Month: November 2023

Vladimir Putin: US exceptionalism is an extension of the colonial mindset

In this edition of the CGTN series Leaders Talk, Wang Guan travels to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin, shortly before the Russian President left for Beijing to attend the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. 

President Putin notes that, in building their relations, Russia and China have “always tried to reach a compromise, even on complicated issues inherited from the old days. Our relations have always been driven by goodwill. It helped us solve the border delimitation issues that had remained outstanding for 40 years.”

Wang Guan gives his impression of the thriving economic relations between the two countries, saying that on this visit to Moscow, he “saw that the streets and stores, including online trading platforms, were increasingly filled with Chinese brands. At the same time, Russian gas is supplied to the homes of Chinese consumers and Russian meat and dairy products, for example, are becoming more and more common in Chinese stores.”

President Putin agrees that his country and China are well on the way to meeting their joint target for two-way trade to reach 200 billion US dollars by 2024.

Turning to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Russian leader commented that: “Yes, we see that some people consider it an attempt by the People’s Republic of China to put someone under its thumb, but we see otherwise, we just see desire for cooperation. Our own ideas on the development of the Eurasian Economic Union, for example, on the construction of a Greater Eurasia, fully coincide with the Chinese ideas proposed within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative.”

Thanks to the BRI, the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have already secured $24 billion dollars’ worth of investments, Putin says, and continues:

“It seems to me that the main advantage of the concept of cooperation proposed by the Chinese side is that nobody imposes anything on anybody in the framework of this work. Everything is done within the framework of finding not only acceptable solutions, but such projects and such ways of achieving a common goal that are acceptable to all. This is what makes China today, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, unique in building relations with others: no one imposes anything on anyone; no one forces anything on anyone, but only gives them opportunity. And, as I said, if there are difficulties, compromises are sought and always found. In my view, this is what distinguishes the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by the Chinese President from many others that countries with a heavy colonial legacy are trying to implement in the world.”

Reflecting his well-known interest, President Putin refers several times to sports, especially the martial arts and ice hockey, and to his hope to increase cooperation with China in this field, and, citing the importance of sports in his own life, states:

“Everyone knows and it’s not a secret that I come from a simple working-class family, and in the past, I had a lot of time to spend in the yard. I don’t know how my life would have turned out if I hadn’t taken an interest in sports. It doesn’t really matter what kind of sports I did, it’s important that I paid a lot of attention to it.”

Following up on what he said recently at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, President Putin excoriated the Western verbiage about a “rules-based order”:

“Have you ever seen those rules? No, you haven’t, because no one has agreed on them with anyone. So how can one talk about order based on rules that no one has ever seen? In terms of common sense, it’s nonsense. But it is beneficial to those who promote this approach. Because if no one has seen the rules, it only means that those who talk about them are making them up themselves from time to time to their own advantage. That is the colonial approach.

“Because colonial countries have always believed that they are first-rated people. After all, they have always talked about bringing enlightenment to their colonies, that they are civilized people who bring the benefits of civilization to other nations, whom they consider second-rate people. No surprise today’s political elite, say, in the United States, talks about its exceptionalism. This is the extension of this colonial mindset, meaning that when they consider themselves exceptional in the United States, it means that other people, all the people in fact, are just some second-rate people. How else could one understand it? Those are mere vestiges of colonial thinking, nothing else.

“Our approach is quite different. We proceed from the fact that all people are equal, all people have the same rights; the rights and freedoms of one country and one nation end where the rights and freedoms of another person, of an entire state, appear. This is the way in which a multipolar world should be evolving gradually. This is exactly what we are striving for, and this is the basis of our interaction with China on the international stage.”

He also speaks about the BRICS cooperation mechanism and its recent expansion from five to 11 members, saying that “all those who have joined BRICS support the idea and concept of forming a multipolar world. No one wants to play second fiddle to some sovereign, everyone wants equal rights. And when they join BRICS, they see that we can achieve this goal by joining efforts within the framework of expansion and strengthening of such a format.”

President Putin also discusses the conflict in Ukraine and the Chinese proposal for a political solution:

“We are thankful to our Chinese friends for trying to think about ways to end this crisis. However, I would like to remind you that hostilities in Ukraine did not start with our special military operation, but way before – in 2014, when the Western countries, after having volunteered as guarantors of the agreements between President Yanukovich and the opposition, forgot about those guarantees in a matter of days and – worse still – supported a coup d’état. United States Administration officials even acknowledged spending big money on it…

“Therefore, the start of the special military operation was not the start of a war, but an attempt to end it.”

Referring to the negotiations held in the Turkish city of Istanbul, shortly after the start of the special military operation, Putin notes that agreement was almost reached, however, “as soon as we pulled our troops back from the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, the Ukrainian side committed all the arrangements to flames.” Therefore:

“Of course, we know the proposals of our Chinese friends. We highly value those proposals. I think they are absolutely realistic and could lay the foundation for peace arrangements. But, unfortunately, the opposing side does not want to enter into any negotiations. In fact, the President of Ukraine has even issued a decree prohibiting everyone – including himself – to conduct any negotiations with us. How can we conduct negotiations if they are not willing to and even issued a regulation prohibiting such negotiations?”

Asked if there is any possibility to make progress based on the Chinese standpoint of building shared, common, and indivisible security, Putin says:

“Yes, we have always said that, too… In this context, it is extremely important for us that Ukraine stays outside any blocs. We were told as far back as 1991 – by the then US Administration – that NATO would not expand further east. Since then, there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and every time we expressed our concerns. Every time we were told: yes, we promised you not to expand NATO eastwards, but those were verbal promises – is there any paper with our signature on it? No paper? Good-bye.

“You see, it is very difficult to engage in a dialogue with people like that. I have already cited the example of the Iranian nuclear programme. The negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme were very, very lengthy. An agreement was reached, a compromise found, and documents signed. Then came a new Administration and threw everything in the trash, as if those arrangements never existed. How can we agree on anything if every new Administration starts from scratch – begin each time from the centre of the playing field?”

The CGTN interview with President Putin is embedded below. We also reproduce the full text of the interview as published by the Russian President’s website. The quotations above are taken from the latter version.

Continue reading Vladimir Putin: US exceptionalism is an extension of the colonial mindset

The Western left and the US-China contradiction

In the following article, which was originally published in People’s Democracy, the weekly English-language newspaper of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM), Prabhat Patnaik takes up the contradictions in the view taken by parts of the western left with regard to China and its growing contradictions with US imperialism. 

He begins by stating that, “significant segments of the non-Communist Western Left see the developing contradiction between the United States and China in terms of an inter-imperialist rivalry.” (One would just observe here that Comrade Patnaik is being either diplomatic or charitable, or quite possibly both, as a number of western communist parties, not least the Communist Party of Greece [KKE], are at least equally prone to this fundamental political error.)

Such a characterisation, Comrade Patnaik notes, “ironically makes these segments of the Left implicitly or explicitly complicit in US imperialism’s machinations against China… since the two countries are at loggerheads on most contemporary issues, it leads to a general muting of opposition to US imperialism.”

Comrade Patnaik further notes that this deviation is not new on the part of some sections of the left, citing attitudes to NATO’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia and current conflicts in both Ukraine and Gaza. 

Regarding the claims that China is a capitalist country, Patnaik writes:

“As for China being a capitalist economy, and hence engaged in imperialist activities all over the globe in rivalry with the US, those who hold this view are, at best, taking a moralist position and mixing up ‘capitalist’ with ‘bad’ and ‘socialist’ with ‘good’. Their position amounts in effect to saying: I have my notion of how a socialist society should behave (which is an idealised notion), and if China’s behaviour in some respects differs from my notion, then ipso facto China cannot be socialist and hence must be capitalist. The terms capitalist and socialist however have very specific meanings, which imply their being associated with very specific kinds of dynamics, each kind rooted in certain basic property relations. True, China has a significant capitalist sector, namely one characterised by capitalist property relations, but the bulk of the Chinese economy is still State-owned and characterised by centralised direction which prevents it from having the self- drivenness (or ‘spontaneity’) that marks capitalism. One may critique many aspects of Chinese economy and society but calling it ‘capitalist’ and hence engaged in imperialist activities on a par with western metropolitan economies, is a travesty. It is not only analytically wrong but leads to praxis that is palpably against the interests of both the working classes in the metropolis and the working people in the global south.”

Hence:

“It is not inter-imperialist rivalry, but resistance on the part of China, and other countries following its lead, to the re-assertion of hegemony by western imperialism that explains the heightening of US-China contradictions.”

Significant segments of the non-Communist Western Left see the developing contradiction between the United States and China in terms of an inter-imperialist rivalry. Such a characterisation fulfils three distinct theoretical functions from their point of view: first, it provides an explanation for the growing contradiction between the US and China; second, it does so by using a Leninist concept and within a Leninist paradigm; and third, it critiques China as an emerging imperialist power, and hence by inference, a capitalist economy, which is in conformity with an ultra-Left critique of China.

Such a characterisation ironically makes these segments of the Left implicitly or explicitly complicit in US imperialism’s machinations against China.  At best, it leads to a position which holds that they are both imperialist countries, so that there is no point in supporting one against the other; at worst, it leads to supporting the US against China as the “lesser evil” in the conflict between these two imperialist powers. In either case, it leads to the obliteration of an oppositional position with regard to the aggressive postures of US imperialism vis-à-vis China; and since the two countries are at loggerheads on most contemporary issues, it leads to a general muting of opposition to US imperialism.

For quite some time now, significant sections of the western Left, even those who otherwise profess opposition to western imperialism, have been supportive of the actions of this imperialism in specific situations. It was evident in their support for the bombing of Serbia when that country was being ruled by Slobodan Milosevich; it is evident at present in the support for NATO in the ongoing Ukraine war; and it is also evident in their shocking lack of any strong opposition to the genocide that is being perpetrated by Israel on the Palestinian people in Gaza with the active support of western imperialism. The silence on, or the support for, the aggressive imperialist position on China by certain sections of the western Left, is, to be sure, not necessarily identical with these positions; but it is in conformity with them.

Such a position which does not frontally oppose western imperialism, is, ironically, at complete variance with the interests and the attitudes of the working class in the metropolitan countries. The working class in Europe for instance is overwhelmingly opposed to NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, as is evident in many instances of workers’ refusal to load shipment of European arms meant for Ukraine. This is not surprising, for the war has also directly impacted workers’ lives by aggravating inflation. But the absence of any forthright Left opposition to the war is making many workers turn to right-wing parties that, even though they fall in line with imperialist positions upon coming to power as Meloni has done in Italy, are at least critical of such positions when they are in opposition. The quietude of the western left vis-à-vis western imperialism is thus causing a shift of the entire political centre of gravity to the right over much of the metropolis. And looking upon the US-China contradiction as an inter-imperialist rivalry plays into this narrative.

As for China being a capitalist economy, and hence engaged in imperialist activities all over the globe in rivalry with the US, those who hold this view are, at best, taking a moralist position and mixing up “capitalist” with “bad” and “socialist” with “good”. Their position amounts in effect to saying: I have my notion of how a socialist society should behave (which is an idealised notion), and if China’s behaviour in some respects differs from my notion, then ipso facto China cannot be socialist and hence must be capitalist. The terms capitalist and socialist however have very specific meanings, which imply their being associated with very specific kinds of dynamics, each kind rooted in certain basic property relations. True, China has a significant capitalist sector, namely one characterised by capitalist property relations, but the bulk of the Chinese economy is still State-owned and characterised by centralised direction which prevents it from having the self- drivenness (or “spontaneity”) that marks capitalism. One may critique many aspects of Chinese economy and society, but calling it “capitalist” and hence engaged in imperialist activities on a par with western metropolitan economies, is a travesty. It is not only analytically wrong but leads to praxis that is palpably against the interests of both the working classes in the metropolis and the working people in the global south.

But the question immediately arises: if the US-China contradiction is not a manifestation of inter-imperialist rivalry, then how can we explain its rise to prominence in the more recent period? To understand this we have to go back to the post-second world war period. Capitalism emerged from the war greatly weakened, and facing an existential crisis: the working class in the metropolis was not willing to go back to the pre-war capitalism that had entailed mass unemployment and destitution; socialism had made great advances all over the world; and liberation struggles in the global south against colonial and semi-colonial oppression had reached a real crescendo. For its very survival therefore capitalism had to make a number of concessions: the introduction of universal adult suffrage, the adoption of welfare State measures, the institution of State intervention in demand management, and above all the acceptance of formal political decolonisation.

Political decolonisation however did not mean economic decolonisation, that is, the transfer of control over third world resources, exercised till then by metropolitan capital to the newly independent countries; indeed against such transfers imperialism fought a bitter and prolonged struggle, marked by the overthrow of governments led by Arbenz, Mossadegh, Allende, Cheddi Jagan, Lumumba and many others. Even so, however, metropolitan capital could not prevent third world resources in many instances from slipping out of its control to the dirigiste regimes that had come up in these countries following decolonisation.

The tide turned in favour of imperialism with the coming into being of a higher stage of centralisation of capital that gave rise to globalised capital, including above all globalised finance, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union that itself was not altogether unrelated to the globalisation of finance. Imperialism trapped countries in the web of globalisation and hence in the vortex of global financial flows, forcing them under the threat of financial outflows into pursuing neo-liberal policies that meant the end of dirigiste regimes and the re-acquisition of control by metropolitan capital over much of third world resources, including third world land-use.

It is against this background of re-assertion of imperialist hegemony that one can understand the heightening of US-China contradiction and many other contemporary developments like the Ukraine war. Two features of this re-assertion need to be noted: the first is that metropolitan market access for goods from countries like China, together with the willingness of metropolitan capital to locate plants in such countries to take advantage of their comparatively lower wages for meeting global demand, accelerated the growth-rate in these economies (and only these economies) of the global south; it did so in China to a point where the leading metropolitan power, the US, began to see China as a threat. The second feature is the crisis of neo-liberal capitalism that has emerged with virulence after the collapse of the housing “bubble” in the US.

For both these reasons the US would now like to protect its economy against imports from China and from other similarly-placed countries of the global south. Even though these imports may be occurring, at least in part, under the aegis of US capital, the US cannot afford to run the risk of “deindustrialising” itself. The desire on its part to cut China “down to size” so soon after it had been hailing China for its “economic reforms” is thus rooted in the contradictions of neo-liberal capitalism, and hence in the very logic inherent to the reassertion of imperialist hegemony. It is not inter-imperialist rivalry, but resistance on the part of China, and other countries following its lead, to the re-assertion of hegemony by western imperialism that explains the heightening of US-China contradictions.

As the capitalist crisis accentuates, as the oppression of third world countries because of their inability to service their external debt increases through the imposition of “austerity” by imperialist agencies like the IMF, and in turn calls forth greater resistance from them and greater assistance to them from China, the US-China contradictions will become more acute and the tirades against China in the west will grow shriller.

Rejoice: China has now outlasted the USSR

In the following thoughtful and insightful article, originally published in the Morning Star, Andrew Murray observes that, as of this month, the People Republic of China has now outlasted the Soviet Union (even when setting the latter’s start date as the victory of the October Revolution in 1917, rather than the actual formation of the USSR in 1922).

Andrew notes that this milestone represents an inevitable and ongoing eastward shift in the world’s political centre of gravity, “as the depredations wrought by 300 years of imperialism are gradually undone.” Additionally, the survival of Chinese socialism – and specifically a version of Marxism that is grounded in China’s own history and philosophical traditions – is “a dialectical step in the universalisation of Marxism”. This universalisation expands the scope and applicability of Marxism beyond the 19th century industrial heartlands of Europe and North America, to take on board the struggle of peoples the world over against colonialism, imperialism, exploitation and all forms of oppression. Andrew writes:

It should be neither surprising nor alarming that Chinese Marxism is refreshed from a variety of sources of which Marx and Engels knew little or nothing. That is the inevitable interplay of the development of a methodology which aims to encompass the totality of social experience across the world.

Given the longevity of the Chinese Revolution, along with China’s size and growing strengh, Andrew argues persuasively that the “the perspective of socialism in the world today rests heavily on Chinese shoulders” and urges readers to “acknowledge the immensity of the achievement of the CPC and the Chinese people.”

Some of the ideas in this article are explored in more detail in Andrew’s article The significance of the Chinese revolution, based on a presentation to the Friends of Socialist China dialogue held in London in November 2022 on the theme On the evolving significance of the Chinese Revolution.

A landmark in socialist history passed largely unremarked this month.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has now lasted longer than the USSR did, counting the latter’s lifespan, as one reasonably should, from the October Revolution of 1917 rather than the actual formation of the USSR in 1922.

Such milestones may mean little in and of themselves. But this one carries a freight of historical significance.

It is emblematic of the shift of the leading edge of human development from Europe and North America to Asia and the Pacific, as the depredations wrought by 300 years of imperialism are gradually undone.

But that is only one side of the issue. China’s rise, after a century of violent interruption by Western aggression, would have significance even if it were an entirely capitalist project, which its critics say it is but which the government of the PRC itself emphatically says it isn’t.

It has additional, and greater, importance in the world because the PRC places its advance within the framework of the worldwide movement for socialism as well as China’s tortured history.

The two revolutions were intimately connected. The Chinese communists are fond of saying that the salvoes of the October Revolution brought Marxism to China.

That is indeed true — before Lenin and the Communist International, there was no Marxism and no Marxist party in China, unlike in Europe where existing Marxist traditions flourished before the first world war.

It was Soviet Marxism that initially shaped the Communist Party of China (CPC). And without the CPC the struggle for China’s freedom from imperialism would have remained in the corrupted and compromised hands of the Kuomintang.

It is doubtful that this counterfactual China could have ever established a genuine unity and independence from foreign hegemony, prerequisites for the huge economic advances of the last 45 years in particular.

In that sense perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Russian revolution in world history has been the Chinese revolution. As to why and how socialist China has lasted longer than its Soviet progenitor — that is a very complicated question.

The reasons for the Soviet collapse of the 1980s have been endlessly chewed over. But there is probably a consensus that a cardinal factor was the unyielding pressure from Western imperialism on the Soviet state, ultimately beyond what its economic system could readily sustain.

That is a problem China seems to have cracked. Its accelerating economic strength has not merely guaranteed its independence — Soviet socialism established that too — but it has been able to reproduce itself at more advanced levels to the point where being broken by economic coercion, expressed through an arms race or otherwise, seems all-but impossible.

The connections between the two great revolutions of the 20th century should not blind us to the discontinuities, however. The CPC may have taken the Comintern’s Marxism-Leninism as its foundation but its work, since 1935 at any rate, has turned on trying to integrate those principles with a reality very different from the one that originally produced Marxism.

For example, Lenin told the victorious Russian communists that they stood on the shoulders of the experience of the Paris Commune and of pre-1914 German social democracy.

Such points of reference meant little in China. The CPC was however the inheritor of indigenous revolutionary traditions, like the 19th-century Taiping Rebellion, a decade-long insurrection animated by a sort of quasi-Christian utopian peasant communism which dwarfs the Paris Commune in duration and bloodshed.

The history of Chinese socialism needs to be read as much or more against this background as it does against the more familiar — in the West — narratives of the international communist movement of Lenin, Stalin and beyond.

The CPC describes its long struggle to make Marxist politics suitable to the different conditions of China as the “localisation” of Marxism. It is also, however, a dialectical step in the universalisation of Marxism, a doctrine first developed in industrialising Western Europe from sources which included Hegelian philosophy and French understandings of socialism.

That such a doctrine could remain the same as it extends its reach across the world, to countries with very different civilisational roots, philosophical traditions, and specific histories of class struggle is a massive implausibility.

It should be neither surprising nor alarming that Chinese Marxism is refreshed from a variety of sources of which Marx and Engels knew little or nothing. That is the inevitable interplay of the development of a methodology which aims to encompass the totality of social experience across the world.

And that should inform the debate as to whether or not the PRC is today authentically socialist. Socialism and capitalism are terms with universal application, but to expect them to retain the same precise definition over the passage of centuries and the sweep of the world is in a sense to deny Marxism itself.

The CPC, unlike the Communist Party of the USSR (CPSU) for most of its history, makes no claim to have developed a model for all countries to follow, nor to have spoken the last word on Marxism. Other peoples and movements will bring something to the common cause too.

So Chinese socialism is very different from Soviet socialism, in good and bad ways. On the positive side, it has endured, with astonishing benefits to the Chinese people from sustained economic growth. And as China has stood up, so too has the global South, forming a loose pole of opposition to imperialism, albeit not in its 20th-century form.

It has done that through using a plurality of economic mechanisms, some of which clearly carry risks of ultimately upsetting the class nature of the PRC. Massive income inequality and persistent unemployment must be put down on the negative side of the ledger — neither can be reconciled with any serious notion of socialism.

Chinese communists have, however, been quite consistent in arguing that the transition to a socialist society is the work of centuries, not the relatively quick sprint imagined in Soviet times. The CPC took that view even under Mao’s sometimes-leftist leadership, and under subsequent leaders too.

That is perhaps a hard concept to embrace. After all, socialists would like to see their efforts for a better society consummated within their own lifetime. Moreover, the menace of climate change and catastrophic war may make a perspective of such protracted progress an unaffordable luxury. Nevertheless, it is not unrealistic, based on the evidence.

And while one may regret that the CPC does not see itself at the heart of the world revolutionary movement in the way that the CPSU once did, it is unarguable that the perspective of socialism in the world today rests heavily on Chinese shoulders. It is recounted, probably apocryphally, that Lenin danced in the snow in Moscow on the day his Soviet government outlasted the first workers’ regime, the Paris Commune.

It is hard to imagine Xi Jinping skipping in celebration, but that should not stop the rest of us from acknowledging the immensity of the achievement of the CPC and the Chinese people.

On the strategic relationship between Venezuela and China

During a state visit to the People’s Republic of China in September 2023, Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro met president Xi Jinping and both agreed to strengthen the relationship of their countries by establishing seven sub commissions to elevate it to the level of ‘all-weather strategic partnership’. This is the culmination of a relationship that began with president Hugo Chavez’s first visit to Beijing in 1999, the very first year of his presidency.

Chavez’s first visit went well beyond friendly diplomacy since Venezuela’s president and the then president of China, Jiang Zemin, signed fifteen cooperation and commercial agreements. This was followed by President Jiang’s visit to Venezuela in 2001. Trade between the two countries in 1998 amounted to a paltry US$182.8 million, which would grow hundred-fold by the 21st century’s second decade.

In his 1999 visit Chavez described the People’s Republic as “a true model and example of mutual respect”, adding “we [in Venezuela] have developed an autonomous foreign policy, independent from any world power and on that, we resemble China.” After that, high officials from both governments would visit each other’s country to develop a commercial and political relationship, which has grown stronger ever since.

Whilst Hugo Chavez was president of Venezuela, he visited China in 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. President Maduro did so in 2013, 2015, 2018, 2021 and 2023. For their part, Chinese leaders also visited Venezuela: after Jiang Zemin’s 2001 visit, Xi Jinping (then vice-president) visited in 2009 and in 2013, president Hu Jintao planned a visit in 2010 (interrupted due an earthquake in China), and Xi Jinping, as president, visited in 2014.

This detailed article by Francisco Dominguez – an expert on Latin American politics, National Secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, and Friends of Socialist China advisory group member – endeavours to chart the evolution of the relationship between Bolivarian Venezuela and the People’s Republic of China and its significance for Latin America as a whole.

Introduction

Being a consummate strategist, Hugo Chavez understood earlier than other Latin American left-wing leaders, the significance and weight of China in world politics and economics, especially, the rising Asian power’s commitment to build a multipolar world. Chavez, an avid reader, endowed with a formidable intellect, was also aware not only of the significance of the 1949 Chinese revolution and the leading role played by Mao Zedong, but also of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reform in bringing about China’s extraordinary economic development. He knew that given the affinities between the Bolivarian and Chinese revolutions, the People’s Republic was a friendly ally.

Chavez communicated as much to his host, China’s president Jiang Zemin, and to the people of China in his first visit to the People’s Republic in October 1999. During the visit he went to Mao’s Mausoleum and declared, “I have been a Maoist all my life”. The 1999 visit to China was part of a tour for markets for Venezuelan and potential commercial partners to help break the overwhelming economic dominance of the United States over Venezuela. The tour included visits to Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines.

Though the tour produced positive results in all the other Asian countries, the outcome of his visit to China went well beyond all expectations: to the already existing eight cooperation agreements between Venezuela and China signed since Chavez coming to office in February 1999, his visit in October produced seven more covering the fields of energy, oil, credits to purchase agricultural machinery, investment, diplomacy and academia.

Chavez combined his strategic political audacity in promulgating an anti-neoliberal constitution in 1999, with a vigorously independent foreign policy seeking to establish strong links of every kind with the People’s Republic of China, as an alternative to Venezuela’s heavy dependence on the US. The Comandante knew Washington had activated all its resources aimed at ousting him and eliminating his government – perceived by the US as an abhorrent anomaly. Chavez’s political courage is even more impressive considering that in 1999, Latin America, with the exception of Cuba, was a sea of neoliberalism.

Washington’s relations with the People’s Republic had begun to sour because in 1996 Clinton had authorised a visit by Taiwan president, Lee Teng-hui, reversing a fifteen-year-old policy against granting visas to Taiwan’s leaders. Worse, in May 1999, NATO, during its war against Yugoslavia, had “accidentally” bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists. Though for Venezuela and China, the United States was an important trading partner, they both agreed to comprehensive levels of cooperation knowing that over time it would be viewed with hostility in Washington.

Hugo Chavez opened the gates and was a pioneer in the relations with the Peoples’ Republic of China for the rest of Latin America. Chavez was elected in 1999; the second left wing government in this ‘Pink Tide’ to be elected was Lula in 2002 in Brazil, who would be inaugurated in 2003. That is, four years later. Between 1999 and 2003, Chavez’s government faced intense US-led destabilization, which included right wing street violence, a worldwide media demonization campaign, national protests, economic sabotage, a short-lived coup d’état and a 64-day oil lockout that nearly brought about the country’s economic collapse. Though fully aware of this context, president Jiang Zemin paid a formal visit to Venezuela in 2001, occasion in which both countries decided to establish a “Strategic Association for Shared Development” and set up a High Level Chinese-Venezuelan Commission.

Continue reading On the strategic relationship between Venezuela and China

U.S. media narrative on Xinjiang attempts to ingrain hostility toward China

This article by Sara Flounders, originally published in Global Times and reprinted by Workers World, connects the dots between the US’s military-industrial complex and the ongoing slander campaign concerning alleged human rights abuses in China’s western province of Xinjiang.

Sara writes that the huge, complex and powerful corporate media web – which “seeps into every area of conscious life” – is “intermeshed with the top US military corporations.” These in turn “are also privately owned capitalist corporations. Their survival is based on enormous, government subsidized military contracts. Military corporations make the highest rate of profit with the highest returns to stockholders.” Sara continues: “The media’s task is to sell war and to justify war,” in this instance the New Cold War and the escalating campaign of China encirclement.

Noting that “no Muslim country has ever backed up the charges of genocide in Xinjiang”, Sara points out that numerous delegations from Muslim-majority countries – as well as the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – have sent delegations to Xinjiang in recent months and have “praised the Chinese government’s policies and the harmonious relations and respect for the religion and culture of the people that they observed.”

Seeing China’s rise as a threat to its global hegemony, and furthermore “attempting to deflect attention away from the massively destructive US wars against Muslim people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria”, the US is issuing baseless slanders against China. Our movements must understand, reject and expose this cynical propaganda.

A recent nine-day visit to Xinjiang in September 2023 by 22 foreign journalists from 17 overseas media organizations reported favorably on the vibrant local economy and China’s efforts to preserve the local traditional and diverse cultures.

Instead of ending the flood of lies in the U.S. media about Xinjiang, a U.S. State Department agency, the Global Engagement Center, attacked this fact-finding visit, the visiting journalists and also China. This U.S. agency released a 58-page report warning that China’s information campaign on Xinjiang “could sway public opinion and undermine U.S. interests.” The U.S. corporate media dutifully picked up the report and spread it. 

An [Associated Press] news story, “The U.S. warns of a Chinese global disinformation campaign that could undermine peace and stability,” used quotes from other government-funded organizations to reinforce its lies. This included Freedom House, which is 90% funded by U.S. federal grants. 

The antiwar movement in the U.S. is aware of the media’s role. At a recent rally in front of CNN News followed by a march through busy Times Square to the New York Times media conglomerate, the resounding chant was: “Corporate media, we can’t take lies anymore! Stop your drumbeat for war!” This reflected the growing rage at the role of the largest media conglomerates in promoting militarism and racism. 

The Big Lie

“Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.” This comment, attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, is obvious in how news coverage in the U.S. is organized today. Sometimes this leads even well-meaning people astray. They might say that, “I’ve heard so often that there is slave labor and genocide of the Uygur Muslim people in Xinjiang, so it must be true.”

I’ve held a series of talks and interviews with different audiences describing the diversity of cultures, modern cities and new farming techniques in Xinjiang, which I visited this May. My comments were greeted with a mixture of interest, curiosity and a frustrated suspicion from the U.S. media, which have continually lied in the past and demonized a targeted country to justify each war.

Continue reading U.S. media narrative on Xinjiang attempts to ingrain hostility toward China

Michael Roberts: debt trap accusation “does not hold much water”

In the following article, which was originally published on the author’s blog, the renowned Marxist economist Michael Roberts dissects the oft repeated claim that China is ensnaring countries, in this case specifically Sri Lanka, in a debt trap and then taking over the country’s assets. 

This widespread charge, he notes, “does not hold much water. It leaks badly… China is not a particularly large lender to poor countries like Sri Lanka compared to Western creditors and the multi-national agencies.” Whilst China holds 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt, commercial lenders, from the imperialist countries, account for nearly 50%. 

Moreover, he argues, the rise in the country’s debt burden did not result from any trap set by China, but rather from the desperate needs of the previous Sri Lankan government. After the 2008 global financial crisis, Roberts explains, interest rates fell globally, and Sri Lanka’s government looked to international sovereign bonds to further finance spending. But the country was then hit by the Covid pandemic, which ravaged the tourism sector, on which Sri Lanka was heavily reliant. 

As for the port project at Hambantota, which is the most frequently cited example of China’s supposed debt trap, “China did not propose the port; the project was overwhelmingly driven by the Sri Lankan government with the aim of reducing trade costs.”

Noting a recent US district court case, Roberts explains that “it is the obscure Hamilton Bank that is opposed to any agreement [on the restructuring of Sri Lanka’s debt] and instead is demanding full repayment [of US$250 million plus interest] on its holding of Sri Lankan bonds. Hamilton is what is called a ‘vulture’ fund’, buying up the ‘distressed debt’ of poor country governments at rock bottom prices and then pushing for full repayment at par (the original bond issue price), using the blackmail of refusing to agree to any ‘restructuring’.”

He adds that in a presentation, the bank, whose directors include former British Conservative MP, government minister and personal assistant to Margaret Thatcher, Sir Tony Baldry, says that “suing a sovereign for non-debt payment can be a justified and lucrative business.”

Last week a US district court granted Sri Lanka’s request for a six-month pause on a creditor lawsuit against the country.  Hamilton Reserve Bank holds a big chunk of one of Sri Lanka’s now-defaulted bonds and had been suing it for immediate repayment.  

The court decided that there should be a pause in Hamilton’s demand for immediate repayment so that Sri Lanka could arrange a deal with other private sector creditors and bilateral lenders, as well as obtaining new funds from the IMF.  The IMF has been unwilling to cough up money as long as it considered Sri Lanka unable to pay back its debt obligations.  It is insisting that all creditors agree to a ‘restructuring’ of existing debt before agreeing to new IMF funding (which would also be accompanied by strong ‘conditionalities’ ie fiscal austerity, privatisations etc).

The IMF, World Bank and other Western creditors have claimed that what is holding up a rescheduling is China.  In turn, China is refusing to agree to a deal unless all other parties are agreed on the terms, and it does not like the terms currently proposed. 

In the case of Sri Lanka and many other poor peripheral countries in serious debt distress, it is regularly argued that they are in a ‘debt trap’ caused by taking loans from China to such an extent that they cannot repay them and then China insists on taking over the country’s assets to meet the bill. Indeed, US President Biden reiterated this charge only this week in a speech claiming that the West was ready to help poor countries expand their infrastructure.

Continue reading Michael Roberts: debt trap accusation “does not hold much water”

Britain’s disdain for the Belt and Road Initiative goes against the national interest

In the following short op ed, which was originally published in China Daily, our co-editor Keith Bennett reviews the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), 10 years after it was first proposed by President Xi Jinping. 

He notes that BRI projects are becoming more focused, with an emphasis on avoiding waste and corruption, synergising with the development plans and priorities of the countries and regions concerned, ensuring both economic and ecological sustainability, and delivering real and tangible benefits to local people and communities.

Refuting the ‘China debt trap’ canard, Keith writes that China, has “no interest in some fanciful conspiracy that would only arouse the resentment of friendly countries and peoples with whom China has shared weal and woe for many decades, going back to the days of mutual national liberation struggles against colonialism and imperialism and for independence. Rather, talk of a ‘debt trap’ on the part of countries of the Global North is simply another instance of their ascribing their own behaviour to others.”

Noting that Britain could benefit greatly from participation in the BRI, he regrets that, unfortunately, the British government has chosen to follow behind the United States in its new Cold War against China.

The Third Belt and Road Summit for International Cooperation held in Beijing on Oct 18 was very timely because it coincided with the 10th anniversary of China first putting forward the initiative. In that time, the BRI has secured, to varying degrees, the support and participation of the majority of countries in the world and in the process has considerably extended beyond the first routes proposed. For example, it has drawn in countries in the South Pacific, West Africa, and Central and South America.

Moreover, as it accumulates experience, BRI projects are becoming more focused, with an emphasis on avoiding waste and corruption, synergizing with the development plans and priorities of the countries and regions concerned, ensuring both economic and ecological sustainability, delivering real and tangible benefits to local people and communities, and so on.

China lends to countries on favorable terms and is always sympathetic when they encounter difficulties. The very countries that talk the most about the so-called China’s “debt trap diplomacy” tend to be those holding most of the debt of the countries concerned – whether directly, through their private sector or through their disproportionate control over international financial institutions – and with the greatest historical responsibility for the plight of the Global South.

China has no interest in setting a “debt trap”. It lends on reasonable terms because without this, many developing countries would have no way to acquire the infrastructure and realize the modernization they so desperately need.

China responds to the needs and wishes of the countries concerned. It does not interfere in internal affairs, demand privatization, impose structural adjustment programs, instigate coups, or foment color revolutions. And it certainly has no interest in some fanciful conspiracy that would only arouse the resentment of friendly countries and peoples with whom China has shared weal and woe for many decades, going back to the days of mutual national liberation struggles against colonialism and imperialism and for independence. Rather, talk of a “debt trap” on the part of countries of the Global North is simply another instance of their ascribing their own behavior to others.

Britain could potentially benefit greatly from participation in the BRI, whether in terms of participation by British companies in projects in third countries or in terms of our own infrastructure needs. China was quite prepared to combine BRI projects with priorities identified by the UK, such as the Northern Powerhouse.

Unfortunately, the British government has chosen to follow behind the United States in its new Cold War against China. Meanwhile, the Northern Powerhouse has been abandoned, leaving the UK with progressively deteriorating and decaying infrastructure.

Last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the abandonment of the Manchester link of the HS2 high-speed rail link, from London to Birmingham to Manchester, at his party’s recent annual conference in that very city. He then proceeded to make himself look even more ridiculous when his list of alternative projects was soon exposed as being comprised, in no small part, of projects that had either already been completed or abandoned. The UK’s disdain for the BRI clearly goes against the national interest.

Nicaraguan Ambassador: China helping to build 5G network in Nicaragua

In the following short interview, given to CGTN in the margins of the Sixth China International Import Expo, recently held in Shanghai, Michael Campbell, Nicaragua’s Ambassador to China, explains how his country is benefiting from its economic cooperation with China and the immense opportunities of the Chinese market.

Nicaragua and China resumed their diplomatic relations in 2021, shortly thereafter Nicaragua signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative, and more recently the two countries concluded a free trade agreement.

Ambassador Campbell points out that in this context it is important to understand that the relations between the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) “go way back”. Nicaragua wants, he continues, to strengthen the relations between the two countries, parties, and peoples, and to be China’s strategic partner for the Central American region. 

Asked for his interpretation of the pledge made by Chinese Premier Li Qiang, in his opening speech to the Expo, that China would engage in higher level opening up, Campbell describes it as another example of China’s willingness to construct a shared future of greater prosperity for the entire world. The expo was giving Nicaragua the opportunity to present its products to the enormous Chinese market, showing how far China’s solidarity and willingness to cooperate with the world goes.

He contrasts China’s cooperation under the auspices of the BRI, characterised by mutual respect, trust and win-win cooperation, with the conditionalities and political interference that Nicaragua had experienced from the imperialist countries. The BRI is giving Nicaragua opportunities that it did not have before. For example, during the recent Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, an agreement was signed to build a new airport in Nicaragua, which will enable the country to welcome wide-bodied aircraft, thereby improving connectivity and ease of transportation.

Meanwhile, on November 7, Li Mingxiang, Vice-Minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee (IDCPC), met with a Nicaraguan delegation led by Laureano Ortega, advisor on investment, trade and international cooperation at the Nicaraguan president’s office, and coordinator for cooperation with China.

Li said the CPC is willing to strengthen exchanges and cooperation with the FSLN, so as to push China-Nicaragua relations to new highs. Laureano said the FSLN is willing to strengthen exchanges of experience in party building and state governance and to deepen traditional friendship with the CPC.

We embed the interview with Ambassador Campbell below and also reproduce a short news article from the IDCPC website.

Li Mingxiang Meets with a Nicaraguan Delegation

Beijing, November 7th—Li Mingxiang, Vice-minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, met here today on the afternoon with a Nicaraguan delegation led by Laureano Ortega, advisor on investment, trade and international cooperation at the Nicaraguan president’s office, and coordinator for cooperation with China.

Li said, under the strategic guidance of the top leaders of the two Parties and two countries, China-Nicaragua cooperation in various fields has achieved fruitful results. The CPC is willing to strengthen exchanges and cooperation with the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, to push China-Nicaragua relations to new highs.

Laureano said, Nicaragua sees China as an important strategic partner, firmly adheres to the one-China principle, and is willing to continuously strengthen practical cooperation with the Chinese side in economy, trade, investment, and infrastructure under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. The FSLN is willing to strengthen experience exchanges in party building and state governance and deepen traditional friendship with the CPC.

The West’s accusations against the Belt and Road are a form of projection and deflection

In the run-up to the Third Belt and Road Forum, which took place in Beijing on 17-18 October, the Beijing Daily subsidiary Capital News – in collaboration with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies (RDCY) – carried out an interview with Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez, addressing various questions related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), particularly the reasons for the BRI’s success and the absurd nature of the West’s assorted accusations against it – that it constitutes a “debt trap”, or that it is part of a Chinese hegemonic project.

The interview also covers the US-led New Cold War on China, and the West’s attempts to consolidate an anti-China alliance; the significance of the Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilisation Initiative; the difference between China and the West’s responses to the Ukraine crisis; the significance of BRICS; and the possibilities for getting Britain-China relations back on track.

We published an excerpt and short video clip from the interview several weeks ago. The full transcript has now been published on the Beijing Daily website, and is reproduced below.

Capital News: As of June this year, China has signed over 200 cooperation agreements on jointly building the BRI with 152 countries and 32 international organization. Why are more and more countries and regions getting on board with the BRI?

Carlos Martinez: The BRI is playing a hugely significant role in global development. Its historical importance lies in providing primarily the countries of the Global South with the opportunity to modernize and break free from the chains of underdevelopment. These are the same chains that were originally imposed during the colonial era, affecting regions such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and the Pacific.

In many instances, these chains have persisted beyond the colonial era, extending into what are now considered northern neo-colonial areas or the imperialist era. The relationship between the US, Canada, Europe, and the Global South, particularly developing countries, remains fundamentally predatory. Here, the Global South often provides cheap labor, land, and natural resources, driving a relentless pursuit of profit in the advanced capitalist nations.

China’s approach with the BRI stands in stark contrast to that. It represents a profoundly important shift, characterized by the construction of an extensive network of roads, railways, bridges, factories, ports, telecommunications, green energy infrastructure, and more. These projects leverage China’s exceptional expertise in high-quality construction, honed through decades of infrastructure development within China itself.

This initiative is now opening up some of the world’s most challenging terrains for the construction of roads and railways. For the countries involved, what they are seeking and indeed gaining from the BRI on a historically unprecedented scale is nothing short of development, modernization, and industrialization.

And that means transforming people’s lives. It means creating jobs. It means lifting people out of poverty. It means breaking dependence on the West. Many of the times, when these countries have needed assistance, when they needed help, when they needed loans, they had to go to the IMF or they had to go to the Western lending institutions. And where they got any assistance, it’s been in the form of conditional loans.

You want to loan, that means you have to privatize your water supply, you have to privatize your education system, you have to liberalize your economy. You have to open up your domestic market to western multinationals and so on. Conversely, the BRI, and I would say China’s investment policy in general, works in a fundamentally different way. There are no loan conditions, no traps and none of the punishing, punitive measures often associated with vital infrastructure projects. Recently, CGTN carried an interesting interview with Senegalese president Macky Sall. He underscored precisely this point, emphasizing that China’s financial support in Africa is based on requests made by African nations, with the priorities being set by Africa itself. Furthermore, China’s loans typically come with roughly half the interest rate of Western loans. The repayment period is as much longer, and the terms are far more flexible.

And the results of this type of dynamic is that now Ethiopia has the first metro train in Africa. Lao has a high-speed railway, and it’s now possible to travel from Jakarta to Bandung in 30 minutes, rather than 3 hours. It’s this topic dynamic. That means that Africa has been able to join the renewable energy revolution. So， China is bringing development where the West for so many centuries brought under-development and exploitation. And for China, of course, it’s benefiting economically. These are win-win relationships. But I think more importantly, China’s got the opportunity to share its expertise, its resources, its experiences, which contributes to human progress. Overall, I think it’s part of China’s vision of a community with a shared future for humanity.

Capital News:What do you think are the challenges that the BRI is currently facing on the international stage? And what are the underlying reasons for these challenges?

Carlos Martinez: The BRI has already demonstrated significant successes, especially in the developing regions of Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.

Now, it’s making inroads into Latin America and the Caribbean. I believe this positive momentum will persist. Notably, Syria, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, and Zambia have recently joined the BRI. If one pays close attention, many other nations are deepening their involvement with this initiative.

However, the complexity arises from the fact that the United States, which holds the top spot in nominal GDP and wields immense influence, especially in the Western world, harbors discontent with the BRI. The U.S. strategy is essentially rooted in extending its 20th-century dominance into the 21st century, a vision encapsulated in what they term the “Project for a New American Century.” This objective is at odds with the BRI’s transformative direction.

The BRI is pivotal in enabling the Global South to reduce its reliance on the West. It’s paving the way for a shift towards a multipolar and post-imperialist world order. In this emerging landscape, the U.S. will continue to be significant, but it won’t retain its status as the sole superpower or the policeman of the world. It must adapt to this evolving reality of a democratic, multipolar, and multilateral world. It’s evident that the U.S. leadership is grappling with this paradigm shift.

Continue reading The West’s accusations against the Belt and Road are a form of projection and deflection

Xi Jinping: the collective punishment of people in Gaza must stop

On November 21, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed an extraordinary joint meeting of the leaders of the BRICS countries, along with the leaders of those countries who have been invited to join the cooperation mechanism from January 1, 2024, called to discuss the situation in the Middle East with particular reference to Gaza. The meeting was held virtually and was initiated by the current chair of BRICS, President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Republic of South Africa. 

In his address to the meeting, President Xi said that China is gravely concerned that the current conflict is causing enormous civilian casualties and a humanitarian disaster. He stressed that the collective punishment of people in Gaza in the form of forced transfer or water, electricity and fuel deprivation must stop and continued:

“The root cause of the Palestinian-Israeli situation is the fact that the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, their right to existence, and their right of return have long been ignored. I have emphasised on many occasions that the only viable way to break the cycle of Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in the two-state solution, in the restoration of the legitimate national rights of Palestine, and in the establishment of an independent State of Palestine. There can be no sustainable peace and security in the Middle East without a just solution to the question of Palestine. China calls for early convening of an international peace conference that is more authoritative to build international consensus for peace and work toward an early solution to the question of Palestine that is comprehensive, just and sustainable.”

He also outlined the humanitarian assistance that China has so far provided to the Palestinian people in the current situation, adding that, “China will provide more supplies and assistance according to the needs of the people in Gaza.”

We reprint the full text of President Xi’s remarks below. They were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.

Working Toward a Ceasefire and Realizing Lasting Peace and Sustainable Security

Remarks by H.E. Xi Jinping
President of the People’s Republic of China
At the Extraordinary Joint Meeting of BRICS Leaders
And Leaders of Invited BRICS Members
On the Situation in the Middle East with Particular Reference to Gaza

November 21, 2023

Your Excellency President Cyril Ramaphosa,

Colleagues,

This is our first summit since the expansion of BRICS. Before I speak about the issue of our discussion, I wish to extend a warm welcome to leaders of new BRICS members and express my thanks to President Ramaphosa and the South African government for your efforts that have made our meeting possible. Given the current circumstances, it is very timely and very important that we meet and speak up for justice and for peace on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

The conflict in Gaza is raging on into its second month. China is gravely concerned that the conflict is causing enormous civilian casualties and a humanitarian disaster, and tends to expand and spill over. China believes that the following is urgent and imperative: First, the parties to the conflict must end hostilities and achieve a ceasefire immediately, stop all violence and attacks against civilians, release civilians held captive, and act to prevent loss of more lives and spare people from more miseries. Second, humanitarian corridors must be kept secure and unimpeded, and more humanitarian assistance should be provided to the population in Gaza. The collective punishment of people in Gaza in the form of forced transfer or water, electricity and fuel deprivation must stop. Third, the international community must act with practical measures to prevent the conflict from spilling over and endangering stability in the Middle East as a whole. China supports the resolution adopted at the emergency special session of the U.N. General Assembly on October 27. The U.N. Security Council under China’s presidency has adopted Resolution 2712. All the parties must act to deliver on these resolutions through concrete measures on the ground.

The root cause of the Palestinian-Israeli situation is the fact that the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, their right to existence, and their right of return have long been ignored. I have emphasized on many occasions that the only viable way to break the cycle of Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in the two-state solution, in the restoration of the legitimate national rights of Palestine, and in the establishment of an independent State of Palestine. There can be no sustainable peace and security in the Middle East without a just solution to the question of Palestine. China calls for early convening of an international peace conference that is more authoritative to build international consensus for peace and work toward an early solution to the question of Palestine that is comprehensive, just and sustainable.

Since the outbreak of the latest Palestinian-Israeli conflict, China has been working actively to promote peace talks and a ceasefire. China has provided humanitarian assistance to help ease the humanitarian plight in Gaza. This includes USD 2 million of emergency humanitarian assistance provided through the Palestinian National Authority and U.N. agencies, and emergency humanitarian supplies worth RMB 15 million, such as food and medicine, to the Gaza Strip with the help of Egypt. China will provide more supplies and assistance according to the needs of the people in Gaza. At the U.N. Security Council, China has acted in its capacity as president to facilitate the adoption of the resolution, which calls for extended humanitarian pauses and corridors, the protection of civilians, and the provision of humanitarian assistance.

Colleagues,

The BRICS cooperation mechanism is an important platform for emerging markets and developing countries to strengthen solidarity and cooperation and safeguard common interests. Our meeting today to coordinate positions and actions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict marks a good start for greater BRICS cooperation following its enlargement. China commends South Africa for its significant contribution as BRICS chair to advancing BRICS development. As Russia will take over BRICS chairmanship next year, China stands ready to work with other members to jointly support Russia’s work as the chair and usher in a new era for BRICS cooperation.

Thank you.

China calls for Gaza ceasefire and an end to collective punishment

A delegation of Arab-Islamic Foreign Ministers began a two-day visit to China on November 20. Comprised of the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Palestine, along with the Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the delegation chose to visit China first on a peace mission where they plan to visit all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Meeting the delegation, China’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the fact that the delegation chose China as the first leg of their tour for international mediation shows deep trust in China and embodies the fine tradition of mutual understanding and support between the two sides. China is a good friend and brother of Arab and Islamic countries. China has always firmly upheld the legitimate rights and interests of Arab and Islamic countries and firmly supported the just cause of the Palestinian people to restore their legitimate national rights and interests. In regard to this conflict, China has firmly stood on the side of justice and fairness, has been working hard to de-escalate the conflict, protect civilians, expand humanitarian aid, and prevent humanitarian disasters. He further noted that today marks the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Palestine.

Briefing Wang on the Joint Arab-Islamic Extraordinary Summit, which was held in the Saudi city of Riyadh, November 11-12, the visiting ministers, noting the large number of civilian casualties and continued humanitarian disasters in Gaza, said that the international community should take responsible actions as soon as possible to promote an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, ensure unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid and supplies to Gaza, protect innocent Palestinian civilians and prevent the forced relocation of civilians in Gaza.

Arab and Islamic countries spoke highly of China’s long-standing just position on the Palestinian question and appreciated China’s efforts as the rotating presidency of the United Nations (UN) Security Council to facilitate the adoption of the first Security Council resolution since the outbreak of the current Palestine-Israel conflict. They look forward to closer coordination with China to prevent the crisis from spreading, restart the peace talks process, promote the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the basis of the two-state solution, avoid a vicious cycle of violence for violence, and achieve enduring peace and stability in the Middle East. Arab and Islamic countries expect China to play a greater role in ending the Palestine-Israel conflict, resolving the Palestine-Israel issue, and achieving fairness and justice.

Wang Yi said that a pressing task now is to achieve an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities. A ceasefire should not be a diplomatic rhetoric. It is a matter of life and death for the people in Gaza. A ceasefire should be achieved as a top priority. This is the pressing need of the people in Gaza, the wish of the overwhelming majority of countries, and the unanimous voice of all peace-loving people around the world.

China opposes any forced displacement and relocation of Palestinian civilians. Israel should stop its collective punishment of the people in Gaza and open humanitarian corridors as soon as possible to prevent a wider humanitarian disaster. He further stressed that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of Palestine must be based on the consent of the Palestinian people.

The Chinese Foreign Minister added that the fundamental reason for the cycle of conflict between Palestine and Israel is that the Palestinian people’s right to statehood and survival and their right of return to their homes have been ignored for a long time. The way out is to implement the two-state solution and establish an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinian question is at the heart of the Middle East issue. Without a just settlement of the Palestinian question, there will be no enduring peace and stability in the Middle East. China will continue to stand firmly on the side of Arab and Islamic countries and on the side of international fairness and justice. 

Chinese Vice President Han Zheng also met with the delegation on November 20.

The below article was originally published on the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

On November 20, 2023, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi held talks with the delegation of Arab-Islamic foreign ministers consisting of Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki and Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Hissein Brahim Taha in Beijing.

Wang Yi said the fact that the delegation chose China as the first leg of their tour for international mediation shows deep trust in China and embodies the fine tradition of mutual understanding and support between the two sides. China is a good friend and brother of Arab and Islamic countries. China has always firmly upheld the legitimate rights and interests of Arab and Islamic countries and firmly supported the just cause of the Palestinian people to restore their legitimate national rights and interests. In regard to this conflict, China has firmly stood on the side of justice and fairness, has been working hard to de-escalate the conflict, protect civilians, expand humanitarian aid, and prevent humanitarian disasters, and has been calling for a return to the two-state solution and the early settlement of the Palestinian question. Today marks the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Palestine. China appreciates Arab and Islamic countries for their active mediation efforts for peace, and stands ready to work with them to make unremitting efforts for an early ceasefire in Gaza, the easing of the humanitarian crisis, the release of the detainees and an early, comprehensive, just and enduring settlement of the Palestinian question.

Continue reading China calls for Gaza ceasefire and an end to collective punishment

Amlo: At the height of the pandemic, China was the first to offer assistance

Chinese President Xi Jinping held a number of bilateral meetings with other national leaders during his recent visit to San Francisco to attend the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit and to meet with US President Joe Biden.

On November 16, Xi met with his Mexican counterpart, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Popularly known as Amlo, Obrador is generally considered to be Mexico’s first left-wing president since Lázaro Cárdenas del Río, who nationalised the country’s oil industry and mineral resources in 1938. It was the first occasion for the two leaders to meet.

At the meeting, Xi Jinping said that the friendship between China and Mexico has grown stronger over time, noting that last year the two countries celebrated the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties, and this year marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the China-Mexico comprehensive strategic partnership. Mutual understanding and support on issues concerning each other’s core interests and major concerns have become firmer, he added.

The Chinese president stressed that China supports Mexico’s independent development path in line with its national conditions and is willing to strengthen exchanges with Mexico in country governance.

Bilateral trade volume between China and Mexico has increased by more than 7,000 times since the establishment of diplomatic relations, and highlights of cooperation in fields including railways, automobiles and new energy are abundant. 

The two sides should strengthen multilateral coordination, firmly uphold multilateralism and democracy in international relations, and safeguard international fairness and justice as well as the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries, Xi said.

Noting that next year marks the 10th anniversary of the China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) Forum, he said that China is ready to work with Mexico to promote the steady and long-term development of China-Latin America relations in the new era.

For his part, Obrador said both Mexico and China have splendid civilisations and the two peoples know each other well and treat each other like brothers.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, China was the first to offer assistance, providing a large amount of precious anti-pandemic supplies to Mexico and helping the country tide over the difficulties, he said.

He added that after Mexico was hit by a recent severe hurricane in the Pacific Ocean, China immediately expressed sympathy and support, for which Mexico is grateful.

Both Mexico and China safeguard their own independence and firmly oppose interference in other countries’ internal affairs, he noted, adding that Mexico will, as always, adhere to its friendly policy towards China.

Obrador added that Mexico is willing to closely coordinate with China in multilateral affairs, and actively promote Latin America-China relations.

The following report was originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 16 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday called for expanding China-Mexico cooperation in finance, electric vehicles and other emerging industries.

Xi made the remarks when meeting his Mexican counterpart, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders’ Meeting. He also said that the two sides should make good use of the inter-governmental cooperation mechanism and deepen cooperation in traditional areas such as infrastructure construction.

The friendship between China and Mexico has grown stronger over time, Xi said, noting that last year the two countries celebrated the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties, and this year marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the China-Mexico comprehensive strategic partnership.

Xi said that at present, the strategic, complementary and mutually beneficial nature of China-Mexico relations has become increasingly prominent, and mutual understanding and support on issues concerning each other’s core interests and major concerns have become firmer.

China attaches great importance to China-Mexico relations and is willing to work with Mexico to enhance strategic alignment, tap cooperation potential and leverage complementary advantages to push bilateral relations to a new level, he added.

The Chinese president stressed that China supports Mexico’s independent development path in line with its national conditions and is willing to strengthen exchanges with Mexico in country governance.

Bilateral trade volume between China and Mexico has increased by more than 7,000 times since the establishment of diplomatic relations, and highlights of cooperation in fields including railways, automobiles and new energy are abundant, he said.

Xi said the two sides should deepen counternarcotics law enforcement cooperation, and actively support each other in organizing events for people-to-people exchanges such as cultural performances and exhibitions.

Continue reading Amlo: At the height of the pandemic, China was the first to offer assistance

Xi Jinping: The principles we follow in handling China-US relations are mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation

During his recent visit to San Francisco, and following his meeting with US President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping attended a gala business dinner on the evening of November 15. Organised by the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR), the US-China Business Council (USCBC), the Asia Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, the US Chamber of Commerce, and other organisatons with a stake in positive US-China relations, the several hundred participants included many of the most powerful figures in US business, including Tim Cook of Apple, Albert Bourla of Pfizer, Steve Schwarzman of Blackstone, Larry Fink of Blackrock, Stan Deal of Boeing, Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates, and (at the pre-dinner reception only) Elon Musk of Tesla. They were also joined, at the invitation of the Chinese side, by some US citizens who have made outstanding contributions to friendship between the two peoples and who have enjoyed a personal relationship with President Xi over many decades.

Attending the dinner was not without controversy and risks. Mike Gallagher, the hard right Chairman of the absurdly named congressional Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, wrote to the organisers that: “It is unconscionable that American companies might pay thousands of dollars to join a ‘welcome dinner’ hosted by the very same CCP officials who have facilitated a genocide against millions of innocent men, women, and children in Xinjiang.”  

He then insolently and threateningly demanded, with full McCarthyite intimidation tactics, that the organisers should, by no later than November 21:

  • “Please provide a complete list of individuals, companies, financial institutions, and other entities that have purchased tickets to the CCP dinner;
  • Please provide a separate list of individuals and companies that have paid the $40,000 fee to sit at the table with Xi;
  • Please provide a breakdown of how profits from the CCP dinner will be distributed between USCBC, NCUSCR, and other entities, as applicable; and
  • What steps, if any, has USCBC and NCUSCR taken to defend human rights in China and to prevent the genocide of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang?”

There can surely be few words adequate to describe the murderous, evil and cynical irony of venal US politicians working themselves up into a state of self-righteous and hypocritical hysteria over a completely non-existent ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang at the very time that they are facilitating and cheering on an all too real genocide in Gaza, having long supported and abetted genocidal US-led wars of aggression in numerous Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Somalia.

The success of the dinner was, therefore, a significant rebuttal of the most aggressive, warlike and fascistic circles of US imperialism.

President Xi delivered a warm speech at the dinner, in which he also addressed a number of important issues. He began by recalling that, “my first visit to the United States in 1985 started from San Francisco, which formed my first impression of this country,” and continued:

“San Francisco has borne witness to exchanges between the Chinese and American peoples for over a century. A hundred and fifty-eight years ago, a large number of Chinese workers came all the way to the United States to build the first transcontinental railroad and established in San Francisco the oldest Chinatown in the Western hemisphere.”

Another significant historical tie between San Francisco and China is that: “Seventy-eight years ago, after jointly defeating fascism and militarism, our two countries initiated together with others the San Francisco Conference, which helped found the United Nations, and China was the first country to sign the UN Charter.”

Since that time: “Over 100 countries have gained independence one after another. Several billion people have eventually shaken off poverty. The forces for world peace, development and progress have grown stronger.”

President Xi stressed the people’s role in laying the foundations of China-US relations:

“During World War II, our two countries fought side by side for peace and justice. Headed by General Claire Lee Chennault, a group of American volunteers, known as the Flying Tigers, went to the battlefield in China. They not only engaged in direct combats fighting Japanese aggressors, but also created ‘The Hump’ airlift [from Myanmar] to transport much-needed supplies to China. More than 1,000 Chinese and American airmen lost their lives on this air route. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States sent 16 B-25 bombers on an air raid to Japan in 1942. Running low on fuel after completing their mission, Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle and his fellow pilots parachuted in China. They were rescued by Chinese troops and local civilians. But some 250,000 civilian Chinese were killed by Japanese aggressors in retaliation… I have kept in touch with some of them [the Flying Tigers] through letters. Most recently, 103-year-old Harry Moyer and 98-year-old Mel McMullen, both Flying Tigers veterans, went back to China. They visited the Great Wall and were warmly received by the Chinese people.”

Following this period: “For 22 years, there were estrangement and antagonism between our two countries. But the trend of the times brought us together, converging interests enabled us to rise above differences, and the people’s longing broke the ice between the two countries. In 1971, the US table tennis team visited Beijing – a small ball moved the globe. Not long after that, Mr. Mike Mansfield led the first US Congressional delegation to China.”

Continue reading Xi Jinping: The principles we follow in handling China-US relations are mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation

Xi-Biden summit offers hope for a de-escalation in the New Cold War

On Wednesday 15 November 2023, Presidents Xi Jinping and Joe Biden held what was described in Xinhua as “a positive, comprehensive and constructive summit, charting the course for improving and developing bilateral ties” during a four hour meeting in which “the two heads of state had a candid and in-depth exchange of views on strategic and overarching issues critical to the direction of China-US relations and on major issues affecting world peace and development.”

The summit hopefully represents an important step forward in terms of reducing tensions – tensions which, it must be said, have been generated exclusively by the US side as part of its New Cold War and its strategy of containing and encircling China and suppressing its rise. The Xinhua report cites Friends of Socialist China co-editor Keith Bennett on President Xi’s agreeing to the summit in spite of a long series of US provocations:

“It is a journey of a peacemaker and of a responsible leader and statesman with a sense of great responsibility to his people, the times, history and humanity as a whole.”

Of particular and urgent importance is the agreement signed between the two countries to step up their cooperation on tackling climate change and protecting the environment. The Global Times article we republish below notes that “China and the US agreed to jointly tackle global warming and operationalize a working group focused on areas including energy transition, methane, the circular economy and resource efficiency, low-carbon development and deforestation.”

However, the article correctly warns that “Washington should also take concrete actions and not walk back its own promises on climate cooperation.” At a time when the US is imposing sanctions and tariffs on Chinese renewable energy materials, and when China has emerged as the world’s leading renewable energy power, the US needs to demonstrate its seriousness when it comes to preventing climate breakdown.

We also republish below an interesting article by John Wojcik in People’s World, written shortly before the Xi-Biden summit, summarising the state of US-China relations and detailing how “those relations have been made unstable by continued U.S. attacks on and propaganda against China’s economic and political interests.” Wojcik calls on the US to work urgently and intensively with China on the pressing issues facing all humanity:

“At home in the US, Biden has to do battle with powerful fossil fuel capitalist interests to realize any of his environmental goals. In China, he could have a great friend with whom to cooperate on these matters.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping trying to repair damage done by Biden

People’s World, 15 November 2023

Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are meeting near San Francisco Wednesday, a get-together at which Biden claims he hopes to “stabilize” relations with China. He doesn’t mention, of course, that those relations have been made unstable by continued U.S. attacks on and propaganda against China’s economic and political interests.

The Biden administration has consistently tried to dictate to China that it end its friendly relations with Russia and numerous other countries, and it has levied all kinds of sanctions against countries that China deals with and against China itself.

Biden continues to hypocritically express concern about human rights in China even as his administration funds and fuels Israeli-propagated genocide in Gaza.

The two leaders, who are meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Cooperation Forum summit, reportedly haven’t even spoken to one another in over a year. The U.S. hasn’t been silent during that period when it comes to China, though, having used every excuse to mount major propaganda campaigns against the Asian nation.

The two countries, for example, have long surveyed the military and other activities of one another, but the U.S. blew into major proportions the issue of a harmless balloon that had wandered off course over U.S. territory.

The U.S. flies armed airplanes over and near Chinese waters and has, on occasion, almost collided into Chinese planes over the South China Sea.

Also, during the year that the two leaders have not spoken, the U.S. has, without any proof, campaigned against what it says are Chinese intentions to “take over” Taiwan, an island off the coast of China that actually does belong to China—a reality even the U.S. recognizes.

Biden has used as justification for his war against Russia in Ukraine the excuse that “winning” in Ukraine is an essential first step in halting Chinese aggression against Taiwan. There has been, needless to say, no such aggression against Taiwan by China.

At the San Francisco meeting, according to the White House PR people, Biden is seeking to show the world that while the U.S. and China are economic competitors, they are not locked in a major battle for supremacy with global implications.

That flies in the face of reality, though, since his administration and hosts of top U.S. lawmakers constantly identify China as the “main security threat” facing the U.S.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The main security threat facing the U.S. is the threat of fascism and right-wing domestic terror coming from within our own borders.

China, unlike the U.S., is not involved in any military conflict anywhere in the world. It is the U.S., not China, that has 800 military bases scattered all around the world. A good chunk of these U.S. bases encircle China, and U.S. nuclear subs constantly patrol waters off China’s east coast. The Chinese have no such equivalent, so the reasonable question to ask is: “Who is a security threat to whom?”

The U.S., determined to be the world’s top gun, has also sought to control what nations China deals with around the world. The U.S. has tried to force China to end its neutrality in the Ukraine-Russia War, and it has condemned Chinese attempts to offer a peace plan to end that war. There, too, the U.S. backed what has now proven to be the blowing up of the Nordstream Pipeline by Ukraine. Imagine how the U.S. would react if China did anything like this.

The Biden administration also sees China, a big buyer of Iranian oil, as having considerable leverage with Tehran, and despite the economic relations between those two countries, it tries to get China to cut all ties with Iran and join its campaign against that country.

Again, imagine how the U.S. would react if China patrolled U.S. waters with nuclear missile submarines, flew its warplanes over Long Island or San Francisco Bay, and told the U.S. to stop backing the countries responsible for genocide in Gaza and the blowing up of international energy infrastructure.

Even as Biden claims he wants improved relations, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Biden was “not going to be afraid to confront where confrontation is needed on issues where we don’t see eye to eye.”

Continue reading Xi-Biden summit offers hope for a de-escalation in the New Cold War

Inspiring webinar marks ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative

On Saturday 4 November, Friends of Socialist China and International Manifesto Group organised an online event on the theme Building a multipolar world – Ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative, in order to learn more about the implementation, impact and trajectory of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The webinar assessed the role the BRI is playing in a global green transition towards renewal energy systems and biodiversity protection; the situating of the BRI within an overall geopolitical shift towards multipolarity; and the various accusations levelled against the BRI – that it constitutes a “debt trap”, or that it is part of a hegemonic geopolitical strategy being carried out by China.

The webinar was inspiring and hugely informative. The full event and individual speeches can be viewed on our YouTube channel. A brief write-up was published in China Daily.

Professor Zhang Weiwei (Director of the China Institute at Fudan University, and author of several important books about China) was the first speaker. Professor Zhang outlined the founding principles and broad historic significance of the BRI, observing that the foundations for it were laid during the two stages of China’s rise – the first three decades of socialist construction from 1949 to 1978, followed by the accelerated industrialisation and modernisation of the Reform and Opening Up period – and that both these stages were indispensable in allowing China to break from the US-dominated peripheral-central world order and emerge as an economic leader in its own right. The text of Professor Zhang’s speech has been published in full here.

Professor Radhika Desai (convenor of the International Manifesto Group) described the BRI as the flagship program of socialist China’s international engagement, and noted that it is a fundamentally inclusive project that seeks to cooperate on a win-win basis with the countries on the world. Radhika contrasted this with the US’s foreign policy – built on an exclusionary coalition of so-called democracies (in reality the imperialist powers) taking a stance of hostility and aggression towards the so-called authoritarian states (in reality the group of countries that refuse to go along with US hegemony). Radhika spoke powerfully of the horrific war being waged by Israel against the people of Gaza, and pointed out that this fits all too comfortably within the US’s vision of a “rules-based international order”.

Li Jingjing (a reporter for CGTN, and a well-known figure to those that follow Chinese media) discussed her recent trips to Pakistan, Greece and Tanzania – all countries actively pursuing BRI infrastructure projects – where she talked with locals about their attitudes to China and their response to the West’s slanders about the BRI being a “colonialist” project. People replied that they know all too well what colonialism looks like, having experienced it in countries like Pakistan and Tanzania for hundreds of years, and that China’s approach is profoundly different. Speaking about the importance of infrastructure to China’s development model, Li Jingjing made an interesting point connecting China’s role in infrastructure construction in Africa today to its work in the early 1970s building the Tazara railway between Tanzania and Zambia – that project enabled landlocked Zambia to break the isolation and blockade imposed on it by countries to its south then still under white racist and colonial rule. The Tazara railway remains a powerful symbol of China-Africa friendship.

Erik Solheim (former Norwegian Minister for Environment and International Development, and current President of the Green Belt and Road Institute) stated that the BRI has become the most important global project in terms of green development. Indeed China has become “the world leader in everything green” – a fact not widely understood in the West, due to Western arrogance and to obfuscation by the media. Solheim counselled the Western powers to drop their slanders against the BRI, to stop attempting to out-compete China on infrastructure construction and such areas where it has become an undisputed world leader, and instead to focus on complementarity: leveraging its own expertise in various areas to contribute to global development, alongside China’s contributions.

Continue reading Inspiring webinar marks ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative

Friendly Ireland-China relations reinforced with visit by Tánaiste Micheál Martin

Friendly relations between Ireland and China have been reinforced with a visit by Micheál Martin, Ireland’s Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Minister for Defence. Martin is also the leader of the Fianna Fáil party, one of the three parties in Ireland’s coalition government.

Martin met with Chinese Vice President Han Zheng on November 6, who said that, under the strategic guidance and promotion of the leaders of the two countries, China and Ireland have become a good example of friendly coexistence and win-win cooperation between countries with different histories, cultures, and political systems. Han added that to develop China-Ireland relations, the foundation is solid and the conditions are sound.

Next year marks the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Ireland. The two sides should consolidate political mutual trust, tap the potential of practical cooperation, strengthen public support for friendship, and work together to push for new achievements in China-Ireland mutually beneficial strategic partnerships.

For his part, Martin said that Ireland and China enjoy profound friendship, and cooperation in various fields has expanded in recent years. Ireland is willing to take next year’s 45th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Ireland and China as an opportunity to strengthen exchanges with China in various fields.

The following day, at the request of the Irish side, Martin, who also met with Foreign Minister Wang Yi during his stay, met with Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) International Department (IDCPC). 

Martin said, Ireland-China friendship has a long history. The Irish side attaches importance to developing relations with China, regards China as an important partner, and hopes to strengthen exchanges and cooperation between the two countries in economy, trade, people-to-people exchanges, agriculture and other fields. As an EU member state, the Irish side is committed to developing robust EU-China relations, adheres to free and open economic policies, opposes “decoupling” from China, and hopes to promote closer cooperation between the EU and China in areas such as climate change and sustainable development. 

Liu said that the CPC attaches importance to maintaining various forms of exchanges with major political parties such as the Fianna Fáil and is willing to enhance understanding and mutual trust and promote the further development of China-Ireland strategic partnership for mutually beneficial cooperation. 

In a fascinating article by its China correspondent Denis Staunton, published on November 8, the Irish Times, Ireland’s most prestigious daily newspaper, reported on the Tánaiste’s visit to the Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), home to an Irish Studies Centre, which is China’s comprehensive, multi-disciplinary institute in this field.

Reflecting China’s great interest in Ireland and Irish studies, and the country’s great respect for small nations and the great diversity of human civilisations, BFSU, which is one of China’s most prestigious universities, teaches 101 languages and has educated generations of the country’s diplomats, including three former ambassadors to Ireland. The Irish Studies Centre’s programmes cover Irish language, literature, culture, history, politics, and international relations and one of its senior figures, Wang Zhanpeng, is an expert on Brexit.

Staunton reported Zhang Junhan, one of the centres’s lecturers in the Irish language as saying: “Some of the students [who had turned out to greet Martin] are postgraduates from the Irish Studies Centre and the Gaeilge [the Irish language] is one of the modules they must take because we think it’s a source for them to understand Irish culture and society more deeply. There’s another bunch of graduate students from all over the university, from the law school, the business school, other language faculties. They study Irish as an optional module only because they are interested in this language and this country.”

Staunton’s report added: “Last December, Wang [Zhanpeng] and the centre’s director Chen Li went to Dublin to receive the Presidential Distinguished Service Award. Chen has done more to promote Irish writing in China than any other individual, introducing writers such as Anne Enright and Colin Barrett who are now translated into Chinese, alongside many others including John Banville, Colm Tóibín and Sally Rooney.”

He also noted that Martin had been greeted with the performance on the whistle, flute and bodhrán of a number of famous Irish songs and musical pieces. They included The Foggy Dew, one of Ireland’s most famous rebel songs. It can be seen here performed by The Wolfe Tones, the legendary Irish rebel group who this year celebrate their 60th anniversary.

The following reports were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and on the IDCPC website.

Chinese VP meets Irish deputy PM

BEIJING, Nov. 6 (Xinhua) — Chinese Vice President Han Zheng met with Micheal Martin, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, in Beijing on Monday.

Under the strategic guidance and promotion of the leaders of the two countries, China and Ireland have become a good example of friendly coexistence and win-win cooperation between countries with different histories, cultures, and political systems, Han said, adding that to develop China-Ireland relations, the foundation is solid and conditions sound.

Next year marks the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Ireland. The two sides should consolidate political mutual trust, tap the potential of practical cooperation, strengthen public support for friendship, and work together to push for new achievements in China-Ireland mutually beneficial strategic partnerships, said Han.

Continue reading Friendly Ireland-China relations reinforced with visit by Tánaiste Micheál Martin

Liu Jianchao: Working together to build a modern Global South

The following is an important article by Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee (IDCPC), concerning the current state and prospects of the Global South.

Minister Liu begins by noting that the world today is confronted with unprecedented and accelerated changes. An important feature of the changes is that the collective rise of developing countries is gaining momentum. The rise of developing countries, as a whole, is based on and reinforced by their collective modernization.

Thus, he argues, an in-depth discussion on the modernization of the Global South is urgently needed, not only in response to the call of developing countries for peace, development, and progress, but also to meet the aspirations of the people of all countries for modernization and human advancement.

According to Liu, the Global South is where the hope lies today. The term “Global South”, he goes on, has first and foremost a “south” dimension.

“However, the ‘South’ in the Global South is not a geographical term but a byword for emerging markets and developing countries. It is an identity and representative of a community of countries with similar historical experiences, political pursuits, and development goals.

“The term also has a ‘global’ dimension. It symbolizes a prominent worldwide trend of the collective rise of developing countries and reflects their strong wish for solidarity and self-reliance. The countries of the Global South once suffered from aggression, colonization, suppression, and plunder. It is through years of struggle and hard work, along with the evolving changes in this century, that the Global South has gradually become an important force driving the reforms in the world order and seeking political independence, national rejuvenation and international justice.”

Arguing that the Global South is a “a leading champion of a new type of globalization”, Liu writes that, “unilateralism, protectionism and populism are rearing their ugly heads today. Attempts to build ‘small yards with high fences’ to ‘decouple’ from other economies, sever industry and supply chains and stoke bloc confrontation are rampant… At this crucial moment, the countries of the Global South have chosen to confront difficulties head on.”

“In particular,” he continues, “countries of the Global South, upholding the principle of ‘planning together, building together, and benefiting together’, have pressed ahead the Belt and Road cooperation to a new stage of high-quality development, thus injecting new impetus into global growth, creating new opportunities for global development, and building a new platform for international cooperation.”

According to Liu, the Global South is “the source of strength for global multipolarity.” And it is, “a key force promoting greater democracy in international relations. Over the years, the voice of the Global South has been muted on the world stage and the reasonable concerns of developing countries have not been addressed.

“The few traditional powers that have dominated the right to set the international agenda and rules have always put their own interests first. Their hegemonic, domineering, and bullying practices have disturbed the normal international order and undermined international justice and fairness. Under the new circumstances, more and more Global South countries have realized the [reality of the] ideological and institutional yoke of imperialism and colonialism. And they are more determined than ever to seek strategic autonomy, practice true multilateralism, and promote greater democracy in international relations.”

On the question of modernization, he notes that:

“The Global South must take measures to break the myth that modernization equals westernization. For a long time, people believed westernization is modernization. In fact, modernization is not a single answer question. Different historical conditions lead to different choices of paths to modernization. The modernization of the West started with the expansion of capitalism and reached its peak with the help of colonialism, large-scale exploitation of other countries and the use of power politics. It is an unjust path and by no means a viable choice for the Global South.

“To realize modernization, the countries of the Global South must find a path that best suits their respective national condition and is in line with the trend of the times.

“Besides, they should share their useful experiences, rise up to challenges together, and support each other’s exploration of paths in the pursuit of modernization, so that the Global South and the wider world have more options to achieve modernization.”

He adds:

“China is ready to contribute the country’s strength to advancing modernization for the Global South. While addressing the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August, President Xi Jinping asserted that China is a member of the Global South. China and most countries of the Global South share similar historical experiences and journeys of struggle. And all of them emerged from the fight against colonialism, hegemony, and power politics… China is rooted in the Global South; it cares about the Global South. It has always stood in solidarity with other countries of the Global South through thick and thin, and has been an advocate for and an important player in South-South cooperation…

“China will never forget its roots and will remain a member of the big family of developing countries and the Global South. No matter how the international situation evolves, China will always be committed to the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness to develop relations with its neighbors, follow the principles of sincerity, real results, affinity, and good faith to develop relations with African countries, and adhere to the principles of equality, mutual benefit and common development to develop relations with Latin American countries.”

In conclusion the IDCPC minister writes: “We believe the modernization of the Global South will become an unstoppable trend in the near future. A stable, united, strong and prosperous Global South will no longer be a forlorn dream, and humanity will eventually enjoy progress, lasting peace and sustained development.”

Continue reading Liu Jianchao: Working together to build a modern Global South

How the war on Gaza has stalled the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor

In this article, originally published on People’s Dispatch and produced by Globetrotter, Vijay Prashad explains how the Gaza conflict has likely dealt a fatal blow to the proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that was proposed by seven countries along with the European Union (EU) at the G20 Summit held in the Indian capital New Delhi in September.

Prashad explains that: “The United States, which was one of the initiators of the IMEC, pushed it as a means to both isolate China and Iran as well as to hasten the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It seemed like a perfect instrument for Washington: sequester China and Iran, bring Israel and Saudi Arabia together, and deepen ties with India that seemed to have been weakened by India’s reluctance to join the United States in its policy regarding Russia.” However: “Israel’s war on the Palestinians in Gaza has changed the entire equation and stalled the IMEC.”

He further outlines that, even two years before China first unveiled its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in 2011, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had proposed a “new silk road” that would start from India and transit Central Asia. This in turn was part of a wider ‘pivot to Asia’, proposed by President Barack Obama and designed to check the rise of China. 

According to Prashad, even before the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, IMEC was already facing serious challenges:

“The attempt to isolate China appeared illusory, given that the main Greek port in the corridor—at Piraeus—is managed by the China Ocean Shipping Corporation, and that the Dubai Ports have considerable investment from China’s Ningbo-Zhoushan port and the Zhejiang Seaport. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now members of the BRICS+, and both countries are participants [with the status of Dialogue Partners] in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.” 

Prashad concludes that IMEC will not progress “from paper to port”, “due to Israel’s bombing of Gaza but also due to Washington’s fantasy that it can ‘defeat’ China in an economic war.”

On September 9, 2023, during the G20 meeting in New Delhi, the governments of seven countries and the European Union signed a memorandum of understanding to create an India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. Only three of the countries (India, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates or the UAE) would be directly part of this corridor, which was to begin in India, go through the Gulf, and terminate in Greece. The European countries (France, Germany, and Italy) as well as the European Union joined this endeavor because they expected the IMEC to be a trade route for their goods to go to India and for them to access Indian goods at, what they hoped would be, a reduced cost.

The United States, which was one of the initiators of the IMEC, pushed it as a means to both isolate China and Iran as well as to hasten the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It seemed like a perfect instrument for Washington: sequester China and Iran, bring Israel and Saudi Arabia together, and deepen ties with India that seemed to have been weakened by India’s reluctance to join the United States in its policy regarding Russia.

Israel’s war on the Palestinians in Gaza has changed the entire equation and stalled the IMEC. It is now inconceivable for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to enter such a project with the Israelis. Public opinion in the Arab world is red-hot, with inflamed anger at the indiscriminate bombardment by Israel and the catastrophic loss of civilian life. Regional countries with close relations with Israel—such as Jordan and Turkey—have had to harden their rhetoric against Israel. In the short term, at least, it is impossible to imagine the implementation of the IMEC.

Pivot to Asia

Two years before China inaugurated its “One Belt, One Road” or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the United States had already planned a private-sector-funded trade route to link India to Europe and to tighten the links between Washington and New Delhi. In 2011, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Chennai, India, where she spoke of the creation of a New Silk Road that would run from India through Pakistan and into Central Asia. This new “international web and network of economic and transit connections” would be an instrument for the United States to create a new intergovernmental forum and a “free trade zone” in which the United States would be a member (in much the same way as the United States is part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC).

The New Silk Road was part of a wider “pivot to Asia,” as US President Barack Obama put it. This “pivot” was designed to check the rise of China and to prevent its influence in Asia. Clinton’s article in Foreign Policy (“America’s Pacific Century,” October 11, 2011) suggested that this New Silk Road was not antagonistic to China. However, this rhetoric of the “pivot” came alongside the U.S. military’s new AirSea Battle concept that was designed around direct conflict between the United States and China (the concept built on a 1999 Pentagon study called “Asia 2025” which noted that “the threats are in Asia”).

Two years later, the Chinese government said that it would build a massive infrastructure and trade project called “One Belt, One Road,” which would later be called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Over the next ten years, from 2013 to 2023, the BRI investments totaled $1.04 trillion spread out over 148 countries (three-quarters of the countries in the world). In this short period, the BRI project has made a considerable mark on the world, particularly on the poorer nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where the BRI has made investments to build infrastructure and industry.

Chastened by the growth of the BRI, the United States attempted to block it through various instruments: the América Crece for Latin America and the Millennium Challenge Corporation for South Asia. The weakness in these attempts was that both relied upon funding from an unenthusiastic private sector.

Complications of the IMEC

Even before the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, IMEC faced several serious challenges.

First, the attempt to isolate China appeared illusory, given that the main Greek port in the corridor—at Piraeus—is managed by the China Ocean Shipping Corporation, and that the Dubai Ports have considerable investment from China’s Ningbo-Zhoushan port and the Zhejiang Seaport. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now members of the BRICS+, and both countries are participants in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Second, the entire IMEC process is reliant upon private-sector funding. The Adani Group—which has close ties to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and has come under the spotlight for fraudulent practices—already owns the Mundra port (Gujarat, India) and the Haifa port (Israel), and seeks to take a share in the port at Piraeus. In other words, the IMEC corridor is providing geopolitical cover for Adani’s investments from Greece to Gujarat.

Third, the sea lane between Haifa and Piraeus would go through waters contested between Turkey and Greece. This “Aegean Dispute” has provoked the Turkish government to threaten war if Greece goes through with its designs.

Fourth, the entire project relied upon the “normalization” between Saudi Arabia and Israel, an extension of the Abraham Accords that drew Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates to recognize Israel in August 2020. In July 2022, India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States formed the I2U2 Group, with the intention, among other things, to “modernize infrastructure” and to “advance low-carbon development pathways” through “private enterprise partnerships.” This was the precursor of IMEC. Neither “normalization” with Saudi Arabia nor advancement of the I2U2 process between the UAE and Israel seem possible in this climate. Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinians in Gaza has frozen this process.

Previous Indian trade route projects, such as the International North-South Trade Corridor (with India, Iran, and Russia) and the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (led by India and Japan), have not gone from paper to port for a host of reasons. These, at least, had the merit of being viable. IMEC will suffer the same fate as these corridors, to some extent due to Israel’s bombing of Gaza but also due to Washington’s fantasy that it can “defeat” China in an economic war

Xi Jinping meets South African deputy president

The close friendly relations between China and South Africa were recently underlined by a visit from Deputy President Paul Mashatile. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Mashatile on November 6. He said that this year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and South Africa, with their bilateral relationship entering a “golden era.” 

During his fourth state visit to South Africa in August, he and President Cyril Ramaphosa agreed that China and South Africa should be strategic partners with high-level mutual trust, development partners that progress together, friendly partners that enjoy mutual understanding, and global partners with a commitment to justice.

President Xi expressed China’s willingness to work with South Africa and other African countries to implement China’s three initiatives on supporting Africa’s industrialization, agricultural modernization and talent development, as well as the eight major steps to support high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, create a number of high-standard, sustainable cooperation projects that benefit people’s livelihood, work for a more strategic and sustainable China-Africa cooperation, and promote the building of a high-level China-Africa community with a shared future.

He called on the two sides to continue to cooperate closely within the BRICS mechanism, strengthen solidarity and cooperation among developing countries, and promote the development of the global governance system in a direction conducive to developing countries.

Mashatile said President Xi’s successful state visit to South Africa in August further consolidated the traditional friendship between South Africa and China, and injected strong impetus into the future development of relations. President Ramaphosa awarded the country’s highest honor to President Xi, which showed that the South African people highly affirm and appreciate President Xi’s great contribution to promoting South Africa-China friendship.

On the same day, on his request, Mashatile, who is also the Deputy President of the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, also met with Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee (IDCPC). 

Mashatile said that the ANC attaches great importance to its relations with the CPC and thanks the CPC for the long-term support and assistance to the ANC. Currently, the African continent, including South Africa, is facing many new challenges. The ANC is willing to strengthen exchanges on state governance and administration with the CPC, learn experience and practices in strengthening party building from the CPC, be more people-oriented, listen to the people, and understand and serve the people’s needs, so as to better realize the Party’s purposes and goals. The ANC is willing to work with the CPC to help the two countries strengthen cooperation in energy and other fields, reinforce coordination in international affairs, and promote the stronger development of relations between the two countries.

Liu said, currently the world has entered a new period of turbulence and change, with increasing uncertainties, instability, and unpredictable factors. The CPC and the ANC, as the ruling parties of their respective countries, should strengthen unity and cooperation and work together to deal with risks and challenges on the way forward. The CPC and the ANC have always supported and helped each other.

A few days previously, on November 3, IDCPC Vice-Minister Li Mingxiang met with a delegation led by Bonginkosi Emmanuel “Blade” Nzimande, Chairperson (and formerly General Secretary) of the South African Communist Party (SACP), and South Africa’s Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology.

Li said the Chinese side is willing to work with the South African side to implement the important consensus reached by the top leaders of the two countries, further strengthen cooperation between the two countries in all fields, deepen inter-party exchanges and mutual learning, and jointly promote the continuous development of the comradely and brotherly relationship between China and South Africa.

Nzimande thanked the CPC for its long-term and selfless support to the SACP and expected to continuously deepen friendly cooperation with the CPC in various fields.

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and on the website of the IDCPC.

Xi meets South African deputy president

BEIJING, Nov. 6 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping met with South African Deputy President Paul Mashatile in Beijing on Monday.

Xi said this year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and South Africa, with the bilateral relationship entering a “golden era.”

During his fourth state visit to South Africa in August, President Xi and President Cyril Ramaphosa agreed that China and South Africa should be strategic partners with high-level mutual trust, development partners that progress together, friendly partners that enjoy mutual understanding, and global partners with a commitment to justice.

Continue reading Xi Jinping meets South African deputy president

Xi Jinping meets with Cuban and Serbian PMs

Chinese President Xi Jinping recently met with a number of foreign leaders who came to China to attend the Sixth China International Import Expo (CIIE), held in Shanghai.

On November 6, President Xi met with Cuban Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz. Noting that China and Cuba are good friends, good comrades, and good brothers, Xi said that under the guidance and cultivation of the two countries’ leaders, China and Cuba have worked hand in hand on the path of building socialism with their own characteristics, supported each other on issues concerning each other’s core interests, and cooperated closely on international and regional issues, thus forging an unbreakable bond of trust and friendship.

Xi added that China viewed and developed the special friendly relations between the two parties and countries from a strategic and overall perspective, adhered to the policy of long-term friendship between China and Cuba, and was willing to continue to deepen political mutual trust and strategic coordination with Cuba and carry out theoretical discussions and experience exchanges on party and state governance.

“China will continue to firmly support the Cuban people in opposing foreign interference and blockades and safeguarding national sovereignty and dignity,” he said, and went on to note that Cuba successfully hosted the summit of the Group of 77 and China in September this year, making important contributions to promoting solidarity and cooperation among developing countries. China is willing to work with Cuba to continue to jointly safeguard the sovereignty, security, and development interests of developing countries.

While conveying cordial greetings from Comrade Raul Castro and Cuban President and Communist Party leader Miguel Diaz-Canel, Marrero expressed his pleasure to attend the 6th CIIE in China. He said through this visit, he had learned more deeply about the great achievements China had made in its development, adding that President Xi’s important thoughts on governance are of great inspiration and reference to Cuba and the world.

On the same day, President Xi also met with Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic. The Chinese leader said that Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s attendance at the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in China and Brnabic’s attendance at the sixth China International Import Expo demonstrated Serbia’s sincere friendship with the Chinese people and firm belief in developing relations with China.

China and Serbia are “iron friends” who have stood together through thick and thin, Xi said, underscoring the profound historical foundation, solid public support, extensive common interests and strong impetus for cooperation of their bilateral relations.

He called on the two sides to make joint efforts to build and operate major cooperation projects, promote the early entry into force of the China-Serbia free trade agreement, strengthen cooperation in science and technology innovation, deepen cooperation in education, sports, and tourism, expand personnel exchanges, and inherit and carry forward China-Serbia friendship.

Brnabic said that China had become Serbia’s largest investment partner, and bilateral cooperation projects had changed the face of Serbia’s national development. The conclusion of the free trade agreement between the two countries in half a year fully demonstrates the firm determination of both sides to further deepen relations. China has always supported Serbia in safeguarding national sovereignty and dignity, for which the Serbian people are deeply grateful.

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.

Xi meets Cuban prime minister, calling for further strategic coordination

BEIJING, Nov. 6 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday met with Cuban Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Noting China and Cuba are good friends, good comrades, and good brothers, Xi said under the guidance and cultivation of the two countries’ leaders, China and Cuba had worked hand in hand on the path of building socialism with their own characteristics, supported each other on issues concerning each other’s core interests, and cooperated closely on international and regional issues, thus forging an unbreakable bond of trust and friendship.

Continue reading Xi Jinping meets with Cuban and Serbian PMs