On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.

LONDON, July 5 (Reuters) - Insurers are nervous that militant attacks or AI-generated fake images could derail the Paris Olympics, risking event cancellations and millions of dollars in claims. Insurers faced losses after the 2020 Tokyo Olympics were postponed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, wars in Ukraine and Gaza and a spate of elections this year, including in France, have driven up fears of politically-motivated violence at high-profile global events. The Olympics take place in Paris from July 26-Aug 11 and the Paralympics from Aug 28-Sept 8. German insurer Allianz (ALVG.DE), opens new tab is insurance partner for the Games. Other insurers, such as the Lloyd's of London (SOLYD.UL) market, are also providing cover. "We are all aware of the geopolitical situation the world is in," said Eike Buergel, head of Allianz's Olympic and Paralympic programme. "We are convinced that the IOC (International Olympic Committee), Paris 2024 and the national organising committees, together with the French authorities, are taking the right measures when it comes to challenges on the ground."

United Airlines confirmed that a tire fell off a Boeing 757 passenger plane when it took off from Los Angeles International Airport in the early morning of July 8, local time. It is reported that there has been no report of any material damage or casualties in this accident. United Airlines said in a statement that the aircraft tire has been found and the investigation is ongoing. There were 174 passengers and 7 crew members on the flight involved. The flight left Los Angeles International Airport at around 7:15 on July 8 and flew to Denver. Unlike the aircraft tire falling incident on a United Airlines flight in March, the pilot of this flight continued the journey to Denver and landed smoothly there.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

According to Chinese movie ticketing platform Taopiaopiao, the box office for the 2024 Spring Festival holidays surpassed last year's 6.766 billion yuan and entered the top two in the history of Chinese Spring Festival holidays box office. I recently watched three movies, and I think they are all good. However, their overall level is not higher than the movies from last Spring Festival holidays. The higher box office compared to last year reflects the strong potential for movie consumption in Chinese society. Our filmmakers need to make further efforts. The current development of Chinese movies has many advantages. People often complain that our film creation faces various "restricted areas," but in terms of societal topics, the space for Chinese film creation is relatively large and relaxed. For example, Zhang Yimou's film Article 20 shows protest scenes and boldly explores the issue of judicial injustice in depth. A few years ago, the film I Am Not Madame Bovary specifically discussed the sensitive issue of petitioning. Another film, Johnny Keep Walking! which was aired last year, also touches on serious social issues. The breadth and depth of these films' topics lay the foundation for their attractiveness. The improvement of China's basic film production level has played a role in boosting their success, resulting in Hollywood films being collectively pushed off the Chinese box office charts. Now, almost any domestic film can be considered "watchable." The next step is to produce world-class masterpieces and promote the collective advancement of Chinese films on the global stage. The three movies that I watched are YOLO, directed, written and starring Jia Ling, a representative of the new generation of female Chinese directors, Pegasus 2, directed by Han Han and Article 20. They are all realistic-themed films, and the actors who play the main characters have some overlap. Although each of them is good, as mentioned earlier, I personally feel that their overall quality is not as good as films screened during last year's Spring Festival holidays. So I have a feeling that Chinese movies have been spinning in place for a year in such a good market environment. Of course, I am not an expert, so what I say may not be correct, or it may be biased. The production level of Chinese films, in terms of technology, has caught up. Domestic films have surpassed Hollywood in the domestic market through competition, which is a great achievement. However, I hope that this does not mark the beginning of a "decoupling" between Chinese movies and the rest of the world, but rather a turning point for Chinese films to reach a higher level domestically and to go global. This requires Chinese realistic films to not only be loved by domestic audiences but also become increasingly "understandable" to foreigners, allowing them to empathize with us through these films. If Chinese films can gradually go global through market-oriented approaches, it will be a new process for the international community to re-recognize and understand China, and to establish common values between us. The earliest understanding of the US by the Chinese people came entirely from the shaping of news propaganda. Later, American films and TV works entered China, showcasing the rich American society. Now, Western media's portrayal of China is completely stereotyped. If Chinese films and other popular culture do not go global, and if a large number of secular elements from China do not appear on the global internet, the outside world's perception of China is likely to be dictated by Western media for a long time. So I hope that China's excellent film market can incubate outstanding works that are loved and enjoyed globally. Not only should our cultural policies provide greater space, but our internet public opinion should also be more tolerant of the interweaving and mutually influencing between Chinese and Western cultural elements. We should not restrict those elements in Chinese films that can resonate with both Chinese and foreign audiences. For example, comedies should not only make Chinese people laugh, but also be understandable to foreigners. Chinese films need to establish their own big stars, including top-tier female stars. In the past, Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan became famous in the West, but they were primarily seen as "Hollywood stars." It is a more challenging journey for Chinese stars to gain international recognition through their own films. The success of Chinese films and Chinese stars worldwide is definitely a complementary process. The backgrounds of our film stories should also be carefully selected and more diverse, enhancing the visual quality and international appeal of the films. Feng Xiaogang's film Be There or Be Square was entirely set in the US, and later, there was another film called Lost in Thailand, both of which achieved good results. Choosing such backgrounds should be encouraged as one of the approaches. In conclusion, I am delighted by the comprehensive recovery of the Chinese film market, and I also hope that the films nurtured by this market will continue to progress. To achieve this, we need to keep introducing the world's best films and collaboratively cultivate the aesthetic taste of the Chinese people alongside Chinese films. Chinese films have already stood up, but they should not monopolize this vast market. Instead, the Chinese market should serve as the stage for them to expand globally.