic development.
So it needs a peaceful and stable regional environment.
And it is very concerned about the spread of terrorism.
So from Saudi's perspective, a stable Syria helps reduce the risk of extremism spillover.
And also it supports Saudi goals of a more secure neighbourhood.
So, in short, I would say, cementing a friendly Syria helps Saudi Arabia reshape the regional balance of power.
Okay.
So, with Bashar al-Assad now gone and living in exile in Moscow, and also with this China-brokered repression between Saudi Arabia and Iran, do you still see possibilities for Saudi Arabia and Iran competing for influence in Syria in the future?
Well, I would say latent competition is likely, but not much.
On the one hand, as you have already mentioned, there has already been the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and both sides want to reduce the tensions between the two sides and focus more on economic growth.
And, on the other hand, we know that Iran suffered a major strategic laws with Assad's fall, as it loses a key pillar of the axis of resistance.
And also Tehran loses a crucial land corridor to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And of course, Iran today still remains and retains some influence in Syria.
However, with the United States increasing its military presence close to Iran and Israel, exerting military pressure on it,
I think currently Iran's strategic focus is primarily domestic, rather than extending its presence somewhere else.
So currently Saudi Arabia is also taking this sort of opportunity to strengthen its own presence and influence in Syria.
So, apart from Iran, how might other regional powers, such as say Qatar or Turkey, how might these regional powers view Saudi Arabia's investment and involvement in Syria?
My observation is that Qatar is very likely to view this kind of investment relations between Saudi Arabia and Syria as complementary with its own relations with Syria, because Qatar moved very quickly towards Syria in post-Assad's era and it tries to secure major roles in power generation, airports and banking.
So currently, both Qatar and Saudi Arabia share interests in a stable, Sona-led Syria and have coordinated on issues such as reconstruction.
Although the two sides have historical rivalries over issues such as the Muslim Brotherhood, current dynamics show more pragmatic alignment in Syria's issue.
As for Turkey's attitude, it's generally positive because President Erdogan has explicitly stated Turkey will work with Saudi Arabia on Syrian reconstruction and stability.
While Turkey has its own substantial stakes in Syria, has very strong influence in its north part.
But so far, there are no significant conflict of interest between Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Thank you very much for joining us and for your observation.
Dr. Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director with the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Fudan University.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
For further discussion, you can follow us on X at CGTN Radio.
I'm Ding Han in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
