- 8 months ago
The China Now special program informs about this country's news. Telesur English presents a new episode of “China Now”, a wave media's production that showcases the culture, technology, and politics of the Asian Giant. China Now is a show that explores the past and future of the Asian Giant. teleSUR
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Hello, Telesur English presents a new episode of China Now, a Wave Media's production that
00:15showcases the culture, technology and politics of the Asian giant. In this first segment,
00:20China Currents dives into the top stories of the week as the US revoked Harvard's Student
00:26and Exchange Visitor Programme certification, varying international student enrolment and
00:31Chinese universities' extant invitations. Let's see.
00:39China Currents is a weekly news talk show from China to the world. We cover viral news about China
00:46every week and also give you the newest updates on China's cutting-edge technologies. Let's get started.
00:56Hi, welcome to China Currents, your weekly news report on the latest developments in China.
01:05I'm Chris, and in this episode, US revokes Harvard's Students and Exchange Visitor Programme certification,
01:11barring international student enrolment and Chinese universities' extant invitations.
01:17Chinese company Xiaomi debuted self-developed 3nm smartphone chip.
01:21China aided N'Djamena Stadium inaugurated in Chad.
01:26China's Fujian aircraft carrier conducts 8th Sea trial.
01:30New China-Europe freight train route linked Wuhan, China and Poti, Georgia.
01:35China held the world's first humanoid robot combat tournament.
01:38First, on May 22nd, the US government revoked Harvard University's Student Exchange Visitor Programme,
01:45that's SEVP certification, effectively banning the institution from admitting international students.
01:52Current international students were warned to transfer institutions or risk losing legal status.
01:58US authorities baselessly accused Harvard of improper collaboration with China and issued an ultimatum.
02:05To restore its SEVP status, Harvard must submit records of foreign students' alleged illegal activities over the past five years within 72 hours.
02:15Former US Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Emeritus Lawrence Summers condemned the move,
02:21stating it signals America's abandonment of its role as a global beacon of talent.
02:26Chinese students, comprising 20% of Harvard's international cohort, are expected to bear the brunt of the policy.
02:32At the May 23rd press conference, China's foreign ministry reaffirmed its opposition to politicizing educational exchanges
02:39and vowed to protect Chinese students' lawful rights.
02:43Multiple Hong Kong universities, including Hong Kong Polytechnic University, announced plans to admit affected students,
02:50offering scholarships and dedicated support teams to streamline transfers.
02:54Next, Chinese company Xiaomi unveiled a 3nm chip.
02:58On May 22nd, Xiaomi launched its first self-designed 3nm flagship processor, the X-Ring O1,
03:06powering its latest smartphones, Xiaomi 15S Pro and tablets, Xiaomi Pad 7 Ultra.
03:12This milestone positions Xiaomi as the fourth global firm,
03:16after Apple, Qualcomm and MediaTek, to mass-produce 3nm mobile chips.
03:21CEO Lei Jun reveals the decade-long R&D effort, with over 13 billion yuan invested since 2021,
03:30and a 2,500-member engineering team.
03:33The X-Ring O1 reportedly rivals Apple's A18 Pro in transistor density and process technology,
03:41while outperforming it in thermal management during intensive tasks like gaming.
03:46Professor Sun Chengliang from the Institute of Technological Sciences, Wuhan University,
03:51noted that a smartphone system on a chip integrates critical components like CPUs and GPUs,
03:58demanding extreme precision in performance and power efficiency.
04:02Xiaomi's breakthrough could accelerate the upgrade of China's semiconductor supply chain.
04:07And People's Daily praised innovation as a testament to Chinese private enterprises' resilience
04:12in a competitive global landscape.
04:15Moving on, China-aided Injiaminia Stadium inaugurated in Chad.
04:20Chad's president, Mahatma Debi, inaugurated at the China-aided Injiaminia Stadium on May 23,
04:26marking its official launch with a ceremonial kickoff on a football pitch.
04:31President Debi commended the initiative as a symbol of strong Sino-Chadian collaboration,
04:36founded on mutual respect and common vision.
04:38Chinese ambassador to Chad Wang Xining emphasized the project as a landmark of bilateral friendship
04:45and collaboration under the Belt and Road Initiative.
04:48Constructed by Shanxi Construction Engineering Group,
04:51the 33,000-square-meter complex features a 30,000-seat capacity, modern facilities,
04:58and multipurpose venues for football, basketball, and handball.
05:02As Chad's first stadium that meets Africa Cup standards and other major sports events,
05:07it stands as the largest Chinese-aided project in the country to date.
05:12Next up, on May 24, China Central Television News reported that China's first electromagnetic
05:17catapult-equipped aircraft carrier, the Fujian, is holding intensive sea trials.
05:23With the displacement exceeding 80,000 tons, the Fujian is the world's largest conventionally-powered warship.
05:30Since its maiden trial on May 1, 2024, the vessel has completed eight tests in just over a year,
05:37the latest in March.
05:39The rapid pace underscores both the smooth progress of trials and the carrier's robust design and construction.
05:45CCTV highlighted the ship's electromagnetic catapult system,
05:49which enables launches of heavier aircraft at higher frequencies.
05:53With a catapult carrier, fighter jets can take off with full fuel and weapon load,
05:58directly enhancing their combat effectiveness.
06:01The system's adjustable launch power also supports diverse aircraft,
06:05from transport planes to drones to early warning aircrafts, enhancing operational flexibility.
06:11Chinese military affair experts Chao Weidong stated that Fujian will significantly bolster
06:16the Chinese Navy's capabilities in coastal defense and long-range maritime operations.
06:21Expected to enter service by late 2025, the carrier will usher China into a three-carrier era.
06:28Next, on May 24, the China-Europe Railway Express Wuhan-Horgas-40 Tbilisi
06:34departed from Wuhan's CR Intermodal Rail Center,
06:38marking the first time the Wuhan-Europe route has extended the Georgia via a new Trans-Caspian International Corridor,
06:45carrying light machinery, agricultural vehicles, and construction materials worth approximately 14.82 million yuan.
06:52The train will exit China via the Horgas port, traverse Kazakhstan,
06:58and transfer by ferry across the Caspian Sea at Aktau port to Azerbaijan's Paku.
07:03It will then proceed by rail to Georgia's party in Tbilisi,
07:07completing the 18-day Rail-Sea-Rail Intermodal Journey.
07:11The new route represents a strategic expansion of the China-Europe Railway's Southern Corridor,
07:16enhancing supply chain resilience and reinforcing Georgia's role as a pivotal Silk Road hub at the Eurasian crossroads.
07:24By linking Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe,
07:28the service provides Chinese enterprises with a stable logistics channel to boost trade with Georgia, Turkey, and neighboring regions.
07:35To date, the Wuhan-Europe Railway Express operates 58 stable cross-border routes,
07:41connecting 120 cities across 40 countries in Europe, Central Asia, ASEAN, and East Asia,
07:47solidifying its position as a critical international logistics network.
07:52Moving on, on May 25, Hangzhou hosted the inaugural Global Humanoid Robot Combat Tournament,
07:58featuring fierce battles between four teams using unitary G1 robots.
08:03Operator Lu Xin's AI strategist claimed victory through precise tactical decisions and stable performance,
08:11securing the championship on points.
08:13As the robot participates the company's flagship humanoid robot,
08:17unitary G1 stands 1.32 meters tall and weighs 35 kilograms.
08:22It's equipped with advanced computing power and smooth motion control.
08:26According to Chen Xiyun, a marketing team member of Unitrobotics,
08:30Unitree G1 was designed to operate in environments that are challenging for humans,
08:36offering enhanced flexibility and agility in a compact form.
08:40The event of bold experimenting humanoid robotics tested extreme technical limits.
08:46Competing robots executed rapid, high-intensity movements, punches, kicks, and dodges,
08:52generating substantial impact forces and torque that challenged balance and structural integrity.
08:57Li Gaofeng, a researcher at Zhejiang University's College of Control Science and Engineering,
09:02noted that while the robot's performance exceeded developers' expectations,
09:06achieving practical productivity remains distant.
09:10He predicted the next breakthrough will focus on dexterous manipulation
09:14in robotic hands, tactile feedback, and operational precision.
09:18Well, that's all for the day.
09:19Thank you for watching this episode of China Currents.
09:22If you have any thoughts or comments, please leave them below.
09:25I'll see you next time.
09:35We have a short break now, but don't go away because we'll be right back.
09:39Welcome back to China Now.
10:01Today, Thinkers Forum welcomes George Geo,
10:04former Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Singapore government,
10:07and Albert Wang, current affairs commentator,
10:11to go deep into China's trade relations and challenges for upcoming years.
10:15Enjoy.
10:23Very quickly, because I can't resist, I just want some gossip.
10:27You are one of the most well-respected diplomats in all of Asia.
10:34We've read so many stories about you, heard your speeches,
10:37and also heard a lot of stories about your experience over the past few decades.
10:43What is your most, some of your most memorable times, personally for you,
10:49and with regards to China, and in relationship with Chinese state leaders?
10:53I was a young minister, and Lee Kuan Yeo was trying to teach me.
11:00So there was one year, I think it was in 1990 or 1991,
11:05George Bush Sr. was in Singapore.
11:09And a few days later,
11:10Yang Seng Kun, China's president, would be in Singapore.
11:14So Lee Kuan Yeo asked me to,
11:15he was, they had two private meetings,
11:17so he asked me to be the note-taker for both meetings.
11:20So with George Bush,
11:22the note-taker was Frank Scowcroft,
11:25National Security Advisor.
11:27And George Bush
11:28was U.S. ambassador to China,
11:31he was also CIA chief.
11:32And he, he meant China well.
11:36And he told Lee Kuan Yeo
11:37to pass a message to Yang Seng Kun
11:40to help him help China.
11:42Because Congress was making a big deal over MFN,
11:46most favoured nation status.
11:48So I took the notes for that meeting.
11:51Then a few days later,
11:53I saw the way Lee Kuan Yeo
11:54met Yang Seng Kun.
11:57And Yang Seng Kun
11:58was already elderly,
12:00he was his setback.
12:01But he was such a lush man,
12:03lush in spirit, you know.
12:05You could say anything to him,
12:06we can accept it.
12:08Because he had seen war before.
12:09He had seen deaths.
12:12And Lee Kuan Yeo told him,
12:13China should join GATT before the WTO.
12:16So you avoid this MFN yearly struggle.
12:22And Lee Kuan Yeo
12:22has some critical things to say about China.
12:26He meant it in a good way.
12:28Yang Seng Kun took it in a very relaxed,
12:30big-hearted way.
12:32I still have the notebook
12:33where I kept notes of both meetings.
12:35I'm a very bad note-taker.
12:37I don't write detailed sentences.
12:39I just make a few points.
12:40Then I write it up.
12:42That to me
12:43was a great privilege
12:45to watch two meetings.
12:48And Lee Kuan Yeo
12:48was respected by both of them.
12:52And he did not behave
12:54as if he was
12:55the Prime Minister
12:56of a small country.
12:58They respected him
12:59because he did not
13:00talk
13:01like the leader
13:03of a small country.
13:05He was respected
13:06because
13:07his mind and his heart
13:09embraced them.
13:11So that was very impressive.
13:12I was, at that time,
13:171991,
13:1954,
13:2137 years old.
13:23And it was a privilege
13:24to have been asked
13:25by the Kuan Yeo
13:25to be his note-taker
13:26for both meetings.
13:28And that led,
13:30that led subsequently
13:31to AIPAC
13:34and to many other things.
13:37Because China was
13:37recovering from
13:39the sanctions
13:41resulting from Liu Si.
13:44And Bush
13:46wanted to help China.
13:49Because at that time,
13:51there were other challenges.
13:53And from then on,
13:55that really kick-started China,
13:56fully joining
13:57the globalized
13:59trade,
14:00trading system.
14:01which took
14:02almost 10 years.
14:05And when I was
14:05trade minister,
14:06I was very involved
14:07in that.
14:08Not directly,
14:09but indirectly.
14:11China is ceded
14:12to the WTO
14:13under
14:14more exacting terms
14:17than any other
14:18contribution to the WTO.
14:20I know the people
14:21who were involved.
14:22Bob Zellig,
14:24Pascal Lamy,
14:25and they were
14:25negotiating for the US,
14:27for America.
14:29Japan had its interests.
14:32Other countries
14:32had their interests.
14:34And they were all
14:35afraid that China
14:35will swamp them
14:38with cheap manufacturing.
14:39So they gave China
14:40developing country status,
14:42which China deserved.
14:43But there are all
14:44kinds of constraints.
14:45They didn't recognize
14:46China as a market economy.
14:48After China
14:49joined the WTO
14:50in Doha,
14:50while I was there,
14:52I said,
14:52Kwangsheng,
14:53Longyang 2,
14:53they were all there.
14:54Everybody clapped.
14:56The following day,
14:56Taiwan also joined.
14:57It was part of an agreement.
14:59A few years later,
15:01Singapore,
15:02New Zealand,
15:03Chile,
15:03and Brunei
15:04established the TPP.
15:07I met Kwangsheng,
15:08I said,
15:08why did you join the TPP?
15:10He said,
15:12China already gave in
15:13so much.
15:13So when people today
15:17say that
15:18they should not have
15:19allowed China to
15:20China took advantage
15:21and, you know,
15:23they didn't realize
15:23that they
15:24pushed China
15:25to the limit
15:26for its accession
15:28to the WTO.
15:29No one knew,
15:30not even China,
15:31that China would continue
15:32to grow steadily
15:33over the next 20 years.
15:35So that by
15:36the beginning of COVID,
15:38at the end of 2019,
15:40China's economy
15:41had grown
15:41seven times
15:43in PPP terms,
15:45nine times
15:45in RMP terms,
15:47and 11 times
15:48in U.S. dollar terms.
15:50So China became
15:51very big.
15:52And during the
15:53global financial crisis
15:54in 2008,
15:56the G7
15:56could not
15:57create
15:58sufficient global demand.
16:01So the following year,
16:02Gordon Brown
16:02hosted a second meeting
16:04in London.
16:06And then all
16:0720 countries
16:07agreed to coordinate
16:08fiscal and
16:09monetary policy.
16:12And China introduced
16:13a 4 trillion
16:14yuan budget.
16:17And after that,
16:18you know,
16:18I read a report.
16:19In three years,
16:20China poured
16:21more concrete
16:22than the U.S.
16:23in its entire history.
16:25China was building
16:26everywhere
16:27to spend.
16:28It helped.
16:30So the
16:30global recession
16:31was shorter
16:32than it would have
16:33been otherwise.
16:34But it created
16:36enormous distortions
16:37in China.
16:39And it took
16:40China many years
16:40to
16:41smoothen out
16:43those distortions.
16:43Even until today.
16:45Even until today.
16:46Yes.
16:46So part of the
16:47property boom
16:48had its origins
16:49in those days.
16:51But China also
16:52developed infrastructure.
16:54I went to
16:55Xizhang
16:55in 2009.
16:58And before I went
16:58up,
16:59I called on
16:59the vice president
17:01who was Xi Jinping.
17:03He said,
17:03it's good that
17:03you're visiting
17:04Xizhang.
17:05It was after
17:05the Olympic Games.
17:06And I was the
17:08first foreign
17:09minister to
17:10visit Xizhang.
17:12And then
17:13they brought me
17:13to a
17:14Nung Ming
17:15house.
17:17There on top
17:18was a satellite
17:18dish.
17:20It says,
17:21donated by
17:22the state
17:23council
17:24and the
17:24communist party.
17:26I think this
17:26is part of
17:27the 4 trillion
17:28Bermuda budget.
17:30The satellite
17:31dish is for
17:32TV?
17:34Well,
17:34to receive
17:35satellite
17:35communication,
17:36television,
17:37radio,
17:37whatever.
17:37Oh,
17:38okay.
17:39But China
17:40was spending.
17:41Yeah.
17:41And China
17:42could spend
17:43at the time.
17:44But China's
17:45economy at
17:46that time,
17:47I think it's
17:48one-third
17:48China's economy
17:49today.
17:50So today,
17:51if there's a
17:52another global
17:52financial crisis,
17:53without China,
17:56the world
17:57will go into
17:58a deep recession.
17:59And US
17:59Treasury knows
18:00this.
18:02So even
18:02under Biden,
18:04Yellen was
18:05very careful
18:05to keep links
18:07with China,
18:08with Wang
18:08Qishan and
18:09so on.
18:12Because they
18:13knew that
18:13if there's a
18:14crisis,
18:15the US
18:16and China
18:16have to work
18:16together.
18:18And the
18:18US knows
18:19that the
18:19position of
18:20US dollar's
18:20reserve currency
18:21requires
18:22China's
18:23cooperation.
18:31My question
18:32is,
18:33in designing
18:34a global
18:35structure for
18:36the world,
18:37these institutions
18:38like the
18:39world economy,
18:40the world
18:40financial system,
18:41the international
18:42tax system,
18:43and so on,
18:45what should be
18:46our principles
18:47guiding that
18:48structuring of
18:49the world?
18:51And here I'm
18:51saying,
18:52if you are
18:53really a
18:54Rawlsian,
18:54which I'm
18:55really not,
18:55but if you
18:56are a
18:57Rawlsian,
18:58you should
18:58again emphasize
19:00the position
19:01of the
19:02worst off.
19:03We want
19:04whatever
19:05influence the
19:06global
19:07institutional
19:07order has
19:08on the
19:09world to
19:10be influence
19:11that favors
19:12the bottom
19:13position,
19:13that raises
19:14the bottom
19:14position as
19:15much as
19:15possible.
19:16And so
19:18that would
19:18be what I
19:19think a
19:20consequential
19:21Rawlsianism
19:22would imply
19:23at the
19:23global level.
19:25So why
19:26did you,
19:26like,
19:27normatively or
19:28philosophically,
19:29how did you
19:29come up with
19:30that statement?
19:31How is your
19:32process of
19:32argument that
19:34that kind of
19:35war will be
19:35better than
19:37maybe Trump
19:37wants a very
19:38unequal
19:39war?
19:39What's the
19:39argument behind
19:41all this?
19:41Yeah, the
19:41argument is,
19:42I mean,
19:43again,
19:43my work
19:44is really
19:45a two-track
19:47work.
19:48A lot of
19:49the work
19:49that I've
19:50done is
19:51simply within
19:52the Rawlsian
19:53enterprise.
19:54So I'm
19:54saying if
19:55you accept
19:56Rawlsian
19:57kind of
19:58approach,
19:59Rawlsian
20:00normative
20:00thinking,
20:01then you
20:02have to
20:03work it
20:03out in
20:04the correct
20:04way.
20:05You know,
20:05you have
20:05to follow
20:06the argument
20:07to where
20:07it leads.
20:09So on
20:10that inside
20:10track,
20:11I would
20:12simply say
20:12I accept
20:13Rawls's
20:14argument,
20:14the original
20:15position,
20:16the two
20:17principles of
20:17justice,
20:18the focus
20:19on the
20:19least
20:19advantaged,
20:20and so
20:20on.
20:21And I'm
20:22applying that
20:23argument
20:23internationally.
20:25Now, of
20:26course,
20:26somebody can
20:27say, but
20:27internationally
20:28there are
20:29many different
20:30cultures,
20:31they have
20:31different
20:31considered
20:32judgments,
20:33different
20:33intuitions.
20:34All that
20:34is true,
20:36but if
20:36we are
20:38as
20:38U.S.
20:40people,
20:40if we
20:42are
20:43convinced
20:43by the
20:44Rawlsian
20:44type of
20:45normative
20:46content,
20:47then we
20:48should be
20:49willing to
20:49take that
20:50normative
20:50content also
20:51to the
20:51global level.
20:53Or at the
20:53very least,
20:55if you
20:56want to
20:56have a
20:57different
20:57theory
20:57domestically
20:58and globally,
20:59then the
21:01burden of
21:01proof is
21:02on you
21:02to explain
21:03why not.
21:04That was
21:04my challenge.
21:05So if
21:07you are
21:07a Rawlsian
21:08domestically,
21:09you have
21:09to explain
21:10to me
21:10why you
21:10don't want
21:11to be
21:11a Rawlsian,
21:13have the
21:14same demands
21:14on
21:15international
21:17or supranational
21:18structures as
21:19you impose
21:19on domestic
21:20structures.
21:22Now,
21:22from the
21:23outside,
21:24I would
21:25not be
21:25as
21:26confident
21:28that the
21:29full
21:29menu of
21:32Rawlsian
21:33ideas should
21:34be globalized.
21:35And the
21:36reason,
21:36of course,
21:37is cultural
21:37diversity,
21:38right?
21:38So some
21:39of the
21:39considered
21:40judgments
21:41that Rawls
21:42relies on
21:42for his
21:43theory are
21:44ones that
21:45are not
21:46deeply
21:46entrenched
21:47in other
21:47cultures.
21:49So what
21:49I would
21:50say in
21:50my own
21:51voice at
21:52the global
21:52level is
21:53we should
21:54have a
21:55more minimalist
21:55theory of
21:57global justice,
21:58something like
21:59a theory
22:00that requires
22:01that global
22:03institutions
22:03must be
22:04designed
22:05so that
22:06all human
22:07needs are
22:07met.
22:08Some people
22:09would say
22:10human rights,
22:11some people
22:11would say
22:12human needs,
22:13some people
22:13would say
22:14capabilities.
22:16It's all the
22:17same thing,
22:18more or less.
22:18There are
22:19certain basic
22:19things that
22:20every human
22:21being should
22:21have,
22:22and any
22:23global order
22:24that avoidably
22:26fails to
22:27provide that,
22:28to ensure
22:29that for
22:29people,
22:30is morally
22:32defective.
22:33That was
22:33my main
22:35claim in
22:36the book
22:36World Poverty
22:37and Human
22:37Rights.
22:40So can I
22:41understand in
22:42this way,
22:42there should be
22:44no hypocrisy,
22:46there should be
22:46no exceptionalism,
22:47because what
22:48Trump is
22:49pushing,
22:49and I think
22:50for a lot
22:51of American
22:51presidents,
22:52we're pushing,
22:53maybe not so
22:53explicitly,
22:54I want it
22:56one way in
22:56America,
22:57because we
22:57are a guided
22:58city by
22:59God,
23:00we are a
23:00provided city
23:01by God,
23:02but only
23:02international
23:03will do
23:03whatever it
23:04takes to
23:04make sure
23:05we have
23:06that kind
23:06of exceptionalism
23:07on the
23:08states.
23:08So if
23:10Trump is
23:10saying,
23:10I will
23:11be a
23:12good student
23:13of Ross
23:13on the
23:14states,
23:15only because
23:16it can only
23:16happen after
23:18we achieve
23:19international
23:20hegemony,
23:21after we
23:21exploit all
23:22the other
23:22countries to
23:23ensure we
23:24can be
23:24just
23:25domestically,
23:26how would
23:26you argue
23:26against that?
23:27Yeah,
23:28so this is
23:28very good
23:30what you're
23:30saying,
23:30first of
23:31all,
23:31and very
23:31much to
23:32the point.
23:33So philosophically,
23:34there is a
23:35double standard,
23:36that's how I
23:37would call it,
23:37and it is
23:39that double
23:39standard that
23:40I was
23:41attacking.
23:41But I
23:42talked many,
23:43many,
23:43many hours
23:44with Rawls
23:45after I
23:46finished my
23:47PhD,
23:48and this
23:49exceptionalism
23:50that you
23:50bring out
23:51was deeply
23:52ingrained in
23:53him.
23:54he was
23:55not just
23:55a philosopher,
23:56he also
23:57studied history
23:57a lot,
23:58he was a
23:58great admirer
23:59of Abraham
24:00Lincoln,
24:01for example,
24:02and he
24:03had a
24:03very
24:04fundamental
24:05emotional
24:06belief
24:07that America,
24:09for all
24:09its faults,
24:10for all
24:11the terrible
24:12things it
24:12has done,
24:14America
24:15will always,
24:16in the
24:17end,
24:17come out
24:18on the
24:18right side.
24:19and that
24:21is not
24:21true of
24:22Germany,
24:22that is
24:22not true
24:23of Russia,
24:24that is
24:24not true
24:24of France,
24:25there is
24:25no other
24:26place that
24:27you can
24:28rely on
24:29to find
24:30the way
24:31forward.
24:32So he
24:32was very
24:33much against
24:34the Vietnam
24:34War,
24:35and he
24:35understood
24:36how horrible
24:37that war
24:38was,
24:38how many
24:39millions of
24:40people it
24:41destroyed and
24:42killed.
24:43He was not
24:44a person
24:44who didn't
24:46accept that,
24:46he acknowledged
24:47that,
24:48he understood
24:48that,
24:49but he
24:50said,
24:50look,
24:51we overcame
24:52it.
24:54The United
24:54States
24:55rid itself
24:56of Nixon,
24:57of that
24:58war,
24:58and in
25:01the end,
25:02after a
25:02long struggle,
25:04we managed
25:05to move
25:05forward.
25:07And what
25:08he would
25:08say now
25:09about Trump
25:10is, of
25:10course,
25:11is another
25:11question,
25:12right?
25:12But he
25:13would have
25:13thought maybe
25:15there can
25:16be something
25:16like fascism
25:17in America,
25:18maybe that
25:18can arise,
25:19but it
25:20will be
25:20defeated.
25:21He was
25:21a real
25:22optimist
25:23about
25:23America,
25:24and maybe
25:25understandably
25:26so,
25:26given how
25:27he grew
25:28up,
25:28and given
25:29the
25:29experience,
25:30that historical
25:32experience of
25:33America in
25:34that period.
25:35And if
25:37you think
25:38now,
25:38from the
25:39present point
25:39of view,
25:40if we have
25:41hope for the
25:42future,
25:43where do we
25:43place that
25:44hope?
25:44What is the
25:45progressive
25:46force in
25:47the world
25:47that can
25:49make sure
25:50that we
25:51survive the
25:52next century
25:52and can
25:53take humanity
25:54forward in a
25:55peaceful,
25:56harmonious way?
25:57I would
25:58say China
26:00is much
26:00more likely
26:01to succeed
26:02in that
26:03task,
26:03and I
26:04think that
26:05we would
26:06be in
26:07real deep
26:07shit if
26:08we didn't
26:09have China
26:09at this
26:10point.
26:11But that's
26:11not a view
26:12that Rawls
26:13would share.
26:13I think
26:14Rawls
26:14would,
26:15if he
26:16were still
26:16alive,
26:17would probably
26:17think that
26:18just wait.
26:21You know,
26:21Trump is
26:22horrible,
26:22but just
26:23wait,
26:24and America
26:25will get
26:26it right
26:27again.
26:29Yeah,
26:29I think that
26:30kind of
26:30thinking is
26:31pretty much
26:32rooted in
26:33the generation
26:34of Americans
26:34who have
26:35been through
26:36World War II.
26:36The American
26:37was portrayed
26:37as the
26:38big savior
26:39of the
26:39mankind,
26:40more or less,
26:41I would
26:41say,
26:41but when
26:43they do
26:43that,
26:43they exclude
26:44Soviet Union
26:44on that
26:46narrative.
26:47They also
26:47exclude a
26:48lot of
26:48what they
26:49did in
26:49the Second
26:50World War.
26:51The history
26:51is very
26:53one-sided,
26:54you know?
26:56So you
26:57were saying
26:58if we
26:59need a
27:00rewriting
27:01of the
27:01global
27:02order to
27:02achieve
27:03a more
27:03just
27:04world,
27:05we will
27:05need,
27:06like you
27:06say,
27:07institutional
27:07changes
27:08instead
27:08of,
27:09like I
27:09was
27:09saying,
27:10I was
27:10mistaken,
27:11like you
27:12cannot
27:12just help
27:13out others.
27:14There is
27:14one thing
27:15in China
27:16is like
27:17if you
27:18give one
27:19a fish,
27:20he will
27:20survive
27:20for one
27:21day,
27:21but if
27:22you told
27:22him
27:22fishing,
27:23he will
27:23survive
27:24for the
27:25rest of
27:25the
27:25life.
27:25This
27:25is not
27:26the right
27:27analogy
27:27either,
27:28because
27:28we are
27:29not giving
27:30a fish,
27:31we are
27:31not teaching
27:32how to
27:32fish,
27:33we are
27:34changing
27:34the economic
27:35structure.
27:36So for
27:36example,
27:36we are
27:37creating
27:37schools so
27:39that every
27:39child in
27:41China can
27:41go to
27:42school.
27:43We make
27:44sure that
27:45the children
27:45who go to
27:46school get
27:47meals in
27:47school.
27:48Every child
27:49on every
27:49school day
27:50gets a
27:50meal.
27:52That is
27:52structural
27:52change,
27:53and that
27:54is what
27:55moves the
27:55country
27:55forward.
27:57Because if
27:57you teach
27:58a person
27:59how to
27:59fish,
27:59you are
28:00still just
28:00dealing with
28:01one individual
28:02person.
28:02you are
28:04the
28:04savior,
28:05the rich
28:05person
28:06giving the
28:06poor
28:06person
28:07some
28:08skill
28:08or
28:08something
28:08like
28:09that.
28:09This
28:09is a
28:09higher
28:10level
28:10thing
28:10where
28:11you
28:11fundamentally
28:12change
28:13the
28:13whole
28:13structure.
28:14So instead
28:15of having
28:15some people
28:16who are
28:16the land
28:17owners and
28:17other people
28:18who are
28:19maybe taught
28:20by the
28:20land owner
28:21how to
28:21fish,
28:22you change
28:22the whole
28:23structure so
28:23that everybody
28:24can be a
28:25land owner
28:25or that
28:26maybe land
28:26isn't
28:27privately
28:27owned.
28:28This is
28:30really
28:30Marxism
28:32in a
28:32way,
28:32a Marxist
28:34approach
28:34to what
28:35really we
28:36need to
28:37achieve in
28:37society.
28:38We need
28:38to restructure
28:39it.
28:40So you
28:40have envisioned
28:41these kind
28:42of institutional
28:42changes in
28:44so many
28:44ways.
28:45You have
28:46proposed this
28:47idea of
28:48global resource
28:49dividend and
28:49the health
28:50and ecology
28:51impact fund.
28:52Could you
28:52explain to
28:53our Chinese
28:54audiences what
28:55exactly to
28:55envision in
28:56those
28:56programs?
28:57Yeah,
28:58these ideas
28:59they bring
29:00out that
29:01often when
29:03we look at
29:03the world
29:04we take
29:04its fundamental
29:05features for
29:06granted.
29:07And what
29:08I try to
29:08do is step
29:09five steps
29:10back and
29:10say it
29:12could be
29:12very differently
29:13organized.
29:14So let me
29:15start with
29:15the global
29:16resources
29:16dividend.
29:18Resources
29:19are the
29:21fundament of
29:22the entire
29:23economy.
29:23Without
29:24resources you
29:25cannot do
29:25anything.
29:26So you
29:27need minerals,
29:28you need
29:28energy and
29:29all this
29:29stuff.
29:30These
29:30resources are
29:32currently
29:32said to
29:34belong to
29:35the countries
29:36where they
29:37are.
29:39And that
29:39you might
29:40say should
29:40be challenged.
29:41Why should
29:42a country
29:42simply because
29:43it happens
29:44to be in
29:44a certain
29:45location,
29:45why should
29:46it own
29:47all the
29:47oil or
29:48the copper
29:49that is in
29:50that location?
29:50So, but
29:52the fundamental
29:53problem is
29:54that in
29:54our world
29:55these resources
29:56are exploited
29:57by elites.
29:59So the
30:00Saudis sit
30:02on the
30:02oil and
30:04it gets
30:04refined,
30:05it gets
30:05sold to
30:06Exxon or
30:07to Shell
30:08and elites
30:10are using
30:10these resources
30:11and the
30:13benefits go
30:14to the
30:15shareholders of
30:16Exxon,
30:17to the
30:17Saudi elite,
30:18but 99%
30:20of the
30:20world's
30:21population
30:21see nothing
30:22from these
30:23minerals.
30:24And what I
30:25was proposing
30:25with the
30:26global resources
30:26dividend is
30:27to say,
30:27look, at
30:28the very
30:29least, let
30:303% or
30:314% of
30:32the value
30:33of all
30:33the natural
30:34resources in
30:35the world
30:35be used
30:37to give
30:38to the
30:39poorest people.
30:40Let them
30:40be the
30:41co-owners
30:41of these
30:42resources.
30:43Let them
30:43be entitled
30:44to a share
30:46of any
30:46resources that
30:47are extracted.
30:48And if
30:50you think
30:51about it,
30:51that would
30:52obviously be
30:53a much,
30:53much,
30:53much more
30:54just
30:54arrangement.
30:55But we
30:55always take
30:56for granted
30:57that the
30:58resources,
30:59of course,
31:00they belong
31:00to the
31:00country where
31:01they are
31:01found.
31:02And I'm
31:03challenging
31:04that.
31:05So I
31:05designed
31:06that in
31:06great detail,
31:07a $300
31:08billion a
31:09year global
31:10resources
31:10dividend,
31:11which would
31:12essentially
31:13erase all
31:14poverty in
31:15the world.
31:15It would
31:16be enough
31:16at that
31:17time with
31:18those
31:18dollars to
31:20completely
31:21eradicate
31:21poverty.
31:23And it
31:24would
31:24essentially
31:25just raise
31:26the price
31:26of goods
31:28that have
31:29resources in
31:30them a
31:31little bit.
31:32You know,
31:32the gasoline
31:32at the
31:33gas station
31:35would be a
31:35little more
31:35expensive and
31:36so on.
31:37And poor
31:39people would
31:39participate in
31:40resource
31:40exploitation.
31:41But those
31:42prices already
31:42rigged.
31:43So even
31:44if we don't
31:45have that
31:46kind of
31:46dividend,
31:46the price
31:47is also
31:47rigged by
31:48the ultra
31:48rich.
31:49Of course.
31:49And what
31:51about the
31:51health and
31:52the health
31:52impact fund?
31:53Yeah,
31:53that's another
31:54one of the
31:55arrangements that
31:56we have in
31:57the world.
31:57This one
31:58is new.
31:58It was
31:59put in
32:00place in
32:011995 when
32:03the WTO
32:04was founded,
32:05the World
32:06Trade
32:06Organization.
32:07and part
32:09of that
32:09treaty that
32:10founded the
32:11WTO was
32:12the TRIPS
32:12Agreement,
32:13which stands
32:14for Trade
32:14Related
32:15Aspects of
32:16Intellectual
32:16Property
32:17Rights.
32:18It's an
32:18agreement that
32:19commits every
32:20country in
32:21the world to
32:23issue 20
32:24year product
32:24patents on
32:26innovations.
32:27So you're
32:28required to
32:29give these
32:30patents and
32:31you're required
32:31to enforce
32:32them.
32:33And that
32:33means if a
32:34new medicine
32:35is developed
32:36and these
32:37medicines are
32:38expensive to
32:39develop, so
32:39they are
32:40developed in
32:41countries like
32:41Switzerland,
32:42the US,
32:43Japan, never
32:44in poor
32:45countries, then
32:46the innovator
32:48of that
32:48medicine can
32:49patent it
32:50around the
32:51world and
32:52can sell it
32:53at a very
32:53high price
32:54because, of
32:55course, people
32:55want to
32:56live, they
32:57want to
32:57have to
32:58buy the
32:58medicine, and
33:00often the
33:00price that
33:01you pay for
33:01the medicine
33:02is a
33:03thousand times
33:04or three
33:05thousand times
33:06higher than
33:08the cost of
33:08production.
33:10So before
33:11TRIPS, Indian
33:12pharmaceutical
33:13companies, so
33:14called generic
33:15companies, they
33:17would mass
33:18produce medicine
33:19at a very, very
33:21low price and
33:22sell it.
33:23So every new
33:24medicine was
33:24available to
33:25Indians and
33:26available all
33:27around the
33:28developing world
33:29at very low
33:30prices.
33:32TRIPS cut that
33:33off and now
33:35the medicine
33:36reaches only
33:37five or six
33:38percent of the
33:39global population.
33:41For example,
33:42sofospovir, which
33:43is a recent
33:44medicine against
33:45hepatitis C, it
33:48is now on the
33:49market maybe for
33:50ten years.
33:51It is reaching
33:51five or seven
33:52percent of the
33:53people who need
33:54it because of
33:55the high price.
33:57So again, I'm
33:58saying this is a
33:59terrible system.
34:01Is there a
34:01better way?
34:02And I'm
34:03saying, yes,
34:03there's a
34:04better way.
34:05Of course, you
34:05have to reward
34:06the people who
34:07invest in
34:08developing new
34:09medicine, but
34:10you don't have
34:11to reward them
34:12by giving them
34:13a monopoly.
34:14You reward
34:15them by giving
34:16them a reward
34:17that is
34:18proportioned to
34:19the health
34:19impact of
34:20their innovation.
34:21The more
34:22people take
34:23my medicine,
34:24the more
34:24they benefit
34:25from taking
34:26my medicine,
34:27the more
34:28money goes
34:29to the inventor
34:30of the
34:30medicine.
34:30That's the
34:31much better
34:32system, the
34:34health impact
34:34fund system.
34:36So again, my
34:37objective is to
34:38say we could
34:39arrange things
34:40very differently
34:40in a way that
34:42is still
34:44feasible, works,
34:46incentivizes
34:47pharmaceutical
34:48research, but
34:49at the same
34:50time makes
34:51the fruits of
34:53that research
34:53available
34:54worldwide to
34:56everybody, rich
34:57and poor.
35:00and this
35:04was another
35:04episode of
35:05China Now,
35:06a show that
35:06opens a window
35:07to the present
35:08and future
35:08of the Asian
35:09giant.
35:10Hope you
35:10enjoyed and
35:11see you next
35:11time.
35:11listen.
35:13Transcription by CastingWords
Be the first to comment