Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Daily news and analysis. We keep you informed and inspired. This is World Today. World Today.
Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying. Coming up, Chinese President Xi Jinping will pay a state visit to Russia and attend the great patriotic war victory celebrations. What message does it send to the international community? Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has won re-election. To what extent has he benefited from the anti-Trump sentiment in the country?
And Donald Trump barters 100% tariffs on movies made outside the US. What could this mean for Hollywood and the global film industry?
Chinese President Xi Jinping is paying a state visit to Russia this week and attending celebrations for the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. His trip will last from Wednesday to Saturday. The Chinese foreign ministry says the leaders of the two countries will discuss bilateral relations and hold strategic talks on international and regional issues.
The ministry says the two presidents agree that Beijing and Moscow should safeguard the post-World War II order, defend international fairness and justice, and unite the global south to lead global governance in the right direction. For more, we are joined by Wang Yiwei, Director of European Studies Center at Renmin University of China.
The Chinese foreign ministry emphasized the everlasting good neighborliness and comprehensive strategic coordination between China and Russia. Can you help us understand the current state of bilateral ties? And what message does President Xi's upcoming visit send to the international community? Well, China-Russian relations is both, of course, good neighborhood relations and in the name of the comprehensive strategic coordination
which is the first and the only one using coordination in the Chinese, maybe 85 strategic partnerships. So-called coordination, because China and Russia are both P5 countries. So we coordinate in the international strategic affairs like arms control, the balance of power, the international order.
So that's, I think, basically that relation. So we say China and the Russian relations always be in the highest level, you know, history of the China-Russian relations. And that means, you know, history, China and the Soviet Union, they used to be their allies, but they later went to war. After the collapse, end of the Cold War, China-Russian relations be the model of the great power relations, of the great major countries' relations.
Yeah, and President Xi will attend the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War in Moscow. How does this shared World War II history between China and Russia shape their contemporary relationship? Well, first of all, China and Russia, they both sacrificed the most for the World War II victory. And China lost their lives, more than 35 million lives.
and Russia maybe 2027. So that's the first one. And secondly, China and Russia are consistent against the Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan's invasion. So it's guaranteed peace. However, in the Western views, Russia was viewed as the loser of the Cold War,
So Russia has military parade in every May 9th Victory Day of the World War II, even during the COVID period. So this year is very special, not just 80 years anniversary of the World War II victory,
China and Russia have the division of labor. So Russia was celebrated first in Moscow in May 19th, and China was celebrated September 3rd. President Putin, of course, also attended. So China and Russia, they both separated to be the major winner and the sacrifice in the eastern battlefield, in the western battlefield in World War II.
Yeah, and the spokesperson said President Xi and President Putin have agreed to jointly remember history, foster a right view of the World War II history, and defend the outcomes of victory in the war and the post-war international order. How do you think we should understand these statements, especially in the current geopolitical context?
Well, after President Trump took power 100 days ago, there's a so-called reverse Kissinger Triangle, so-called maybe US and Russia jointly against China. So this, I think the President should stay with it to the most clear message that there's not any possibility of that kind of reverse Kissinger Triangle because China and Russia, well,
jointly, not just celebrate the victory, but also guarantee the post-World War II system. Today, I think China and Russia will also defend common and shared values. The world suffered a lot with the new fascism, including Russia claimed that in eastern Ukraine, there's also the new fascism against the Russian ethnic groups.
But also China also claimed there's a terrorist, fundamentalist, populist right wing. It's a new fascism in today's world. So China and Russia will support the common values for the human civilization that is very crucial for the world. Yeah. And beyond the World War II history, what other international and regional issues do you believe will be discussed during the visit? Of course, Ukraine.
and the Middle East and currently Pakistan-India conflict. In September, China hosted the SCO summit. Both Pakistan and India are members. So if the conflict continues, it's definitely leaving a shadow for the September summit. And about Ukraine, actually, Russia claimed that during the World War II period, the Western Ukraine actually defeated
by Nazi Germany, and even joined Nazi Germany against Soviet Union, the Red Army. In Eastern Ukraine, they have the heroes like, as the Chinese say, Barak Khashoggi, who is the main author of the very famous book, How the Steers Made. So Ukraine divided during World War II period. Now President Trump launched a tariff war against the How the World
which definitely violated the UN system, WTO-centric world trade system. So we are jointed against the US with a unilateralism and Buddhism. If you read the Macaraghan Accords, it's like the US dollar tributary system that makes the multipolar world and multilateralism very endangered.
and replace in a bilateral negotiation that all the member states of the WTO will call to the U.S., which was fundamentally on the line of the Western World War II system. Yes. So will economic and trade cooperation also be part of the discussion between President Xi and President Putin? And what new areas of collaboration might we expect to see emerging? Well, China and Russia, lots of the cooperation
not just strategically, but also economically, not just at the central government level, but also local government level. I think this year also new affairs will be talked about that, including the nuclear security, whether in Ukraine, because there's a nuclear factories, but also nuclear proliferation, even Japan, South Korea, many other countries
They also want to go to nuclear after the Ukraine war. So this is very dangerous. And the United States also wants to put China into the arms control nuclear disarmament negotiation, which is for China, US, and Russia. China, of course, does not want to join because it's basically Russia and the US bilateral negotiations.
Yeah, and the spokesperson noted that China and Russia are strengthening coordination through multilateral platforms such as the UN, SCO and BRICS. I mean, how might this collaboration influence global governance and address what they describe as unilateralism and bullying? Of course, we say China and Russia both prefer the multipolar world and also guarantee multilateralism.
either in the UNSC or in the BRICS. But the United States actually more prefer unilateralism or the US alliance system, which of course is not following the UN principles. So both China and Russia are on the same team with the UN Charter. I think it's a multilateral work. Yeah. And some Western critics frame the China-Russia relationship as
a reactive alliance driven by opposition to Western pressure. Do you think that's an accurate portrayal? And what are the key strategic interests and long term goals that you believe underpin this relationship? Well, there are three basic reasons that China and Russia cannot be allies. Firstly, too big to be allies with anybody, both Russia and China, so big country.
Secondly, with historical lessons, China and the Soviet Union used to be allies, but later, actually, it's not equal. And then even went to war, 1969, the Zimbabwe War. So now China and Russia prefer not to be allies. If China and Russia also have the allies, the world will be divided. So it's also not the interest of the UN, not the interest of the whole human being. So China and Russia, we said, the new model of very power relations does not be allies, not against the third party.
We've been talking to Dr. Wang Yiwei, Director of European Studies Center at Renmin University of China. You're listening to World Today. Stay with us. Welcome back. This is World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that sweeping tariffs could push the U.S. economy into recession.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Yellen said tariffs could raise costs for American businesses and consumers. She also cautioned that restrictions on Chinese goods could disrupt the supply of critical minerals, potentially crippling U.S. industries that rely on them.
Her comments come as new figures show the U.S. economy contracted by 0.3% in the first quarter, the first decline in three years. U.S. manufacturing also contracted for a second consecutive month in April, with its manufacturing PMI falling to a five-month low of 48.7. With more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Ian Liang, a professor of economics at Willamette University.
So, Janet Yellen is warning the sweeping tariffs could push the U.S. economy into recession. So what are your concerns about the U.S. economy and what's your take on the risk of a recession in the United States?
Well, I think, uh, her concern is very well justified, I think, by many economists. Um, the problem with the tariff is that most because it's basically a import tax on the products that going into the United States, and so that would disrupt the supply chain. And in the short term, there's no way that the U. S is able to switch domestically produced
components, input and machinery. And so that is going to slow down investments, slow down growth and jobs. And so I think that is the concern for the recession. But in the same time, I think because of a tariff, import costs really surged. And so that could also create inflationary pressure. And that's why I think the
the problem here is not just economic recession, but potentially stagflation. So with economic recession on the one hand, but also inflation on the other hand, because now we see that a lot of the earlier data has suggested that the U.S. imports from China has really reduced very significantly when you look at the cargo shipments.
And so many retailers worry that by July, they will face a lot of empty shelves in the United States. And so that could really push up prices. So I think that the concern is both sides, both inflationary pressure, but also recessionary pressure.
And also the latest figure shows that the U.S. manufacturing contracted for a second month in April. Its manufacturing PMI dropped to a five-month low of 48.7. So how does the U.S. trade policy hurt its own manufacturers?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, because almost half of Chinese imports into the United States consist of intermediate goods. And so these are the things that the manufacturers in the United States rely on. They need car components. They need various input to be able to manufacture their final outputs within the United States.
So when you have this disruption in the supply chain, we're talking about not just elevated costs of those imported components, but sometimes when the suppliers face such a high tariff, they will reduce their shipments, they reduce their imports altogether. So what that means is that it could create some shortages of certain components and input that manufacturers need.
And so I think that is one of the reasons why you see the significant slowdown, as early sign indicates, manufacturing production. But also this is, as you all know, that the tariff was rolled out in a very unpredictable way, right? There is the on, there is the pause, there is exemption, there is a higher tariff on China.
one round after the other. So that really created a lot of uncertainty, which means a lot of importers don't know whether the tariff is going to stay, whether they should just wait it out, or whether they should shift their supply chain from China to other countries. And these other countries like Vietnam or Mexico, whether or not their temporary pause tariff will be put back on again. So that just creates a lot of uncertainty on the manufacturer's part.
So as you mentioned, the PMI, that's a leading indicator. It really shows the confidence and the plan of this manufacturing industry. So the reading is below 50, which means contraction, which means not only because the input costs are high, there are some shortages, but also because the policy uncertainty. I think all of this would drag down on the manufacturer sector.
And the U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter of this year, its GDP decreased by 0.3%. So why we saw these numbers and how much can the U.S. economic contraction in this quarter be attributed to the tariff policy? And also even Warren Buffett reiterated concern about the tariff and he said trade should not be a weapon. So how do you explain all this?
Well, I think the contraction of the first quarter by 0.3% is largely attributable to Trump's policy. So for one, there are some people point out, well, this is maybe just a temporary reduction because the imports surged by 41.3% in the first quarter. And largely, again, this is driven by the almost 51% increase in the goods imports.
This, by the way, is the largest growth outside of the COVID year since 1974. So when you talk about Warren Buffett, he's been in the industry for many, many years. But I think even for him, this is quite unprecedented for the US economy. So this import surge is largely due to the anticipation of the rising tariff.
So a lot of importers wanted to front load their imports to prevent, you know, this just higher tariffs that they will be facing with later. And so some people believe, you know, this is not really a weak sign for the fundamentals of the U.S. But let's not forget, the policy is part of the U.S.'s economy, right? Donald Trump's policy is precisely what created this front loading event. And this is precisely what created this large surge in imports.
And even if this policy does not exist, we know that the U.S. still rely on import in their economy. So this import will still weigh on the economy. But just because these large surge in imports, it does really drag down the growth rate for the first quarter. And so that is very much a policy effect. So when you ask, you know, how much this is ascribed to the policies, well, I think this is really the impact of
this very unpredictable, very chaotic roll-down of the import policies. Now, aside from that, we also see a slowdown in consumer spending in the first quarter, as well as sharp decline in the federal spending. And that, again, largely are attributed to Trump's policy. When we look at the consumer sentiment measured by the Michigan University's Consumer Sentiment Index,
It was reading at 52.2, which is the lowest since 1980. So the last time we saw such low reading was in 1980. So that means the consumer sentiment is very damaged by all these chaotic policy rollout. And the federal government spending was largely due to DOGE, very sweeping cuts of the federal programs and departments, which to a large extent
not really create a lot of chaos in the US economy in the short term, but also having very long-term damages. When you think about this planned sweeping cuts on the National Institute of Health or the National Science Foundation, all of this, I think, will undermine the US's long-term prospect when it comes to scientific development and innovations and so on and so forth. So I think a lot of these policies are very counterproductive, both in the short term, but also in the long term. Hmm.
And the economy's reaction to tariff creates some uncertainty for the monetary policy. Now, a lot of debate on whether the Federal Reserve should cut the interest rate soon. So why is this division? And what's your view on the U.S. monetary policy?
Well, I do think that the Federal Reserve is now put in a very difficult position. Donald Trump, of course, has been pressuring Jay Powell to cut rates to the extent that he even said that the term of the federal chair cannot come soon enough. And that really jittered the stock market. And later he had to backtrack and said he didn't want to fire Joe Powell. But in any case, I think the Federal Reserve is...
mandated to both keep the price stable, but also maximize employment. So that means if the economy is overheated, the economy is facing this inflationary pressure due to the tariff, due to the heightened import costs, due to this imported inflation, then the Fed will have to think twice if they need to cut the rates or not, because we know most economists are estimating or forecasting the US inflation is going to rise.
this year, the course PCE, according to some of the estimate would rise to 3%. And as we know, the Fed has been talking 2%. So if we do see inflationary pressure being elevated due to the tariff, then I think Fed will not rush to cut rates, because that is not according to themselves, right? According to their own theory, when the inflation rate is rising, they should not cut rates.
But on the other hand, as we just mentioned earlier, there is a recessionary prospect in the US. The IMF increased the probability to 40% and many of other research institutes and international financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, they also had around 40, 45% of the probability that the US is going to hit a recession. So what that means is that Fed is being put
in this kind of a straitjacket. If you have these recession, they need to cut rates to stimulate the economy. But on the other hand, if there is inflation, then they would not want to cut rates. So I think it remains to be seen exactly which direction the economy is go and
worst scenario would be stagflation, and that would really put Fed in a very difficult position. And at that time, I think monetary policy would not be very effective at all. And the government right now is running about 6% deficit to GDP ratio, which is really helpful for the economy going forward when it comes to fiscal stimulus. But yet we know
Trump is pretty much trying to slash the federal budget, right? We know that the most recent budget plan was to basically increase federal defense spending and basically slash everything else. So I think in that case, monetary policy is not going to be effective and fiscal policy is being cut. Then I think that would leave the U.S. economy in a very difficult position.
That is Yan Liang, a professor of economics at World Law University, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yang. And coming up, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has won re-election. To what extent has he benefited from the anti-Trump sentiment in the country? Germany's intelligence agency labels far-right AFD as extremist.
And Donald Trump orders 100% tariffs on movies made outside the U.S. What could this mean for Hollywood and the global film industry? And remind our listeners, if you want to hear this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. And you can also follow us on Next at CGTN Radio. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back after a short break. ♪
You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has won re-election. That makes him the first leader in 21 years to win two consecutive terms in the country. Analysts believe that Albanese and his Labour Party have benefited from voters swinging away from Peter Dutton's Liberal National Coalition.
Among the top issues shaping this election are living and housing costs, immigration, health care, and worries over the unpredictable Trump administration in the U.S. For more, we are joined by Professor Chen Hong, Executive Director of the Asia-Pacific Studies Center with East China Normal University. Professor Chen, thanks for joining us.
To what extent did anti-Trump sentiment contributed to Albanese's landslide victory? Because some would interpret this as a rejection of Trump style politics in Australia. Do they have a point?
Yes, there is now a prevalent version of Trump and also his style of politics in the general Australian society, like how it is in Canada, in Europe. In fact, late last year, some of the media over there in Australia dubbed the then liberal leader Peter Dutton as Australia's Trump, with some even proposing an Australian version of the American movement.
Dutton, I think, mistakenly believed that a resurgence of right-wing politics and policies would help him win approvals of the Australian public. He actually attempted to mimic a style of a populist politician like Trump with extreme right-wing stances on domestic issues, including a nuclear power project.
and on the international affairs front, he assumed an extreme proclivity towards a likewise right-wing position on issues such as his support of Israel. He advocated ideological wars and proposed an alliance with Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, which is notoriously a
anti-multiculturalism political party. So with regard to Australia-China relations, last year, Tartan was still calling himself pro-China since he was trying to win the Chinese constituencies. But in recent months and weeks, Trump assumes a more confrontational attitude and policies towards China with his tariff wars.
Dutton started to reverse to a more hostile stance towards China, identifying China as Australia's biggest threat. However, the Australian public has been more judicious in that they do not want a Trump-style government. They do not want a leader advocating reckless policies. They do not want to engage in
confrontations over issues related to China, which is Australia's biggest trading partner. So I think Dutton's own political and ideological bigotry with his misjudged gamble to turn himself into an Austrian Trump is one of the major blunders that has cost him the election and also his own political future.
Well, Albanese is also the first Australian prime minister in over two decades to win back-to-back elections. So beyond the Trump factor, what do you believe enabled the Labour Party to overcome the global trend of the incumbent setbacks?
Several factors contributed to this outcome. First, since taking office in May 2022, the Labour Party's domestic and foreign policies have been defined by one keyword, which is stability. The Labour Party's steadfast policies maintained economic stability in post-pandemic
In February, with inflation significantly down from its 2022 peak, the RBI, the Reserve Bank of Australia, cut interest rates for the first time in over four years. The March data showed a 1.3 percent GDP growth in 2024, marking, you know, 13 consecutive quarters of growth for the Australian economy. In other words, every quarter.
So in contrast, the coalition's policies fail to resonate with voters. So what do voters want? The voters want security. They want tangible benefits and confidence in the future. As we discussed, the liberal leader, Pete, doesn't assume they're more Trump-like.
posture and advocated Trump-style policies, but it was Trump's policies disrupting global economic order and security. Dutton's right-wing stance becomes a liability, not an asset. So why did he lose his own electorate?
a major misstep with his series of far-right radical proposals that alienated even his own home base, his own constituency. Secondly, in terms of foreign policy, the Albanese administration adopted a conspicuously steady approach with the key word of his policies, foreign policies, once again being stability. This includes his China policy, which marked a directional reversal of the
extreme anti-China stance during the previous Morrison government. China is Australia's largest trade partner, as we said, and the stabilization and improvement of China-Australia relations have been mutually beneficial over the past three years. Bilateral trade has
not only fully recovered, but also grown significantly, expanding from traditional sectors like energy, mineral, agriculture and husbandry products to new areas such as clean energy and green iron. In a time characterized with uncertainties, the Australian voters are apparently in need of a government that can bring more stabilities and certainties.
Yeah, we know that Albanese campaign on things like affordability and health care. So now with this landslide victory, does he have more political capital to pursue voter reforms? Or do you think he's likely to stick with a centrist incremental approach?
Well, to be frank, you know, as a national characteristic, the Australians don't like their government to be prone to radical reforms and changes. As we were discussing, you know, stability, predictability are what the Australian public cling to. The Labour Party's overwhelming victory reflects not only the Australian voters' approval of its governance over the past three years and its campaign strategies.
But also, you know, there are high expectations for its policies in the new term, characterized with certainty, with predictability, with labor, you know, coming to power. Australia's economy has been, you know, still, you know, sluggish, particularly affecting people's livelihoods. So soaring prices, housing shortage.
with skyrocketing property prices, all key issues of living expenses, which are no easy problems to solve. Therefore, it is predictable that for the new government, the new Abenisi government as well, continue to focus on recovering the economy and bring about tangible improvements to people's livelihoods. At the end of this march, the Labour Party released its annual budget.
It outlined some clear and specific economic policies, including tax cuts, measures to encourage employment and increase of the building of houses. So after the United States launched the tariff war, Australia needed to make adjustments to its economic strategy and strengthen cooperation with trading partners beyond the United States. This is something Albanese, I think, will need to address and must address.
Yeah. And he actually said he had a warm conversation with Donald Trump on tariffs and the AUKUS defense pact. So how do you think he's going to deal with Donald Trump? Like, how can he balance this defense alliance while addressing the voter concerns about Trump's tariffs, which 48 percent of voters cited as a top concern?
Australia will remain one of the United States' close allies in the Asia-Pacific region, and this is unlikely to change under any government's encampment in the foreseeable future. This is why after he came to power in 2022, Albanese not only inherited
but then actively advance the AUKUS security pact with the United States and also the UK, because he believes that the US-Australia alliance brings not only security guarantees, but also political, economic and social benefits. However, recent developments in the United States have served as a wake-up call for the Australian government, blindly following the US policies as seen during the Morrison era,
carries significant risks, especially if the United States were to abandon or, you know, neglect Australia, particularly after the United States launched the tariff wars, almost the whole world, including its allies, such as
Australia, the Abnisi administration needs to adjust Australia's economic strategy and strengthen trade partnerships. In his victory speech, he emphasized tackling global challenges the Australian way. So what I project is a policy that is prone to a more independent position politically and also economically.
It is reported that Alvin Anecio would seek to visit the United States very soon to meet with Trump. And also in Canada during the G7 meeting, which Australia is expected to be invited, he will also be meeting with leaders of their developed countries. I think you will have to find a way to navigate through the current labyrinth of political, you know, economic security uncertainties.
The AUKUS submarine project is indeed in a conundrum. I seriously doubt it will possibly deliver. So it could be a mischance or even a disaster for the Australian economy, finance, geopolitics, and of course, Australia's own security future. Okay, thank you, Professor Chen Hong, Executive Director of the Asia-Pacific Studies Center with East China Normal University. This is World Today. We'll be back.
You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Germany's Domestic Intelligence Service has designated AFD as a right-wing extremist group. The decision comes several months after the far-right party came second in national elections.
The agency says there were numerous instances of the party trying to undermine the free democratic order in Germany. AFD has been under investigation by the agency for several years and several local chapters of the party had already been classified as right-wing extremists. AFD leaders say the decision is politically motivated. Joining us now in the studio is my colleague Ding Hong. Thanks for being here. Hello, Zhao Ying.
So for AFD, what could be the consequences of this designation? I think this designation is expected to be challenged in the courts of Germany because the AFD, the party, has vowed to mount a legal challenge.
but it would likely lower the threshold for the agency to use surveillance in terms of monitoring this party. In other words, this classification is giving Germany's intelligence agency some extra powers in terms of taking steps like intercepting telephone calls and using undercover agents against the AFD. This is one layer of the consequences.
Another layer is on the political front. This label in itself is not seen as a surprise, but the timing is a surprise. Germany's parliament is going to hold a vote this week to confirm conservative leader Frederick Matt as the German chancellor, heading a coalition with the center-left Social Democrats.
The AfD will be the largest opposition force in Germany, holding a record 152 seats in the 630-seat parliament.
Now, because of their large numbers of seats in Germany's parliament, AFD members could be well eligible to chair some parliamentary committees, but this idea is now almost becoming somewhat unthinkable due to this new label like extremist group.
So do you think this label will lead to the party being banned in Germany? Yeah. So procedurally speaking, Germany's domestic intelligence cannot push for a ban on any party. That can only go through the two houses of the parliament, the government or the constitutional courts.
But the latest decision by the intelligence agency could encourage those other agencies to begin that process. So...
If a ban was to be initiated, there will be a lengthy judicial process and in my opinion the outcome could be pretty uncertain. Some constitutional law experts in Germany are quite dubious or skeptical that this classification of the party as right-wing extremist automatically guarantees a successful ban.
Actually, in Germany's post-World War II history, the country's Constitutional Court has banned only two political parties, and both occurred in the 1950s, in the early period after the Second World War. A more recent attempt to ban a party called MPD was unsuccessful. In the 2017 verdict on that particular case,
Basically, Germany's constitutional court ruled that the party was politically insignificant and that other parties had been unwilling to form coalitions or even to cooperate with the party on any specific issue, so there was no need to ban the party. Of course, the second argument I mentioned about just now also applies to the situation of the AFD. But the problem is that
AFD is not insignificant now. It is now representing a kind of influential political force, even without being any part of the government. So I guess the incoming Frederick Merz government is going to face a very difficult choice with regard to whether to initiate any procedure to ban the AFD.
What has been on the mind of Merz is to try to reduce the AFD to a political marginal force by addressing some of the nation's concerns. That's why tackling irregular immigration is at the top of his domestic agenda.
But many people say it's already too late to do that, suggesting that the latest declassification by the intelligence agency followed by a ban of the party would be the only way to stop this flourishing party. But that being said, banning the party could be risky too, because it could end up boosting the party's popularity.
So basically, there are two narratives here. One is that AFD is undermining democracy in Germany. The other is that labeling AFD as a right-wing extremist group is a blow to Germany democracy. I mean, what do you make of these two narratives?
Well, this clash of two narratives here is really, in my opinion, pointing to a major crisis for the so-called liberal democratic system. The ideologies and values endorsed by liberal democracy have backfired and paving the way for the rise of far-right forces,
And from the perspective of liberal democracy, those ideologies and some of the actual practices taken by far-right are undemocratic. In the case of Germany's AfD, a leading accusation
Supporting this latest classification or label we are talking about here is that the party does not consider citizens of a migration background from Muslim-majority countries as equal members of the German people, but...
On the other hand, I think the rise of far-right forces is actually, in most cases, actually is achieved through the rules and systems, the existing rules of all those liberal democratic systems. So any attempt to weaken far-right forces could also be criticized as undermining democracy. This is a major dilemma for liberal democracy right now.
By the way, how would you comment on senior Trump administration officials such as Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance weighing in on this matter in Germany? Well, of course, first and foremost, this is a blatant move to intervene in Germany's internal politics. It should be condemned. The Trump administration's endorsement of the AFD is nothing new.
In a bigger picture sense, Donald Trump's election win in America actually initially inspired the far-right forces in Europe and elsewhere to emulate Donald Trump's anti-establishment and anti-immigration messaging.
There is no doubt that they see eye to eye on issues like immigration, that's for sure. But over time, I think it appears that the wind is changing its direction because of Donald Trump's aggressive trade policies and confrontational approach towards America's European allies. Some far-right forces are deliberately distancing themselves from Donald Trump.
In the case of German situation, according to a poll in that country in March, only one in seven people in Germany view the U.S. President Donald Trump favorably. So with that in mind, I think if the AFD, this party, lets itself being seen as closely aligned with the Trump administration, that could be a liability for this party. Okay, thank you, Ding Heng. You're listening to World Today. We'll be back.
This is World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. U.S. President Donald Trump says he will hit movies made in foreign countries with 100% tariffs. He claimed to have authorized the U.S. Commerce and Trade Representative to start instituting the tariff. Trump said the American movie industry was dying a very fast death due to the incentives that other countries offered to draw American filmmakers.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. Dr. Zhou, thanks for joining us. Good evening. Well, Donald Trump has described foreign film production as a national security threat and cited the decline of the U.S. movie industry. I mean, how credible is this claim? Like, in what ways, if any, does the entertainment sector intersect with national security concerns?
Well, it is real, even from my observation, because if you are looking back in the past, there are several kinds of concerns about the national security. One is about the goods, whether they imported some kind of goods from other countries or they have a lot of relations with the supply chains. And the second is something to do with the investment. The investment are having some impact on the domestic practices of the United States. But this time,
The movies are really a new kind of thing because the movie is not only just a product, it is a kind of a combination with different kinds of products and the culture things and the designs and so many different things. It's very complicated. So in my understanding, when we're talking about the national security, most of the time they are threatened by other
countries more competitive products or services. But now if you are looking at the movies of the United States, they are still one of the strongest in the world. So I don't think that it is having some issues with national security. It can overwork from nowhere.
Okay, the details of the tariff remain unclear, like whether it applies to US studios filming abroad, streaming platforms or specific production stages like post production. What challenges might arise in defining and enforcing this tariff?
Well, if you're looking at the past, when they're talking about the national security, they may have different ways. One of them is to use the 232 clause of the law to try to identify the national security and the exposures to the United States. But this time, I don't think it's really a very clear definition even for the national security to do with the products. Like you have mentioned the 100 percent of the additional tariffs, but how?
And how can they just judge the value of the imported movies by the films itself or by the sales in the cinemas? I don't think it's really very clear things. And as you mentioned, that's the supply chains and also the corporation.
change the movies making are really complicated right now. We're seeing that not only the products are combined with different countries, the actors, actress, and also lots of products making for the movies and also something to do with the materials, some of these raw materials or other kind of products are connected with movie making. So even for the script itself, it's very complicated for us to identify who are
the writer of those scripts. So I would say that when they are trying to discuss about the boundaries of this so-called national security, it must have
We have so many things to define and this definition will be also used as examples worldwide. If you are looking at the movies of the United States, they are accepted worldwide. So if they are trying to put down some barriers for the imported movies, I think that other countries also are trying to do the similar thing to the US movies. It's really a disaster for them.
Well, the U.S. film industry has reportedly seen a 26% drop in production spending since 2022 with job losses in states like California. But could the tariff realistically reverse this trend or might it exacerbate the challenges for U.S. studios that are reliant on global production networks? Well, it is true, as you mentioned, that there's something wrong with the scripts writing at
industries last year, especially when there was a strike. I think the main reason is because there is a new trend of using artificial intelligence instead of hiring the people to do that. So when they are talking about the possible challenges, I think that is really a big issue for them because I'm now sitting in some of these Universal Studios like in Beijing because they are just a very important culture
symbol of United States movies. So if you're looking at that, many people enjoyed that in the past because they have some feelings about those movies. But now if United States is trying to stop the import of other movies, I think that the symbol of the US movies are also will be damaged. And I think that many other people were trying to think about whether we are still
accept the symbol or the movies of United States, or they are also trying to discuss about the possibilities of using their national movies and characteristic.
So I think that in the world, such a globalization world, in the era, people are moving from one country to the other countries very easily. So if you are trying to stop that by the custom in the past, it is easy to stop the people to bring some products to one another country. But if you are trying to do that now, it is very difficult because we said there is Netflix and also a lot of...
a lot of online movies platforms. So it's very difficult for them to stop the spread of those movies to the United States. While on the other direction, I think it is still also very challenging because they have to deal with so many other requirements, maybe
raised by the other governments. Well, Trump has also claimed foreign films contribute to what he called messaging and propaganda. Does this rhetoric kind of blur the line between a trade protectionism and political censorship? And can he even really control the content through tariffs? I don't think it's maybe it's possible because even you are looking at
the issues of the ideology problems. It is not just the traditional track of Donald Trump in the past, in his first term. But if we want to control that right now, I don't think it's even possible because we are seeing that the world has been better connected with so many online platforms and also that people are using a different kind of tools to communicate with each other.
So if they are going to say that you, the U.S. citizens, you do not able, you cannot try to look at the movies from other countries, I don't think that U.S. citizens want to hear from them because this is a privilege that was given or guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. So if they are trying to violate that, I think that there will be a lot of suits against him and also the administration, which will also bring a lot of pressures for the
for the calming procedures of the additional tyrants. By the way, I have to say that with that kind of so-called national security, they have to use certain kind of procedure, like for the investigation for about 30 or 90 days before they can make a decision
you know, final judgment. So before that, I don't think that any of these, you know, conclusions can be made even by Donald Trump himself. Yeah. And also Hollywood films have long been a cornerstone of U.S. soft power. So could this policy ironically weaken this very global influence it purports to defend?
Definitely. I would say that in the past several years, we've already seen some of the features of the Hollywood movies are not so accepted by many countries. So in this regard, I think that when the people believe that the design and script writing of Hollywood can be interviewed by the government of the United States, they were not trying to accept the
the symbols and the concept of those movies and Hollywood will also suffer from not enough capital input and investment from other countries.
Thank you, Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. And that's all the time we have for this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Thank you so much for listening. See you next time.
Thank you.