New Cold War Archives - Friends of Socialist China

Brazil’s election is the next front line in Washington’s war against a multipolar world

Brazil goes to the polls on 4 October, and Washington is treating a sovereign election as its own affair – Magnitsky sanctions on the Supreme Court judge who jailed Bolsonaro for attempting a coup, a 50 percent tariff whose removal was openly tied to his release, and a terrorism designation that Brazil’s own Foreign Ministry has warned could be used to justify US military action on Brazilian soil.

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez and the Brazilian journalist Sara Vivacqua sets out that campaign of interference. Of particular interest to readers here is what makes Brazil, in their phrase, a hard nut for Washington to crack – and much of the answer lies in its relationship with China.

Brazil now trades more with China than with the United States, and is challenging US tariffs at the World Trade Organisation with Beijing joining the case. China buys more than a quarter of everything Brazil exports. The two countries increasingly settle accounts directly in reais and yuan, backed by a central bank swap line of 190 billion yuan – around $28 billion – cleared outside New York. Chinese investment committed to Brazil reached $6.1 billion in 2025, and BYD now assembles electric vehicles at Camaçari, on the site Ford abandoned in 2021. When the July duties took effect, Xi Jinping telephoned Lula to pledge Beijing’s support for Brazilian sovereignty against “external interference”, and the year set a fresh bilateral trade record.

The authors conclude that the more of the relationship that sits beyond the dollar, the less a hostile US Treasury can squeeze. We recently published a related article by Sara Vivacqua on the same theme.

A new McCarthyism on both sides of the Atlantic

Two stories eight days apart, both from London newspapers, both pushing a McCarthyite agenda – one aimed at Britain, one at the United States. The Telegraph announced that “China is funding pro-Palestine marches in UK”. The Times reported that members of the Democratic Socialists of America had signed a public statement of support for Chinese socialism and, worse, had travelled to China.

Neither story alleges a crime. Neither produces a document showing a payment from the Chinese state or an instruction from the Communist Party of China. Both rest on the same syllogism: people hold anti-war positions that are also held in Beijing; therefore they hold them because of Beijing; therefore anti-war campaigners are not citizens exercising their rights but instruments of a foreign power.

The following article takes the two chains apart – four degrees of hedged separation in the British case, and in the American one the discovery that socialists are interested in socialism – and sets them against how Washington and London actually operate, from AIPAC’s congressional junkets and the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program to the pro-Israel lobbyists who have donated to half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet.

It then places the episode in its proper lineage. Ellen Schrecker’s segregationists blamed “outside agitators”; the NAACP was investigated for communist infiltration; Paul Robeson lost his passport for eight years; W.E.B. Du Bois was indicted as an unregistered foreign agent in his eighties. The purpose was never to prove foreign control, but to deny that the people protesting had minds of their own.

And it examines the machinery now being assembled: 3,061 terrorism-related arrests in Britain in the year to March 2026, 92 percent of them relating to Palestine Action; the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme and the campaign to add China to its enhanced tier; and, in the United States, presidential memorandum NSPM-7, which lists “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” among the indicators federal agencies are to investigate.

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez is an expanded version of a piece that first appeared in the Morning Star.

Two stories, eight days apart, both from London newspapers, pushing a McCarthyite agenda in two different countries. The Telegraph announced that “China is funding pro-Palestine marches in UK”. The Times reported that members of the Democratic Socialists of America – “the left-wing group behind Zohran Mamdani’s rise” – had signed a public statement of support for Chinese socialism and, worse, had travelled to China.

Neither story alleges a crime. Neither produces a document showing a payment from the Chinese state, an instruction from the Communist Party of China, or any kind of broken law. Both rest on the same syllogism: people hold anti-war positions that are also held in Beijing; therefore these positions are taken up because of Beijing; therefore anti-war campaigners are not citizens exercising their basic democratic rights, but instruments of a foreign power.

Britain: four degrees of separation

Take the evidence as presented by the Telegraph. US congressional investigators are examining £250,000 in “alleged” payments to a company “linked to” CodePink in the UK, from firms “connected to” Neville Roy Singham, a US businessman “accused of” financing pro-China content.

Four degrees of separation, with every link in the chain a substantial hedge, from which emerges a headline asserting that the People’s Republic of China is funding the mass movement in Britain against genocide in Gaza. Singham is a US citizen who made his money building a software consultancy and now spends it on causes he believes in. What the allegations amount to, at most, is a US businessman with left-wing opinions funding a US peace group that has a British affiliate.

And what are the recipients of this money charged with doing? Organising protests against Britain’s involvement in genocide. Campaigning for peace with Iran. Calling for the removal of British military bases in Cyprus. Visiting China and saying that it is not our enemy. Every one of those is a lawful (and obviously principled and correct) political position, and several of them are held by most of the British public. Polling by YouGov in July found that 50 percent of Britons believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against 17 percent who believe it is not, and that 55 percent think Britain should no longer treat Israel as an ally.

Also, consider the sums under discussion. A quarter of a million pounds would barely cover the placards at London’s anti-genocide demonstrations, let alone the portaloos. Spread across the half of the country that has reached the conclusion Beijing supposedly paid for, it comes to less than a penny a head. If that is the price of British public opinion, the Chinese state has driven a remarkable bargain.

The US: socialists found to be interested in socialism

The US version of the story is, remarkably, even thinner. The Times has made the extraordinary discovery that socialists are interested in socialism.

Thirteen members of the DSA, it reports, have signed the Friends of Socialist China statement, declaring that they aim to support the People’s Republic and to promote understanding of Chinese socialism. This is a public statement, published on a public website, which anyone may sign and which has attracted just shy of 1,000 signatories to date from dozens of countries. Thirteen of them turn out to belong to a US socialist organisation. Many readers may struggle to identify a scandal.

Then comes the evidence of sinister coordination: some DSA members went to China. A provincial foreign affairs office in Guizhou helped arrange an itinerary. They attended the parade marking 80 years since the victory over Japanese fascism. According to one of them, they were – gasp – treated well.

From this, the anti-China campaigner Alexander Reid Ross concludes that the trips “exhibit fingerprints of extraordinarily high-level co-ordination by the People’s Republic of China”, and speculates that these individuals’ standing within the DSA “has been improved precisely through the efforts of foreign parties”, raising the question of “who they’re working for”. No offence is alleged and no evidence is offered.

It is probably not a coincidence that the story has surfaced just as Washington is making a concerted effort to revive its Xinjiang campaign. One of the DSA members had visited Xinjiang and reported that he found nothing to support Western accusations of forced labour. To go to Xinjiang and decline to repeat the slanders is evidently the graver offence. Better by far to be one of those who have built entire careers on Xinjiang atrocity claims and who have, for the most part, never set foot in the place.

Set this against how Washington and London actually work

The double standard is easily identified. AIPAC’s affiliate flies members of Congress to Israel as a matter of routine. The State Department’s own International Visitor Leadership Program has hosted more than 230,000 foreign leaders since 1940, over 500 of whom went on to become heads of state or government – a rate of return on hospitality that Guizhou could barely dream of. The National Endowment for Democracy funds journalists, opposition parties and NGOs across the planet and publishes the grant lists in its annual reports.

Meanwhile in London, pro-Israel lobbyists have donated to half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet, a sum considerably higher than the £250,000 that so alarmed the Telegraph.

None of that is considered “foreign interference”, but a Chinese provincial foreign affairs office booking a few hotel rooms is a matter of national security.

The New Red Scare

None of this is new.

The historian Ellen Schrecker describes how segregationists in the American South always insisted that the region’s black population was perfectly content with its subordinate status, and that demands for change were “the product of ‘outside agitators’”. Linking those agitators to the Communist Party, she writes, gave the segregationists “new allies as well as a more modern rationale” for their campaign against the civil rights movement. The same device had served US employers for decades before that: strikes were never the product of legitimate grievance but the work of outside agitators, “usually foreign-born”.

The purpose was never to prove foreign control. It was to deny that the people doing the protesting had minds and interests of their own.

So the NAACP (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded in 1909 and considered the US’ oldest civil rights group), by then a decidedly moderate organisation, was investigated for communist infiltration and became, as Gerald Horne records in Black and Red, among the first targets of the red scare. Paul Robeson had his passport confiscated for eight years and was systematically denied concert venues, the object being, in Horne’s phrase, to make him “radioactive”. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was wiretapped and briefed against, with J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI formally designating him “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism”.

And the world-famous scholar Dr. WEB Du Bois, co-founder of the NAACP, then in his eighties, was indicted as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The damage was not confined to the individuals named. Schrecker’s verdict is that opposition to the Cold War became so completely identified with communism that “it was no longer possible to challenge the basic assumptions of American foreign policy without incurring suspicions of disloyalty”. That is the actual purpose of an exercise like this one: not primarily to convict any particular individual, but to make a set of opinions – against war, against racism, against genocide, against the encirclement of China – too expensive and too dangerous to hold.

The machinery now being built

In Britain, Palestine Action has been proscribed under terrorism legislation, and the consequences show up in the government’s own figures. In the year ending March 2026 there were 3,061 terrorism-related arrests, an increase of 1,186 percent on the previous year, and 2,819 of them – 92 percent – related to alleged support for Palestine Action. Quite an upsurge in “terrorism” – without a single fatality or even injury. Charges under section 12 of the Terrorism Act, which covers support for a proscribed organisation, had run at around five a year between 2019 and 2023; in 2024 there were 17. A counter-terrorism apparatus built to deal with bombers now focuses nine-tenths of its arrests on a protest movement, perhaps a majority of whom are pensioners, and only a small fraction of those arrested are ever charged.

As Sara Vivacqua documents in the Canary, the same powers have been turned on journalists covering the genocide. Asa Winstanley of The Electronic Intifada had his home raided in October 2024 and his devices seized, containing material capable of identifying sources in Palestine, and has never been charged. Kit Klarenberg was stopped at Luton Airport under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, and says the questioning made plain that the object was his journalism rather than terrorism.

The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme went live last year; its enhanced tier, which makes it a criminal offence to act at the direction of a specified foreign power, in areas beyond just political influence, without declaring it, currently applies to Russia and Iran, and there is a sustained campaign to add China to the list. Put that together with a year of newspaper stories linking the Palestine movement to Beijing, and the state acquires a mechanism for treating anti-war protest as a hostile foreign operation.

In the United States the equivalent already exists, and it is the same statute. Presidential memorandum NSPM-7, signed in September 2025, directs federal agencies to investigate nonprofits, activists and their donors, listing “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” among the indicators to be looked for, and assigning Joint Terrorism Task Forces to pursue violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. An organisation whose members are on record supporting Chinese socialism, and who may have accepted a hotel booking from a Chinese provincial government, is precisely the kind of thing that memorandum was drafted to capture.

What is actually being defended

Ordinary British people did not need the Communist Party of China to make them angry about Gaza. Nearly three years of televised mass killing, British-made components in the aircraft, RAF surveillance flights out of Akrotiri feeding information to an army facing genocide proceedings at the International Court of Justice: millions of people in Britain concluded that their government was complicit and reaching that conclusion required no assistance whatsoever from Beijing. Nor do young Americans need instructions from Guizhou to notice that they cannot afford rent, and that a country which has eliminated extreme poverty and become the world’s first green energy superpower might be worth studying.

Which is what the accusation is for. Not to show that anyone took Chinese money – nobody has shown that anyone did – but to disqualify a position rather than answer it. An argument traced back to a foreign capital need never be met on its merits. So the Times assembles a chain running from rent control in New York through the DSA and a Guizhou hotel booking to Beijing, and the Telegraph assembles one running from a march against genocide through CodePink and a US software millionaire to the same destination. And it has to be China at the end of both chains, because China is the country doing most to prove that socialism works and that a better world is possible.

It’s essential that we see through this cynical manoeuvre, defend those being targeted, and resist the creeping authoritarianism that is being normalised in the name of “security”. The people marching for Palestine are not instruments of a foreign power. They are ordinary human beings who are disgusted with their own government’s complicity in genocide. And on this issue at least they represent the views of the majority.

Brazil’s election is a test case for the Global South

The following article by Sara Vivacqua, a Brazilian lawyer and investigative journalist, examines the campaign of legal, diplomatic, economic and military pressure being waged by the Trump administration against Brazil ahead of the presidential election on 4 October. With Venezuela under military assault, Cuba under siege, new US bases in Argentina and Paraguay and marines deployed in Ecuador and Bolivia, Brazil stands as one of the very few remaining obstacles to Washington completing its sphere of influence across the hemisphere.

Of particular interest is the article’s account of China’s role. On 27 July, the day after Lula responded to a fresh 25 percent tariff with an op-ed in the Washington Post, Xi Jinping telephoned him to say that China highly values Brazil’s international status and influence and supports Brazil in safeguarding its sovereignty and independence and opposing external interference. Wang Yi reaffirmed that support once the tariff took effect.

The support goes well beyond communiqués. China is now the destination for 28.7 percent of everything Brazil exports and supplies just over a quarter of its imports. Chinese investment reached $6.1 billion in 2025, a 45 percent rise that made Brazil the single largest destination for Chinese outbound investment. BYD assembles vehicles at Camaçari, in Bahia, on the site Ford abandoned in 2021; Brazilian purchases of Chinese cars rose 147 percent year on year in the first five months of 2026, taking Brazil from sixth place in the world to first. The Salvador–Itaparica bridge, which will be Latin America’s largest cable-stayed cross-sea bridge, is being built by Chinese companies.

Most consequential of all is the monetary architecture. Brazil and China now settle trade directly between the real and the yuan, backed by a central bank swap line of 190 billion yuan, clearing the next working day through China’s own cross-border payment system. Transactions that once had to pass through correspondent banks in New York no longer need to – which, as Sara puts it, is the quiet reason the tariffs bite less than they once did. The more of the relationship that sits outside the dollar system, the less leverage a hostile US Treasury has.

None of this is lost on Washington. The article notes that the “Shield of the Americas”, an 18-member hemispheric intelligence-sharing coalition ostensibly aimed at transnational crime, is widely understood to be directed at China – whose trade with Latin America has risen from $12 billion in 2000 to over $500 billion in 2024. Latin America, the author concludes, has become a priority in the US campaign of encirclement against China and its war on multipolarity, and Brazil’s election now sits at the epicentre of that project.

New Zealand foreign minister’s racist outburst damages relations with China

A July 29 racist incident in the New Zealand parliament has served to further sour the country’s once cordial relations with China.

That day Green Party MP Dr. Lawrence Xu-Nan heckled Foreign Minister Winston Peters about his vaccination status during a parliamentary debate. Peters responded by shouting: “I know you just came here five minutes ago. Go back where you come from, you loud mouth!”

Writing in his Solidarity blog, Eugene Doyle notes: “For the record Xu-Nan, born in Tianjin, China, arrived in New Zealand as a child in the 1990s. He is the Green Party’s first Chinese MP and says he ‘hopes to create bridges across various tauiwi [ethnically diverse] communities and bring together the collective wisdom of these communities to find solutions to the bigger challenges facing Aotearoa [New Zealand].”

In contrast, he continues, “in the space of 30 seconds, the undiplomatic foreign minister racially insulted a fellow MP, derided the Chinese government, cast slurs on immigrants and rehearsed talking points better suited to a MAGA rally in Eastern Kentucky than the New Zealand Parliament.”

He adds that “his insult to the ambassador and the Chinese system of government is gratuitous and will not be welcome in Beijing where New Zealand’s share price has been dropping sharply since the [Christopher] Luxon government ramped up both anti-China rhetoric and moved rapidly to more deeply integrate with the US military. Ludicrously, the PM simultaneously says he wants to double trade with China!”

Bianca Ranson of Anti-War Aotearoa, which advocates for a more respectful engagement with China, said Peter’s comments were deliberately insulting to China and the Chinese people. “He’s not fit to be foreign minister. At a time when tensions are heightened around immigrants and racism, we have Winston Peters reaching for the far-right playbook, emboldening racists and giving them an example of how to treat others. New Zealand’s support for Israel has already damaged our standing in the world and this just underlines that something has gone seriously wrong.”

New Zealand has long had good political and thriving economic relations with China, especially when the New Zealand Labour Party was in office, but these have deteriorated sharply since Labour lost the November 2023 general election.

China’s public response to Peters’ outburst was extremely measured. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy, referring to him only as “a certain politician”, “urged the New Zealand side to value the equal and mutually beneficial relationship between China and New Zealand and to do more things conducive to bilateral relations rather than the other way around,” adding that the, “absolute majority… of the Chinese community in New Zealand abide by local laws, actively integrate into the mainstream society, and have made important contributions to New Zealand’s economic and social development, and therefore deserve to be recognised and respected.”

However, China was less restrained when, shortly after, Peters unsuccessfully attempted to cajole the countries of the South Pacific, meeting at the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in the Fijian capital Suva, into condemning a recent missile launch by China.

An article carried on the embassy website said that Peters had turned the meeting, “into a stage for his own political performance, pushing hard for the forum to issue a joint statement on China’s test launch of a strategic missile by a submarine last month. Before the meeting, Peters had accused Pacific Island countries of ‘missing an opportunity’ by failing to collectively criticise China… However, the outcome delivered Peters a resounding slap in the face. Pacific Island countries clearly showed little interest in the agenda he promoted, and no joint statement was adopted…

“In recent years, New Zealand has echoed Australia in hyping up the so-called ‘China security threat’, treating the South Pacific as its own sphere of influence and repeatedly pointing fingers at Pacific Island countries’ diplomatic choices. Whenever a country carries out normal economic, trade or security cooperation with China, it is immediately stigmatised as being ‘influenced by those outside the region’.

“As a close follower of the US and Australian camp, New Zealand, despite knowing that the majority of Pacific Island countries hold different views, still attempted to force through a statement targeting China, even at the cost of creating divisions among regional countries. At its core, this was an attempt to consolidate its regional discourse power by aligning with the geopolitical strategies of external powers and seeking to become the ‘regional decision-maker’.”

A third statement by the embassy, issued on August 14, responded to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) release of its report entitled ‘New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment 2026’. It stated:

“Steeped in Cold War mentality, the report once again fabricates and hypes the so-called ‘China interference’ and ‘China threat’ narratives. Its false allegations against China either smear normal exchanges and cooperation as so-called espionage or interference or are entirely groundless and fabricated out of thin air. We firmly oppose this and will never accept it.”

It added that it formed “part of a new wave of attacks, slander and vilification against China orchestrated by certain international forces and may well itself be a product of foreign interference.

“It also reflects the reluctance of certain forces, both within and outside New Zealand, to see the sound development of China-New Zealand relations. By resorting to every possible means to fabricate disinformation, they seek to drive a wedge between our two peoples, create a chilling effect on the public including the Chinese community, undermine bilateral mutual trust, and obstruct the growth of the relationship — all in service of their own geopolitical agendas and the narrow, short-sighted political interests of a few…

“Our message to those forces and individuals attempting political machinations is this: do not sacrifice the hard-won, mutually beneficial China-New Zealand relationship for selfish gain, and do not act against the interests of New Zealand and its people. Serving as a pawn for anti-China forces will ultimately backfire. Manufacturing distractions in foreign relations will not solve New Zealand’s own problems — it will only prove counterproductive. We urge these forces and individuals not to quench their thirst with poison, and not to lift a rock only to drop it on their own feet.

“China values its relationship with New Zealand. We stand ready to work with the New Zealand side, on the basis of the consensus reached between the leaders of our two countries, to advance exchanges and cooperation across the fields of political mutual trust, practical cooperation and people-to-people ties, for the greater benefit of both peoples.

“That said, the development of China-New Zealand relations is not up to China’s efforts alone. We hope the New Zealand side will work in the same direction as China, rather than the opposite. Should it fail to do so, the responsibility for any consequences that may arise will not rest with the Chinese side.”

Hawks dressed as doves: the Guardian’s case for a harder line on China

In the following article, written for the Morning Star, our co-editor Carlos Martinez takes apart a recent Guardian column by Simon Tisdall whose complaint, running through every paragraph, is not that the West has been too aggressive towards China but that it has not been aggressive enough.

Carlos works through the column point by point: the claim of Western “debilitating fatalism” towards a country already facing a tariff war, semiconductor export bans, AUKUS, the Quad, RIMPAC and a chain of US bases from Japan to Australia; Tisdall’s unfortunate choice of Wales as an analogy for language rights; the assertion of “brutal re-education camps” offered without evidence, source or argument, resting on the discredited work of Adrian Zenz and the arms-industry-funded ASPI; and the verdict that Xi is an “unelected autocrat”, delivered without reference to the five levels of People’s Congresses, the consultative apparatus that precedes their votes, or the satisfaction ratings that no Western government has approached in living memory.

The article’s conclusion is that this is liberal hawkishness in its purest form – deploring Trump in one paragraph and demanding his policy in the next – and that it is more dangerous than the honest belligerence of the right, because it recruits people of genuine conscience to a war they would otherwise oppose.

Dr Fauci and his inquisitors

The following article by Stephen Millies, a retired railroad worker and longtime writer for Struggle La Lucha, reports on the vote by a US Senate committee on 6 August to hold Dr Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress. It is the culmination of a campaign that has rather less to do with public health than with the New Cold War on China.

Rand Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and who convened the hearing, has spent five years insisting that Covid-19 escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. Fauci’s real offence is that he has declined to supply the testimony that theory requires. As Millies puts it, the targeting of the 85-year-old scientist “is part of his campaign to blame the People’s Republic of China for the COVID-19 pandemic”.

The ‘lab leak’ story never had evidence behind it. The joint study conducted by the World Health Organisation and Chinese scientists concluded in 2021 that a laboratory origin was “extremely unlikely”, and the successive US intelligence reviews commissioned to overturn that finding produced nothing. As Robert Griffiths set out in the Morning Star, and as Joshua Cho documented for FAIR, the theory was a political construction from the beginning – a means of deflecting attention from the West’s own catastrophic handling of the pandemic, and, as we argued at the time, a racist trope.

Millies’ comparison with the McCarthy period is apt. A major part of the organising logic of the original McCarthy witch hunt was the issue of “who lost China?” The victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949 had to be explained as a betrayal from within rather than as something the Chinese people had accomplished for themselves, and so the State Department’s China specialists – John Service, John Carter Vincent and John Paton Davies – along with the scholar Owen Lattimore, had their careers destroyed for the crime of having reported accurately that the Guomindang was losing.

Three-quarters of a century later, a Senate committee is once again demanding that an inconvenient truth about China be recanted, and once again threatening a witness with prosecution for declining. Then the unbearable fact was the fall of Chiang Kai-shek; now it is that socialist China contained the virus and saved millions of lives while the United States lost more than 1.2 million people.

Obscuring that contrast is precisely what the inquisition exists for, and Millies supplies the answer that Senator Paul’s committee took care not to look for. The reason the US death toll so far exceeded China’s – and Cuba’s – has nothing to do with Wuhan and everything to do with 50 years of hospital closures, a health system organised around profit, and a systemic racism that largely determined who died. The elimination of “excess” hospital beds, as he writes, “amounted to social murder”.

Danny Haiphong: Who benefits from rising tensions in the South China Sea?

Tensions in the South China Sea flared again on 20 July, when a Philippine Navy vessel illegally grounded at China’s Ren’ai Jiao sparked a confrontation with the China Coast Guard, followed three days later by the Coast Guard driving away two Philippine vessels near Huangyan Dao. In the following article, Friends of Socialist China co-founder Danny Haiphong – a US independent journalist and researcher specialising in US foreign policy and geopolitics – asks who actually benefits from the escalation.

His answer is that these clashes did not emerge in a vacuum. They came against the backdrop of the tenth anniversary of the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling, marked by a joint statement from the US, Japan, the Philippines and eleven other countries – a ruling China regards as illegal and void, and one advanced most energetically by a United States that is not itself a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Philippines may have been the nominal filer, but Washington supplied the logistical, diplomatic and legal muscle.

Danny sets out the scale of the militarisation involved: 1,200 US reconnaissance missions over the South China Sea in 2025, nine carrier strike group deployments, and large-scale exercises led by the US, Japan and the Philippines. The Marcos administration, he argues, has badly miscalculated in believing that deeper military integration with Washington gives it leverage over Beijing; the reality is that the Philippines is being positioned as a staging ground for someone else’s war. As he puts it, paraphrasing Kissinger, to be an enemy of the US may be dangerous – but to be a friend of the US is fatal.

The pushback against the US militarisation of East Asia

When US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told Washington’s Asian allies at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore that they should be spending 3.5 percent of their GDP on defence – quipping “more ships, less Shangri-La” – he was calling for a regional arms build-up unmatched since the end of the Cold War. In the following article, Mike Martin, a member of Scottish CND’s trade union network, surveys the opposition to that project across East Asia and Australasia.

The contradiction he identifies is a sharp one. Since the Cold War, south-east Asia has pivoted from military readiness to commerce and investment, deepened through ASEAN and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, becoming a global manufacturing hub in the process. China sits at the centre of those supply chains and is the leading trade partner of most countries in the region. Yet the states most deeply integrated into China’s economic dynamism are simultaneously being drawn into military structures designed to confront it – new missile systems, bases, naval patrols in contested waters, and military budgets that soar as social budgets stagnate.

Mike’s survey is a valuable corrective to the impression, common in the Western media, that the region is uniformly lining up behind Washington. From the campaign against AUKUS in Australia and Japan’s largest anti-war mobilisations in decades in defence of Article 9, to the peace coalitions of South Korea, the debate over an independent foreign policy in the Philippines, and the overwhelming majority in Taiwan province who reject both independence and confrontation, he documents the countervailing social forces at work. The task, he concludes, is to build the largest possible global majority for peace.

Around the world, China is viewed more positively than the United States

A newly published survey by the Pew Research Center – covering more than 42,000 people across 36 countries – has found that China is now viewed more positively than the United States in most of the countries polled, with more people worldwide expressing confidence in Xi Jinping than in Donald Trump. It is a striking measure of how far Washington’s global standing has fallen.

In the following article, Carlos Martinez, co-editor of Friends of Socialist China, examines what lies behind this historic shift. He argues that the single most important factor is the war on Gaza – a genocide watched in real time by a global public that has also seen the governments of North America and Western Europe arm, finance and shield it, all while lecturing the world about a “rules-based order”. The same collapse of credibility, he notes, has quietly buried the “Uyghur genocide” narrative, and has been compounded by the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.

RIMPAC naval exercises threaten China at the expense of indigenous peoples and the environment

On June 24, the United States launched the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises off Hawaii – the world’s largest international naval war games, bringing together 31 countries, more than 25,000 personnel, dozens of warships and submarines, and 140 aircraft. Running until July 31, RIMPAC represents a further escalation of Washington’s preparations for war on China, militarising the Pacific and normalising the prospect of conflict through ever-larger exercises and an expanding web of alliances and military bases.

We reproduce below a selection of critical coverage examining what RIMPAC means for the peoples and environment of the Pacific – from the diversion of resources amid a deepening climate emergency, to the participation of NATO states and Israel, to the dispossession and militarisation of Hawai’i and its indigenous Kanaka Maoli.

Manufactured outrage: the truth about China’s ethnic unity law

The following article by Carlos Martinez, co-editor of Friends of Socialist China, responds to the coordinated storm of condemnation that greeted the entry into force on 1 July of China’s Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress – a campaign that seeks to revive the discredited “Xinjiang genocide” narrative and extend it to Xizang (Tibet) and beyond.

Carlos examines what the law actually says, and contrasts China’s record on minority rights – rising life expectancy, the elimination of absolute poverty, and the protection and flourishing of minority languages – with the treatment of minority communities in the West.

He traces the long history of Western sponsorship of separatism in China, from the CIA’s two-decade Tibetan programme to the National Endowment for Democracy’s funding of exile groups today, and locates the current hysteria in the failure of the propaganda war: as polling shows steadily warming attitudes towards China, particularly among the young, the ideologues of the New Cold War are increasingly desperate to re-toxify China’s image. What China is building is strength through unity in diversity; what its adversaries want to see is disunity and disintegration.

NB. This article has been translated into Dutch by our friends at China Square.

On 1 July, China’s Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress came into force – the country’s first comprehensive national law on ethnic affairs, adopted by the National People’s Congress in March.

Within days, a remarkably well-coordinated storm of condemnation had been whipped up: denunciations from Washington and Brussels, a resolution in the European Parliament, and a wave of media coverage announcing that China had ordered its minorities to “assimilate”. The thoroughly discredited “Xinjiang genocide” narrative is being dusted off and relaunched – this time with Xizang (Tibet) added to the charge sheet for good measure.

What does the law actually say? It stipulates that upholding national unity and ethnic solidarity is the responsibility of all Chinese citizens, and it prohibits discrimination and suppression against any ethnic group. It strongly re-affirms the right of all peoples to use and develop their own spoken and written languages. It directs central and local government to strengthen infrastructure, industry, public services and environmental protection in minority regions, and to ensure that no ethnic group is left behind in China’s modernisation.

As such, it continues a long-standing programme of what would be called, in Western terminology, affirmative action: preferential university admissions for minority students, bilingual education, protected minority-language broadcasting, and formal autonomy arrangements from Inner Mongolia to Yunnan – to which one might add that China’s national minorities were exempt from the one-child policy throughout its existence. Altogether, strange provisions indeed for a programme of persecution.

Trump, Panama and the Monroe Doctrine

Donald Trump has declared that the United States “will not let China take over the Panama Canal”.

Start with the obvious: China does not own, run or control the Panama Canal, and has no plans to do so. The canal is the sovereign property of Panama, operated by the Panama Canal Authority. The Chinese Embassy in Panama has stated plainly that China has never participated in the canal’s management or operation, respects Panama’s sovereignty over it, and recognises it as a permanently neutral international waterway. There is no Chinese takeover, planned or otherwise.

What actually exists is a modest commercial footprint. A Hong Kong company, CK Hutchison, won – through open bidding – the rights to handle cargo and warehousing at two terminals at either end of the canal. Terminals, not the waterway; commerce, not control. Chinese vessels transit the canal paying the same tolls, under the same rules, as everyone else.

And even that footprint is being dismantled: under relentless US pressure, Hutchison’s ports are being sold to a consortium led by the US asset manager BlackRock, while Panama has already been strong-armed out of the Belt and Road Initiative.

There’s a rich historical irony here. The one country that has actually seized and controlled the canal is the United States. Washington engineered Panama’s secession from Colombia in 1903 to build and own the canal; the US held Panama as a colonial enclave for most of the twentieth century; and invaded the country in 1989, killing hundreds of Panamanians. It returned the canal only because a mass sovereignty movement, and the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, forced it to. To this day the US retains a treaty-based claim to send troops into Panama whenever it unilaterally decides a “security risk” exists. If you want to identify the foreign power that constrains Panama’s sovereignty, there it is.

This is the Monroe Doctrine, alive and well. Trump’s own National Security Strategy states the aim plainly: to “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to… own or control strategically vital assets in our Hemisphere”. Latin America is once again to be treated as the imperial backyard, and any Chinese presence – however commercial, however welcomed by the host nation – recast as a hostile incursion to be purged.

And the canal is only one piece on a much larger board. Driving Chinese investors out of Panama belongs to a broader global strategy: the same logic behind Washington’s designs on Greenland, Iceland, the Baltic and the Strait of Hormuz. The goal is to control the world’s trade routes, keep the oil trade priced in dollars, and preserve a financial system so thoroughly weaponised that the US can seize any country’s assets at will – as it has done with Venezuela’s gold, Russia’s reserves and Iran’s savings. Panama’s canal is a chokepoint on that map, and the “China threat” is simply the pretext for tightening Washington’s grip on it.

But Latin American countries are turning to China for a reason. Since establishing ties with Panama in 2017, China has helped revive stalled infrastructure and supported the country’s coffee industry through the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation. Across the region, trade with, and investment from, China have grown more than 20-fold since 2000, and the new Chancay mega-port in Peru is reshaping trade across the Pacific – cooperation on terms of sovereign equality and mutual benefit that Washington has never offered and never will.

The real question isn’t whether China will “take over” the Panama Canal. It’s whether Panama, and the region, get to make their own choices – or whether the empire next door still decides for them.

The USA and the CPC – a tale of two anniversaries

The following article by Carlos Martinez marks two anniversaries falling days apart – the 105th of the Communist Party of China on 1 July and the 250th of the United States on 4 July – and asks what these two political projects have contributed to the world.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star.

This week features two anniversaries that, taken together, tell much of the story of our age. On 1 July, the Communist Party of China marked 105 years since its founding. On 4 July, the United States celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. The two milestones invite a comparison: what have these two political projects contributed to the world?

War and peace

The US was born in a revolution against empire and has spent much of its life building one. By one widely cited reckoning, the US has been at war for over 90 percent of its history – from the wars of continental conquest to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Iran. It maintains around 800 military bases in 80 countries and spends over a trillion dollars a year on its armed forces.

China’s record could hardly be more different. It has not fought a war in close to five decades. The major conflicts it was previously drawn into – Korea and Vietnam – were in defence of neighbours resisting imperialism. It has never launched a war of aggression, never seized a colony, never carried out a regime-change operation, never imposed a unilateral sanctions regime. Its foreign policy still rests on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence – mutual respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, equality and mutual benefit – first articulated in 1954. Even on the nuclear question, where Western media warn of a Chinese build-up, China holds around 500 warheads to the United States’ several thousand, and remains the only major nuclear power consistently and unambiguously committed to a policy of no first use, in place since its first nuclear test in 1964.

This difference scales up to the level of the world system. The US sits at the head of an order it designed and polices – an order of dollar dominance, financial sanctions, military alliances, and the assumed right to intervene anywhere in defence of its own economic and strategic interests. As the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman famously put it, “the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas”.

China, by contrast, has thrown its weight behind a multipolar trajectory: the Belt and Road Initiative, to which three-quarters of UN member states have signed up; the expansion of BRICS; global initiatives on development, security, civilisational dialogue and governance; and an insistence on sovereign equality – that nations be free to choose their own path. One project seeks to preserve a hierarchy with a single power at the top. The other works towards a global community of shared future, in which all nations participate on equal terms.

Neoliberalism versus common prosperity

Over four decades China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty – more than three-quarters of the global total – and in 2021 declared the elimination of extreme poverty, a decade ahead of the UN’s own target. It has built the largest public medical insurance network on earth, covering essentially its entire population, extended pension coverage to all its elderly, and largely solved the problem of homelessness.

Diane Abbott: The US plan is for global domination – we have to be determined in the campaign for peace

Nearly 3,000 delegates from across Britain, Europe and further afield packed London’s Westminster Central Hall on Saturday June 20 for a conference against war and militarism hosted by Britain’s Stop the War Coalition. It was the second conference of its kind, the first having been held in Paris in October 2025.

In a day noted for numerous rousing and militant speeches, special mention should be made of that made by Diane Abbott, which, despite its brevity, was unique in its providing an insightful overview of the international situation as a whole, the various struggles against imperialism and war and the significance of China.

After referring to the situations in Venezuela, Cuba, Nigeria, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, Diane continued:

“There is a military build-up against China, especially through AUKUS. And of course, there is the war and blockade of Iran. Finally, there is the prolonged war in Ukraine, the largest war in Europe since the Second World War, much bigger even than the NATO campaign to destroy Yugoslavia.”

All these have one thing in common, she explained. “The United States is central to them all and initiated most of them.”

Referring to the latest US National Security Strategy, she noted that some people have argued that this means that the United States is now restricting its attention to the western hemisphere. But “none of that is true… It is a plan for global domination.”

Economically, the US is on the retreat and has lost its dominance. It has “lost out to the Global South in general and China in particular.” But it is attempting to recover its position primarily through a combination of trade wars, sanctions, and military methods. In this it relies on the overwhelming dominance of the US military, the global role of the US dollar and its network of allies.

However, not everything is going to plan. The US lost the first few rounds of the trade war with China.

She concludes: “It seems clear that we are in for a prolonged fight… We have to be determined in the campaign for peace, and unite with all those governments, movements and peoples who oppose this US rampage.”

Diane Abbott is the member of parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington in northeast London. She was first elected in 1987, becoming Britain’s first ever black woman parliamentarian. She is now the ‘Mother of the House’ – the longest currently serving woman member of the House of Commons. Having served as Shadow Home Secretary during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, she is currently suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, due to the discredited regime of Keir Starmer’s war against the left and to her steadfast opposition to austerity, racism and imperialist war.

Why the Chinese working class won’t pay for Western neoliberalism

The following article by Carlos Martinez responds to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s call at the recent EU summit for a new “Plaza Accord” to force up the value of the Chinese renminbi.

Carlos recalls how the original 1985 Plaza Accord was not a neutral rebalancing of trade but the deliberate kneecapping of an economic competitor – Washington strong-arming Japan, West Germany, France and Britain into driving down the dollar, plunging Japan into a “lost decade” of stagnation while failing to dent a US trade deficit that originated in Washington’s own model of high consumption and low savings, not in the exchange rate.

Carlos argues that China today cannot be treated as Japan was. Where Japan was a subordinate Cold War ally hosting tens of thousands of US troops; China is a sovereign socialist state with an increasingly prosperous domestic market of 1.4 billion people, an independent financial policy and a central bank that answers to no one in the West – it simply cannot be “Plaza’d”.

The article also takes aim at the language of “overcapacity”, which Carlos describes as a euphemism for European and North American industry failing to compete after nearly half a century of financialisation, privatisation and deregulation. Chinese competitiveness in electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels flows from a complete industrial system and sustained investment in technology – not from currency manipulation – and the EU’s tariffs of up to 35 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles are, he writes, “an act of self-harm disguised as self-defence”.

Two roads for the world: notes from “Imperialism vs multipolarity” webinar

On 21 June, Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group co-hosted a webinar, “Imperialism vs multipolarity”, bringing together a distinguished international panel to discuss the Trump-Xi summit in Beijing, the tariff and Iran wars, US military aggression across the Global South, and the emerging shape of the world order.

The discussion was moderated by Radhika Desai (Professor at the University of Manitoba and convenor of the International Manifesto Group), and brought together Ben Norton (founder and editor-in-chief of Geopolitical Economy Report); Cheng Enfu (President of the World Association for Political Economy), whose paper was presented by Professor Ding Xiaoqin; Ken Hammond (Professor of History at New Mexico State University and a founder of Pivot to Peace); Jacquie Luqman (coordinator with the Black Alliance for Peace); Mick Dunford (Emeritus Professor at the University of Sussex); Mike Klonsky (educator, author and veteran activist); Jenny Clegg (author of China’s Global Strategy: Towards a Multipolar World); and Carlos Martinez (co-editor of Friends of Socialist China).

The full livestream can be viewed at the end of this article, below our report of the discussion.

Danny Haiphong: There is reason to hope

The following article by Danny Haiphong – journalist, broadcaster and a co-founder of Friends of Socialist China – argues that, against the nihilism and pessimism spreading through the West, geopolitics and political economy offer genuine grounds for optimism. He frames US unipolar imperialism (less than a century old) and Western colonialism (about four centuries old) as brief blips in human history, met throughout by constant resistance – from Maroon societies to twentieth-century liberation movements.

The US empire, Danny contends, is in material decline: its share of global GDP has fallen from 35–50 percent in 1945 to 20–25 percent now, while manufacturing has shrunk to under 10 percent of the economy, leaving it dominated by finance, insurance, real estate and military contracting. Endless war is therefore a symptom of weakness, not strength – the warmongers can only destroy, not build.

A multipolar reality is emerging. China is the article’s prime example: from being one of the poorest countries in the world at the time of the founding of the People’s Republic, it has managed to eliminate extreme poverty and become a leader in robotics, AI, high-speed rail, renewables and reforestation, with over 90 percent public trust in government grounded in results. Danny extends the case to a resurgent, sanctions-proof Russia; to Iran, whose retaliation against US–Israeli strikes and control over the Strait of Hormuz have significantly increased its global standing; and to smaller states defying sanctions – the DPRK’s construction boom, Zimbabwe’s recovery from the crippling sanctions imposed by the west to punish the country for land reform, and Cuba’s healthcare achievements despite blockade.

Danny concludes:

The sociopathic rulers of US empire (what some have deemed the Epstein class) are committed to taking everyone down with their collapsing system of empire and neoliberal capitalism. Endless war and theft masquerading as economics is the only path left in front of them. US-Israeli genocide in Palestine and Lebanon, not to mention the dozens of other deadly wars and the imposition of abject poverty for more than half the planet to enrich just eight ultra-rich individuals, understandably fuel despair and disgust amongst those in the collective West who detest this reality. But there is reason to hope. We can find it in the billions of people struggling to build a better world.

Webinar: Imperialism vs multipolarity – The US and China’s clashing visions of the international order (21 June)

📆 Sunday 21 June 2026, 2pm Britain, 9am US Eastern, 9pm China

A discussion of the Trump-Xi summit, the tariff war, US military aggression across the Global South, and the prospects for the world to come.

When Donald Trump arrived in Beijing in May for talks with President Xi Jinping – the first visit by a US president in nine years – the observant could detect a major shift in the international order. Successive US administrations’ increasingly desperate efforts to maintain dominance – through tariffs, sanctions, military aggression and technology warfare – have been failing as China’s economic might and diplomatic influence have grown. The trip Trump had hoped to make in triumph had to be made amid the disaster of his failing war on Iran, on top of the earlier failure of his tariff war against China.

Rather than projecting power, Trump was left with no alternative but to treat China as a peer. China now accounts for roughly 30 percent of global manufacturing output; the Belt and Road Initiative spans continents; and a growing majority of the world’s people are orientating away from US hegemonism and towards a pluripolar future. Xi’s quietly confident offer of “a new paradigm of major-country relations” and a “constructive relationship of strategic stability” went largely unchallenged.

Trump will undoubtedly flail against this new reality, and that flailing will bring further misery to the world. But there are signs that a critical corner is being turned in the journey towards a multipolar world order based on sovereignty, development and peace.

Join our panel of analysts, activists and scholars for a wide-ranging discussion of the Trump-Xi summit and its aftermath, the tariff war, US military aggression across the Global South, and the prospects for the world to come.

This webinar is organised by Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group.

Confirmed speakers

Cheng Enfu (President of the World Association for Political Economy)
Ben Norton (Founder and editor-in-chief, Geopolitical Economy Report)
Carlos Martinez (Co-editor, Friends of Socialist China)
Jacquie Luqman (Black Alliance for Peace)
Jenny Clegg (Author and peace campaigner)
Ken Hammond (Professor of History, New Mexico State University; Pivot to Peace)
Mick Dunford (Emeritus Professor, University of Sussex)
Mike Klonsky (Educator, author and activist)
Moderator: Radhika Desai (Convenor, International Manifesto Group)

Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port and the complete collapse of the “debt trap” narrative

For years, Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port was the textbook example of what Western politicians called Chinese “debt-trap diplomacy” – the claim that Beijing lures poor countries into unpayable loans and then seizes their strategic infrastructure. In the following article, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez shows how comprehensively that story has collapsed.

Drawing on studies by Chatham House, the Johns Hopkins economist Deborah Bräutigam and Sri Lankan officials themselves, Carlos sets out the facts: the port was a Sri Lankan initiative, not a Chinese one; Washington and Delhi were asked to fund it and declined; and Chinese loans made up just 9 percent of Sri Lanka’s government debt. As the country’s then ports minister put it, “We thank China for arranging this investor to save us from the debt trap.” Sri Lanka’s debt crisis “was made on Wall Street, not in Beijing.”

Far from a predatory white elephant, Hambantota has become one of the fastest-growing trans-shipment hubs in the Indian Ocean, drawing the largest foreign investment in Sri Lankan history. The real debt trap, the article argues, is sprung by the IMF, the World Bank and Western bond markets – and the campaign against the Belt and Road is “a blatant act of self-projection.”

Socialist and anti-colonial movements laid groundwork for multipolarity

The following article, by Gregory E. Williams, argues that we can’t understand multipolarity through an international relations or geopolitics lens alone; it is primarily a class question.

The post-1991 “unipolar moment” wasn’t simply the absence of a rival superpower. It was a counter-revolutionary opening for the global capitalist class – Wall Street ascendant, the IMF and World Bank disciplining the Global South, Reagan and Thatcher austerity at home, an unbroken line of attack on the working class running from there down to Musk’s DOGE cuts.

And the multipolar trajectory we witness today has its origins in the revolutions of the twentieth century: the Bolshevik Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the wave of national liberation movements from Algeria to Vietnam, Bandung 1955, the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the long resistance in Palestine, Lebanon and Yemen. China’s industrial power today is the inheritance of 1949. Iran’s defiance is the inheritance of 1979.

The class character of the two camps isn’t symmetrical. The forces driving towards the defeat of US-led imperialism represent the working class and the oppressed peoples of the Global South.