Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand • 402,497 subscribers
Entrepreneur. Previously HouseTrip (sold to TripAdvisor), now https://t.co/C4SmZQ8bl6 Subscribe if you like what I write
Shorts
![When you thought Macron had reached peak tone-deafness and condescension, he just tops it. He's now literally berating Africans for not thanking France: "I think [Africans] forgot to thank us. It doesn't matter it will come with time. Gratitude, I am well placed to know it, is a disease not transmissible to humans. But I say this for all African rulers who did not have the courage with respect to their public opinions to say it: none of them would today have a sovereign country if the French army had not been deployed in this region"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1876516635026366929/ext_tw_video_thumb/1876515758676885504/pu/img/4au8dP6uP3D2lyVT.jpg)
![Today I was visiting the exceptionally beautiful Plantin-Moretus Museum in Antwerp, Belgium (one of the only museums in the world that is itself listed as UNESCO World Heritage), which is one of the oldest printing shops in Europe, with the oldest surviving printing presses in the world. I stumbled upon an old 16th century atlas - written in Old French - and I was pretty amused to read their understanding of China at the time, which was surprisingly accurate, maybe even more than today's! A translation of some of the most interesting passages: - They call it "China" in French (it's now called "Chine") and they write that the locals call it "Tangis", which probably refers to the Tang dynasty but which is strange given that by the 16th century the dynasty had already ended for about 600 years - They write that to its North China is bordered by "tartares" (which I guess means Mongols) whom they describe as "very warlike people from whom it is separated by a wall made by hand" - The Chinese work ethic was already legendary: "those who live there are not at all lazy but devoted to labor and work, because it is there a shameful thing to be idle" - They share a number which must have seemed astonishing at the time: "in the city of Canton, one of the smallest in the entire country, some ten or twelve thousand ducks are eaten daily at table". And then they marvel during a good proportion of the text about the abundance of food in the country, which probably made a big impression on travelers at the time. - They write that "there are in this kingdom two hundred and forty famous cities, whose names end in this syllable FU which means a city: like Cantonfu, Panquifu: the small towns, which are in great number, end in CHEU [undoubtedly refers to "zhou"]. There are infinite villages, heavily populated, because of the continuous agriculture." - China's infrastructure and engineering capabilities were also already legendary at the time: "The city gates have entrances magnificently and marvelously well made, the streets are made level, not sloping this way or that, but following their straight line. They are so wide that ten or fifteen men on horseback can march abreast and are everywhere marked and separated by triumphal arches that marvelously ornament the cities. Portuguese say they saw in the city of Fuchco [probably Fuzhou] a tower set on forty solid marble pillars, the height of which was forty palms (masonry measure) and the width twelve: that this work is so grand, so exquisitely made, so beautiful to see, so sumptuous and so pleasing that it far surpasses all the magnificent buildings of all Europe." - Already at the time, China was very wary of safeguarding its sovereignty: ""[The Chinese] rarely or never leave their country and do not easily let foreigners enter it, especially into the interior of the province, unless they first have safe conduct from the king." - On moral and cultural habits: "They put adulterers to death. There are no brothels in the cities, all manner of prostitutes being sent to the suburbs. They celebrate their weddings at the time of the new moon and around the month of March which is their first day of the new year, and they make these celebrations, like us, very magnificently. They show themselves valiant in banquets and entertainments, in which they owe nothing to the Flemings or the Germans. They eat at tables like us in Europe, on chairs or on benches, and not on the ground as other peoples of Asia do." - On justice: "Bandits and murderers are kept in perpetual prison. Theft, which is a very odious crime, is punished by whip strokes in this manner: they put a man belly down, tie his hands behind him, striking him on the fleshy part of the legs with a whip made of reeds or canes." - On China's naval capabilities at the time: "This kingdom has an infinite number of ships, galleys and vessels of all sorts, with which they cross the seas and rivers. So much so that when they want to show through vainglory the power of their king, they are accustomed to say in a common proverb that he can make a bridge of ships joined together, which can reach and extend from China to Malacca, which is a distance of five hundred leagues and more." - On the emperor and China not being warlike (already back then): "All this region is subject to a single king, like a monarch; whom they call lord of the world and son of the sun. He holds court at Paquin [Beijing], which is a city toward Tartary. He never leaves it, except in time of war. It is said that when he makes war on the Tartars he leads an army of three hundred thousand soldiers and two hundred thousand horses, although it is also said that this nation is not very warlike. This king has under him fifteen very large provinces, which they call governments, and he alone surpasses in power all the other neighboring princes of Asia; and his annual revenues exceed all the riches of Europe. Antonio Pigafetta [the chronicler of Magellan's voyage] calls this king the most powerful of all the universal earth and says that the royal city is fortified and ramparted with seven walls, having ten thousand soldiers for the guard, and that the king commands seventy other crowns of the royal diadem [likely refering to the tributary state system]." Reading these passages, it seems that the further we've come in our ability to know China, the more obscured our vision seems to have become. These 16th century observers, working with fragments brought back by explorers, merchants and missionaries, managed to capture the essential - the industriousness, the engineering mastery, the administrative sophistication, the careful sovereignty. They approached their subject with the humility of the genuinely curious. They had no framework to force China into, no predetermined narrative to fulfill. They simply watched, counted ducks in Canton, measured city walls, and wrote it down. Their errors were errors of transmission - a dynasty name lingering centuries past its time, numbers perhaps inflated through retelling - but the spirit was one of simply describing unknown territory, not to convince anyone of anything. Today however, drowning in information, we're somehow seeing less of what's there and more of what we expect to find. Each observation must fit into existing narratives, serve predetermined conclusions, advance familiar arguments. So much so that we must ask ourselves: have we actually moved backward from those 16th chroniclers? Maybe we need to re-learn to approach China - and others in general - like those old cartographers, pen in hand, ready to be surprised? What might we discover if we stopped explaining and started counting ducks again?](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1956820956015698272/amplify_video_thumb/1956820439109427200/img/LIFjM3geTQT1Edwo.jpg)
Videos
This is genuinely incredible and says SO SO MUCH about the perception of China in the West. This is the #1 news show in France, and the host - David Pujadas - asks the pundits around the table (a sample of the top media figures in France) if they can name 3 living Chinese people. That's it: they just need to say the names of 3 living Chinese people, anyone. This should be extremely easy. Yet not of a single one of them can name a single Chinese beyond Xi Jinping. They do not know a single living Chinese person beyond the president. That's the level of ignorance of China we're dealing with in the West today, in 2026. This is the source for the video: Aired live yesterday 28th of May 2026.
Arnaud Bertrand1,115,490 views • 6 days ago
![This is absolutely fascinating: Jason Furman, one of the foremost economists in the U.S. and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, explains why the so-called "China shock" is a myth. According to him, "85 to 95% of Americans benefited" from trade with China, and "China has been part of helping [the US economy] work, not hurting it work." In other words, the narrative that China "stole" American jobs and wages is the exact opposite of reality. Furman's logic is pretty ironclad: 1) He points out, which is factual, that "the slowdown of wage growth and the rise of inequality began in the 1970s, when there basically was no trade with China." It then accelerated in the 1980s-90s when China trade was small, and **slowed down** after 2000. And "since about 2013," when trade with China was at its highest, "we've had pretty fast real wage growth," with "the fastest real wage growth for moderate income households." In other words, the timing doesn't fit: if China was the cause, the problem should have gotten worse as trade with China increased. Instead, it got better. 2) A common narrative one hears about China is "who cares about affordable goods, we need well-paying jobs." But Furman points out it's actually one and the same thing: "the way we measure jobs is how much your wages can buy. If you improve purchasing power, you are making every single job in the economy better." In very concrete terms, if salaries stay flat but Chinese imports make goods 10% cheaper, your purchasing power just went up 10%, as if you got a 10% wage hike. This makes every single job in the economy better. In effect "jobs vs. cheap goods" is a false dichotomy: cheap goods ARE better jobs. 3) Furman also points out, rightly, that the majority of what U.S. imports from China isn't consumer goods: "more than half of what we import is actually inputs into the manufacturing process itself." In other words, Chinese imports make U.S. manufacturing MORE competitive as it decreases their input costs. If you were to cut all Chinese imports, you'd cripple U.S. manufacturing as it would no longer be able to compete on price with anyone. And, as per point 2 above, you'd also destroy Americans' purchasing power, making every single U.S. worker worse off. 4) Last but not least, Furman says that the "China shock" literature is fundamentally flawed, as it "doesn't answer the most important question, which is what the net effect was." It "doesn't consider other causes for the job losses, doesn't look at all the places that gained jobs and wages, and doesn't integrate the consumer side." All in all, he believes that if one were to actually calculate the net effect of trade with China on the U.S. economy, it'd show that "85 to 95% of Americans benefited." And even for the 5-15% who lost out, Furman says these people were failed by "our labor policies, our social safety net" - not by China. What Furman is saying is more relevant than ever because, both in the U.S. and in Europe, this notion that China is somehow "stealing" Western jobs and prosperity has become the unquestioned premise of so many of today's policies. Nobody even debates it anymore, it's almost universally assumed correct. In my own country France, Macron keeps repeating it all the time, leading the charge in Europe to slap tariffs on Chinese imports, warning that China is "killing its own customers" and that it's a question of life or death for European industry ( He literally called last week for the EU to build its own version of America's Section 301 - the same protectionist tool Trump uses ( BUT, if Furman is right, and the data strongly suggests he is, France and Europe are about to inflict economic self-harm in the name of a problem that doesn't exist. Much more affordable cars, for instance, would literally give every single European a big wage hike. It's Furman's argument on "85 to 95% benefiting" vs 5% to 15% losing out: the vast majority of Europeans would see their money go further, while a small number of jobs in legacy automakers would be disrupted. Instead of helping those workers transition, Europe wants to prevent making everyone better off. Anyhow, please do watch the whole podcast, which has many other fascinating insights because Furman also debates with Justin Yifu Lin, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and State Council Counsellor of China. They're both interviewed by my friend Hansong Li - also a professor and an immensely smart man - in his excellent new podcast "worldviews" (imho one of the best new podcasts our there). The video is here:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2059814198545371491/amplify_video_thumb/2059799973081071616/img/jAdf0cZy7mcA9rCu.jpg)
This is absolutely fascinating: Jason Furman, one of the foremost economists in the U.S. and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, explains why the so-called "China shock" is a myth. According to him, "85 to 95% of Americans benefited" from trade with China, and "China has been part of helping [the US economy] work, not hurting it work." In other words, the narrative that China "stole" American jobs and wages is the exact opposite of reality. Furman's logic is pretty ironclad: 1) He points out, which is factual, that "the slowdown of wage growth and the rise of inequality began in the 1970s, when there basically was no trade with China." It then accelerated in the 1980s-90s when China trade was small, and **slowed down** after 2000. And "since about 2013," when trade with China was at its highest, "we've had pretty fast real wage growth," with "the fastest real wage growth for moderate income households." In other words, the timing doesn't fit: if China was the cause, the problem should have gotten worse as trade with China increased. Instead, it got better. 2) A common narrative one hears about China is "who cares about affordable goods, we need well-paying jobs." But Furman points out it's actually one and the same thing: "the way we measure jobs is how much your wages can buy. If you improve purchasing power, you are making every single job in the economy better." In very concrete terms, if salaries stay flat but Chinese imports make goods 10% cheaper, your purchasing power just went up 10%, as if you got a 10% wage hike. This makes every single job in the economy better. In effect "jobs vs. cheap goods" is a false dichotomy: cheap goods ARE better jobs. 3) Furman also points out, rightly, that the majority of what U.S. imports from China isn't consumer goods: "more than half of what we import is actually inputs into the manufacturing process itself." In other words, Chinese imports make U.S. manufacturing MORE competitive as it decreases their input costs. If you were to cut all Chinese imports, you'd cripple U.S. manufacturing as it would no longer be able to compete on price with anyone. And, as per point 2 above, you'd also destroy Americans' purchasing power, making every single U.S. worker worse off. 4) Last but not least, Furman says that the "China shock" literature is fundamentally flawed, as it "doesn't answer the most important question, which is what the net effect was." It "doesn't consider other causes for the job losses, doesn't look at all the places that gained jobs and wages, and doesn't integrate the consumer side." All in all, he believes that if one were to actually calculate the net effect of trade with China on the U.S. economy, it'd show that "85 to 95% of Americans benefited." And even for the 5-15% who lost out, Furman says these people were failed by "our labor policies, our social safety net" - not by China. What Furman is saying is more relevant than ever because, both in the U.S. and in Europe, this notion that China is somehow "stealing" Western jobs and prosperity has become the unquestioned premise of so many of today's policies. Nobody even debates it anymore, it's almost universally assumed correct. In my own country France, Macron keeps repeating it all the time, leading the charge in Europe to slap tariffs on Chinese imports, warning that China is "killing its own customers" and that it's a question of life or death for European industry ( He literally called last week for the EU to build its own version of America's Section 301 - the same protectionist tool Trump uses ( BUT, if Furman is right, and the data strongly suggests he is, France and Europe are about to inflict economic self-harm in the name of a problem that doesn't exist. Much more affordable cars, for instance, would literally give every single European a big wage hike. It's Furman's argument on "85 to 95% benefiting" vs 5% to 15% losing out: the vast majority of Europeans would see their money go further, while a small number of jobs in legacy automakers would be disrupted. Instead of helping those workers transition, Europe wants to prevent making everyone better off. Anyhow, please do watch the whole podcast, which has many other fascinating insights because Furman also debates with Justin Yifu Lin, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and State Council Counsellor of China. They're both interviewed by my friend Hansong Li - also a professor and an immensely smart man - in his excellent new podcast "worldviews" (imho one of the best new podcasts our there). The video is here:
Arnaud Bertrand158,689 views • 7 days ago
Absolutely extraordinary exchange between Israel and China 👇 I've never seen such a heated exchange come out of top-level forum in China (this is from the 12th Beijing Xiangshan Forum that started yesterday), this normally never happens. The guy speaking is Yan Xuetong, the dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, the most prestigious university in China. Speaking for Israel is a military officer apparently called Elad Shoshan. Yan Xuetong truly doesn't hold back: - When the Israeli officer tries to bullshit him around how Israel supposedly protects civilians in Gaza, he replies: "You killed more than 70,000 civilians!... The fact is not decided by you... It is not decided by your government. Your government has no legitimacy or the right to decide or defend what is fact" - And when told that the war will end when Hamas release hostages he replies: "No, this kind of propaganda have too many. No one believe it! Too many! Too much! No one believe it, except a few Israelis"
Arnaud Bertrand5,007,437 views • 8 months ago
This is absolutely priceless. And probably the most frightening clip you'll ever watch on the people in charge of the US economy. Jared Bernstein is literally the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, the main agency advising Biden on economic policy
Arnaud Bertrand15,367,320 views • 2 years ago
This is unreal. The new Japanese PM just told an audience of Saudi investors, quoting from a manga: "Just shut your mouths and invest everything in me!!!" Even worse, in said manga - "Attack on Titan" - the character saying that line (Eren Yeager: ends up dying while attempting to kill all of humanity outside his island nation ("Paradis Island"). Not exactly a great character to emulate when you're Japan - an island nation with a long history of imperial expansion and atrocities. Very awkward and disturbing on multiple levels... Official transcript of the speech on the PM's website:
Arnaud Bertrand2,427,135 views • 6 months ago
Probably this. This is the actual excavation site of the Sanxingdui treasure in China, one of the greatest archeological discoveries of all times, and completely closed to the public. I was allowed there thanks to my friend Zhai Xiang. It's pretty much the equivalent of visiting Tutankhamun's tomb when the archeologists were still excavating it. Pretty damn cool imho.
Arnaud Bertrand70,705 views • 7 days ago
![This is, without exaggerating, one of the most extraordinary things a US Treasury Secretary ever said. It should be mandatory viewing for all citizens of US "allies", Europeans first and foremost. What Bessent is saying is that the US will now treat US allies' wealth as an American "sovereign wealth fund" (his words), "directing" them, "largely at the [US] president's discretion", how to use their money in order to build American factories and reshore American industries. Even the Fox News host can't believe it, calling it "offshore appropriation", another word for theft. That's exactly what it is: straight up unabashed colonial plunder. That's the pattern we see emerge: unable to extract wealth or win wars against an increasingly strong Global South, the US has turned inward to feast on its own "allies" - who can't resist precisely because they depend on their exploiter for military "protection". They're as defenseless against American wealth extraction as any 19th-century colony was against its colonial "protector." That's exactly what I wrote in my latest article on "Europe's colonial moment":](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1955575252324433977/ext_tw_video_thumb/1955575201598427136/pu/img/0eJyypzKWEKp_Rmx.jpg)
This is, without exaggerating, one of the most extraordinary things a US Treasury Secretary ever said. It should be mandatory viewing for all citizens of US "allies", Europeans first and foremost. What Bessent is saying is that the US will now treat US allies' wealth as an American "sovereign wealth fund" (his words), "directing" them, "largely at the [US] president's discretion", how to use their money in order to build American factories and reshore American industries. Even the Fox News host can't believe it, calling it "offshore appropriation", another word for theft. That's exactly what it is: straight up unabashed colonial plunder. That's the pattern we see emerge: unable to extract wealth or win wars against an increasingly strong Global South, the US has turned inward to feast on its own "allies" - who can't resist precisely because they depend on their exploiter for military "protection". They're as defenseless against American wealth extraction as any 19th-century colony was against its colonial "protector." That's exactly what I wrote in my latest article on "Europe's colonial moment":
Arnaud Bertrand3,397,816 views • 9 months ago
This is the perhaps best illustration that Trump's new "Monroe doctrine" is objectively achieving the exact opposite of what it intends. Carney is currently in Beijing describing a "new era of relations between Canada and China" and explicitly talking about both countries becoming "strategic partners" on a comprehensive range of issues, including "issues on security." There is no overstating how extraordinary this is to anyone who's followed Canada-China relations in the past few years. Canada was probably THE country globally most aligned with the U.S. when it comes to China. As a reminder they literally abducted the daughter of Huawei's founder on the U.S.'s behalf and held her hostage for years despite severe Chinese retaliation - all in service of Washington's containment strategy. So for all intents and purposes Canada used to actually embody the Monroe Doctrine in practice: they were all-in on the US! And now Trump has achieved the extraordinary feat of changing that calculus, impressing upon Canada that HE was the threat and that they needed to hedge their US exposure. I mean, imagine telling anyone during the Meng Wanzhou episode that 4 years later Canada would be in Beijing, asking them for a strategic partnership on security matters while America threatens to annex it 😅
Arnaud Bertrand1,431,082 views • 4 months ago
![For people who say it couldn't be predicted that the Iran war would be this consequential for the global economy, watch this 2012 video of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski 👇 He predicts what did in fact happen: "[Iran] can hurt us a lot... Can you imagine what the consequences would be for us if [...] Iraq was massively destabilized, if Bahrain was set on fire, if the North-Eastern oil fields in Saudi Arabia were attacked... The consequences, the costs would be cumulative... The global economy would be affected so we're playing with fire here." All of this happened. Which goes to show that the US government has been acutely aware for decades of how globally destructive a war on Iran would be for all of us (including on America itself and on its Gulf allies): when Trump says that “nobody” expected Iran to retaliate by targeting US allies in the region ( it's a bold-faced lie. So the real question is rather: if you know something will set the world on fire, and you do it anyway, and the consequences unfold exactly as predicted - at what point does the rest of the world stop looking at Washington as a fireman and start reckoning with the fact that they're dealing with an arsonist? Source video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2039168486103285865/amplify_video_thumb/2039159134638231552/img/W6fz4oPfFB2wowat.jpg)
For people who say it couldn't be predicted that the Iran war would be this consequential for the global economy, watch this 2012 video of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski 👇 He predicts what did in fact happen: "[Iran] can hurt us a lot... Can you imagine what the consequences would be for us if [...] Iraq was massively destabilized, if Bahrain was set on fire, if the North-Eastern oil fields in Saudi Arabia were attacked... The consequences, the costs would be cumulative... The global economy would be affected so we're playing with fire here." All of this happened. Which goes to show that the US government has been acutely aware for decades of how globally destructive a war on Iran would be for all of us (including on America itself and on its Gulf allies): when Trump says that “nobody” expected Iran to retaliate by targeting US allies in the region ( it's a bold-faced lie. So the real question is rather: if you know something will set the world on fire, and you do it anyway, and the consequences unfold exactly as predicted - at what point does the rest of the world stop looking at Washington as a fireman and start reckoning with the fact that they're dealing with an arsonist? Source video:
Arnaud Bertrand621,650 views • 2 months ago
![Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1718201487132885246/amplify_video_thumb/1718102257437458432/img/nm5gd_FnM_-fNIJb.jpg)
Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"
Arnaud Bertrand10,928,352 views • 2 years ago
I rarely have reasons to be proud of France these days, but this is definitely one. France's parliament just voted - unanimously, 170 votes to 0 - a law that institutionalizes the restitution of cultural artifacts looted during the colonial era (the law covers a massive 157-year period). It's going absolutely viral in Chinese social media because of this speech 👇 by MP Jérémie Patrier-Leitus who noted in Parliament that it included items stolen to China during the joint British-French sack of the Summer Palace in 1860. Patrier-Leitus cites Victor Hugo's famous 1861 letter to Captain Butler, the British officer who wrote to him seeking his endorsement of the expedition - and got the exact opposite. Hugo wrote (whole letter here: "One day two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One plundered, the other burned. Victory can be a thieving woman, or so it seems. The devastation of the Summer Palace was accomplished by the two victors acting jointly. Mixed up in all this is the name of Elgin, which inevitably calls to mind the Parthenon. What was done to the Parthenon was done to the Summer Palace, more thoroughly and better, so that nothing of it should be left. All the treasures of all our cathedrals put together could not equal this formidable and splendid museum of the Orient. It contained not only masterpieces of art, but masses of jewelry. What a great exploit, what a windfall! One of the two victors filled his pockets; when the other saw this he filled his coffers. And back they came to Europe, arm in arm, laughing away. Such is the story of the two bandits. We Europeans are the civilized ones, and for us the Chinese are the barbarians. This is what civilization has done to barbarism. Before history, one of the two bandits will be called France; the other will be called England. But I protest, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity! the crimes of those who lead are not the fault of those who are led; Governments are sometimes bandits, peoples never. The French empire has pocketed half of this victory, and today with a kind of proprietorial naivety it displays the splendid bric-a-brac of the Summer Palace. I hope that a day will come when France, delivered and cleansed, will return this booty to despoiled China. Meanwhile, there is a theft and two thieves. I take note. This, Sir, is how much approval I give to the China expedition." Hugo's letter is so revered in China that a bronze bust of him stands today at the Summer Palace ruins - I believe the only instance of a Westerner honored in China at the site of his own country's crime. A powerful testament of how much a single act of intellectual honesty can redeem, if not a nation, then at least a name. Hugo was also prescient: as Patrier-Leitus notes, that day "when France, delivered and cleansed, will return this booty to despoiled China" has indeed come (even though the "delivered and cleansed" part is, overall, pretty questionable in the current context). This new law doesn't only concern China and the Summer Palace: it concerns ALL stolen artifacts by France during the period ranging between November 1815 and April 1972 - corresponding to the start of the second French colonial empire to the entry into force of the UNESCO convention on cultural property. It's a massive scope: 157 years, thousands of objects and dozens of nations with potential claims. It's France reckoning with its colonial past in an unprecedented way and the fact ALL of France's MPs voted in favor of the law, without a single exception, is also pretty remarkable. Hopefully this will also serve as a signal to other countries, especially the UK - the other "bandit" in Hugo's letter. There is this Chinese saying from the Zuo Zhuan (左传), one of the foundational Confucian classics: "To err and be able to correct it - there is no greater virtue." ("过而能改，善莫大焉", "guò ér néng gǎi, shàn mò dà yān"). France, with this law, proved its virtue.
Arnaud Bertrand422,297 views • 1 month ago
2:12
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
I rarely praise Trump but this is a genuinely incredible speech I've been arguing for close to a decade that the single biggest reason for the growing divide between the West and "the rest" was the West's inability to accept diversity (the genuine kind, not the fake ersatz of it sold to you under liberalism). Diversity of cultures, traditions, civilizations, governance systems, etc. Incredible, and kind of disturbing, that Trump is the first Western leader who seems to understand this and to criticize the West's missionary zeal to remake others in its image.
Arnaud Bertrand3,568,261 views • 1 year ago
![This is absolutely insane, I literally cannot believe France has come to this point. This 👇 is Aurore Bergé, the French Minister for the Fight against Discriminations, who just announced on Radio J (a Jewish community radio station in Paris) that she’d stop funding all French feminist organizations that do not promote Israel’s understanding of “Oct 7 and what happened afterwards”. Here’s an exact translation of what she said: “On behalf of the government, I have requested a meticulous review of all statements from all feminist organizations related to October 7th and its aftermath, because I refuse to allow the state to financially support associations that cannot clearly define what happened [...] I have asked for all financially supported organizations to be thoroughly scrutinized - hundreds and hundreds of associations - because being feminist means speaking out, it means supporting the women who were mutilated on October 7th. If there is any ambiguity about statements that have been made, it would not be right for these associations to continue receiving government subsidies, it's as simple as that.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1756710448710500582/amplify_video_thumb/1756690316185260032/img/fi5154Td9pX_sVhP.jpg)
This is absolutely insane, I literally cannot believe France has come to this point. This 👇 is Aurore Bergé, the French Minister for the Fight against Discriminations, who just announced on Radio J (a Jewish community radio station in Paris) that she’d stop funding all French feminist organizations that do not promote Israel’s understanding of “Oct 7 and what happened afterwards”. Here’s an exact translation of what she said: “On behalf of the government, I have requested a meticulous review of all statements from all feminist organizations related to October 7th and its aftermath, because I refuse to allow the state to financially support associations that cannot clearly define what happened [...] I have asked for all financially supported organizations to be thoroughly scrutinized - hundreds and hundreds of associations - because being feminist means speaking out, it means supporting the women who were mutilated on October 7th. If there is any ambiguity about statements that have been made, it would not be right for these associations to continue receiving government subsidies, it's as simple as that.”
Arnaud Bertrand5,170,984 views • 2 years ago
![This is quite crazy. According to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman (one of the rare senior US officials that I admire), the Trump administration couldn't even explain to the Japanese negotiating team what they were looking to achieve with the tariffs. Here's what Freeman said: "The Japanese have just been in Washington. Their experience apparently was they went to talk to the American leadership on this matter, and the American leadership said 'what are you offering?' And the Japanese said 'well, what is it that you want?' And the Americans could not explain what they wanted." Freeman also noted, correctly, that "the United States [broke] virtually every agreement it has agreed to in recent decades including the replacement for NAFTA with proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico that was negotiated by Mr. Trump in his first term." Which doesn't exactly encourage countries to make a deal with Trump: what's the point? Which is why Freeman believes that China won't go for negotiations and has instead decided to "wait [America] out". As he puts it: "What is [China's] incentive to negotiate with the US when the US has no stated objectives that make sense and no record of compliance with its own agreements? I think the Chinese have decided they will wait us out and see how Americans like Walmart and Amazon denuded of products." Fundamentally and somewhat paradoxically, that's the thing Trump the self-anointed "dealmaker" obviously doesn't get: at the end of the day dealmaking is built on credibility and consistency, and America has now neither.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1913823474231263325/amplify_video_thumb/1913810066316349440/img/pD8XqcDNPKo5XSxb.jpg)
This is quite crazy. According to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman (one of the rare senior US officials that I admire), the Trump administration couldn't even explain to the Japanese negotiating team what they were looking to achieve with the tariffs. Here's what Freeman said: "The Japanese have just been in Washington. Their experience apparently was they went to talk to the American leadership on this matter, and the American leadership said 'what are you offering?' And the Japanese said 'well, what is it that you want?' And the Americans could not explain what they wanted." Freeman also noted, correctly, that "the United States [broke] virtually every agreement it has agreed to in recent decades including the replacement for NAFTA with proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico that was negotiated by Mr. Trump in his first term." Which doesn't exactly encourage countries to make a deal with Trump: what's the point? Which is why Freeman believes that China won't go for negotiations and has instead decided to "wait [America] out". As he puts it: "What is [China's] incentive to negotiate with the US when the US has no stated objectives that make sense and no record of compliance with its own agreements? I think the Chinese have decided they will wait us out and see how Americans like Walmart and Amazon denuded of products." Fundamentally and somewhat paradoxically, that's the thing Trump the self-anointed "dealmaker" obviously doesn't get: at the end of the day dealmaking is built on credibility and consistency, and America has now neither.
Arnaud Bertrand2,243,114 views • 1 year ago
Powerful words by 102 years old philosopher Edgar Morin, one of France's most revered intellectual figures, as well as a Jewish WW2 resistant who fought as a lieutenant in De Gaulle's France combattante. Here are his words on Gaza: "I am both astonished and outraged by the fact that those who represent the descendants of a people who were persecuted for centuries for religious or racial reasons... That the descendants of this people who are today the decision-makers of the State of Israel, that they could not only colonize an entire people, partly drive them out of their land and seek to expel them for good... But also, after the massacre of October 7, engaged in a real massive slaughter on the populations of Gaza and continue, incessantly, hitting civilians, women, and children. And to see the silence of the world, the silence of the United States, protectors of Israel, the silence of the Arab states, the silence of the European states who claim to be defenders of culture, humanity, human rights. I think we are living through a horrible tragedy because we are also powerless in the face of this thing that is unleashing. At least, I say: bear witness! The only thing that remains if we cannot resist concretely is to testify. Let's resist in our minds, let's not be fooled, let's not forget, let's have the courage to face things head-on."
Arnaud Bertrand3,961,227 views • 2 years ago
Unreal: Merz just said that Brazil was a shithole that everybody was happy to leave after his visit, because Germany is more beautiful. Sometimes you really wonder if EU leaders are this bad on purpose or if it's just some form of strange geopolitical autism. Exact translation of his words: "I asked some journalists who were with me in Brazil last week: 'Who among you would like to stay here?' Not one person raised their hand. They were all glad that we - above all, from this place where we were - returned to Germany again, on the night from Friday to Saturday."
Arnaud Bertrand848,029 views • 6 months ago