Bruno Guigue is a former senior official with the French Interior Ministry （1990-2008）， a researcher in political philosophy and a political analyst. He has been conducting extensive research on China and writes a column and occasional articles for the media.
　　In response to several defamatory reports coming in from various Western media outlets， covering topics mostly relating to the current circumstances in Hong Kong and Xinjiang as well as human rights in other parts of China， Guigue is keen to set the record straight. In an interview with Beijing Review reporter Sun Xuan， he shared his views on Western propaganda， the governance of China， as well as China-U.S. and China-European relations.
　　Beijing Review： Why have you been interested in researching China-related affairs and why are you willing to refute Western media reports？
　　Bruno Guigue： At this historical juncture， China raises a series of fascinating issues on development， governance and democracy， especially for those Western analysts prepared to challenge conventional wisdom. I realized that China was providing us with answers different from those we were accustomed to， and that these answers were either ignored or distorted by both mainstream media and research institutes across the West. I just want to make a modest contribution to provide more objective insights on China and a new outlook on the workings of Chinese society.
　　You mentioned that “the administration of Hong Kong is a matter of China’s internal affairs.” Nevertheless， Western media has turned this internal affair into international conflict. In fact， we could probably say the same thing when it comes to the topics of Tibet， Xinjiang and Taiwan… According to you， what lies beneath this state of affairs？ All the issues you have mentioned are part of Chinese domestic policy and do not concern foreign countries. Does China meddle in America’s internal affairs？ No. Yet we should not be deluded： If the United States allows itself to interfere in Chinese affairs， it is only to try and destabilize China. This is the only reason. They keep delving into the Uygur topic， but since when do Americans care about the fate of Muslims around the world？ Haven’t they brought war into Afghanistan， Iraq and Libya？ Experts from the State Department and the Pentagon know perfectly well the hypocrisy of such a narrative， but by accusing China of oppressing the Uygurs， they are trying to enlist all Muslims in a new offensive against China. Such a maneuver is a crude one and one based on lies. What’s more， this is not the first time Washington has traveled down this road. 　　You wrote an article entitled To Each Their Own Human Rights. Could we perhaps also say， “To each their own political system？”
　　Of course， “To each their own political system”！ I fully subscribe to this aphorism. To me， this is somewhat stating the obvious given each country has its own history， its own culture， and its own challenges. Why should China imitate others， and model its own system after that of other countries？ The Western system may apply to the political thinking and framework of Western countries， but certainly not to that of China.
　　In fact， the West has long tried to establish itself as a tried and true universal model， even though the bare reality of Western regimes is a very undemocratic one. Moreover， it is in the name of this socalled universality of its own model that it（the West） has launched imperialistic wars and to this very day interferes in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. This is， in short， a monumental hoax. To the hypocritical universalism of the West， I prefer the real universalism that Professor Zhao Tingyang （a Chinese philosopher and researcher with the Institute of Philosophy at China’s Academy of Social Sciences） describes in demonstrative terms： an inclusive， not exclusive， model of universalism， a kind of universalism that embraces diversity， not a universalism that aims to impose a single， unique model.

　　Standing at “the intersection of a declining America and a rising China，” is it possible to avoid a Cold War mentality and steer away from the zero-sum game？
　　There are considerable forces at work in the U.S. that oppose not only cooperation， but a peaceful coexistence of different systems. Whether in the U.S. military， the arms industry or in ultra-conservative circles， a deep hostility toward China and what it stands for looms. A fraction of the American ruling class will never acknowledge China’s tremendous achievements. They cannot digest the fact that a very large country， led by a communist party， has managed to make such headway over the timespan of merely seven decades.
　　I don’t know if the nefarious influence of these anti-Chinese circles will continue to weigh in on U.S. foreign policy making. I hope that the American people will come to understand that opposing China will do them no good in the long run， that China does not pose a threat to anyone， and that each country must have its own system. On these conditions， we may be able to witness a change in international relations. 　　As a former senior official with the Interior Ministry， how do you assess the governance of a ruling party？ What are the key elements？
　　I think the first quality of a leadership team is its moral integrity. This is what the French Revolution called patriotism， meaning love for the motherland. Without this moral exemplarity， leaders stand to lose their credibility. If the rulers serve private interests instead of the general interest， then state power is no longer worthy of respect and will eventually no longer be obeyed.
　　The second quality， in my opinion， is the efficiency in solving problems. There is a noblesse（French for “nobility；” originally， when used with politics， referring to leaders from the upper social classes acting on behalf of those left behind） when it intends to improve the living conditions of the people， when it serves the country in the interest of all citizens， not that of a privileged minority. Take COVID-19， for example. When I see that the Chinese Government has been able to guarantee public health while ensuring economic growth， I see that it has not only effectively served the common interest of the Chinese nation， but also the interests of other nations.
　　Economic and cultural exchanges between China and Europe have followed a positive trend in recent years， though frictions do arise from time to time， especially in the political arena. What is your opinion here？
　　If Europeans were to be realistic， they would notice two things. First， they would see that China is a world economic powerhouse and that no one will benefit from a crisis that affects China. Then they would understand that their interests do not overlap with those of the Americans. With regards to China， the U.S. chose to adopt a confrontational approach. They imagine that the ground lost by China will be immediately regained by the U.S.， and that it is therefore necessary to provoke China and to trigger confrontation across the board， all the while avoiding waging an all-out war.
　　However， Europeans have no interest in adopting this type of perilous approach： It leads nowhere and only benefits the U.S. arms complex. The only policy in line with Europe’s mission is therefore an independent and non-aligned Gaullisttype policy. Named after former French President Charles de Gaulle （1890-1970）， a Gaullist economic policy is based on the idea of dirigism considering state stewardship of the economy. Such a policy， by promoting cooperation with both East and West， would restore the global balance of power and put Europe back at the center. BR