Category: New Cold War

Solidarity with China is necessary for the collective future of humanity

The following article by Sara Flounders, originally posted on Workers World, takes up the question of China’s social system: is it socialist, as it claims? Or is it just another capitalist-imperialist country?

Sara lists a number of ways in which China’s emergence is helping the countries of the Global South – from the Belt and Road Initiative to the provision of financial and technical assistance for infrastructure construction. “China is a lifeline for the Global South. The Africa Summit just held in Beijing confirmed this a thousand times over.”

Meanwhile, as a result of sustained efforts over decades, China has eliminated extreme poverty and “achieved the fastest growth in living standards of any country in the world”. Furthermore: “China has gone green and solar and put a half-million electric city buses on their streets. US city buses are still belching out pollution coming from fossil fuels.”

One outcome of this progress is that “US imperialist strategists see China’s gains as an ominous threat to their domination of the world, and have moved to counter China with a whole new level of aggressive militarism”.

Sara notes that mass opposition to a rising US-led New Cold War against China is essential, but that the left is sometimes reticent to defend China because of a misunderstanding of its social system. “Many in the West said that the enthusiasm engendered by Western corporations’ heavy investments in China had already succeeded in bringing China back into the capitalist orbit.”

The article points out that, while China today has vast wealth disparity, along with private capital, its market is “built on socialist pillars”, and “central planning remains decisive”.

The key economic role is assigned to the state, a state controlled by the working class. Every major industry, especially banking, remains under state control — a state controlled by a massive communist party. The central banks play a crucial role in subsidizing and developing key industries.

Meanwhile the Communist Party of China, with its close to 100 million members, exercises overall control of the country’s economic development.

Sara concludes that “stepping up the defense of China, its revolution and its accomplishments is necessary for the collective future of humanity.”

An ideological assault on China is taking place that cannot be fought piecemeal, answering each lie. Of course, it is crucial to refute the lies and propaganda, but it is not persuasive if the reason behind the U.S. ruling class’s extraordinary and pervasive hostility to China is not exposed. We must expose the class differences between People’s China and U.S. imperialism.

China’s emergence is a game-changer on a world scale today, with its Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation agreement and the BRICS+ meeting this September at the United Nations. China has become a resource, an alternative to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, with their brutal structural adjustment, deregulation and privatization programs (SAPs). China is a lifeline for the Global South. The Africa Summit just held in Beijing confirmed this a thousand times over.

China was able to end poverty for 800 million people — something neither the U.S. nor any other capitalist country has been able to do. Life expectancy is higher today in China than in the United States. China has achieved the fastest growth in living standards of any country in the world.

So U.S. imperialism is doubling down. Candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump agree. The Pentagon agrees. NATO agrees. New sanctions, new tariffs, new rounds of propaganda directed at China are aimed at preparing for war by 2025.

In the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea, U.S. strategists are rushing to construct a military alliance similar to NATO. It will include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and the Philippines and is directed against China.

Every arm of the imperialist colossus is predicting and planning for this war. The vicious and relentless propaganda, the expanding military budget, the relentless war “games” and military maneuvers and the total agreement of both Democratic and Republican parties testify to the danger.

Which side are you on?

“Which side are you on?” is the oldest formulation in the class struggle.

The group Friends of Socialist China provides a valuable framework to explain the country’s most important contribution. Political movements, parties and organizations of the working class that take sides in the global class struggle are the most valuable anchor to withstand the crisis confronting the working class and all oppressed peoples. Without this anchor, this basic understanding, workers and activists are cast adrift in the onslaught of each imperialist flood.

An important part of understanding the changing world situation can be found in Workers World Party’s evaluation of China’s rapid development. U.S. imperialist strategists see China’s gains as an ominous threat to their domination of the world, and have moved to counter China with a whole new level of aggressive militarism. We say China’s gains hold a liberating potential for humanity.

If we can explain the reason for U.S. imperialism’s hostility and why Washington calls Beijing “the greatest threat,” it can strengthen popular resistance to the U.S. war drive.

Continue reading Solidarity with China is necessary for the collective future of humanity

Quad leaders’ summit foments confrontation

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue leaders’ summit took place over the weekend of 21-22 September. Indian PM Narendra Modi, Japanese PM Fumio Kishida and Australian PM Anthony Albanese joined US President Joe Biden in Delaware – ostensibly to “expand security cooperation”, but in reality to discuss ways to escalate the US’s containment and encirclement campaign against China. The article below, originally published in the Global Times, observes that, while the joint statement issued at the summit did not directly name China, Biden was caught on a hot mic telling the other leaders that an “aggressive China is testing us”. Meanwhile, the report cites Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian as saying “the Quad has been scaremongering, inciting antagonism and confrontation, and holding back other countries’ development”.

More than anything, the Quad demonstrates the fundamental continuity in US foreign policy. Dormant for nearly a decade, the Quad was revived by Donald Trump in 2017, with the aim of increasing military pressure on China and putting together an Asian NATO. The Biden administration has continued with, and expanded, this project – the New Cold War is one of the few things that Democrats and Republicans can agree on.

Biden emphasised his commitment to the project, saying that “while challenges will come, the Quad is here to stay”. However, the Quad has achieved essentially nothing so far and its future is uncertain. India, Australia and Japan have nothing to benefit from anti-China aggression and everything to gain from developing friendly and mutually beneficial relations with China. The US is thus increasingly isolated in its Cold War manoeuvring.

At the Quad leaders’ summit US President Joe Biden hosted in his Delaware hometown over the weekend, the four-nation group – which consists of the US, Japan, India and Australia – agreed to expand security cooperation, including joint coast guard mission, with China on mind.    

The agenda of the meeting and its joint statement, which referred to East and South China Seas, exposed Quad’s nature of bloc confrontation, analysts said on Sunday, criticizing the four-nation partnership for its detrimental role of fomenting confrontation and inciting geopolitical tensions in Asia Pacific. 

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan insisted earlier Saturday during a briefing with reporters that “China is not the focus of the Quad,” CNN reported, but the issue (of China) featured throughout the day.

The joint statement, released on the White House’s website, did not directly name China, but it did mention “East and South China Seas,” meanwhile, Biden was caught on a hot mic telling the other leaders that an “aggressive China is testing us,” CNN reported.

Anchored by shared values, the Quad leaders seek to uphold the international order based on the rule of law and they are “seriously concerned” about the situation in East and South China Seas, according to a joint statement after the summit. 

Create division

Ding Duo, deputy director of the Institute of Maritime Law and Policy at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, noted that Quad members have made efforts to downplay its focus on China, emphasizing instead the shared values and strategic interests of the four countries. However, analysis of the summit’s outcomes reveals it is targeting China.

“Targeting China” is not only at a strategic level but it also involves tactical arrangements, and specific plans, Ding told the Global Times on Sunday. 

Per the joint statement, the four countries have agreed on a joint coast guard mission in 2025, and vowed to enhance logistics cooperation as well as data and information sharing within and outside the bloc, giving attention to developing maritime security ties with Pacific Island Countries and Southeast Asia. 

Ding pointed out that the Quad could support countries like the Philippines and Japan, which have maritime disputes with China, through specific joint maritime operations. 

The Quad statement also mentioned so-called “dangerous use of coast guard and maritime militia vessels, including increasing the use of dangerous maneuvers,” hinting at China’s frictions with the Philippines; however, in face of Philippine provocations under US instigation, China’s actions aim to safeguard its sovereignty and legitimate rights, analysts said. 

The Quad has been scaremongering, inciting antagonism and confrontation, and holding back other countries’ development, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a press briefing in July in response to a Quad foreign ministers meeting in Tokyo which voiced “serious concern about the situation in the East and South China Seas.”  

Some countries outside the region have frequently sent advanced military aircraft and vessels to the South China Sea to flex their muscles and create tension, and have formed various groupings and incited division and confrontation in the region. All of this makes them the biggest threat and challenge to regional peace and stability, Lin said.

Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Sunday that the Quad mechanism is US-led and serves as a strategic tool to favor the US in its competition with China at both regional and global levels. 

Although India, Australia and Japan have their own interests, the nature and direction of this mechanism will remain aligned with the strategic needs of the US, Li said.

Biden would not give up the opportunity of his last Quad summit to hype up China issues to amplify “China threat” rhetoric, and create a wrong impression that Washington’s China policy is embraced widely, Li said. 

Loose partnership

Although the Quad mechanism has convened meetings at different levels in the past few years and the US has strived to paint a picture of extensive and in-depth cooperation under the mechanism, “the outcomes have focused on political and diplomatic realms, being more of a posture,” Ding said. 

Cooperation is difficult when it comes to substantial inputs and spending of money, Ding said, adding that many of the proposals, such as joint actions and information sharing, can actually be carried out in a bilateral manner without a structure like the Quad. 

Also, the obscure reference to China in the Quad statement could be the result of an internal compromise, analysts said, as members have different views on the approach to deal with China – Japan, Australia and India have intensive economic or people-to-people exchanges with China.    

Different from US alliance with Japan or Australia, the Quad is a rather loose partnership, with each member aspiring to utilize the bloc to elevate their own international status, Li told the Global Times. 

“It remains to be seen whether the Quad will continue to be a loose group or become a real alliance and further consolidate,” Li said.

Zhang Weiwei: NATO is a relic of history that should have been disbanded long ago

In the video embedded below, Friends of Socialist China co-founder Danny Haiphong interviews Professor Zhang Weiwei, a Chinese professor of international relations at Fudan University and the director of its China Institute. The interview covers a wide range of topics, including the Western media portrayal of China as aggressive, the concept of the civilizational state, China’s preference for a peaceful approach to international relations, the conflict in Ukraine, China’s diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East, and the changing global balance of power.

Zhang Weiwei notes that, while the US and its allies insist on describing China as a threat to regional and global peace, China’s record of peaceful development speaks for itself. China has not fired a single shot in over 40 years, and is the only nuclear power to have a consistent policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. When the US was economically ascendant, it was already waging wars around the world. China however is now the world’s largest economy in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, and yet it maintains a powerful commitment to peace and to solving problems through negotiations. Zhang highlights China’s diplomatic breakthroughs this year with regard to Middle East politics, including its mediation of the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and its role in bringing together 14 Palestinian factions.

Professor Zhang points out that the conflict in Ukraine is mainly the result of US policy and the insistence on NATO expansion, stating that most Chinese feel that NATO is a relic of history that should have been disbanded long ago. China will be resolute in opposing NATO’s expansion into Asia.

Discussing the concept of “changes unseen in a century”, Zhang Weiwei highlights the emergence of a credible alternative for the Global South in the form of the BRICS grouping – whose GDP is already larger than that of the G7 – along with the Belt and Road Initiative, the economic emergence of several countries, and the failure of the US’s tech war against China.

Counselling the US to adopt a more peaceful approach to international relations, Zhang Weiwei notes that the Biden administration’s nuclear strategy is based on the concept of mutually assured destructions, when what the world needs is mutually assured prosperity.

Professor Zhang is providing a video contribution to our events to mark the 75th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution, in London and New York City.

Canada’s unjustifiable tariffs on EVs from China

The following opinion piece, written by International Manifesto Group convenor and Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Radhika Desai for CGTN, critiques the Canadian government’s recent decision to slap 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

Radhika notes that the Trudeau government’s stated justification for the tariffs – that “China has an intentional state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry” – is pure misdirection. The real reason is to prove Canada’s loyalty to the US in the run-up to the renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As for China’s “intentional state-directed policy”, “the most authoritative development economists will agree that there are no known instances of successful industrialisation where the state has not played a central role. This is as true of Japan or Germany or South Korea as it is of the US itself and even Canada.”

China’s government has intentionally concentrated resources on the EV industry for over 20 years, “particularly focusing research and development in making lithium iron phosphate batteries that were safer and cheaper than lithium nickel manganese cobalt batteries almost as energy dense as the latter.” The authorities provided further support by buying vast numbers of electric buses to provide low-emission public transport, and by building EV charging infrastructure throughout the country.

As for the oft-repeated trope about China’s “overcapacity”, Radhika writes that “if anything, the world needs more production of these things” – echoing the sentiments of former under-secretary-general of the United Nations and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme Erik Solheim.

Radhika observes: “What such complaints really mean is that there is a market for high-technology goods that is no longer being supplied by the US or the West, thus endangering their 200-year-old monopoly on such goods. Well, for all the crocodile tears Western politicians weep over the poverty and lack of the development in so much of the world, they do get mighty upset when one part of it, namely China, manages to develop and even push back the technological frontier.”

The article concludes by noting that the US and Canada, having followed the path of neoliberalism and financialisation for several decades, have precious little chance of success in competing with China on advanced manufacturing.

Three months after the U.S. announcement slapping 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EV), Canada has followed suit. As local observers see it, the Trudeau government faced a choice. On the one hand, it could risk retaliatory tariffs from China on Canada’s much smaller economy: The memory of those imposed on Canadian canola, pork and soybeans worth billions in trade in 2019 in retaliation for Canada’s illegal arrest of Meng Wanzhou remains fresh. On the other hand, it could risk U.S. anger should China extend even part of its EV supply chain into Canada to get the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement access to the U.S. market. Such anger would be bound to spill over into the renegotiation of that agreement in 2026.

Canada chose to avoid risking U.S. anger. But that was not how it justified the decision. Instead, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland claimed that “China has an intentional state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry … We simply will not allow that to happen to our EV sector, which has shown such promise.” This justification is clearly cooked up.

Let’s take all the elements of that statement in turn.

The reference to “intentional state-directed policy” is a bizarre instance of trying to tar a virtue as a vice. The most authoritative development economists will agree that there are no known instances of successful industrialization where the state has not played a central role. This is as true of Japan or Germany or South Korea as it is of the U.S. itself and even Canada.

The right to pursue industrial policy was recognized by the erstwhile General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and is recognized by its successor, the World Trade Organization. Moreover, both the U.S. and Canada are themselves talking about industrial policy and state subsidies to sectors facing competition from China. 

As a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pointed out, China’s success in EV development is a classic case of a successful industrial policy. It began investing in the sector as early as 2001 when it became clear that its internal combustion and hybrid car industries were too far behind major manufacturers in the U.S., Germany and Japan.

Moreover, EVs would also have beneficial effects in reducing pollution and oil imports. Chinese authorities concentrated resources on this nascent industry, particularly focusing research and development in making lithium iron phosphate batteries that were safer and cheaper than lithium nickel manganese cobalt batteries almost as energy dense as the latter. They also began providing the fledgling industry with markets by buying its vehicles for public transport.

Nor was China at all autarkic. On the contrary, it invited Tesla in, giving it the same tax and subsidy treatment as domestic producers. Tesla extended its supply chains into China while also stimulating domestic producers to compete with it.

Next, let us come to “overcapacity and oversupply.” Since when did the production of low-cost and high-quality products, particularly those that advance the world towards its critically important climate goals, become a matter of overcapacity and oversupply? If anything, the world needs more production of these things. Canada, the U.S. and the West should join in the effort to produce such goods.

What such complaints really mean is that there is a market for high-technology goods that is no longer being supplied by the U.S. or the West, thus endangering their 200-year-old monopoly on such goods. Well, for all the crocodile tears Western politicians weep over the poverty and lack of the development in so much of the world, they do get mighty upset when one part of it, namely China, manages to develop and even push back the technological frontier.

As for “crippling our (Canadian) industry,” that’s pretty ridiculous coming from countries that have been sparing no effort – sanctions, tariffs, military alliance and base building, “freedom of navigation” and other military exercises, propaganda, fear-mongering and false “development” advice – to prevent the rise of China and, one might add, that of most of the developing world.

Finally, Freeland speaks of Canada’s own EV sector “that has shown so much promise.” Undoubtedly, the thing that countries like Canada and the U.S. ought to do is find a sector or product that they have the unique strengths to develop, as China did with EVs, knowing that it could not compete internationally on conventional cars or hybrids.

However, there is a big distance between “should” and “can.” Today, notwithstanding the corporate subsidies that the U.S. and Canada are giving to their manufacturers, it is unlikely that they will be able to replicate China’s success in manufacturing, not least because, as they have gone down the road of neoliberalism and financialization, they have lost the capacity for sustained industrial policy they once had.

Plutocracy of private capital creates a crisis of US political legitimacy

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-founder Danny Haiphong, first published in Global Times on 13 August 2024, addresses the crisis of legitimacy facing the United States’ political and economic system.

Politicians from both major parties attempt to deflect attention from the US’s structural failings by pointing the finger at China and others, leading to an escalating New Cold War and moves towards hot war. Danny writes that the Biden and Trump administrations’ “continuity on US foreign policy toward China extends into their military posture as both administrations saw greatly intensified US militarization in the Asia Pacific presence along China’s border and dangerous escalations over Taiwan in violation of the one-China principle”.

Ironically though, this aggressive stance towards China is not only failing to address the US’s internal problems, but is actually exacerbating them. “Nothing about US foreign policy, whether it targets China or another nation, benefits the American people. Trillions of US dollars have gone unaccounted for, while many Americans struggle with debt, increasing rates of poverty, lowering life expectancy, inflation and stagnant wages.”

With Kamala Harris taking on the foreign policy legacy of her predecessors – promising to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century” – progressives in the US will “continue to look for ways to fulfill their desire for a more people-driven and people-centered political agenda”.

The US is confronting a political system facing a crisis of legitimacy. A major component of the crisis is structural and inherent to US governance. Politicians in the US do not succeed in politics because of their service to the people. They are first selected by a tiny fraction of society wielding immense wealth and power before they are presented to voters. 

Nowhere is the gap between the policies that US politicians pursue and the well-being of the people bigger than foreign policy. A cursory look at the economic approach to China under the administrations of former president Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden demonstrates this clearly. Under the Trump administration, the US imposed tariffs on Chinese exports and sanctions on China’s tech sector. Under the Biden administration, the US increased these tariffs to include the Chinese electric vehicle sector, expanded “black list” of Chinese tech corporations and targeted the semiconductor industry as a flashpoint in arresting China’s high-tech development. The two US administrations’ continuity on US foreign policy toward China extends into their military posture as both administrations saw greatly intensified US militarization in the Asia Pacific presence along China’s border and dangerous escalations over Taiwan in violation of the one-China principle.

Nothing about US foreign policy, whether it targets China or another nation, benefits the American people. Trillions of US dollars have gone unaccounted for, while many Americans struggle with debt, increasing rates of poverty, lowering life expectancy, inflation and stagnant wages. This has led to a crisis of political legitimacy where support for Congress and the president are at an all-time low while support for third-party alternatives to the two-party system is at a high point. The question is, then, why do US politicians fail to serve the interests of their constituents? What makes them choose to enrich military contractors and monopoly financial institutions while neglecting the ordinary worker?

The US is not a democracy. It’s a plutocracy of private capital. One percent of the US population owns more than one-third of US wealth. But more importantly, this one percent comprises the property owners of the biggest monopolies and financial institutions in the US and have designed a political system where their patronage directly corresponds to US policy. While politicians may promise ordinary Americans that their policies will benefit them. However, once elected these same politicians pursue an agenda which enriches the wealthiest corporations at the expense of the well-being of the people. In 2014, two US scholars conducted a study on the impact that various interest groups hold on government policy. They found that big business and interest groups made a huge impact on US policy and average citizens made little to no impact at all. Their findings find no shortage of validation. While the vast majority of people face economic and social strife, US politicians are busy sending more military aid to Ukraine and Israel and holding fundraisers with the richest in the corporate and finance sectors. This has given way to political malaise in some respects, but it has also encouraged more people to seek alternative political avenues to the two-party system.

As the gap between US policy and the interests of humanity reaches an all-time high, US politicians will continue to compete among themselves over how to best manage a growing crisis of legitimacy. An ever-increasing number of Americans will grow disdainful of this process. This means that an even more polarized political environment is coming to the United States as people navigate gross power distortions between the average American and the elites. Meanwhile, they continue to look for ways to fulfill their desire for a more people-driven and people-centered political agenda.

NATO, nukes and a New Cold War

We are pleased to republish below a series of three articles by Kenny Coyle analysing the new Labour government’s foreign policy, in particular the “progressive realism” espoused by Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

This putatively “clear-eyed approach to international relations” shares a great deal with the pro-Washington, pro-NATO, hawkish foreign policy of recent Conservative governments. Kenny notes that Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged to commit 2.5 percent of GDP to military spending, and Lammy’s critique of his Tory predecessor at the Foreign Office is largely focused on the need for a more aggressive stance against China, Russia and Syria.

Lammy praises Ernest Bevin, Labour foreign secretary from 1945 to 1951, for “bringing us the Nato alliance that is still the bedrock of our security” and “fighting for a nuclear bomb as he put it with the Union Jack on top”. Meanwhile, Lammy’s most coherent policy in relation to the Global South is to develop deeper relations with India. As Kenny points out, “clearly this is part of Western efforts to woo India away from its close relations with Russia and to maintain a level of mistrust between Delhi and Beijing”.

Labour is proposing to intensify Britain’s involvement in the US-led campaign of China encirclement. Lammy makes clear his support for the AUKUS nuclear pact, demanding that it be considered “as a floor, not a ceiling” for the UK’s military posture in the Pacific. He also calls for deepening Britain’s military coordination with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, with the obvious aim of contributing to the US’s island chain strategy against China.

Meanwhile there seem to be shifts occurring in Labour’s position with regard to Taiwan Province, including the establishment of Labour Friends of Taiwan in March 2023 and a recent Labour Party delegation to the island led by Lord Leong. Kenny writes: “The danger is that a current or future British government will abandon [its] One China positions and lean toward the ‘One China, One Taiwan’ policy that is gaining ground in Washington. The emergence of a generously funded Taiwan lobby within the Labour Party and at an all-party level needs to be further exposed.”

The series concludes:

Whoever enters the White House, the cosmetic modifications on offer from Starmer and Lammy commit Britain to a dangerous path in the Asia-Pacific, particularly the under-the-radar military agreements with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. The left needs to ensure that the arguments against ‘progressive realism’ reach deep into the labour and peace movements.

The articles were originally published in the Morning Star in August 2024.

A new window on the world?

August 2 (Morning Star) — The guiding philosophy of Sir Keir Starmer’s foreign policy has been described by Foreign Secretary David Lammy as “a clear-eyed approach to international relations: progressive realism.”

In a series of speeches, interviews, articles and pamphlets over the past year or so, Lammy has elaborated this apparently innovative outlook in British foreign policy.

The most substantial of these were an article for the influential US journal Foreign Affairs in May, The Case for Progressive Realism, Why Britain Must Chart a New Global Course later republished in The Guardian, and a 2023 pamphlet for the Fabian Society, Britain Reconnected A Foreign Policy for Security and Prosperity at Home.

“Progressive Realism” is designed to meet the challenge of a whole range of global issues, including, AI, climate change, international economic supply-chains and development.

However, since Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to commit 2.5 per cent of GDP to military spending and to conduct a thorough security and defence review, it’s essential to analyse the military and diplomatic aspects of what this new Labour government stands for on the international scene.

Continue reading NATO, nukes and a New Cold War

US economists ‘expose’ China’s economy

In the following article for Fighting Words, Chris Fry unpicks and debunks a recent Axios piece about how China’s economy is supposedly failing.

According to the Axios article, it is a serious problem that “household income growth is outpacing that of spending”, with per capita disposable income rising by 5.4 percent in the first half of 2024. Chris comments: “In the US, 60% of the workers live paycheck to paycheck, putting them and their families at risk in case of an unforeseen crisis. Yet bourgeois economists seem to believe that it is a bad thing for Chinese families to be able to sock some of their income away for emergencies.” Meanwhile, “banks in China, unlike in the US, are publicly owned, so the savings are used to fund the country’s development instead of stock buybacks and cryptocurrency manipulation.”

Another major ‘problem’ is that prices in China are barely rising. “To the well-heeled economists at Axios, it’s a bad thing that the inflation rate in China is a fraction of 1%, while in the U.S. workers now face an inflation rate of some 4%, with prices remaining sky high after previous climbs of over 9% for essential items like food and gas.”

Chris goes on to contrast China’s merciless war on poverty with the alarming rise in poverty, inequality and homelessness in the US. And yet, “whoever wins the next election, the billionaire class and their minions from both parties in Washington will no doubt blame the unfolding crisis here on the People’s Republic of China”.

The article concludes with a powerful call to take inspiration from, and show solidarity with, Chinese socialism:

The high prices that we face for food and gas, the lack of affordable housing, the sky-high prices for education, health care and childcare, the collapse of the infrastructure, the catastrophic effects of global warming, the monstrous prison system, the billions wasted on the war industry, none of these are the fault of the Chinese working class or their Communist Party. The blame lies entirely with the tiny parasitic ruling class of billionaires right here at home.

We must explain to our class here that the extraordinary development by China provides us a beacon of hope. It tells us that the struggle here to empower the workers and oppressed communities, to wrest the ownership and control of the productive apparatus from the billionaires, to use scientific planning to direct both the production and distribution of goods and services instead of Wall Street’s drive for massive profits, all this can offer real benefits for ourselves and our families and for the planet as a whole.

Bourgeois economists, ever ready to proclaim the impending demise of the socialist economic model in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), find every opportunity to throw shade on China’s economic system.

At the same time, they devote their energy to proclaim the supposed superiority of the capitalist economies in the imperialist world, in Europe and the U.S.

And sometimes they have to stretch all logic and common sense to make their billionaire masters and the workers and oppressed here believe in the eternal superiority of U.S. imperialist hegemony over the social and economic system of China, even as the Pentagon scrambles to prepare their war on the PRC.

Continue reading US economists ‘expose’ China’s economy

China shines at the Olympics, but there are some who “don’t want that”

The article below analyses the Western media response to China’s successes in the Olympic Games, in particular the persistent attempts to discredit China’s achievements and to portray the country as a systematic violator of doping regulations.

The author points out that this negative portrayal of Chinese athletes reflects two underlying dynamics. Firstly, an inability to accept that countries of the Global South can, along with their economic emergence, establish the infrastructure necessary to compete at the highest level in sports. Secondly, it reflects a broader hostility towards China, itself a manifestation of an escalating US-led New Cold War.

When it comes to attacking China, racism and war preparation go hand in hand. A campaign is underway against the People’s Republic of China in which lies and distortions of the truth in many areas breed hostility and fear of the country, its leaders and even its people.

This article originally appeared in the Belgian website China Square, and has been translated into English by the author, Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Dirk Nimmegeers.

The people and the media in China are excited about Team China’s outstanding results at the Olympics, though without ignoring the victories of other athletes or looking down on them. Those pushing for war totally dislike this.

Last Sunday, 21-year-old Zheng Qinwen defeated her opponent in the singles tennis final. She made history in Chinese tennis, winning the first gold medal for a Chinese and even for an Asian athlete in that event. Earlier, on Thursday, in the final of the men’s 100-metre freestyle swimming, Pan Zhanle had won and broken his own world record with an astonishing time of 46.40 seconds. Pan is a member of the foursome that won the 4×100-metre medley relay on Sunday.

Exceptional sports performances provoke mixed reactions: admiration, amazement, but sometimes also suspicion. Cyclist Tadej Pogacar, who achieved a spectacular double and more this cycling season, had to deal with doubts from certain quarters. However, the positive usually prevails.

The Positive

Swimming champion Pan Zhanle experienced both positive and negative reactions. His closest sporting rivals, Kyle Chalmers, the Australian silver medal winner, and a previous world record holder, Romanian Popovici, warmly congratulated him. They predicted that swimmers would go even faster as long as they keep working hard and in the right way. Pan has indeed done that and so, after a somewhat hesitant start as a 16-year-old, he managed to make a steep ascent and reach the absolute top just days before he turned 20. Pau Gasol, member of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Athletes’ Commission, and until recently an Olympic athlete himself, stressed that in the “many World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) doping tests that all Chinese swimmers had to undergo, absolutely nothing was found”. At a press conference Gasol also made clear that “he thought those tests that cause a lot of stress and turn athletes’ lives upside down were excessive” and that “he was not sure whether the measure [of testing Chinese swimmers two or three times more than others] is right or not”. IOC spokesman Mark Adams also confirmed that the Chinese swimming team was “the most tested team” at the Paris Olympics. Since January, the team has undergone more than 600 tests.

Continue reading China shines at the Olympics, but there are some who “don’t want that”

Wang Yi to Blinken: the US should return to a rational and pragmatic China policy

On July 27, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met in Vientiane with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the latter’s request. The two men were both attending various international meetings held under the auspices of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the Laotian capital. Laos currently holds the rotating chair of ASEAN.

China’s official report of the meeting clearly indicates the grave situation in which the two countries’ bilateral relationship continues to finds itself.

Wang Yi said that in the past three months, the diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, and climate teams of the two governments and the two militaries have maintained communication, and people-to-people exchanges have been on the rise. However, he continued, it must be pointed out that the US has not stopped, but rather doubled down on its containment and suppression of China. The risks facing China-US relations are still building and the challenges are rising.

He added that China’s policy towards the United States is consistent, and the US side should earnestly implement the commitments made by President Biden (at his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in California in November 2023) and return to a rational and pragmatic China policy. The US, Wang Yi pointed out, holds a wrong perception of China, always seeing China with its own hegemonic mindset.

The Chinese Foreign Minister added that Taiwan is part of China, and it never has been and never will be a country. “Taiwan independence” and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. “We will keep reducing the space for ‘Taiwan independence’ and work toward the goal of complete reunification.”

Wang Yi also said that China’s position on the Ukraine issue is fair and transparent. The US should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction. China rejects false accusations and will not succumb to pressure or blackmail. China will take resolute and robust measures to protect its major interests and legitimate rights.

From Laos, Blinken went on to visit Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore and Mongolia, his main purpose being to try to rig up anti-China alliances, attempt to encircle China and thereby prepare for and heighten the risk of a catastrophic war. While this found expression in the conclusion of new military agreements with Japan and the Philippines, Vietnam, Mongolia and Singapore displayed no interest in disturbing their friendly and mutually beneficial relations with China or in being drawn into US schemes.

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

On July 27, 2024 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Vientiane at the latter’s request. The two sides exchanged views on current China-U.S. relations, and agreed to maintain communication at all levels and further implement the important common understandings reached by their Presidents at the San Francisco meeting.

Wang Yi said that in the past three months, the diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, and climate teams of the two governments and the two militaries have maintained communication, and people-to-people exchanges have been on the rise. However it must be pointed out that the U.S. has not stopped, but rather doubled down on its containment and suppression of China. The risks facing China-U.S. relations are still building, and the challenges rising. The relationship remains at a critical juncture of deescalation and stabilization. We need to continue to recalibrate the direction, manage risks, properly address differences, remove interference, and advance cooperation.

Wang Yi said that China’s U.S. policy is consistent, and adheres to the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation. The U.S. side should earnestly implement the commitments made by President Biden, and return to a rational and pragmatic China policy. The two sides need to work together for a stable, healthy, and sustainable China-U.S. relationship.

Wang Yi pointed out that the U.S. side holds a wrong perception of China, always seeing China with its own hegemonic mindset. China is not the United States, nor does China want to become like the United States. China does not pursue hegemony, or practice power politics. China has the best record on peace and security among all major countries. The third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee adopted a major resolution on further deepening reform comprehensively to advance Chinese modernization. We will stay committed to our founding aspiration, and focus on seeking happiness for the Chinese people, and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation. China will stay on the path of peaceful development, and promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. It is hoped that the U.S. side will better understand the CPC as well as China’s present and future through this resolution.

Wang Yi said that Taiwan is part of China, and it never has been and never will be a country. “Taiwan independence” and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Each time “Taiwan independence” forces make provocation, we will definitely take countermeasures. We will keep reducing the space for “Taiwan independence” and work toward the goal of complete reunification.

Wang Yi reiterated the ins and outs of the Ren’ai Jiao (Reef) issue. Now that China has agreed on a provisional arrangement with the Philippines on managing the situation, the Philippine side should honor its commitment, and not ship construction materials any more. The U.S. side should not take any more action to fan the flames, stir up trouble, or undermine maritime stability.

Wang Yi said that China’s position on the Ukraine issue is fair and transparent, and China will continue to encourage and promote peace talks. The U.S. side should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction. China rejects false accusations, and will not succumb to pressure or blackmail. China will take resolute and robust measures to protect its major interests and legitimate rights.

Blinken said that the United States is strongly committed to stabilizing U.S.-China relations and continues to follow the one-China policy. The U.S. side looks forward to keeping in regular communication with the Chinese side and continuing the cooperation in such areas as counternarcotics and artificial intelligence. The U.S. would like to manage differences between the two sides and avoid misunderstanding and miscalculation.

The two sides also exchanged views on the situation concerning Gaza and the Korean Peninsula, and the question of Myanmar, among other matters.

Peace Mission to Philippines exposes US militarism’s harm to population

The article below, originally published in Workers World, details a recent peace mission to the Philippines by a group of US anti-war activists, aimed at opposing US militarism in the Pacific and the escalating campaign to encircle and contain China.

The article notes that the Philippines has been key to the US’s ‘Pivot to Asia’, and that a deal signed by then-president Obama in 2014 allows the US to rotate troops into the Philippines for extended days. “It also allows the US to build and operate facilities. There are now nine such bases scattered in the Philippines, most of them aimed at China.”

The US military infrastructure in the Philippines is deeply unpopular, not least because its construction often involves the displacement of local communities, which are forced into deep poverty. Meanwhile the US military bolsters the local state forces in their repression of those groups, communities and activists that are fighting for housing, clean water, land, education and food.

The article closes by noting that, “despite the pressure and direct impact of rising militarization and economic plunder, communities continue to fight back for their land, livelihoods and other human rights.”

As the Pentagon dangerously increases its military presence in nations close to China in preparation for another imperialist war, a group of U.S. anti-war activists participated in a Peace Mission to the Philippines May 14-29 to expose and oppose U.S. militarism in the Philippines.

Organized by BAYAN USA, it included 28 militants from across the United States. Filipino activists, military veterans, anti-war advocates, labor unionists, women’s rights defenders, students, filmmakers and others participated, representing BAYAN USA and other groups including NODUTDOL, Malaya, Gabriela, United Auto Workers, Dissenters, Palestinian Youth Movement and Workers World Party.

They spent the first few days in the National Capital Region of Manila, a city of 15 million residents in a country of 120 million people. They heard presentations on BAYAN’s history, labor, student activism, women’s and LGBTQ2+ movement developments and visited historical sites.

The Philippines was a Spanish colony from 1565 to 1898. Revolutionaries were on the brink of defeating their Spanish colonizers when the U.S. stepped in to forcefully re-colonize the populated islands but not before perpetrating a genocide against almost 1 million Filipino people in order to subdue them. The Philippines finally gained formal independence in 1946, but remains closely tied to the U.S. economically, culturally and especially militarily.

Three of the Peace Mission participants — Nina Macapinlac of BAYAN USA and Resist NATO, Patrick Nevada of Anakbayan NY and Joe Piette of Workers World Party — recounted their experiences at a June 28 report-back meeting in Philadelphia.

The three activists were part of a group sent to Cebu — the oldest city in the Philippines with over 1 million residents.

Leaving the airport, they passed by the Mactan Economic Zone — a tax-free, low- regulation center where more than 200 foreign companies exploit over 50,000 workers — the second largest Economic Zone in the Philippines.

At Cendet — an institution with a long and well=known history that provides services to workers, urban poor, farmers and fisherfolks in the Visayas — some background to Cebu’s struggles for justice was given by Jaime Paglinawan Sr. He is one of 27 activists who was recently charged for supposedly violating the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 by the Department of Justice’s Terror Task Force and the Central Command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It would be like the Pentagon charging community activists with terrorism.

The 27 defendants released a statement demanding that the government drop the phony charges and stop “its anti-poor and anti-people policies that conspire with the imperialists, huge local business owners and landlords to generate more wealth in their pockets”.

Fight to remove U.S. military bases

Paglinawan explained how the people succeeded in removing all the U.S. military bases in 1991, after decades of opposition. However, politicians got around the law in 1999 with the Visiting Forces Agreement, which allows U.S. military aircraft and ships access to 22 ports and waived Philippine jurisdiction over any crimes committed by U.S. military personnel.

In 2014, during a visit by President Barack Obama to the Philippines, the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was signed, allowing the U.S. to rotate troops into the Philippines for extended stays. It also allows the U.S. to build and operate facilities. There are now nine EDCA bases scattered in the Philippines, most of them aimed at China.

The Peace Delegation drove by the entrance to one of the EDCA sites at Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base located in Lapu-Lapu City, on Mactan Island in Cebu. Lapu-Lapu City ironically is the location where Ferdinand Magellan, the Spanish explorer, famous as the first European to circumnavigate the earth, was killed in 1521 by the resistance forces of Mactan chief Lapu-Lapu.

The airbase shares runway facilities with the Mactan-Cebu International Airport next door. The U.S. recently paid $2.7 million for a 40,000-gallon fuel storage facility there, which was completed last fall. Its intended use is for Lockheed-Martin’s C130 military Air Transport, Osprey and other military planes.

We visited a Lapu-Lapu City neighborhood where the extremely impoverished community’s homes were demolished without warning, violating residents’ human right to housing. Developers desire the property, located on a major road not far from the Cebu airport and military base. Residents noticed the military was monitoring their neighborhood during the initial notices of demolition.

Copper, gold, silver and sulfur mines are located in Cebu and in addition a quarrying site next to a peasant community we visited is taking away sandy soil for a reclamation project in Cebu’s harbor and other places. Many of the community members’ homes have developed cracks, and residents worry about their safety as the quarry machines continue to dig away at the hill their mountain village stands on.

A fishing community in Minglanilla is next door to where developers have already built McMansions for wealthy foreigners. Organized fisherfolk are fighting to keep their land and community together despite a 250-acre shore reclamation project that threatens to displace hundreds of families and wreak havoc on the livelihood of the fisherfolk. Some of their leaders have experienced red-tagging (accusing someone of being communist and a terrorist) and harassment from state forces.

The Carbon Market Street Vendors association is an organization representing up to 6,000 vendors fighting developers trying to remove them in favor of a modernization project. Thousands of vendors will be affected by the demolitions, and those left will experience an increase in rent, utilities and other fees. The Carbon Market in Cebu has existed for more than 100 years.

After a suspicious fire burned down their community in 2019, members of the Tipolo Residence Association were placed temporarily in the parking lot of the dilapidated Cebu International Convention Center, which was built for the twelfth ASEAN Summit and the East Asia Summit in 2007. An earthquake and super-typhoon Yolanda in 2013 caused the poorly constructed building to partly collapse.

Since 2019, with little support from city officials, the displaced residents have been forced to live in makeshift homes of scrap wood under overlapping roof panels made of corrugated iron sheets. Despite red-tagging of their leaders, residents are still fighting after five years to return to their properties. Residents suspect officials want to replace their former homes with commercial development.

At the University of the Philippines – CEBU, members of the PISTON transport union, Coca-Cola workers, furniture workers and other workers explained their struggles for better working conditions despite red-tagging and other pressure tactics.

Members of Anakbayan Cebu, Alliance of Concerned Teachers and students in Nagkahiusang Kusog sa Estudyante (NKE UP Cebu) described their struggle for better education. NKE UP Cebu is an organization at the University of the Philippines Cebu which aims to provide a “nationalist, scientific and mass-oriented education as an alternative to the existing colonial, commercialized and fascist system of education.”

Conclusions after three days in Cebu

The courts, elected officials and the Philippine military (with close ties to the U.S. Pentagon) all work together in counterinsurgency efforts to impede the human rights of the Filipino people for housing, clean water, land, education and food.

The military is a key tool in the suppression of any organization that is fighting for the basic livelihood of Filipino working people, from NGOs to grassroots organizations.

The military is active in counter-organizing where poor people are fighting back, with bribes of rice and other commodities if they turn in their leaders. The promises of rice and so on are most often not followed through.

Where bribes don’t work, the state uses the accusation of red-tagging, a fear tactic which can lead to arrest, disappearance or even death. It’s often used against community organizers simply fighting against displacement or other human rights.

Despite the pressure and direct impact of rising militarization and economic plunder, communities continue to fight back for their land, livelihoods and other human rights.

History has amply proved that wherever NATO’s hand extends, turmoil and chaos will ensue

On July 16, the United Nations Security Council held an Open Debate on ‘Multilateral Cooperation in the Interest of a More Just, Democratic and Sustainable World Order’. The meeting was convened on the initiative of the Russian Federation and chaired by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

In his speech during the debate, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong, noted that the world body had been founded in 1945, to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and continued:

“Since then, a large number of countries have emerged from waves of national independence and liberation.” Seventy years ago, “the Chinese leaders put forward the five principles of peaceful coexistence, namely, mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefits, and peaceful coexistence. The five principles of peaceful coexistence embody the spirit of the [UN] Charter.”

Now, President Xi Jinping’s proposal of building a community with a shared future for humanity has been put forward with the aim of carrying forward the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the five principles of peaceful coexistence under the new circumstances.

Fu Cong went on to say that today, “some obvious truths [are] being willfully distorted, while certain specious arguments gaining currency.” Responding to this, he continued, making pointed reference to a number of imperialist countries, principally the United States and Britain:

“We often hear the talk about a rules-based international order by some countries. But what kind of rules are they talking about? And who are the rule makers? No one has given us a clear and precise answer. In fact, the so-called rules-based international order advocated by some is really intended to create another system outside the existing system of international law and to seek legitimacy for double standards and exceptionalism. I would like to emphasise that there is only one order in the world, that is the international order based on international law. There is only one set of rules, and they are the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.”

And, while many peace-loving countries and people are working tirelessly to achieve peace in response to the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine:

“NATO, a regional military bloc left over from the Cold War, has been seeking to expand its sphere of influence, stopping at nothing to create false narratives, pouring oil on the fire wherever they go, stirring up confrontation between camps, and even shifting the blame to countries outside the region to frame them on the issue of Ukraine.”

This last comment clearly refers to accusations levelled against China at NATO’s Washington Summit earlier in July, when China was ludicrously described as being a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s Special Military Operation. 

Doubtless with such wars of aggression as those waged against Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia in mind, Fu Cong went on to say that: “History has amply proved that wherever NATO’s hand extends, turmoil and chaos will ensue. China hereby advises NATO and certain countries to conduct some soul-searching and stop being the troublemakers who jeopardise common security at the expense of others.”

He also said that common development and common security are mutually reinforcing. A just and equitable international order cannot be built on the basis of developed countries getting ever richer while developing countries remain locked in poverty and the lack of development.

We reprint below the full text of Ambassador Fu Cong’s remarks. They were originally published on the website of China’s Permanent Mission to the UN.

President.

China appreciates Russia’s initiative to convene this open debate. I welcome Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presiding over today’s meeting. 

To build a just, democratic, and sustainable international order is the joint pursuit of humanity. In 1945, to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, our forefathers, upholding the spirit of multilateralism, established on the ruins of the Second World War the most universal, representative, and authoritative international organization, that is, the United Nations. The UN Charter, laying down the cornerstone of the modern international order and establishing the basic norms of contemporary international relations, is an embodiment of our noble ideal of working towards a just and equitable international order. 

Continue reading History has amply proved that wherever NATO’s hand extends, turmoil and chaos will ensue

China rebuts NATO declaration as ‘defamatory, provocative, belligerent’

The article below, originally published in Global Times, reports on China’s response to the NATO Summit declaration of 9 July 2024, which accused China of being “a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine” through the supply of so-called dual-use technology, which the US and its allies claim is critical to Russia’s military efforts.

The accusation marks a significant escalation in the US-led New Cold War – a “major departure for NATO” according to the New York Times. NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg stated: “I think the message sent from NATO from this summit is very strong and very clear, and we are clearly defining China’s responsibility when it comes to enabling Russia’s war”.

The charges against China are of course utterly ridiculous and unfounded. Of all the major countries, China has been most active in pursuit of a peaceful negotiated settlement to the Ukraine crisis. Indeed last year it put forward a comprehensive document outlining the essential steps towards peace. Meanwhile the role of the US and its allies has been to escalate the conflict by arming Ukraine, imposing sanctions on Russia, and preventing Kiev from entering into negotiations.

China has not been supplying war materiel to Russia, but has simply maintained normal economic relations – as opposed to joining in with the West’s illegal and unilateral sanctions. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian pointed out: “Most countries have not participated in sanctions against Russia or cut off trade with it, so the US cannot blame China for its own actions. The US has passed large-scale aid bills for Ukraine while baselessly accusing China and Russia of normal economic and trade exchanges. This is blatant hypocrisy and double standards.”

The reasons for NATO’s accusations are two-fold. First, Ukraine and its backers are losing on the battlefield, and the well-advertised “counteroffensives” have not had the desired effect. As such, the imperialist powers “need to find an excuse, and the ready-made excuse now is that China is supporting Russia”.

Second, there are ongoing efforts to create a global NATO and expand its area of operations to the Pacific so that it can participate more directly in the campaign of China encirclement. According to Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, “they are attempting to achieve NATO’s globalisation by hyping the so-called ‘China threat’ and inciting challenges against China… The hype and intensification of the China issue serve as a catalyst for NATO to accelerate and strengthen its presence, influence, and actions globally, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.”

The US is the leading protagonist of the New Cold War, and it is using NATO to bring Europe onboard with its anti-China strategy. However, European states have their own interests and only stand to lose by blindly following the US.

China voiced strong opposition and lodged stern representations on Thursday with NATO after the Cold War mentality-driven bloc issued a direct warning to China for the first time regarding the so-called support to Russia in the Ukraine crisis, which, some experts said, is essentially another attempt to shift the blame and smear China. 

The NATO Washington Summit Declaration exaggerates tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, which is filled with Cold War mentality and belligerent rhetoric, containing prejudiced, defamatory, and provocative content regarding China, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said during a press conference on Thursday. 

NATO’s so-called security comes at the expense of others’ security, and much of the security anxiety NATO peddles is of its own making. The so-called success and strength NATO boasts of pose a significant threat to the world, the spokesperson said. 

Establishing imaginary enemies to maintain existence and expand power is NATO’s usual tactic. Its persistence in the erroneous positioning of China as a systemic challenge and smearing of China’s domestic and foreign policies are exactly that, the spokesperson added. 

The Chinese Mission to the EU also refuted NATO’s claims on Thursday, emphasizing that China’s position on Ukraine is open and above board, and it is known to all that China is not the architect of the Ukraine crisis. China aims to promote peace talks and seek political settlement, and this position is endorsed and commended by the broader global community.

Continue reading China rebuts NATO declaration as ‘defamatory, provocative, belligerent’

Xi meets Hungarian prime minister, exchanging views on ties, Ukraine crisis

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban paid a surprise visit to Beijing on July 8 as part of a whirlwind of diplomatic activity aimed at promoting a peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine. Hungary assumed the six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Union (EU) on July 1. Orban then visited Ukraine the very next day, his first visit to the country since Russia launched its Special Military Operation. This was followed by a July 5 visit to Russia, as well as to Azerbaijan, where he attended the Informal Summit of the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS). 

Meeting President Xi Jinping, just two months after they had met in the Hungarian capital Budapest and elevated their bilateral relationship to that of an all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership for a new era, the two leaders exchanged in-depth views on the Ukraine crisis.

Orban briefed Xi on his recent visits to Ukraine and Russia. Xi expressed appreciation for Orban’s efforts in promoting the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis and elaborated on China’s relevant views and propositions.

Xi called on the international community to create conditions and provide support for the resumption of direct dialogue and negotiation between the two sides, saying that only if all major countries inject positive rather than negative energy, can a ceasefire in this conflict emerge as soon as possible, adding that the basic propositions of China and Hungary and the direction of their efforts are the same and that China is willing to stay in communication with Hungary and all relevant parties.

Orban said that over the past two months, the two sides have earnestly implemented the important outcomes of President Xi’s visit to Hungary, strengthened friendship and mutual trust, and laid a solid foundation for the future development of bilateral relations.

In the face of the current turbulent international situation, China not only loves peace but has also put forward a series of constructive and important initiatives, proving with its own concrete actions that it is an important stabilising force for world peace.

He added that Hungary highly appreciates and values China’s role and influence and is willing to maintain close strategic communication and coordination with China.

Far from welcoming Hungary’s efforts for peace, the country has come under intensified imperialist pressure in response. 

The South China Morning Post headline said that Orban’s visits to Moscow and Beijing had “prompt(ed) EU members to seek ways to punish Hungary.” The paper reported:

“At every stop on Orban’s tour, fury has spread like wildfire through the Belgian capital [where the EU is headquartered]. Ambassadors plan to grill Hungary’s representatives in Brussels on Wednesday, a diplomatic source said.

“On Monday, some member states were ‘seriously considering gathering a majority’ to come up with a way to punish Budapest for abusing the terms of the rotating role, a senior EU official said, with the European Commission’s legal service also preparing to give its opinion.”

Two days later, the Financial Times duly reported that the commission’s legal service had concluded that Orban’s  “solo trip to Moscow last week contravened the EU’s treaties.” The Hungarian Prime Minister had, “violated the bloc’s treaties that forbid any ‘measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives’, according to three people familiar with the matter. He also violated a legal provision that calls on all members to perform foreign policy activities ‘unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity’, they added.

“Many EU member states have discussed boycotting the traditional informal ministerial meetings to be held in Hungary during the country’s presidency, several diplomats told the FT. A smaller group of capitals has also begun informal discussions on how to use the EU treaty to restrict Orban’s room for manoeuvre during the presidency. Some EU officials have privately floated stripping Hungary of the rotating presidency, officials said.”

Getting in on the act, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “any leader visiting Russia or China must make NATO’s positions clear that the military alliance is ‘not going anywhere, Ukraine’s not going anywhere, the European Union is not going anywhere’.”

This grotesque display of hegemonic arrogance could scarcely better illustrate the undemocratic nature of the EU, its subservience to Washington, its shameless bullying of its smaller member states, especially those in central, eastern and southern Europe, its use of ‘lawfare’ to suppress dissenting standpoints, its opposition to peace and its increasingly dangerous warmongering against Russia, China and other countries.

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

BEIJING, July 8 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban here on Monday, and the two sides exchanged in-depth views on the Ukraine crisis.

Orban briefed Xi on his recent visits to Ukraine and Russia. Xi expressed appreciation for Orban’s efforts in promoting the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis and elaborated on China’s relevant views and propositions.

Xi stressed that an early ceasefire and a political settlement are in the interests of all sides, adding that the priority is to cool down the situation by observing the three principles of no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting, and no fanning by any party over the flames.

Xi called on the international community to create conditions and provide support for the resumption of direct dialogue and negotiation between the two sides, saying that only if all major countries inject positive rather than negative energy, can a ceasefire in this conflict emerge as soon as possible.

“China has been actively promoting peace talks in its own way and encouraging and supporting all efforts conducive to a peaceful settlement of the crisis,” he said, adding that the basic propositions of China and Hungary and the direction of their efforts are the same and that China is willing to stay in communication with Hungary and all relevant parties.

Xi noted that during his successful state visit to Hungary two months ago, the bilateral relations were elevated to an all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership for a new era, which gave new historical significance to the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties this year and injected strong impetus into the high-level development of China-Hungary relations.

Noting that the third plenary session of the 20th Communist Party of China Central Committee will be held next week, Xi said China will further deepen overall reform and promote high-quality development and high-level opening up, which will provide new opportunities and create new momentum for China-Hungary cooperation.

Xi said that the two countries should maintain high-level exchanges, deepen political mutual trust, strengthen strategic communication and coordination, continue to firmly support each other, strengthen practical cooperation in various fields, advance high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, and continue to enrich the bilateral all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership for a new era to better benefit the people.

He congratulated Hungary on assuming the rotating presidency of the European Union (EU) and said there is no geopolitical contradiction or fundamental conflict of interests between China and the EU.

China-EU relations are of strategic significance and global influence and should maintain steady and sound development, Xi said, calling on the two sides to jointly respond to global challenges.

Next year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and the EU, Xi said, adding that the two sides should stay committed to the correct path of bilateral partnership with cooperation as the defining trend, continue to promote two-way opening up, strengthen international coordination, and contribute to world peace, stability, development and prosperity.

It is hoped that Hungary, as the holder of the rotating EU presidency, will play a positive role in promoting the sound and stable development of China-EU relations and facilitating constructive interactions, Xi added.

Orban said that over the past two months, the two sides have earnestly implemented the important outcomes of President Xi’s visit to Hungary, strengthened friendship and mutual trust, and laid a solid foundation for the future development of bilateral relations.

In the face of the current turbulent international situation, China not only loves peace but has also put forward a series of constructive and important initiatives, proving with its own concrete actions that China is an important stabilizing force for world peace, Orban said.

He added that Hungary highly appreciates and values China’s role and influence and is willing to maintain close strategic communication and coordination with China.

Hungary advocates strengthening cooperation with China and opposes forming exclusionary cliques and bloc confrontation, Orban said.

Hungary is willing to take the rotating EU presidency as an opportunity to actively promote the sound development of EU-China relations, he said.

Xi Jinping: We must consolidate our unity and safeguard the right to development

Between July 2-6, Chinese President Xi Jinping paid state visits to the neighbouring Central Asian states of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Whilst in Kazakhstan, he also took part in the 24th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which, along with the first Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Plus Meeting, was held in the capital Astana on July 4, as well as holding a number of bilateral meetings with other heads of state who participated in the meetings.

The SCO Summit admitted Belarus as the organisation’s tenth full member and at its conclusion China assumed the rotating chair for 2024-25.

In his speech to the Heads of State Meeting, Xi Jinping welcomed Belarus to attend the SCO Summit for the first time as a member state. He pointed out that the SCO was established at the turn of the century, when the antagonism and division left over from the Cold War had yet to be bridged. The founding members of the SCO have made a historical choice to pursue peaceful development, committed to good-neighbourliness and friendship, and built a new type of international relations, and the “Shanghai Spirit” has become a common value and action guide for the member states. Twenty-three years after its founding, the number of SCO member states has increased to 10, and the “SCO family” embraces 26 countries on three continents. The SCO stands on the right side of history, on the side of fairness and justice, and is of vital importance to the world.

Xi went on to make a number of calls to the gathering, including:

  • In the face of the real threat of the Cold War mentality, we must guard the bottom line of security.
  • In the face of the real risk of “small courtyards and high walls”, we must safeguard the right to development.
  • In the face of the real challenge of interference and division, we need to consolidate our unity.

He stressed that the reason why the SCO has been able to withstand the test of the changing international situation is that we have always adhered to the fine tradition of solidarity and cooperation, the way of cooperation on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, the pursuit of the values of fairness and justice, and the broad-mindedness of inclusiveness and mutual learning.

The leaders of the SCO member states signed and issued the Astana Declaration of the Council of Heads of State of the SCO Member States; approved the SCO initiative on solidarity and joint efforts to promote justice, harmony and development in the world; proposals on improving the operational mechanisms of the SCO; a statement on the principles of good-neighbourliness, mutual trust and partnership; and a series of resolutions on cooperation in the fields of energy, investment and information security.

The Astana Declaration begins by stating that:

“The political and economic situation in the world is undergoing major changes. The international system is developing in a more just and multipolar direction, providing more opportunities for countries to develop and carry out international cooperation on an equal and mutually beneficial basis. At the same time, the rise of power politics, the intensification of trampling on the norms of international law, and the intensification of geopolitical confrontation and conflicts pose more risks to global and regional stability.”

Among the many issues covered in the declaration, member states advocate respect for the right of the peoples of all countries to independently choose their path of political, economic and social development, and emphasise that the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, equality and mutual benefit, non-interference in internal affairs, and non-use or threat of use of force are the basis for the sustainable development of international relations.

They reaffirmed their commitment to building a more representative, democratic and just multipolar world system based on the universally recognised principles of international law, diversity of cultures and civilisations, equality and mutually beneficial cooperation, and the central coordinating role of the United Nations.

They expressed deep concern at the intensification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and strongly condemned the acts that caused numerous civilian casualties and a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip; Emphasising the importance of ensuring a comprehensive and sustainable ceasefire as soon as possible and facilitating humanitarian access and intensifying efforts to bring peace, stability and security to the population of the region, it was noted that the only possible way to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East was a comprehensive and just settlement of the question of Palestine.

They also reaffirmed their commitment to helping Afghanistan become an independent, neutral and peaceful country, free from terrorism, war and drugs, and supported the efforts of the international community to achieve peace and development in Afghanistan and reaffirmed that the formation of a government that is truly inclusive of representatives of all ethnic and political sectors of Afghan society is the only way to achieve lasting peace and stability in the country.

Member States support the prevention of the weaponisation of outer space, believe that strict adherence to the existing legal system for the peaceful uses of outer space is of paramount importance, and stress the need to sign international instruments with mandatory legal force to enhance transparency and provide strong guarantees for the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Continue reading Xi Jinping: We must consolidate our unity and safeguard the right to development

Erik Solheim: China is the indispensable nation for the green transition

Elaborating on comments he recently made in an interview with Global Times about China’s supposed ‘overcapacity’ in green products, Erik Solheim has written a concise and powerful opinion piece on the topic for China Daily. In the article, Solheim notes:

China is now dominant in nearly all green sectors. The nation accounts for 60 percent or more of the solar, wind and hydro technologies produced today, as well as electric cars and batteries. China is the indispensible nation for the green shift.

He further points out that the level of commitment and investment that led to China’s dominance in green technology is exactly what is needed to address the climate crisis. “I may be naive, but I thought this was exactly what the world desires. Massive investments in renewable energies, bringing down the price, and scaling green energies to new heights to enable China to achieve its carbon peak target well ahead of the 2030 deadline.”

China’s investment and innovation has resulted in a dramatic fall in the price of solar and wind energy – of at least 80 percent in the last decade. “This is largely, but, for sure, not solely, thanks to China. I thought this was what we all dreamed of.”

The author calls on the countries of the West to stop complaining about China’s supposed ‘overcapacity’ and instead learn from China’s example – “Chinese ‘overcapacity’ in green sectors should be admired, not criticised”. The US and its allies should be ramping up their own efforts in green technology, competing fairly and working together with China and other countries towards a sustainable future for humanity.

Erik Solheim is vice-president of the Green Belt and Road Coalition and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He spoke at our event Building a multipolar world – Ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative in November 2023.

In March, I visited Wuwei in Gansu province. I had to keep pinching myself. There were solar panels covering the desert with only the horizon interrupting my view. China Three Gorges Corporation and the Elion Resources Group of Inner Mongolia, the companies that have established the solar farm, have also developed a lot of wind energy.

I may be naive, but I thought this was exactly what the world desires. Massive investments in renewable energies, bringing down the price, and scaling green energies to new heights to enable China to achieve its carbon peak target well ahead of the 2030 deadline.

The visit of United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Beijing around the same time, prompted me to think differently. From the US’ perspective, the massive Chinese roll out of green technologies is not an enormous service to the world, but instead a problem. In Yellen’s view, China has overcapacity in the green sector.

But how can that be a problem?

I recall vividly when we left the climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, some environmentalists were desperate, they saw almost no solution. Yes, former US president Barack Obama was there with then Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, along with German chancellor Angela Merkel, prime minister Manmohan Singh of India and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the outcomes were meager.

What no one contemplated departing from Copenhagen was that the price of solar energy would fall almost 80 percent and that of offshore wind energy by almost 70 percent in the next decade. This is largely, but, for sure, not solely, thanks to China. I thought this was what we all dreamed of. Some governments, including the Joe Biden administration, have argued that we need a green shift in production and that it has to be innovative, at scale and cheap.

The argument about “overcapacity” is against common sense. Interestingly it is also contrary to all economic theories, starting from Adam Smith. My nation, Norway, has huge “overcapacity” in oil and in fish. We sell a lot more oil than we can consume at home and we catch a lot more cod and salmon than we can eat ourselves. That “overcapacity” makes it possible for us to buy cellular phones from the US, wine from France and electric cars from China.

No nation in modern history has benefited more from overcapacity than the US. In the middle of the 20th century, the US accounted for nearly half the global economy. The nation had overcapacity in nearly all sectors and it made the US very strong. Today Silicon Valley has an enormous overcapacity in digital products. If Silicon Valley only produced for California or for the US, no one would ever have heard of that little valley.

China is now dominant in nearly all green sectors. The nation accounts for 60 percent or more of the solar, wind and hydro technologies produced today, as well as electric cars and batteries. China is the indispensable nation for the green shift. It is possible to go green without China, but it will be a lot more expensive and thus much slower.

The West should get up early in the morning and respond to China’s lead by pursuing innovation and green competition. Protectionism is a race to the bottom. Green competition is a race to the top.

China invited Tesla to make its gigafactory in Shanghai, to bring a “catfish” into the Chinese electric vehicle market. It forced many smaller Chinese competitors to swim faster. It worked, and BYD, Geely, Xpeng, Nio and many others are now strong contenders. Tech companies such as Huawei and Xiaomi are also joining the contest.

The West should similarly invite BYD and CATL, LONGi and Tongwei, Goldwind and Envision to invest in Europe and America. That may tempt Western companies to run faster.

Last year I visited CATL. It is located in the small town of Ningde in Fujian province. It is the world’s leading electric battery maker, providing batteries to Tesla and many others. CATL was full of praise for Germany’s BMW who they repeatedly said had helped them off the ground, by being a demanding customer and sharing technology and expertise.

Such partnerships can be replicated, only with Chinese companies in the lead.

It takes two to tango. The West needs to respond constructively to the competition from China. China can also help this process, through dialogue and partnerships.

Of course all nations want jobs in their own country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched his “Make in India” strategy. French President Emmanuel Mac ron is concerned about jobs in France, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz with the future of the German car industry. It is highly unlikely that China will be able just to export green products from home. Chinese companies will be called upon to create jobs in Europe and America, in Africa and Asia. It’s great to see BYD investing in Brazil, CATL in Hungary and LONGi in Vietnam. We need a lot more of this.

China should also look favorably into companies complaining about a level playing field in the Chinese market. There is for instance hardly any outside wind power equipment makers left in China. Maybe they are not able to compete? But a dialogue to assure there is fair mutual access to markets, will calm the skeptics.

China was also responsible for 38 percent of the total global clean tech spending in 2023, investing an impressive $676 billion. Last year, China invested $890 billion in clean energy sectors and it added 300 gigawatt of solar and wind energy to the grid, that is 10 times the total hydro production in Norway which keeps all its inhabitants warm in winter, with plenty of electricity available for any demand.

Chinese “overcapacity” in green sectors should be admired, not criticized. But there should be a profound dialogue to make sure all nations benefit.

Biden’s tariffs on China: a trade unionist response

What follows below is a two part article by Chris Fry – a Chrysler retiree and former United Auto Workers organiser in Detroit – about Biden’s recently-announced tariffs on China, and how the labour movement in the US should respond to them.

Chris observes that these tariffs are fundamentally detrimental to the interests of working people in the US. Tariffs on medical supplies in particular “must be considered particularly bizarre” given that Covid is resurgent and that there are concerns about a new outbreak of avian flu.

Increasing tariffs on EVs from 25 to 100 percent will double the price of these cars, “placing them out of reach for most of our class”. The author cites an article from Foreign Policy magazine pointing out that “the winner of the escalating, zero-sum green technology trade war between the United States and China may well be climate change”.

Biden has made all sorts of promises in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but, as part of an electoral strategy of out-Trumping Trump, “Biden’s climate promises go right out the window”.

In terms of an appropriate trade union response to the tariffs, Chris writes that “to continue to fight for high paying jobs for workers to produce low-price EVs essential to reduce carbon emissions, the union movement should consider a different view of socialist China and its vast green energy capabilities”.

Unions of course are eager to create and protect jobs; Chris notes that Chinese company BYD already has a factory in Los Angeles producing electric buses and, “unlike their European counterparts in anti-union southern states, the BYD plant’s 700 workers are members of the Sheet Metal Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Union (SMART), Local 105”.

Inviting Chinese companies to manufacture essential environmentally-friendly products in the US “could be a huge gain for both the union and environmental movement and link the two movements together. Finally, it could convert the dangerous ruling-class spawned hostility towards China into genuine working-class solidarity.”

The two part article was originally published in Fighting Words, the journal of the Communist Workers League.

Part 1

When Biden was running for office in 2020, he said that Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products increased inflation on the public and promised to reduce or eliminate them.

He did not.

Instead, on May 4, the Biden Administration announced a massive tariff increase on imported goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC):

Tariffs on medical supplies must be considered particularly bizarre, as the population is still subject to outbreaks of the deadly Covid virus. And public health officials are increasingly alarmed by a new outbreak from the avian H5N1 flu virus which has infected dairy cows and their milk across the country. Many farmworkers who milk cows have become ill from this virus.

A June 3 Scientific American article reports:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends that workers on farms where H5N1 has been detected have access to personal protective equipment, or PPE, such as N95 respirators, face masks, goggles and face shields. But it’s only a recommendation, Lakdawala says.

In order to prevent bird flu from causing more infections in humans, Lakdawala thinks dairy workers on all farms should have access to and use proper PPE—especially face shields to protect their eyes. Getting workers to wear N95 masks while working all day in hot barns is unlikely, she notes, but a face shield would provide at least some protection.

But in terms of the economic effects on workers and the oppressed communities, the most dramatic was the tariff increase was on electric vehicles (EVs), going from Trump’s 25 percent to a whopping 100 percent, doubling the price of the cars, placing them out of reach for most of our class.

And Biden tripled tariffs on Chinese-manufactured lithium batteries, going from Trump’s 8% to 25%.

The big winner from Biden’s tariffs: Global warming

A May 28th article from the Foreign Policy website describes these new tariffs from an environmental perspective:

The winner of the escalating, zero-sum green technology trade war between the United States and China may well be climate change. In the latest surge of election-year techno-nationalism, to protect and advance his green transition—and to out-Trump former U.S. President Donald Trump—President Joe Biden last week imposed a wave of new tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, and solar cells as well as other Chinese goods, in addition to retaining all of Trump’s tariffs on China.

Scientists are already predicting that 2024 will surpass 2023 as the warmest year globally:

A May 7 CNN article describes some of the catastrophic effects of this on people around the world:

The impacts have been stark. Swaths of Asia have been grappling with deadly heat: schools were closed for millions of children in Bangladesh, rice fields have shriveled in Vietnam, and people in India battled 110 degree Fahrenheit temperatures to vote in recent elections.

Global ocean heat in April was also record-breaking for the 13th consecutive month. Ocean surface temperatures reached 21.04 degrees, the highest on record for any April, and just a fraction below the overall record set in March, according to Copernicus data.

The impact on marine systems is devastating. A mass coral bleaching event occurred this spring, which scientists said at the time could be the worst on record.

As for the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has presented a grim hurricane forecast for 2024:

NOAA National Weather Service forecasters at the Climate Prediction Center predict above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin this year. NOAA’s outlook for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, which spans from June 1 to November 30, predicts an 85% chance of an above-normal season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season and a 5% chance of a below-normal season.

NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 8 to 13 are forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 4 to 7 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). Forecasters have a 70% confidence in these ranges.

In 2021, to pass his corporate-friendly Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden promised a 50 percent to 52 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030, zero net emissions by 2050, and 50 percent of all new vehicles being zero-emission by 2030.

Continue reading Biden’s tariffs on China: a trade unionist response

The Xinjiang I saw was a hub of diversity, not oppression

In this report back for the Morning Star, Roger McKenzie shares his reflections on a recent visit to Xinjiang, China, which took in five cities and towns in ten days.

What the delegation witnessed belies the Western media narrative about religious and cultural oppression in Xinjiang. Roger writes: “I lost count of the number of mosques that I saw during my recent trip. I visited a thriving Islamic Centre in the city of Urumqi — which has received millions in funding from the Chinese government for its development to teach its around 1,000 students… Celebrations of the Islamic culture were everywhere for anyone to see.”

Having visited multiple religious sites and spoken with religious figures and political leaders, as well as ordinary people, Roger comments drily: “I can honestly say that for a country that supposedly routinely oppresses ethnic minorities, China seems to spend an inordinate amount of time celebrating them”.

Given the yawning disparity between Western media portrayal of Xinjiang and the reality on the ground, Roger asks the key question: why is this propaganda war being waged? “The geographical position of the region provides the answer. As the centre of the Silk Road renaissance, the region will be the focal point of Chinese trade and its economic heartbeat.” The US, hell-bent on maintaining full-spectrum dominance, “will use any means necessary to maintain the pre-eminence of US capital”.

Thus slanders against China aim at damaging its economy, isolating it internationally, preventing the emergence of solidarity between China and the Western progressive movement, and fomenting discontent within China itself.

This article is the first in a series of three.

The Chinese autonomous region of Xinjiang is at the geographical centre of Eurasia.

The region borders eight other countries which makes it a vital part of Chinese plans for the greater integration of Eurasia and the westward opening up of this nation of 1.4 billion people.

The Comprehensive Bonded Zone in the city of Kashi is central to co-ordinating the booming trade links that China has established with its immediate neighbours.

Xinjiang, one of the largest regions in China, is a gateway to Russia, India, Pakistan, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.

It occupies around 643,000 square miles of China — a space larger than six Britains.

Its sparse population of approximately 25 million is mainly Muslim and made up of around 65 different ethnic groups including Chinese Han, Uighurs, Kazakhs and Hui, among others.

I lost count of the number of mosques that I saw during my recent trip.

I visited a thriving Islamic Centre in the city of Urumqi — which has received millions in funding from the Chinese government for its development to teach its around 1,000 students.

I had the honour of sitting in the mosque’s main hall attached to the centre alongside the imam and hearing him talk about the support the centre had received from the government.

I also visited the magnificent and extremely busy Id Kah Mosque in the city of Kashi.

Both times the imams took the time from their busy schedules to speak about how grateful they and worshippers at the mosque are for the support provided by the government.

They told me about how the right to worship any religion is considered a private matter in China and protected in law.

That’s why it provides funds to a wide range of religious bodies representing Muslims, Buddhists and Christians among others.

None of this is recognised in the West. Instead tall tales are told about supposed widespread religious persecution.

In particular Western politicians and their stenographers in the corporate media continue to spin untruths about the treatment of religious minorities.

To be crystal clear: at no time did I witness any attempt to block anyone from being able to worship according to the Islamic faith or, for that matter, any other religion.

I heard no criticism of the government over religious persecution from senior religious figures or anyone else I met during my visit.

I was never stopped from speaking with anyone in any of the large crowds of people that I found myself in across the region.

Having made the effort to actually visit five cities in 10 days in the region rather than pontificate from thousands of miles away, I can honestly say that for a country that supposedly routinely oppresses ethnic minorities China seems to spend an inordinate amount of time celebrating them.

By that, I don’t mean the half-arsed patronising so-called celebration of diversity that now appears customary across Britain.

Leading figures in Britain trip over themselves to take a knee and say how much black lives matter to them but continue to do nothing about racism in their organisations.

It doesn’t look to me like a Black History Month-type gig where a big show is made for a short tokenistic period and then ignored for the rest of the time.

Talking up the richness of the region’s cultural diversity wasn’t just an isolated thing in Xinjiang — it was everywhere. Celebrations of the Islamic culture were everywhere for anyone to see.

I can already hear some saying that either I wasn’t looking hard enough or I was having the wool pulled over my eyes. I did look hard and I don’t believe an elaborate hoax was being played on me.

I spoke with lots of people in private with no restrictions placed on me whatsoever. In fact, my dreadlocks, and I dare say, the colour of my skin, meant I was a target of curiosity, especially among the young, many of who wanted to come and chat and have a photo taken with me.

That was frankly the most uncomfortable thing about the trip!

What I saw was lots of people going about their business in much the same way as I have seen people trying to do in many parts of the world.

I met many Communist Party officials who were questioned over the allegations made against them and their country. All of them said the only way to counter the propaganda war being waged against them was for people to come and see for themselves.

They told me how hard they were working to open up the region to more tourism so that people could experience this beautiful area but also so more people could bear witness to the truth about them.

So why is this propaganda war being waged against China in general and in particular against Xinjiang?

The geographical position of the region provides the answer. As the centre of the Silk Road renaissance, the region will be the focal point of Chinese trade and its economic heartbeat.

It means the continuing economic growth of China is disproportionately linked to Xinjiang.

Its trade routes through its eight neighbours to its wider partners will be critical to sell Chinese-made goods as well as to buy the resources needed to continue to power the country’s economy.

The US is the world’s leading economy and wants to keep it that way. Its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance asserts that it will use any means necessary to maintain the pre-eminence of US capital.

I think we can take this to mean that the US will not hesitate to spread misinformation about China. After all, it’s not as if the US does not have form for this type of behaviour.

They have been doing it for years, particularly across Africa and Central America where they buy organisations to ferment internal dissent against governments deemed not to be compliant.

Sprinkled with an always unhealthy dose of sinophobia the move by the US to undermine the reputation of China has largely economic foundations and false allegations of mistreatment against ethnic minorities — particularly the Uighurs — are completely without foundation.

On the contrary, there seems to me to be far more evidence of the Chinese at a national and regional level actively celebrating cultural diversity as well as striving to put in place the economic prosperity that looks as though it is undermining attempts by terrorist groups — likely funded by the West — to sow discontent in Xinjiang.

I will talk about this and the allegations of forced labour in some detail in the second part of this three series about my visit to China. In the meantime, to anyone reading this article in disbelief and who believes that either I am lying or have been the victim of what would be a truly elaborate hoax my suggestion is: go and see for yourself.

It’s a long way away but I honestly believe you will be surprised by the wonderful vibrant people and cities that will greet you.

Threat of war looms over NATO summit in Washington

The following article by Gary Wilson, first published in Struggle La Lucha, gives an overview of alarming developments in the Pacific, with the US and its allies gearing up towards the formation of an “Asian version of NATO”.

Gary notes that in late June, the US, Japan and South Korea conducted joint military exercises in the region. These exercises, labelled ‘Freedom Edge’, “targeted not only North Korea but also China” and “aim to demonstrate military capabilities near China’s borders”. As such they form “part of a broader network of Indo-Pacific alliances led by the US to encircle and confront China”.

The article cites a pertinent and accurate observation by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “Lurking behind the recent drill is the strategic design of the US to escalate regional military tensions, exert pressure upon the Far East of Russia, and lay siege to China”.

What’s more, US President Joe Biden has invited Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to Washinton to participate in the NATO summit in July. No doubt the US regime will be looking to use the summit to consolidate its New Cold War alliance in the Pacific, directed against China, Russia and the DPRK.

As Gary concludes, “the specter of war will loom large over the NATO summit in Washington.”

On June 30, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) blasted the joint military exercises conducted by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea in the region, labeling them as “reckless and provocative.” The DPRK pointed out that the military “war games” disrupt peace on the Korean peninsula and the broader region.

The hostile military drills expose the formation of an “Asian version of NATO” led by the U.S., declared a statement by the DPRK’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on June 30.

The three-day military operation known as “Freedom Edge” took place from June 26 to 29, involving South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. The “Edge” featured all three militaries, including the U.S.’s Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, headed by a nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier, Japanese Defense Force naval carriers and destroyers, and Republic of Korea F-16 Falcon fighter jets.

Freedom Edge targeted not only North Korea but also China.

The exercise draws its name from other U.S. military operations with Japan (Keen Edge) and South Korea (Freedom Shield). The annual Freedom Shield and Keen Edge exercises aim to demonstrate military capabilities near China’s borders. 

South Korea submits to imperialist Japan

These maneuvers are part of a broader network of Indo-Pacific alliances led by the U.S. to encircle and confront China. The Freedom Edge war maneuvers came out of an agreement between the U.S., Japan, and the Republic of Korea at Camp David last August. That agreement was historic because never before had the Republic of Korea submitted to such an agreement with imperialist Japan, which had occupied and colonized Korea from 1910 to 1945 (when the Korean People’s Revolutionary Army ousted them and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was formed).  

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Camp David agreement with Japan has been denounced throughout the Republic of Korea. Some have called it the country’s “biggest humiliation.” Yonhap News Agency reported on May 31 that President Yoon’s approval rating has fallen to 21%. 

The DPRK’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the U.S., Japan, and South Korea for their continuous provocative military actions against the DPRK and other independent states in the region. 

“Lurking behind the recent drill is the strategic design of the U.S. to escalate regional military tensions, exert pressure upon the Far East of Russia, and lay siege to China,” the Ministry statement said.

In recent years, the U.S. has intensified military exercises surrounding China and Korea, forming new military partnerships like the AUKUS and QUAD. 

U.S. President “Genocide Joe” Biden has invited Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to Washinton in July for more “trilateral talks” as well as participation in the NATO war summit taking place on July 9-11. 

NATO targets China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, on May 27 that one of the “main topics at the Washington Summit will be global partnerships, and in particular, our Asia Pacific partners – Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.”

The U.S.-commanded military alliance called NATO includes the armed forces of the U.S. and all other countries in the alliance, including Britain, Germany, and France.  

NATO has undertaken eight military actions, all since 1990. The alliance did not undertake any military operations during the Cold War. Since 1990, NATO has engaged in two actions related to the first Gulf War, two in the former Yugoslavia, and military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya.

Stoltenberg then said that NATO’s primary focus now is targeting China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He called them threats to NATO’s dominance. He didn’t talk about the war threats that have come from NATO and the “Asian version of NATO.”

With his stilted bureaucratese, Stoltenberg did add, “NATO will remain Europe and North America, but to work with our partners in the Asia Pacific and therefore welcome that the leaders of the Asia Pacific will be at, we have invited them to attend, the summit in Washington.” 

[ChatGPT translation: While NATO’s focus remains on Europe and North America, we recognize the importance of collaboration with our Asia-Pacific partners. Therefore, we’re pleased to welcome leaders from the Asia-Pacific region to the upcoming summit in Washington — the Asian NATO.]

The specter of war will loom large over the NATO summit in Washington.

Developed countries must prioritise climate cooperation over China containment

The article below, republished from Global Times, reports on the high number of abnormal weather events this spring and summer, including unusually high temperatures in Northern China, heavy rainfall in Southern China, Hurricane Beryl in the Americas, and a series of droughts, floods and heatwaves elsewhere. “These scenes once again sound the alarm on climate issues for all of humanity.”

The author observes that “people generally hope that governments worldwide can work together to address the frequent occurrences of extreme weather globally”; that is, ordinary people expect their governments to pursue intense cooperation with countries around the world in order to tackle this existential issue. However, in spite of talking a good game on environmental questions, “developed countries such as the US and Europe have failed to fulfill their commitments in actual implementation”. Alarmingly, these issues seem to be increasingly sidelined in the US. The article cites Jeff Goodell, author of the book The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, remarking on the recent presidential debate between Trump and Biden: “More time discussing golf than climate. What a world we are living in.”

Meanwhile, as China races ahead in renewable energy and other green technologies, the US and Europe are imposing tariffs and sanctions on Chinese EVs and solar power materials, the objective of which is to suppress China’s rise.

The author concludes:

Global climate change is a common enemy of all humanity. Countries around the world must work together, share responsibilities and take positive and effective actions. This is not only to protect our planet but also for the well-being of future generations. Only through global cooperation can we make substantial progress in addressing climate change, which especially requires developed countries to broaden their mind and take pragmatic actions.

Abnormal climate and frequent severe weather events have been a common experience for many people this summer. Recently, northern China has experienced prolonged high temperatures, while southern China has been hit by frequent heavy rains. Floods exceeding warning levels have occurred in 98 rivers in the Yangtze River Basin, the Xijiang River in the Pearl River Basin and the Taihu Basin, said the Ministry of Water Resources on June 30. On a global scale, since the beginning of this year, extreme weather events such as heavy rains, floods, heatwaves and droughts have frequently occurred in many places. Hurricane Beryl has intensified into a Category 3 storm and is making landfall in the Americas, while “deadly heatwaves are scorching cities across four continents.” These scenes once again sound the alarm on climate issues for all of humanity.

The latest Global Risks Report released by the World Economic Forum warns that in the next decade, the primary global risk will not be armed conflicts or social division but extreme weather events. For this reason, people generally hope that governments worldwide can work together to address the frequent occurrences of extreme weather globally. A survey report released by the UN Development Programme on June 20 shows that 80 percent of respondents globally hope for a stronger climate action.

Addressing climate change requires the full co-operation of the international community and both developed and developing countries need to fulfill their respective responsibilities and obligations. As early as 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change enshrined the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, recognizing the historical responsibility of developed countries for their emissions. However, developed countries such as the US and Europe have failed to fulfill their commitments in actual implementation despite having shown a positive attitude in international negotiations on global climate governance. This has directly slowed down the process of global green and low-carbon transformation.

As the largest global economy and most advanced developed country, the US plays a crucial role in the process of global climate governance. Especially, the commitments and actions of the US not only set an example for other developed countries but also bring expectations and confidence to the international community as a whole. Unfortunately, the US is the only signatory that has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement to date, showing significant regression in its stance on addressing global climate change, which has severely undermined the confidence in international cooperation on global climate governance. Although the Biden administration announced US’ return to the Paris Agreement in 2021, it is hard to hide the wobbly nature of US climate policy, especially under the highly politicalized landscape of bipartisan competition, where climate issues are not purely scientific topics but highly politicized ones.

It is worth noting that the importance of climate issues ranks far lower on the US political spectrum than economic, diplomatic, or even China-related issues. The recent first televised debate among candidates for the 2024 US presidential election was a prime example. Despite the New York Times emphasizing beforehand that “no election has more potential to affect the planet’s warming climate than the rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump,” the two candidates only devoted a very short amount of time to climate issues. Author Jeff Goodell, of the book The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, expressed frustration on social media, perhaps representing the thoughts of most Americans: “More time discussing golf than climate. What a world we are living in.”

As an important player in the global arena, Europe also has room for improvement in its approaches to addressing global climate change. The EU has initiated several anti-subsidy investigations against Chinese new energy companies and recently, the European Commission announced plans to impose tariffs on pure electric vehicles imported from China starting in July. British scholar Martin Jacques recently warned in the Global Times, “What compromise will it finally reach between protecting European carmakers and prioritizing its commitment to decarbonization? Or, to put it another way, what role does it see Chinese EVs playing in Europe’s fight against global warming?” Such reminders not only question European decision-makers but also question Europe’s sincerity and determination in promoting global climate governance.

To push forward global climate governance, China has always been a firm activist. We are not only promoting sustainable development at home but also actively cooperating with all parties, continuously injecting stable momentum into global climate governance. China has exceeded its 2020 climate action targets ahead of schedule and will realize carbon neutrality from carbon peaking in the shortest time in global history. The green and low-carbon transformation that China promotes is not just a transformation at the technological and energy levels but involves the transformation of the entire social system, as well as the economy, culture, finance and other aspects. This is an important strategic decision and action statement made by China in response to global climate change.

Global climate change is a common enemy of all humanity. Countries around the world must work together, share responsibilities and take positive and effective actions. This is not only to protect our planet but also for the well-being of future generations. Only through global cooperation can we make substantial progress in addressing climate change, which especially requires developed countries to broaden their mind and take pragmatic actions.

EU tariffs on China: a script written in Washington

The following article by Carlos Martinez, first published in the Morning Star, comments on the European Union’s recent decision to impose tariffs of up to 38 percent on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). The only enthusiastic supporter (and presumably instigator) of these tariffs is the US, which is embarked on an escalating New Cold War against China.

Carlos describes the negative reaction to the tariffs not just in China but within much of the European business community and among environmentalists. Ultimately, aside from likely inspiring reciprocal tariffs from China, the move will have the effect of “making the EU’s transition slower and more expensive” – in the words of a Chatham House article.

Carlos further notes that “imposing tariffs on the basis of Chinese public investment creates a precedent that any such central investment in sustainable development is unacceptable”, and as such, “would render any sort of green new deal out of the question”.

The article concludes: “For the sake of peace, development and the habitability of the planet, Europe must change course.”

Last week the EU notified Beijing that, following a nine-month investigation into alleged unfair state subsidies, it will impose new tariffs of up to 38 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

Given the existing 10 per cent tariff on car imports, this will mean Chinese EVs will be hit with tariffs of up to 48 per cent. These new tariffs are due to kick in on July 4.

Germany, Sweden and Hungary have been vocal in opposing the move, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stating the obvious: “Isolation and illegal customs barriers ultimately just makes everything more expensive, and everyone poorer.”

Of course, this reflects the importance of the Chinese market for German car manufacturers, who will be hoping beyond hope that the authorities in Beijing haven’t been studying the Book of Exodus and thus are not minded to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye.”

BMW CEO Oliver Zipse commented: “The decision for additional import duties is the wrong way to go. The EU Commission is thus harming European companies and European interests.”

This sentiment was echoed by a spokesperson for Volkswagen: “The negative effects of this decision outweigh any potential benefits for the European and especially the German automotive industry.”

Indeed there seems to be little enthusiasm for these tariffs anywhere outside the White House. The Bloomberg editorial board argues that “tariffs won’t bring the EU prosperity” and that the increased price of EVs will decelerate Europe’s green transition.

Similarly, an article for Chatham House — titled “Imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles will make the EU’s transition slower and more expensive” — notes that the EU has a legally binding target of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Meanwhile “decarbonisation technologies like solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles share a characteristic that sets them apart from other traded goods: when swapped for fossil fuel alternatives, they reduce the quantity of planet-warming gases being pumped into the atmosphere.” Such technologies “are needed in vast quantities, and in very short order, to give any chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.”

It is noteworthy — and presumably not entirely coincidental — that the EU’s announcement came just a month after the Biden administration announced tariffs on Chinese EVs of 100 per cent.

In the case of the US, the material impact of these tariffs is virtually non-existent, given that Chinese-made models constitute just 2 per cent of all EV sales; and this in a market where EVs only make up 8 per cent of all car registrations (compared with almost 50 per cent in China).

The US tariff increase is simply an attempt by Biden to appear “tough on China” in the run-up to the presidential election. Donald Trump, not to be outdone on such matters, has promised tariffs of 200 per cent. As such, what we’re talking about is yet another component in the US-led new cold war on China, for which there is bipartisan consensus.

So it would appear the EU is acting in accordance with the strong recommendations (instructions) of Washington.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time Europe has compromised its climate commitments and economic stability in order to participate in the US’s pursuit of 21st century hegemony.

In 2022, in order to punish Russia and to generate profits for the US’s domestic fossil fuel industry, the Biden administration heavily promoted sanctions on Russian natural gas. The result has been a major increase in US exports of fracked shale gas to Europe.

To get this gas from North America to Europe, it has to be liquified, stored at minus 70°C, and transported by ship. This whole process is extremely costly in both financial and ecological terms, certainly much more so than using existing pipelines running from Russia through Europe.

The European working class and progressive movement should oppose these tariffs on Chinese EVs and should resist the ongoing attempts by sections of the bourgeoisie to align Europe with Washington’s reckless foreign policy.

As noted in these pages in August last year, “major problems facing humanity require international co-operation — and China’s leading position in green technology makes co-operation in this field essential.”

China has raced ahead in renewable energy and electric transport because it has identified those sectors as being absolutely crucial for the future of not only China but the world.

As such, it has built environmental considerations into the core of its planning system and has targeted public investment accordingly. Rather than complaining about China’s investment in new productive forces, Europe should be following its example.

Imposing tariffs on the basis of Chinese public investment creates a precedent that any such central investment in sustainable development is unacceptable. This precedent would render any sort of green new deal out of the question.

Even the Economist acknowledges that “the potential gains to the West from a ready supply of cheap, green vehicles are simply enormous.” And, momentarily overcoming its Eurocentric instincts, it admits that Chinese cars “are not only cheap; they are better-quality, particularly with respect to the smart features in EVs that are made possible by internet connectivity.”

The article concludes that “if China wants to spend taxpayers’ money subsidising global consumers and speeding up the energy transition, the best response is to welcome it.”

Inasmuch as there’s such a thing as a sane bourgeois perspective, this is what it looks like.

In the words of former undersecretary-general of the UN and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme Erik Solheim: “China is now the indispensable country for everything green … And all historical experiences show that if you create closed-down markets and separate markets from different parts of the world, we will all be poorer.”

For the sake of peace, development and the habitability of the planet, Europe must change course.