Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is Well Today.
Moscow says it is ready to work on a memorandum with Ukraine when that could include a potential ceasefire.
G7 finance ministers meeting in Canada, but can they find unity amid rising tensions over U .S. tariffs?
And Israel's plan to take control of the entire Gaza Strip has sparked a strong pushback from key Western allies.
Let's first break down the latest on the Russian - Ukraine conflict.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says Moscow is ready to work on a memorandum with the Ukraine, when that could include a potential ceasefire.
Speaking after phone call with U .S. President Donald Trump on Monday, Putin emphasized Russia supports a peaceful resolution to the conflict and remains focused on addressing what he called the root causes of the crisis.
The two leaders also discussed recent Russia -Ukraine talks held in Istanbul.
Meanwhile, President Trump spoke separately with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who said Kyiv is open to a possible high -level meeting involving Russia, the United States and key European nations.
For more on this, joining us on the line is Dr. Zhang Xin, deputy director of the Center for Russian Studies at East China Normal University.
Professor, let's start with the big picture.
President Donald Trump made multiple phone calls with both President Putin and President Zelensky, plus European leaders.
What's your take on his approach?
Can this be seen as an effective mediation or more of a diplomatic play?
What are your thoughts Overodl, I think President Trump still attached great importance to possible mediated deal.
Peace making deal under his leadership.
That has been his major campaign goal for a while.
It wasn't a completely successful as he planned but he still take it as very seriously.
So now, I think the after a few rounds of trial, he's just tried to keep engagement with all parties involved, both Russian, Ukraine and European YouTube.
the Trump Putin call is that Trump put trade and ceasefire efforts on the same level.
He made no secret of wanting to turn US -Russia relations into something that brings tangible benefits politically and economically, possibly even a major trade deal with Russia.
So how do you see this objective shaping his role in these negotiations?
Yes, you got the important point in the recent conversation.
I think that Trump in this sense shows his nature as a businessman type of politician.
He tries always to make deals, mostly from a commercial perspective.
So now he's trying to link the possible political deals with Russia.
that's consistent with his long held negotiation style and his whole working style, even before he was president.
Does that change the nature of the negotiation or conversation fundamentally?
I'm not so sure. I think part of Trump's negotiation style, his sort of emphasis, is well known to all parties, including his Russian counterparts.
To some extent, his Russian counterparts has been taking advantage of that knowledge of Trump's negotiation style.
South Korea, The Chinese Spanish Kyrie and China in the U .S. transition Speaking of the Russian position, Putin says Russia is ready to work on a peace memorandum with Ukraine.
So how do you look at this memorandum idea as described.
A framework rather than an actual peace deal, what are the strategic considerations behind this proposal?
I see this as a new step in Russia's, what might call, stalling tactic.
Still give United States some face.
Still try to keep US in the whole political negotiation.
But without completely giving up its position, without making the most decisive compromise the party is put into the negotiations.
From the earlier talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul, which only resulted in a prisoner exchange, to the recent proposals of drafting a peace memorandum, following multiple rounds of phone calls, what kind of shift do you think this series of events This reflects, in terms of how Washington are approaching the resolution of this conflict.
Do you have your problem.
It's a shame that didn't work out, but we've tried and it's time to lead.
Professor, as you said, the Trump administration has hindered if talks don't lead anywhere, they are ready to go away.
But given the weight President Trump put behind these negotiations, both in his election campaign and now in office, if this round of diplomacy fails, Do you think the White House will truly pull back, and could we see a shift in how the U .S. deals with both Kiev and Moscow going forward?
That's a really good question.
I think that the chance for U .S. to completely withdraw from the negotiations is likely, especially if the United States sees any peace negotiation or results, political results coming out of the negotiation really is out of reach, after many trials.
So I think Trump loses complete, loses patience and he might decide to, as I just mentioned, shrug off to tell Russia, Ukraine and Europeans that this is your issue.
Try to sort out by by among yourselves." Early on, we've already seen some efforts from both Trump and his major members in his and media Each Trump and his team may be ready to withdraw.
Professor, at the same time we are also seeing push back, especially from Ukraine and some European nations.
Zelensky had two conversations with Trump – a private call, and then a joint call.
In both, he emphasized three core demands – an immediate ceasefire, continued sanctions on Russia and no decisions involving Ukraine should be made without Kiev at the table.
He also says Ukraine is open to direct talks with Russia in any format but won't compromise on territory.
So, how do you interpret Kiev's bottom line here and to what extent will Washington stand by those demands, especially on the sensitive issue of territory, where Putin has made clear Russia won't budge and requires eliminating the root causes of the conflict?
What is the make that by so Trump building on European support.
The Kremlin says Trump's position is more neutral than Europe's, which he claims is openly biased towards Ukraine.
The region is also preparing a 17th round of sanctions against Russia.
How do you interpret this transatlantic divide, and will the EU's tougher stance help or hinder the kind of peace Trump is trying to broker?
wavering in the past few months.
I think there is a push within the European bloc not to give up the trans -Atlantic alliance but getting more willing to put in resources then to get more organized within Europe to come up with concrete plans, concrete measures to support Ukraine on the one hand and penalize Russia on the other.
So, I think that kind of pattern probably will become a more real pattern in the next few months or maybe years.
And this transatlantic difference may in the end become a real divide in the next months.
Thank you professor.
That was Dr. Jiang Xin, deputy director of the Center for Russian Studies at East China Normal University.
Coming up, G7 Finance ministers meet in Canada but can they find unity amid rising tensions over US terrorists.
We break down next.
This is Roll today.
Stay with us. Washington is tightening its containment of China's tech industry.
Launching a global crackdown on AI chips from Chinese firms. With Huawei squarely in the crosshairs.
What's fueling this escalation and how might it reshape the global semiconductor landscape?
Join us on the Chat Lounge this week as we break down the power play's potential blowback and China's next move in this high -stakes silicon showdown.
Listen wherever you get your podcasts and on CGTN Radio.
Welcome back to Road Today.
Let's move to Canada, where finance ministers and central bank governors from the G7 nations are gathering in its scenic mountain town of Banff for a three day meeting aimed at tackling global economic uncertainty.
Despite deep divisions over US President Donald Trump's trade policies, host country Canada is pushing for a joint statement to present a united front.
But analysts remain skeptical.
While not officially on the agenda, Trump's controversial tariffs are expected to dominate discussions behind closed doors.
So for more insight on these challenges facing this year's G7 talks, we are joined online by Dr. John Gung, Professor with the University of International Business and Economics.
Thanks for joining us professor.
Thank you very much, it's great to be here.
Professor, in April, the Trump administration imposed steep tariffs on goods from several allies, including a 25 percent duty on certain Canadian exports.
Other G7 members are also under pressure.
Tariffs on products from Japan, Germany, France and Italy could double to over 20 % by July.
Even the UK, which secured a limited trade deal with Washington, still faces a 10 % tariff burden on many groups.
Tariffs are clearly the issue everyone is most concerned about, but they are not on the official agenda.
So given this backdrop, how much real progress can Canada's proposed joint statement achieve in bridging this trade device?
Or will it end up a little more than vague language, masking deep disagreements?
Well, I think it's a very difficult task.
It's almost impossible task, but I think at the end of the day, Canada is probably still able to muster enough support to come up with some kind of a joint statement, sort of a watered down compromise statement.
And just as what the South Koreans have done at the APEC meeting, you know, eventually did issue a joint statement which is kind of a vague, and doesn't refer to the tariff issue directly.
And I think Canada's poverty can do something like this as well.
And after all, they have a couple of agendas, the economy and tariff or trade is just one of them.
I think it's kind of difficult to imagine not a joint statement being issued out of the G7 finance minister meeting.
They will probably come up with something, but it doesn't mean much. The U .S. Chamber of Commerce has called on G7 nations to build a future based on shared values like democracy and open markets, but with the U .S. itself adopting protectionist tariffs, some see a widening gap between rhetoric and reality.
In your opinion, does this contradiction between values and actions undermine the credibility of any unified G7 front?
Well, I think the U .S. Chamber of Commerce is living - is having a pipe dream.
I mean, look at the President Trump's speech at Riyadh just a few days ago in Saudi Arabia.
It clearly, clearly doesn't resonate with any of the things that the U .S. Chamber of has been saying here.
On a contrary, it's the exact opposite actually.
So I don't think what the U .S. Chamber of Commerce is saying is going to be substantially at the G7 Minister of Finance, Minister of Media not at all.
And I think President Trump's agenda is very clear, it likes to promote commerce, it likes to promote investment and trade, but definitely not, you know, these so -called values, shared values like democracy.
On the contrary, I think, President Trump is, he delivered a scathing criticism of the nation builders, where he discovered nation builders and new cons.
So I think this is totally a nonsense to me.
Professor, US Treasury Secretary Bensatt has emphasized a return to what he calls the G7's core principles criticizing China's economic practices.
So what's your take on his call at this moment?
Yeah, well, I mean, this is very typical of Washington's plan and actions.
I would say that Treasury Secretary Benson is very much of the old school.
I think his thinking is probably more in line with Joe Biden's administration than with President Trump's administration.
And I think at this juncture to muster support out of these seven countries, to ostensibly criticize China, it might be a little bit difficult.
I think, you know, Europe has a very different attitude right now vis -a -vis Washington.
I mean, they are engaged in a fierce negotiation about the tariff issue.
President Trump has said that the European Union is even worse than, quote, some of America's adversary or rival.
Clearly referring to China.
So I think against that backdrop, I'm not sure that Europe will be fully on bored to do something like this.
Professor, on the US -Japan front, trade negotiations have reached an advanced stage with Washington again using the threat of tariffs as leverage but this time Tokyo appears to be taking a firmer stance.
Japan's prime minister has stated he's in no rush to reach a deal with Washington and won't simply follow other nations' lead.
So how do you see Japan's move, especially this time, more assertive posture shaping the dynamics within the G7?
I think Japan, as well as the European Union are learning from the experiences of China indeed it was Washington.
China reacted very differently from other countries, it imposed tariffs in retaliation and also reached the agreement, at least the temporary agreement for 90 days a couple weeks ago in Geneva.
I think this is some experience that Japan and the European Union probably take it very seriously.
One thing it's very easy to understand that the way to deal with President Trump is that you have to negotiate from a position of strength.
It doesn't pay to sort of go to Washington and yield to his demand and play nice to him using his words, you know, kissing his ass, I guess I apologize for the rocket language.
But you know, this kind of approach doesn't work with President Trump.
When you do that, what you get is, it's not something of a break from him, not something that it gives you a good deal to you.
On the contrary, what you get is contempt and disdain.
So I think Tokyo understands this very well, He understands that it also has cards.
It's not like Japan doesn't have any cards at all.
So I think Japan is taking a very different approach now.
And the European Union is probably doing the same thing right now as well.
Thanks, Professor, for your insightful analysis.
That was Dr. John Gong, professor with the University of International Business and Economics.
Coming up, Israel's plan to take control of the entire Gaza Strip has sparked a strong pushback from key Western allies.
This is Roll Today with Mige Anna in Beijing.
Israel's plan to take control of the entire Gaza Strip has sparked strong pushback from key Western allies.
Britain, France and Canada have warned to take concrete actions, including targeted sanctions if Israel continues new offensive in Tugazan.
Israel military is stepping up operations across the territory.
Local rescuers report that more than 50 people have been killed in the latest wave of Israeli airstrikes.
To delve into this and its broader implication of regional stability and the future of a two -state solution, we're joined by Dr. Wang Jing, Associate Professor at Northwestern University in Xian, China.
Welcome, Professor.
It's my pleasure. Professor Nenya, who recently stated that Israel intends to take control of the entire Gaza Strip.
What exactly does this mean in practical and political terms?
And how does it shift the trajectory of this conflict?
I think, actually, it suggests that Israel wanted to take something serious.
because, according to the reports from, for example, British and other European media that Israel hopes to, on the one hand, construct four military zones from north to south of the Gada Strip, and then on the other hand separate the whole Gada Strip via the four military zones into three civilian zones.
And all the civilians in the Gaza Strip, I mean the Palestinian civilians there, are forbidden to freely moved from one area into another.
And also by holding these military zones by Israelis themselves as they hope to press and squeeze the activity room of Hamas members and supporters in the Gaza Strip.
So that is why I think that what is happening now is that it really launched a four scale offensive against the Hamas targets in the Gala Strip, and actually it also suggested violence and a kind of collapse of the dialogue mechanism between Israel and the Hamas.
So that is why for the Gala Strip it is a very critical moment, and I think actually we are witnessing the major transformation of a political scenario in this region.
Professor, help us understand the Israeli military has launched what he describes as an unprecedented attack near Kain units, even while aid tracks are being allowed in.
Is there contradiction in launching major assaults while beginning to open humanitarian corridors?
Because its decision to open limited aid routes comes after more than two months of blockade, Is this humanitarian concession, or as reported in the media, a calculated move to ease international pressure?
I think we need to understand that it's a part of Israel's strategy in the Gaza Strip because on the one hand, as we mentioned, Israel wants to attack the major points belonging to Hamas and rescue the hostages taken by Hamas, and also to establish the four major military zones in the Gaza Strip to separate the whole Gaza Strip into different factions and different blocs.
And on the other hand, when we are talking about Israeli's strategy goals, it also means that Israel has to take care of the refugees, take care of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Although, of course, many criticize and will say, OK, Israel does not care about the civilians here anymore.
We cannot deny that, but then, on the other hand, we should admit that Israel, as a modern state, it has to take responsibilities to take care of civilians on the land which it's just occupied, and on the land that Israel hopes to occupy in the future, because actually in the modern world, we are not talking about occupation of land.
We also mean the management of the population on this land.
So, that is why Israel on the one hand launched, as you mentioned, the military strike, and on the other hand, tried to introduce new ways, but very limited humanitarian assistance to keep the level that the civilians under Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip were not starved to death.
But on the other hand, they are not able to organize enough capabilities and resources to launch new counterattacks against the Israeli military forces there.
So, that is why if we put it all this phenomenons under this perspective, that we can understand what is really our planning to do.
They hope to reoccupy the Gaza Strip and they hope to organize the major offensive and through this offensive to settle the problem that Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Professor, we've seen reports say U .S. Vice President J .D.
send the wrong signal implying Washington supports Israel's military escalation, what does this tell us about U .S. policy or support to Israel on the matter today?
I think it suggests that the very major setback or the major failure of diplomacy or its relations with the United States, because as you know that just one week ago, when the United States, Donald Trump visited in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with the Emirates.
Israel hopes that and they invited for quite a long time, that they hope that Donald Trump would also come to visit Israel, but then Donald Trump denied.
And then, now that the terms come for the Vice President and the advance, but then he also denied the given that Israel launching a new offensive against the targets in the Gaza Strip.
So that is why I think he suggested the very major division between United States and Israel, United States wants to maintain a status quo, does not want to ask for the attention in the Middle East, particularly in the Gadda Strip.
While also from the perspective of Israel that they hope to maybe create a new kind of geopolitical surroundings for themselves.
So it's actually, this suggests a very directed division between the two sides and these divisions are not easy, will not be easy to be repaired.
Professor, as we earlier mentioned, France, Britain and Canada have all spoken out against Israel's latest military escalation, calling for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access.
In your view, how much weight do these public statements really carry?
And beyond words, what concrete steps might these countries actually take either to help the civilians on the ground or to pressure Israel into changing course?
I think that the pressure from the European states is always important, but not always determined.
Because when we are talking about the pressure from European countries, I mean, during the past three years, European countries and also Canada and maybe sometimes Australia, they always want to impose kind of sanctions against Israel to stop Israeli military activities in the Gaza Strip.
And also they want to gather all the enough support from the international level, but to Israel to hope to suspend Israeli military actions.
But then the Israeli to some extent, they cared about it because they hoped that to keep the very positive ties with European countries, with the Western countries.
But then on the other hand, I don't think they cared too much. The only thing that determines the Israeli's military activities and its foreign policy, externally, would be the United States role.
So when the United States still keeps a very ambiguous attitude, and does not want to really lift the support and suspend the support against Israel.
I don't think Israel will take it seriously.
But that is why I think European countries, their attitudes are important, but their attitudes are not a very determining role in the inside Israel decision -making circle.
Professor, one last question.
leaders from these three nations are emphasizing Palestinian statehood as part of the path forward, but in real terms, with Gaza devastated and the West Bank fragmented, what does a two -state solution even look like today?
Let's talk about it briefly, because actually we are talking about not the Israeli -Palestinian we are actually talking about the very, very dangerous scenario in the future because actually it means that the situation in the not only the Gaza Strip, they become shattered, I mean there are no unified factions in the Gaza Strip, but also we're talking about the relations inside different Palestinian factions – the Fatah and Hamas, but then Hamas shattered and then we're looking at what we're witnessing is a possible division inside different factions and blocks.
So maybe in the future, I mean against the spectrum, without enough international society's assistance, without international society's successful limits towards Israeli military actions and intervention against the internal affairs of the Palestinian people, I don't think that the two -state solution will be realistic within the short term, because we are witnessing the division and division and division, subdivisions and sub -subdivisions inside different Palestinian factions.
And this would endanger the unity of Palestinian people.
So that's why what they are witnessing is not only the Israeli military activities in the Gatha Strip reorganized, but also we are witnessing that the, maybe a new historic tragedy for the independence movement of Palestinian people themselves.
Thanks, professor, really appreciate your take on this.
That was Dr. Wang Jing, associate professor at Northwest University in Xi 'an, China.
Chinese tech giant Huawei has unveiled two laptops powered by HarmonyOS, marking the uni -face self -developed operating system on personal computers.
The laptops are the Huawei MateBook Pro and MateBook Fold Ultimate design.
The launch of the products signifies the company's push to expand HarmonyOS beyond smartphones and tablets.
For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Professor Chu Qiang, a fellow of Belt and Road Research Center at Minsu University of China.
So Professor Chih -Chiang, Chinese tech giant Huawei, has launched its first PC powered by its own operating system, the Harmony OS.
So how important is it and how do you see its market penetration will be in the future?
Well, I think the number one importance is that it is really breaking down the monopoly dominated by Windows and Mac OS.
Basically, there are two very famous American brands.
So, when the global sales nation want to choose from major operation systems or the operation system dominated a PC or laptop product, I think they don't have a choice.
So, there are going to be information leaking or privacy or national security considerations be there.
But now, I think Huawei actually stands out, bring in more of the competition and also urge those competitors, those dominant competitors, just to, you know, yield more of the power towards the customers, providing more choices for the customers.
And also, they're going to be more diversification for the technology in the PC, you know, walks of life.
And also, I think, it's also very important for a complete, you know, ecology on a PC because Huawei actually got the OnePlus 8 Plus N, the full scenario smart life strategy.
So I think this OS actually becomes the last very important piece of the jigsaw of their strategy.
So from the personal devices to the smart home center to the mobile office and I think everything on Huawei ecology actually can now work very seamlessly.
For example, right now, when you just use your mobile phone, use your tablet and use your tablet, and to your PC, so from your home to your office.
You know every mission can work together seamlessly.
And also I think independence and tech resilience is very important for China's PC industry as well.
Just now we're talking about how does it mean for the world industry and PC.
but now I think for China itself, this can really become a milestone, reducing our reliance on foreign technology, and also, I think the most important, one of the most important choke points has been reduced.
National security and privacy of citizens can also have more of the secure, letting alone that shows Huawei's powerful innovation and R and D capacity, so I think it's very good for the future growth and a benefit for Huawei as a company.
And the Harmony OSPC also integrates AI and intelligent interaction features into the operating system.
So how do you evaluate these new features?
And how close are China and the US on AI technological development?
Well, I think the Harmony OSPC actually can work on all kinds of missions, all the daily missions in the authors like the editing the all kinds of the documents, you know, making the Excel forms a PPT presentation or supporting the WTS or word. And also, I think they can do a lot of the designing software like processing the audios and videos and, you know, what Apple Mac OS can do right now, you can work the similar, you know, software on Huawei PC and also all kinds of the tablet.
And also the supporting the education missions, entertainment.
For example, play the 4K high definition videos, all kinds of the games because games actually have a very, very high requirement towards the synergy between the software and hardware.
And also, I think last but not least is the cross device synergy.
this is also very important because we if you want to work up one mission up on different you know terminals like on your mobile phone, your tablet, your PC you want to you know a copy and paste of one thing from your phone to your PC and you know a wirelessly and also to you know share the missions on different ends.
This will really require very high -end, you know, distributional technology and also those kinds of the protocols to make sure that different ends of different terminals can actually work for the same mission because in your mobile phone, you're going to use the Android system or Huawei based Android system and on your PC you're probably going use a PCOS.
So it's going to be a little bit different.
Now you can do it together.
I think this is a very, very important breakthrough for Chinese innovators.
And we know that Washington began restricting Huawei's access to U .S. technology in 2019, over the national security concerns.
This actually pushing the company to build its own capacity to develop and produce chips and operating systems. So what has the company done right, do you think, in the past few years to shape a better future?
Well, I think in China, we have one word cannot be directly translated into English, that is crisis.
Because crisis in Chinese language is called Waiji, because it means the combination of the danger and also the opportunities.
And I the Huawei's, you know, experience actually perfectly reflected that kind of words.
Wai and Ji, crisis slash opportunities.
I think what Huawei has been done right is that they've been using, number one, they try to rely on their own, you know, capacities.
Well, a major country is smashing on your innovation, your business model.
Well, a lot of companies will say probably, okay, I will kneel down I will but Huawei says, no, I'm going to stand up under my own feet.
So I think this spirit, this is very important because it decided everything comes after that.
And secondly, I think Huawei is doing is that he tried to catch up with the Chinese advantage because what we can understand about Chinese industry is it has a very thorough and comprehensive supply chain covering every aspect.
If you want to build a PC, you're fine.
You can find all kinds of parts on PC within 20 kilometers radius surrounding the HQ of Huawei in Shenzhen.
So right now it's in Dongguan, of course, but to bring it to Shenzhen, another town near Dongguan.
Okay, and also secondly is, well, we actually paid attention to not only the whole supply chain's advantage, but also he's paying attention to what we call the ecology oriented innovation.
Because ever since the Step 1 Huawei tried to cover mobile phone, tablet, PC, wearable devices and all the servers they will provide.
So, this actually allowed Huawei to build its own fortress while to fans off the competitors, especially those competitors from you know, America, from Europe, from Japan.
So this kind of ecology has become very important.
And besides the hardware ecology, Huawei is doing more on the software ecology because every year Huawei is having its developers conference and they've been supporting all kinds of the developers from the third party to join its Harmony OS ecology.
So basically, I think this strategy has been approved by Apple it's been doing very successfully.
So last but not least Huawei's try to you know use its companies capacity to make sure that all the strategy can be delivered in a very effective way for example about a decision making policy of decision making capacity you know enforcement capacity implementations and the self -learning and all these, you Huawei as a very, very powerful company, because even though you have all kinds of these good ideas and determinations, but if your company is weak, you will not manage to do so.
So Huawei actually proved that Chinese people in the Chinese company can do the same level with the world level innovation and also implementations, deliver the world level and quality products and services.
So I think this meaning of the Huawei Harmony OSPC is actually going beyond just a product.
We actually are showing that the capability of this nation, of this company and of these people.
That was Professor Chu Qiang, fellow of the Belt Road Research Centre at the Mingshu University of China.
Is China an enemy fabricated by propaganda?
That's the title of a new book by an author who has devoted decades as a historian on Xinjiang or Tibet autonomous region and other China -related issues.
His book on Xinjiang titled Free Tibet Power Society and Ideology in Old Tibet challenges the so -called Western experts on the issue and the politically corrected narratives.
My colleague Liu Xin earlier sat down with Albert Edinger, who has authored four books about sizan, its history, and China in general.
Mr. Edinger, I understand that you have authored two major books on sizan or Tibet.
One is called Free Tibet?
State, Society and Ideology in Old Tibet, and Fight for Tibet.
History, Background and Perspectives on an International Conflict.
That's almost 10 years ago and you published another book which is called China an Enemy Fabricated by Propaganda.
In this book you actually covered quite a number of topics such as Hong Kong, such as Taiwan and Tibet and Xinjiang as well.
So, first of all, tell us a bit about yourself.
I understand you were a teacher, how can you started being interested in these questions and started writing about your perspectives on these questions.
Yes, my story about China goes back quite a long time.
I went already to China in the 70s.
So, you see I'm of older age and I was interested in China all of this time.
And I was confronted to the Tibet question, if you want, as a teacher, because in our school book, I was teaching German literature at a secondary school.
And in the school book, we had this subject, but it was from a very biased perspective.
So I was interested in searching DBAL, let's say.
And then I decided finally in 2008, it's the year of the Olympic Games in Beijing.
And there was a huge propaganda campaign against China.
And Tibet subject was very important.
So then I decided to dig deeper and to publish something about it.
And at the end, the results were these two books, two major books.
I understand, I've read other interviews of you.
I understand that before you write these books, you had actually not been to Tibet or Xi -Zang.
You only dug into the materials that you could find and you found incoherences, right, inaccuracies in these Western narratives and you in your book.
Yeah you fundamentally challenged some of the opinions that are considered authoritative in tibetology in Western society, such as Alexandra David Neal, just to cite one name, because her views are written in textbooks in Europe, as if they are the representation of truth.
How did you do it? I mean, without being into Tibet, what did you do in the literature that you could find being in Europe to find these loopholes?
First, I have an advantage, being a Luxembourg, I know several languages and I could read books in both in German and in French and in English.
And so I discovered for example, one of my first main sources was, was Harrer, who is the author of Seven Years in Tibet, a famous book, the best international bestseller.
And I noticed that the French edition and the British edition was in those books whole passages were omitted, they were censored, because they didn't fit in the narrative about Tibet.
So this was one important thing I discovered and I found it even later also in other books that sometimes because there are corrections, there are omissions, just of those things who don't match with the western narrative.
So you find some things that don't match so well with this idealistic view or sweetened view of Ancient Tibet, and so on.
I began reading what some early visitors of Tibet wrote about what they witnessed and so I had first -hand, let's say, descriptions of what they and stories what they told about Tibet.
So you discovered these paragraphs which were very much critical of what old Tibet was like and yet when Tibet was introduced in Western textbooks, it gave an idealized image right this concept of this region and you thought that is not correct let's jump a little bit let's let's maybe come back to Tibet in just a moment because Tibet is just one of the topics where similar problems exist actually in your very latest book called China an enemy that's fabricated by propaganda You took on an enemy, a very powerful enemy which is the mainstream media.
Why do you say that China is an enemy that's fabricated by propaganda?
Because I think that there are no problems between Europe for example.
China is not really a geopolitical rival of any major European country.
its arrival of the United States has been declared to be a rival and even an enemy of the United States by the United States, not by China.
And so I think that it lays in the best interest of Europe and of the European countries to have good relations with China.
And, unfortunately, the narrative, the mainstream media and so on, are controlled by the United States and by people who work for the United States.
So, yeah, I think the narrative is very biased and I tried to redress this a little bit.
Could you give an example, an outstanding example, of why the narrative is extremely biased?
Oh, there's a whole long list of of examples, it's difficult to choose one.
But for example, in general, China is perceived in the Western media as a dystopian society, and as an aggressive country, aggressive towards the neighbors and so on.
And yeah, I find this very biased because when I look at the Chinese foreign policy, for example, I see policy of peace and of peaceful coexistence since the existence of the People's Republic.
And I don't see any aggressivity except if you want to characterize it as aggressive, that China wants to hold its own territory and it wants to reunify with Taiwan, for example.
But that's not aggressive.
I find it much more aggressive when warships, American and even now European, French and German warships across the Taiwan Strait, whereas China never crossed the channel between England and the continent.
So, I find that discalculisation of China as aggressive is completely biased.
That's Albert Attinger.
This is Road Today.
Thank you so much for listening.
