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, Chinese Premier Li Qiang calls on the US Congress to facilitate bilateral cooperation.
Britain, Australia, Canada and Portugal recognize a Palestinian state.
Maduro wrote to President Donald Trump calling for Venezuela-US talks.
And President Donald Trump's H-1B visa crackdown is rattling prospects seeking to work in the United States.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes.
You can download our podcast by searching World Today.
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called on the U.S.
Congress to view China in a correct way, facilitate cooperation and play a constructive role in fostering China-US friendship and common development.
He made a remark in a meeting with a U.S. congressional delegation on Sunday in Beijing.
Premier Li said China is willing to work with the United States to achieve mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation.
He also expressed the hope that the US can work with China in the same direction to advance bilateral ties along the right track.
The visit of the US lawmakers to China followed a call between the top leaders of the two countries last Friday.
So for more.
Joining us now on the line is Dr Zhao Hai, Director of International Political Studies at the National Institute for Global Strategy.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Zhao Hai.
First of all, what do you make of the timing of this visit to China by the US congressional delegation?
And how can the U.S.
Congress play a constructive role in China-U.S. ties?
Well, thank you for having me.
I think this is a great time for US House delegation coming to visit China, because this is right after the two top leaders of two countries just had a phone call.
And before that, China and the US, has a relatively successful meeting in Europe talking about trade issues.
And also before that, China and the United States had diplomatic and military dialogue between the two sides as well.
So you can see, recently there's increasing frequency of communication that covers a wide range of issues.
So this is, I think, a very good time for the two sides also open a dialogue between the Chinese government, Chinese legislatures and US legislatures.
So for the US to work with China in the same direction to achieve mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and a win-win cooperation, what do you think is the first and foremost hurdle that the US side probably needs to overcome?
Well, I think over the past couple of years, one of the most important and also very difficult points that between US and China, preventing the both sides increasing cooperation and have a better mutual understanding and reaching a peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and win-win situation is precisely because the US lack a correct understanding of China's strategic intentions.
And also because of less contact between the two sides.
Many US politicians don't have a good idea what China really means today.
They don't understand Chinese politics, society, economy.
So they normally made wrong decisions based on wrong information.
So that's also why it's important for US congressional leadership and also their members, pay more visits to China, listen to the Chinese people and Chinese society and have a better understanding so that they can, based upon that, make correct policies towards China.
I see.
So in your observation of this phone call between President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump last Friday, Do you see an opportunity, realistically speaking, to improve China-US relations?
Yeah, I think it's very clear that both countries are the two biggest economies in the world.
At this particular moment, they need each other, not only on trade issues, but also globally.
We can see that global governance now is in crisis.
There's a lack of or a deficit of global governance in many areas.
Two countries need to work together to show leadership in this world to bring more peace and stability and prosperity, just like what the top two leaders talk about in their phone call.
However, how to get there is a major problem because, once again, US Congress did not play a very positive role in facilitating the cooperation between the two sides.
I think, after the president's call with each other, a US delegation coming to China is at the right time, because they can bring the message back and talk about more cooperation, how to get rid of the barriers between the two sides and promote cooperation on many aspects of the bilateral relationship, as well as global governance.
Now, of course, a key guiding principle of China's current foreign policy is to uphold and adhere to multilateralism.
And usually we tend to associate US President Donald Trump with unilateralism or undermining multilateralism.
But, based on his most recent phone call with President Xi Jinping, We saw a kind of message from Trump, like talking about the importance of US-China cooperation for world peace, for a better world today.
Is that simply for a diplomatic purpose?
Or do you think there is a change in terms of President Donald Trump's perception about the world's current multilateral governance system?
Well, I don't think President Trump will change his view or his method towards multilateralism, because I don't think he believes in that.
And I don't think that...
The U.S. domestic politics right now support more multilateralism and multilateral actions.
So President Trump, of course, talked about specific issues and there are specific areas that the United States might have an opportunity to work with China and to promote certain cooperation.
But in many areas, for instance like climate change, the Republican Party, including Trump himself, doesn't even believe in climate change, let alone, you know, cooperating with China on, for instance, COP 30 that is coming up.
So I think this In Trump's eyes, he's multilateral or more than bilateral, let's say, cooperation.
It's just focusing on what he needs politically.
For instance, solving the fentanyl problem, immigration problem, things like that.
And also right now, there's this continuous issue of Russian-Ukraine conflict problem in the Middle East, the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
So I think in many areas I think there's domestic challenge to Trump's foreign policy and therefore he probably needs more countries get involved to try to work together, solving some of the problems that he cannot solve alone.
Again, going back to multilateralism, it's not that the US government is suddenly turning around and abandoning unilateralism.
It's the other way around.
The pressure that they're under is asking them to change some of their policies so that they can move forward.
It's the movement that finds Trump, I guess.
So during this phone call, President Xi Jinping told Mr Trump that China will be happy to see productive commercial negotiations, in keeping with market rules, lead to a solution that complies with China's laws and regulations and takes into account the interests of both sides.
What is your understanding of the core message or the core messages from the Chinese leader?
I think also in the past couple of years and in particular after this year Trump took office, there is a continuous sort of overstretch of national security in US governments dealing with normal common business interactions.
So that's hurting both China and US at the same time and disrupting supply chains, preventing more technological cooperation and technology development.
And also in the long run, that will weaken global governance and global trading system.
That will lead to a lose-lose situation.
And that is on the contrary to what China and many Americans would hope for.
So I think the message to American side is very clear.
Let the business do their business and limit the national security to the realm that makes sense.
And don't expand that national security concern to all the areas.
And particularly do not let the competition so-called competition between the two sides expand into many areas that seems more and more like an overstretch under the name of national security.
So I think this kind of dialogue would make sense, because if the US House members their legislatures only sitting in Washington DC and not visiting China, they will not understand the scope of national security they were talking about.
They tend to just use national security as an excuse to intervene normal business.
And now, if the two sides can keep talking, having a good dialogue, then maybe we hope that they will come to a common understanding of how to carry out a good business and maintain the trade relationship and stabilize their bilateral relationship.
The final question before we let you go, regarding China-US trade.
Some people say President Trump himself is not in a space to impose new additional tariffs on China.
What is your observation?
Well, I'm not sure.
I think Trump is volatile, is unpredictable.
And from the past few months we saw that he tried to use tariff as a tool to carry out all kinds of policies, not just limited to trade, but also foreign policy, also domestic policy.
So there are many areas that Trump, if needed, wanted to use tariff.
At this point it's hard to predict whether or not he's going to escalate or deescalate.
Where he's going to put the final needle?
At what level of tariff?
So let's just say that hopefully, for the sake of both China and the US benefit, that the United States will negotiate with China, find a good solution and lower the tariffs as soon as possible so that those countries' economy and the world economy can benefit from a deepening cooperation between the two sides, instead of suffering from a very high tariff that is unnecessary and is not good, not beneficial to anyone.
Your point is well taken.
Thank you very much for joining us, Dr Zhao Hai, Director of International Political Studies at the National Institute for Global Strategy.
Coming up, Britain, Australia, Canada, and Portugal recognize a Palestinian state.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies.
World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics economics business, technology and society.
World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies.
I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.
You are back with World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Britain, Portugal, Australia and Canada have officially recognized the state of Palestine.
The four countries also say it is important to adhere to the two-state solution.
The recognition is marking growing international dismay with Israel over the country's nearly two-year assault and an aid blockade on the Gaza Strip.
Israel has criticized the move, saying the recognition rewards Hamas for its 2023 attack.
The 80th UN General Assembly in New York is beginning its general debate on a two-state solution.
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.
So to what extent do you think the actions of these four countries matter in terms of piling pressure on Israel?
Well, I think they have some importance.
We can see the actions of the four countries you mentioned in recognizing palestine somehow add pressure to israel, particularly as their western and european countries traditionally aligned with israel or staying neutral.
And right now i think they contribute to the broader international pressure by signaling the shifting global opinion on the palestinian israeli issue.
And also i think this kind of position, you know, has the potential to influence the other countries to follow suit and also amplify the calls for a two-state solution at forums like the United Nations and also in the international community.
However, as these countries still lack coordinated economic or military pressures, I think the impact will be very limited, so we should not over exaggerate the impact.
And also, of course, The actions will definitely affect Israel's standing in international law and trade, but we should also take into consideration that Israel has historically resisted such pressures through domestic consensus and the United States' support.
So in general, I think the impact will still be very limited.
Okay.
So, with regard to Britain in particular, what is your take on this idea being talked about by, for example, by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, that Britain bears a special burden of responsibility to support a two-state solution?
Well, exactly.
Actually, the United Kingdom plays a very special role in the issue of Palestinian-Israeli conflict because Actually, if you look at the history, Britain bear a historical responsibility due to its role in the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which actually supported a Jewish national home in Palestine.
And also its administration of the mandate for Palestine until 1948.
Also, to a certain extent, laid a groundwork for the partition and the ongoing conflict.
So this kind of special burden is often invoked by the United Kingdom officials today.
And if you look at the recent UK official statements, you will find that they frame recognition of a Palestinian state as sort of a moral and diplomatic obligation to rectify the past actions.
And my understanding is that, While historical reasons matter, I think it's more a rhetorical tool for the current policy, because I think that Britain's decisions are not driven by historical factors but in fact they are driven more by contemporary geopolitics, also the domestic pressure.
So, with this very last point in mind that you raised, do you agree with this point that recognizing Palestine is only a way to save face for certain Western leaders and that, if they want to get rid of this sort of criticism towards them, some concrete actions need to follow, such as sanctions or arms embargo?
Well, I partially agree with this idea.
Because, to some extent, recognition can serve as a face-saving measure for the Western leaders, particularly in the context where they face domestic criticism over their support for Israel, over their ignorance of the Gaza humanitarian crisis and over their double-standard manners.
And I think these actions allow them to appear balanced without immediate cause.
I agree that for substantive change it must be followed by concrete actions like sanctions or arms embargoes or conditional aid to Israel on ceasefire compliance etc.
Otherwise, it's largely very symbolic and rhetorical.
But even so, I would say, recognition still has its own importance because, at least I think, it further place the issue of the Palestinian state building on the agenda of the international community.
I see.
So, in response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed that there will be no Palestinian state, saying quote I have a clear message to those leaders recognizing a Palestinian state after the horrific massacre of October the 7th.
You are giving a massive price to terror, unquote.
Who do you think are the target audiences or are the target listeners of his words here?
I think Netanyahu has several target listeners, that is for sure.
So, that is to say, he's trying to talk to several sorts of audience because, on the one hand, I think his target is the international leaders and countries considering or enacting recognition of the Palestinian states, particularly the Western states like the UK Canada, etc.
But also many countries in the global south, in order to deter them from conducting further moves.
That is why he framed them as rewarding Hamas.
And, on the other hand, I think his other, also important targets are the domestic audiences, because it's aimed at the Israeli voters and his right wing coalition in order to show them that he's still taking a very hotline discourse and he doesn't care about the external pressures.
So I think it also signals to the US and its allies that Israel won't concede in order to show them the very hotline positions.
So, by the way, how much help do you expect recognizing the Palestinian state will offer, to say, to the mission of bringing new United Nations privileges to Palestine or helping reaching any settlements between Israelis and Palestinians?
Well, I think it is true that the international recognition of the Palestinian statehood can offer limited immediate United Nations privileges.
Because, as we know, the full UN membership requires Security Council approval and United States always allies with Israel, that's for sure.
So that makes the recognition of Palestinian statehood very hard.
However, recognition.
I think it still has its importance because it legitimizes the Palestinian statehood aspirations.
And also it enables bilateral negotiations and also it shows some kinds of diplomatic moral.
And also I think it shifts the narrative from if to when a state exists, because in the past people, actually they were hesitant.
They didn't know very clearly whether there is going to be a Palestinian state.
But right now I think they further strengthen these kind of aspirations.
And also, in this way, it makes occupation harder to sustain for a long-term period.
Between the United States and other Western nations?
How much diplomatic rift do you think is likely to emerge because of these other Western countries' recognition of the state of Palestine?
Well, I think the recognitions by allies like the UK Canada, etc.
Are very likely to generate a moderate diplomatic rift with the United States.
Yes, this can have an impact because they could manifest intentions at G7 meetings or NATO or the other Western forums.
Also, it can arouse public rebukes.
However, I think the rift is very unlikely to be very severe or lasting, because this is not the only disagreement between Donald Trump and Washington's allies.
And there are greater differences on many issues that they are more concerned about than the Palestinian-Israeli issues.
In the meantime, we have to take into consideration the shared strategic interests between the United States and its Western allies on many Middle Eastern affairs, such as the Iranian nuclear issue.
So they have some common ground.
And moreover, I think the other Western countries nearly expressed different voices, but they have so far not taken many real actions towards Netanyahu.
So I don't think this sort of rift will have a great impact on relations between the US and its allies.
Your point is well taken.
Thank you very much for joining us.
That was Dr Zhang Chuchu, Deputy Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Fudan University.
Coming up, President Maduro has written to U.S.
President Donald Trump calling for Venezuela-United States talks.
You are listening to World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You are back with World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
Venezuela has shared a letter from its leader Nicolas Maduro to U.S.
President Donald Trump that offered direct talks.
The letter was written by Maduro days after a U.S. strike on an alleged drug boat early this month.
President Maduro denies being involved in narco-trafficking, offering to engage in direct and frank conversations with US Special Envoy Richard Grenell.
The US strike killed 11 Venezuelans on the boat that the United States claims was being used to transport drugs.
The White House has not provided proof confirming that the people killed were criminals.
Venezuela has responded by launching military exercises in the region.
So joining us now on the line is Dr Cao Ting, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies, Fudan University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Hello, thank you for the invitation.
Okay.
So, Professor Tao, if it is true that Mr Maduro wrote to Mr Trump offering direct talks in as early as September the 6th, as we learned from relevant media reports, why do you think the Trump administration has not accepted Maduro's offer and instead has even conducted additional strikes, for example over the course of last week?
Well, actually, the action of the United States, I think, is driven by several reasons.
First of all, we know that Venezuelan President Maduro has long adopted anti-American policies and strengthened cooperation with some other left-wing governments in Latin America, such as Cuba and Nicaragua, and other powers outside the region such as China, Russia and Iran.
And so this makes the United States very unhappy.
Actually, the relationship between the two countries has broken.
Second, the Trump administration's hardline approach toward Venezuela is driven by domestic political considerations.
We know that the drug abuse problem in the U.S. is becoming increasingly severe.
So Trump has packaged military action as anti-drug justice measures which can gain broader social acceptance and approval.
Additionally, in key electoral states such as Florida, the Cuban and Venezuelan diaspora communities generally hold anti-Mazuro views.
These groups have relatively concentrated voting power and strong political capabilities.
By adopting a high pressure stance toward Venezuela, Trump can consolidate his conservative voter base and strengthen his support in the electoral politics.
So, in other words, I guess you would tend to argue that Washington's recent action in the Caribbean appeared to be more about regime change in Venezuela and less about intercepting narcotics.
Well, as I have said, Masoodo has long adopted anti-American policies.
So during his first term, Trump has put a lot of pressure on Masoodo, but failed to achieve his goals.
So in his second term, Trump aims to continue his hard-line strategy toward Maduro.
As we know, since the beginning of this year, Trump has rolled out a series of tough policies toward Venezuela.
And in January, Trump put the organization from Venezuela which is called Train of Aragua in the list of terrorist groups, laying out the groundwork for future military intervention.
And the US also announced the 25 tariff on countries that import Venezuelan oil.
And these measures indicate that Trump is escalating pressure on Venezuela, intent on removing Maduro from the power.
So if a so-called US narco drug war in the Caribbean ended up destabilizing the internal situation in Venezuela, How do you think that that kind of scenario would affect the US home soil in return?
For example, do you think that scenario would worsen the drug problem, the existing drug problem in America?
Well as we know, Venezuela has abundant oil resources and is one of the most important exporters of the oil.
And US oil imports from Venezuela play a very important role in escalating its domestic energy market.
If the situation in Venezuela becomes unstable, US domestic oil supply may be affected, leading to higher oil prices and increasing costs for consumers and businesses.
On the other side, instability in Venezuela could also cause a large-scale refugee crisis, which could also be a challenge for American society.
I think that the most important solution to the US drug crisis is to reduce the domestic demand for drugs, thereby eliminating the problem of drug smuggling at its source.
In addition to Venezuela, we know that many other countries, such as Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador, also have numerous drug trafficking groups.
As long as there is a demand for drugs in the United States, these drug trafficking groups will continue to smuggle drugs into the country.
And instability in Venezuela could also lead to changes in existing drug smuggling routes, as drug trafficking groups also may seek new ways to transport drugs to the United States.
So, by the way, Professor Cao, in your understanding of the situation, do you think there is any lesson that President Donald Trump could possibly learn from former US?
President Ronald Reagan's war on drugs in the 1980s?
We know that after assuming power, Reagan intensified the war on drugs.
Domestically.
His government relied heavily on harsh sentencing and his wife conducts anti-grab campaigns for teenagers.
And internationally.
He pressures nations across America and pursues cross-border drug enforcement operations.
I think, through Reagan's policy.
Although Reagan's policies created a powerful momentum against drugs in the short term and reduced the usage rates of certain substances temporarily, their reliance on punishment exaggerated issues such as regional violence and prison overcrowding.
Currently, as we know, the United States grapples with an opiates crisis.
The Trump administration needs to approach substance abuse more as a public health issue, rather than solely a criminal justice matter.
So this involves promoting sentencing reforms and emphasizing treatment and harm reduction strategies.
The final question before we let you go.
Do you think a direct military confrontation between the United States and Venezuela is likely in the near future?
We can see that recent statements from the Venezuela government indicate that Maduro attempts to have a dialogue with the US and prevent an escalation of conflicts.
However, the US has not responded to Venezuela's appeals and continued to increase its military presence in the Caribbean Sea.
As a result, I think the two countries may remain in the standoff for some time, with the risk of military friction still present.
And tensions during the standoff between the two countries could also lead to an unintended escalation, potentially sparking a broader conflict.
Regardless, an escalation of conflicts will be a significant threat to peace and stability in the Americas.
So China calls on the United States and Venezuela to engage in peaceful negotiations and avoid further escalation.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Professor Cao Ting, Director of Center for Latin American Studies, Fudan University.
Coming up.
Trump's H-1B visa crackdown is rattling prospects for seeking to work in the United States.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back.
Welcome.
I'm Elav Elad, Economics Professor and member of the Data Science and AI Center at New York University, Shanghai.
On the World Today program, you can find in-depth and impartial insight, as well as critical commentary, on key trends in the Chinese economy, financial technology, business and blockchain.
To prepare for the world tomorrow, join me on World Today.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
The US announcement of a drastic hike in visa fees for foreign professionals has sparked confusion and panic, despite later clarifications.
The White House initially said that it would raise H-1B visa fees to a staggering 100000 per applicant, arguing that the move would protect American jobs and ensure only irreplaceable, highly skilled talents get through.
The H-1B visa has long served as a critical pathway for foreign professionals, particularly in science and technology, to work in the United States.
But critics are warning that such a sharp fee hike could ripple far beyond the Silicon Valley, affecting international students, emerging startups and global talent mobility.
The White House later scrambled to clarify that the new fee would not apply to existing visa holders.
For more, my colleague Xu Yaowen spoke with Harvey Zeldin, former vice president of ABC TV Network.
Harvey, could you first briefly explain what exactly the H-1B visa is?
And do you believe this policy will effectively achieve its goal?
Or could it potentially harm America's competitive edge in the global talent landscape?
This is economic self-sabotage.
It's such an ill-conceived, such a poorly executed policy decision that it typifies the amateur nature of the Trump administration.
So what is this H-1B visa?
It's a non-immigrant visa.
It allows US employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that require a kind of theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge.
And typically it needs at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent.
The most common fields for these kinds of visas include science engineering, information technology and mathematics.
So they're really all cutting edge STEM fields.
But it can also be granted to fashion models of distinguished merit or individuals working on Department of War projects.
The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa.
It allows US employers to to temporarily hire foreign workers, especially in occupations that require theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge.
Requires a high degree of training.
We know major tech companies in America like Amazon Google, Microsoft and Meta rely heavily on H-1B visas.
So now, with the new fees in place, how do you see it impacting innovation, particularly for startups and smaller tech firms that may not be able to absorb these costs?
It's such an obvious question.
It's such an obvious mistake by the Trump administration because a lot of America's greatness throughout history actually and now, comes not only from immigration, but by cross pollination from other countries, not only refugees, but also people who have special skills.
And you can look back to some of the prior people who've been admitted under these circumstances.
People like Albert Einstein, who were subject to Nazi oppression, came to America, became so involved in the US and teaching in Princeton and all that kind of thing.
This H-1B visa is actually one of the great tools of America to have made itself great for so long.
And now Trump?
The man who says he's making America great again is actually making America intellectually impoverished again.
So all these companies that depend on innovation they're not going to have the innovation that they would have had if they had unlimited supply of qualified H-1B visa holders.
Another thing we have noticed is that there have been reports of chaos following the announcement, companies urgently calling employees back to the US and flight prices spiking and so on.
There is also legal debate over whether the president has the authority to impose such a fee without congressional approval.
So what's your take on the execution of this move?
That it's amateur night at the White House.
For example, the Secretary of Commerce, Howard Nudnick, said that this would be a fee, that would be an annual fee.
Then he changed his mind and said, no, it's not an annual fee.
It's a one-time fee for the duration of the visa and they said it was going to be applicable at one time, and then they changed the time.
So they seem to be making up the rules on the fly and to have made them up at the last minute.
And yes, there's a serious legal question about whether the president alone can declare, let's say, an economic emergency and then start doing what is constitutionally a responsibility of the United States Congress.
Trump has been doing this since he got into his second term And there's been pushback on other issues in lower courts, but the Trump administration is counting on the fact that this will have to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.
And maybe by then all the damage will have been done.
The net net is what Trump is doing is not making America great again.
It's doing just the opposite in the name of immigration policy and trying to save these jobs for Americans for whom there's not enough, people who are Harvey.
If we look into the numbers here Indians comprising over 70 of H-1B holders.
How might this reshape US-India trade relations, especially following President Trump's earlier tariffs?
And could this policy drive talent away to Canada or Europe, as some suggest?
I think it could drive this talent to other countries, including yours, and big time.
The policy is supposed to make America more populated with highly talented people, people who are innovating, but it's doing exactly the opposite.
So it's a gift from President Trump, although he doesn't know it, to many other countries who need the talent to compete in our new high-tech, multipolar world.
It's just inexplicable.
Lastly, Harvey.
Beyond the immediate chaos, could this move permanently reduce international student enrollment in the US-themed programs, such as in science technology, engineering and mathematics?
And how might another order, the Gold Card program for wealthy migrants, reshape the broader narrative of US openness to global talent?
These are just elements in a very stupid policy with a faulty premise.
The premise of all these policies are that there are so many Americans just waiting around to get these high tech innovation jobs that, as soon as we get rid of all the foreigners in America, that the jobs slots are just going to be plugged in by Americans ready, willing and able to work.
But that's not the case.
So it's been true.
It is true.
It will be true that America is made stronger by having a combination of homegrown talent and foreign talent.
And the U.S. is just shooting itself in the foot.
There's no other way to look at it than that.
Harvey Zoldan, former vice president of ABC TV Network, talking with my colleague Xu Yaowen.
You're listening to World Today.
We'll be back.
You're back with World Today.
I'm Ding Hen in Beijing.
A German scholar recently made headlines in his own country for publishing his findings about Xinjiang.
George Gask is a professor of Chinese law with Osnabrück University in Germany.
Professor Gask is fluent in Chinese mannering and has closely followed the evolution of China's legal system since reform and opening.
After writing a book based on his research trip to Xinjiang with four fellow German scholars, he was attacked in a six-page article published in a leading German newspaper.
What was going on?
My colleague Liu Xin had an exclusive interview with this German professor.
In 2023, you and four other German scholars went on a trip to Xinjiang.
You spent a couple of days and you met top officials as well as you visited different sites, you did your discussion, and so on and so forth.
How did that visit come about and what did you see During that trip?
Can you recall some of the most memorable moments or people or experience you had during that trip?
Well, as far as I can remember, Thomas Hever, one of our group, did talk to the consulate general, probably or at least somebody from the consulate in Düsseldorf and said well, maybe go to Xinjiang and just look for ourselves what's going on.
So maybe the whole discussion could be more, more substantial and not so confrontational and the consulate was very supportive and said yes, that's a good idea, we will support you.
So he had some friends, and friends asked other friends.
So in the end we ended up with 12 people on the list who said OK, we might be interested in going there.
Then some dropped out again because One is vice president of a university and others said oh, you cannot do this because in case there is a shitstorm, you cannot go there.
So some people opted out, but at least six went on the trip and we did some field research.
Yeah.
In terms of academic research, your academic interests.
What would you say it is the biggest takeaway from this trip for you.
For me it was a very interesting experience to be at the regional people's congress and to talk with people with very different representatives of the judiciary and the legislature, and to have a real dialogue.
First they gave us an introduction into their point of view and then we had been able to ask.
As a legal scholar, this was for me, this was one of the most informative talks.
But there had been other things like sometimes it's a very small episode.
You see, we had been at a factory and then we went to some schools and so on.
At one school where people had professional training.
We went back to our And it was only five minutes small talk.
But I told them, well, I've been dean in Taiwan and I had some students who had been drug addicts.
And I knew that.
And I know I have to keep them secret.
I can't just tell others, oh, look at these.
They are nasty guys.
But I cannot ignore this.
So I have to have some kind of precautions.
And I said well from that kind of experience, I'm very interested in how do they deal when they know that the student might be at some stage in his development, being involved with extremist thoughts, because you have a similar situation.
You cannot throw them out.
You shouldn't single them out.
Otherwise, they will have a branding.
And in kind of, when you read criminology, you will see when you have young people and they have some branding, I'm a terrorist.
Yes, then I will show you that I'm a terrorist.
Um, you cannot do so, so you have to integrate them and still, you have to have an eye upon them.
And when you, with my experience um, i saw that they immediately understood what i was talking about and said yes, we are the same.
We have to integrate them into the classes and so on, but we still have to have an eye on them.
Um, so for me, this was a very, very instructive.
Five minutes more talk.
In terms of the laws and the regulations in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
I'm coming back to your academic work.
Have you done some research on, for instance, the legislation process or the kind of laws that are being churned out in the autonomous region and what do people outside of China, for those who do not understand the situation, who probably are interested in finding out how law is enacted and how it's enforced, what would you like to tell them as to how unique Xinjiang probably is as part of China?
It has still its own logic in terms of how things are done in certain ways at certain stages.
You see that the rules and the reality of society are moving and you are willing to explore how to put things in rules so that reality evolves together with rules and is improved.
So to see okay, where is the problem.
So we try to have rules in order to cope with the problem.
Then we see there are roots of a problem.
So what rules do we need in order to come to the roots of the problem?
And therefore things are in a constant, constantly evolving.
And this is a very good thing to see, that you don't have something and that fits for all and forever.
But you say, Since society is evolving, since the problem is evolving, our answer to these things has to evolve.
But it is not evolving just in a vacuum.
But we want to have a legal basis for that and we want to have a basis in criminology or in psychology to that.
So how can we improve that people say don't have to take a gun in order to have a professional perspective?
At some time in Afghanistan people would say people had to go to the Taliban in order to have a perspective, because when you were a fighter, you were a respected person.
And apart from that, there was no perspective.
So when you have Xinjiang In comparison, you see to have social development to think about.
How do I get people into work so they have a different perspective?
I don't have to have a gun in order to have a profession.
These are things that are not limited to criminal law, but they are a whole social development program.
This is a very optimistic thing.
George Gask, a professor of Chinese law with Osnabrück University in Germany, talking with my colleague Liu Xing.
That's all the time for this edition of the program.
A quick recap of today's headlines.
Chinese Premier Li Qiang calls on the US Congress to facilitate bilateral exchanges and cooperation.
Britain, Australia, Canada and Portugal officially recognize a Palestinian state.
Maduro wrote to President Donald Trump calling for Venezuela-U.S. talks.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.
I'm Dinghan in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
