New Cold War Archives - Friends of Socialist China

Shield of the Americas: The pinnacle of subordination in the silent war against China

While the world’s attention has been focused on Washington’s wars of aggression in the West Asia, the Trump administration has been quietly advancing a parallel offensive in Latin America – one whose real target, as Oscar Rotundo makes clear in this incisive analysis (originally published in English on the website Internationalist 360), is China.

The “Shield of the Americas” summit, hosted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem at Trump’s Doral golf resort in Miami, brought together twelve compliant Latin American governments and committed them to a Washington-monitored protocol covering security, economic and digital cooperation. As Rotundo shows, this is nothing new: the US has long used regional proxies to advance its interests while making others pay the bill. What’s relatively new is the explicit anti-China dimension.

Every country invited to Miami has significant economic ties with China – ties that are, in most cases, irreplaceable. China is the largest trading partner of Chile; it is Bolivia’s largest creditor; a key investor in Ecuador; and a key destination for much of the region’s commodity exports. The Chancay megaport in Peru, Chinese EVs and green energy investment are all in Washington’s crosshairs.

But as Rotundo argues, the US has nothing comparable to offer. It brings no investment, no infrastructure, no technology transfer – only threats, sanctions and hegemonism. China, by contrast, “builds quality infrastructure and incorporates cutting-edge technology” without demanding political submission.

“The train of the future,” Rotundo concludes, “has left Trump stranded.”

The so-called “Shield of the Americas,” which includes Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago , met at a golf club in Doral, Miami, and was hosted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem, former Secretary of Homeland Security, who will now serve as special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas.”

The idea behind this meeting is to commit those present to a regional control protocol in security, economy, and digital cooperation, monitored from Washington.

Just as the United States once turned to private contractors such as DynCorp International (now part of Amentum), a US security and aviation contractor for the Pentagon and the State Department, who operated in “Plan Colombia,” it is now turning to the military forces of these countries to act as police officers under its command.

Sending migrants to prisons in El Salvador or Guantanamo in Cuba, the kidnapping of the sitting constitutional president Nicolás Maduro and the deputy Cilia Flores in Caracas, Venezuela, the threats of invasion or overthrow of the legitimate government of Cuba, the constant extortion against Mexico, are all part of the same package to which the cohort of lackeys is added.

The United States, with the same zeal with which it bombs boats under the pretext of drug trafficking, taking the lives of people who cannot be held responsible for any crime; under this cloak of suspicion, it intends to implement a regional security policy with military forces paid for by each State to multiply the protection of its interests in the region.

What is hidden beneath that shield

Supposedly a shield protects, but not always. We could say that the TIAR (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance) – a mutual defense pact signed in 1947 by countries of America, under the principle that an armed attack against a member state is considered an attack against all, obliging cooperation – was also a shield promoted by the northern hegemon, which, when it came to intervening and discouraging the aggression of an extra-continental force like Great Britain, which since 1833 has illegitimately occupied the Falkland Islands, a territory belonging to Argentina, a member country, did the opposite and joined the aggression by logistically supporting the colonialist force.

Under this shield, “friendly” countries agree to hand over natural resources and sovereignty over these and over the territories where interoceanic passages are located, so that the United States can exercise control over the movement of goods and military resources that can be moved from one place to another, as Donald Trump has just proposed regarding the Strait of Hormuz, which he is “considering taking control of,” a strategic maritime passage through which 20% of the world’s crude oil and also significant quantities of liquefied natural gas (LNG) circulate.

Also, as seen in Ecuador with the presence of Erik Prince, founder of the private military company Blackwater, who in 2025 collaborated with the government of Daniel Noboa to combat organized crime and drug trafficking, participating in operations in Guayaquil and in the training of security forces, it would not be surprising if contractors of this nature were to occupy the ground and the operation of this purported fight against Narcoterrorism, under the auspices of this “strategic protection” in the associated countries.

The claws of a dying beast: US imperialism’s existential quagmire

As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its second month, a striking vulnerability has emerged that the mainstream media has largely chosen to ignore: the Pentagon’s ability to replenish its rapidly depleting weapons stockpiles is now to a significant degree dependent on China’s rare earth exports, which are essential to everything from jet engine coatings to precision guidance systems. Alternative supply chains are three to five years away at best. China’s leading position in critical minerals processing gives important leverage in any confrontation with Washington.

In the following article, Ileana Chan, Director and Producer at Empire Watch, illuminates this contradiction, situating the criminal war on Iran within the broader imperial logic of a system that is simultaneously dependent on China and desperate to contain it – recognising that China will have surpassed the West in most economic and technological measures within the coming years, and calculating that the window for action is closing.

Ileana highlights the role of China’s steady, principled diplomacy as a counterpoint to US belligerence – a model of sovereignty, development and mutual respect that meets the needs of a rising Global South.

While we grieve for lives lost today and those to come, we know the Global South is building something new. A world defined not by bombastic slogans, but by the steady, even-keeled diplomacy China exemplifies, where sovereignty, development, and mutual respect are paramount.

This article was first published on the Empire Watch Patreon.

The latest US-Israeli war on Iran exposes the desperate belligerence of an empire in inevitable freefall.

It is a war decades in the making, completely aligned with Washington’s geopolitical maneuvering to perpetuate a unipolar world. This empire demands fealty from its vassal states and allies, without being able to articulate a rational strategy and objective. It claims self-defense while committing war crimes and breaking international law with impunity. Yet, somehow, behind the shock and awe tactics and tired propaganda tropes, the US seems utterly unprepared for the reality it has unleashed.

Stop the War Coalition reaffirms campaigning priorities and highlights heightened danger of war in the Pacific

Several hundred people packed central London’s Hamilton House on Saturday March 14 for the annual conference of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition (StW).

Amidst the most dangerous international situation in the lifetime of most if not all of the delegates, the day’s proceedings represented a powerful, united and militant expression of determination to do everything possible both to end the brutal imperialist wars currently being waged against Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere and to prevent the outbreak of a third world war that would threaten the very existence of humanity.

Stop the War’s website reports that during the opening session, Mustafa Barghouti, the renowned Palestinian figure, thanked StW for its solidarity with the Palestinian and Iranian people and drew attention to the devastating attacks Israel is currently conducting against Lebanon.

Jeremy Corbyn MP spoke of StW as a voice for peace, and of UK complicity in the destruction of Gaza, noting how the UK continues to send weapons to Israel.

Maryam Eslamdoust, railworkers’ union TSSA general secretary, who has family in Iran, reminded conference of the human tragedy of war. Maryam said Trump’s attacks were designed to strike fear and terror into civilians to achieve an uprising, fast victory and regime change. However, she believed Iran would not crumble as the imperialists hoped, and that the US would face a Vietnam-style defeat.

A motion on opposition to British foreign policy, moved by Stop the War deputy president and founding chair Andrew Murray, in an exceptionally fiery and impassioned speech, notes that:

The Trump administration has embarked on a rampage of aggression that is imperilling the entire world.

It has launched a barbaric and illegal attack with Israel on Iran (including murdering its leader) and Lebanon, kidnapped the President of Venezuela, bombed Yemen and Nigeria and is trying to bring down the government in Cuba. It has also threatened Panama, Colombia and Greenland. It has embarked on an intensification of the nuclear arms race.

All this is aimed at reversing the relative decline of US imperialism, particularly in the face of China’s growing strength, and securing a new redivision of power and profit in the world to its advantage. It threatens a third world war.

Keir Starmer has committed the British government to support for this reckless and bloody policy. All his professed support for international law disappears in the face of Washington’s illegalities. He is craven in his appeasement of Trump when he is not actually joining in with his wars.

Instead of aligning with most of the world in condemning this war drive, Britain backs the aggressors. This policy also threatens to beggar the British people with entirely unsustainable and unnecessary increases in military spending, on a scale which will make urgent social improvements all-but impossible.

The government also works to prolong the dangerous conflict in Ukraine and to engage in military provocations directed towards China in the Far East.

This is all accompanied by a war psychosis designed to condition the population to the inevitability of an impending great power war.

Conference resolved:

Interview: Understanding China’s foreign policy

In the video embedded below, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez joins Roger McKenzie for a detailed exploration of China’s foreign policy, its domestic progress, and the geopolitical strategies shaping the 21st century. The two discuss the importance of understanding China’s rise, the global shift towards multipolarity, and the need for solidarity against imperialist pressures.

Some of the key ideas put forward include:

• China’s foreign policy rests on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, first formulated by Zhou Enlai in 1954 and adopted at the Bandung Conference the following year. These principles – mutual respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence – elevate what Lenin conceived as a tactical necessity into a principled theoretical framework. The core insight is that countries with fundamentally different social systems can and must coexist, and that all non-imperialist countries share a common interest in opposing domination and pursuing their own development paths. Today these principles find expression in China’s vision of a community with a shared future for humanity, underpinned by the Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS (which now surpasses the G7 in GDP, population and landmass), the SCO, and the G77. Multipolarity – a negotiated international order in which no single power can impose its will – is not only urgently needed to address existential challenges like climate change and nuclear war, but is, as Samir Amin argued, the necessary framework for the possible overcoming of capitalism itself.

• The United States is not accepting this shift passively. Brzezinski identified the nightmare scenario decades ago: a grand coalition of China, Russia and Iran. US responses have included proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, military encirclement of China through AUKUS and Pacific buildups, unconditional support for Israel, tariff wars, semiconductor controls, the kidnapping of president Maduro, the suffocation of Cuba, the reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, and now open war on Iran. The US is losing economic and technological primacy but retains overwhelming military power, and the danger is precisely that of a declining empire reaching for military solutions.

• The war on Iran must be understood in this context. It is not about nuclear weapons – nobody believes that. It is not about women’s rights – women’s rights are improving in Iran and deteriorating in the West. It is a criminal attack, carried out by presidential decree without reference to international law or domestic legal process, against a sovereign state that supports Palestinian resistance, maintains public ownership of its energy resources, and is a key node in the multipolar project – a crucial link in the Belt and Road, a member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and an important energy partner for China. The attack is simultaneously an attempt to seize control of energy flows, to develop strategic chokepoints that could be used against China in a hot war, and to destroy the axis of resistance across West Asia. It is the empire striking back.

• China is supporting Iran to the best of its abilities – diplomatically, economically, and with military cooperation – but does not have the capacity to project military power into the region. Nonetheless, Iran is a fiercely independent country with formidable military capabilities. The US and Israel will not achieve their objectives: they will not install a puppet regime, will not destroy the Palestinian resistance, and will not seize Iran’s strategic position.

• The task for progressive forces in the West is to oppose the war on Iran, oppose the New Cold War on China and the propaganda war that sustains it, and build the broadest possible united front against imperialism, racism and neoliberalism. We are not the vanguard – that role belongs to the socialist countries and the peoples under direct attack. But everyone has a part to play, and we must do what we can to build solidarity and make war untenable for the imperialists.

China chokehold: Long-term goal of the US war on Iran

Why is the United States waging war on Iran? The official justifications shift by the day – nuclear weapons, Israeli security, bringing “democracy” – but CJ Atkins, writing in People’s World, cuts through the noise to identify a deeper strategic logic.

Ironically, it has fallen to the far-right, pro-Trump, Falun Gong-affiliated Epoch Times to spell it out most clearly. The war on Iran, like the January invasion of Venezuela, is to a considerable degree a move against China. Iran supplied 13.4 percent of China’s seaborne oil imports last year, Venezuela a further 4.5 percent. Combined with Russia, sanctioned suppliers accounted for a third of China’s entire crude import mix in 2024. Neutralising Iran – and with it, threatening Chinese access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which 37.7 percent of China’s crude oil flows – is a bid to put Beijing in an energy chokehold.

Atkins writes: “Iran sits alongside that chokepoint and, as recent days have made abundantly clear, is capable of threatening access to it. It is the one independent actor in the region that can seriously complicate shipping through the whole corridor. That’s a power the U.S. government would prefer to have in its own hands.”

As such, the criminal aggression against Iran and Venezuela forms part of the US-led long-term campaign of containment and encirclement of the People’s Republic of China.

This is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the deeper architecture of US imperialism’s current offensive. It makes clear that the wars on Iran and Venezuela are not separate conflicts but coordinated moves in a single grand strategy: not only a war on Tehran or Caracas, but a war on the multipolar trajectory. Such a strategy must be resolutely opposed.

There’s an angle to the Iran War that the cable news anchors, retired generals-turned-commentators, and corporate-owned newspapers are barely talking about, if at all. They report on the shifting justifications proffered by Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, or Donald Trump, but few in the press are doing anything to illuminate the bigger picture.

The United States isn’t attacking Iran simply because of Tehran’s nuclear program, or out of concern for the welfare of the Iranian people, or even purely for Israel’s security. The Trump administration’s decision to launch its war was motivated by a goal that goes well beyond nuclear non-proliferation. Nor is the war a case of Tel Aviv telling Washington what to do, regardless of what some of Netanyahu’s most intense critics want to believe.

It has fallen to the far-right, anti-communist outlet The Epoch Times—the newspaper associated with the Falun Gong cult—to offer the truth about what the U.S. is up to. “A key strategic dimension of the Iran conflict,” wrote James Gorrie, a regular columnist for the pro-Trump paper in its March 13 issue, “involves Washington’s efforts to control and even restrict Iranian oil flows to China.”

Marco Rubio and Wang Yi offer vastly contrasting visions of international relations

The two articles collected here, by Paweł Wargan and Sevim Dağdelen, approach the same moment in world politics, arriving at a shared conclusion: the international order is entering a period of profound transition, marked by the decline of Western hegemony and an increasingly open struggle over what comes next. Both writers use the recent Munich Security Conference as a lens through which to examine this shift, arguing that the language emerging from parts of the Western establishment reflects not confidence, but profound anxiety about the changing global balance of power.

A central thread running through both analyses is the contrast between two competing visions of international relations.

On one side, they see a US-led Western bloc seeking to preserve its dominance through military power, sanctions, and coercive diplomacy. The speech by Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempts to provide an ideological framework for this posture by openly promoting white supremacism and colonial nostalgia (“We are part of one civilisation – Western civilisation. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilisation to which we have fallen heir”). Rubio flaunted Washington’s willingness to abandon international law and the basic norms of relations between states in support of reviving and furthering Western hegemony.

On the other side stands a different vision, associated above all with China and the broader Global South. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s speech represents a contrasting emphasis on multilateralism, sovereign equality and cooperation among states. Both Paweł and Sevim’s articles suggest that China’s growing influence – economically, diplomatically and institutionally – has become central to the emerging multipolar order. Rather than viewing China simply as a rival, these articles frame it as a key actor in building alternative institutions and partnerships that challenge imperialism and uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Together, the two texts explore the stakes of this historical turning point. Is the world moving toward renewed confrontation and bloc politics, or toward a more multipolar and democratic international system? The answer, they imply, will depend not only on the decisions of major powers but on the unity and coordinated action of countries throughout the world, and particularly the Global South.

Paweł Wargan is Political Coordinator at the Progressive International. Sevim Dağdelen was a member of the German Bundestag from 2005 to 2025 and is currently a member of the Federal Executive Board of the German party BSW (Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht / The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance).

Adults in the Room

February 20 (Valdai Club) – The 62^nd Munich Security Conference concluded with a funereal mood. For three days, heads of state, diplomats, and military officials gathered between the Hotel Bayerischer Hof and the Rosewood Munich to take stock of a world system that is, by their own admission, fracturing. The conference report, titled Under Destruction, acknowledged what has long been obvious to those watching from the periphery of the imperial system: the post-1945 US-led international order is coming apart at the seams.

In more ways than one, the Conference revealed the contours of the world order that is emerging in its place. It exposed a diminishing and desperate Europe and a revanchist and atavistic US — two parts of a weakening bloc determined to rescue its position on the international stage with force. But it also revealed an alternative: a determination to build a new international order that could finally overcome the inequities of a global system structured by centuries of colonial rule and violent domination.

European leaders rehashed a well-worn liturgy of contradictory claims and feeble appeals. War was at the forefront of their minds. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, spoke of a Russia that was simultaneously “broken” and “no superpower”, and an omnipotent Russia that could “cripple economies through cyberattacks, disrupt satellites, sabotage undersea cables, fracture alliances with disinformation, [and] coerce countries by weaponising oil and gas” — a narrative designed to shore up support for Europe’s re-militarization.

The US is pursuing a global Monroe Doctrine

The following article is based on a presentation given by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez at the Latin America Adelante Conference in London on 7 February 2026. The presentation was part of a session on ‘Latin America, the New Cold War and the Rising Global South’, which was also addressed by Sophie Bold (CND General Secretary), Roger McKenzie (Morning Star International Editor) and Fiona Sim (Co-founder, Black Liberation Alliance). The session was chaired by Carole Regan of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign.

Carlos’s presentation focused on the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy and its implications for Latin America, as well as its connection to the US’s longstanding global strategy of encirclement and containment against China. Carlos concludes:

The ruling class is pushing an agenda that is increasingly unpopular and untenable — an agenda of permanent war, economic decline and ecological destruction. We need to push our own agenda: one of peace, multilateralism, solidarity, and the broadest possible global cooperation to confront the existential threats facing humanity.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS), released in late November 2025, has been the subject of widespread comment and a diverse array of interpretations. For those of us concerned with questions of peace, sovereignty and international justice, its most striking feature is its explicit reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, shifting the focus of US military strategy towards “defending our hemisphere”, with more troops, bases and military operations in the Americas.

US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere is of course nothing new. Since the Monroe Doctrine was first promulgated in 1823, the United States has treated Latin America and the Caribbean as its backyard, overthrowing governments, installing dictatorships, funding death squads and imposing economic subjugation as a matter of routine. But, at least in the post-WW2 era, previous administrations have at least maintained some pretence of respect for international law and the sovereignty of other nations. The NSS does away with any such niceties, declaring that “the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere” and “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.”

Trump 2.0 is not retreating – it is recalibrating for global confrontation

In the following analysis for the Morning Star, British economist John Ross argues that the second presidency of Donald Trump represents not a retreat from US global ambitions – as has been posited in parts of the left – but a tactical recalibration aimed at preserving US hegemony and furthering the longstanding campaign to contain China and suppress its rise.

Citing the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy, the article observes that both documents explicitly prioritise countering China militarily, especially in the Indo-Pacific and around Taiwan. Washington’s current tactical approach, however, is to target what it perceives as lesser enemies – including Cuba, Venezuela and Iran – in order to weaken the broader international alignment against imperialism and hegemony.

John concludes that the notion of US retreat is “dangerous wishful thinking.” Far from accepting multipolarity, the US is intensifying military spending, expanding missile defence systems and sustaining global interventions.

“Global South countries at present under direct attack by the US, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, are today in the front line of fighting the US attack on all independent, progressive and socialist forces in the world. These countries therefore must receive the maximum support both for reasons of moral solidarity, and the interests of these countries, but because if they were to be defeated the US will be strengthened in its attack on every other country and progressive movement.

“The evidence, both in words and actions, is that if the US were allowed to succeed in its attacks in the western hemisphere, against Cuba and Venezuela, it would not stop at that and accept a division of the rest of the world. It would simply follow up its attacks on Cuba and Venezuela, in a somewhat strengthened position, by attacks on other countries.

“In short, the idea that the US is retreating simply into the western hemisphere is entirely wrong and extremely dangerous.”

An analysis of the escalating US threats toward China

In the following article, Mick Kelly, the Political Secretary of the Freedom Road Socialist Organisation (FRSO) in the United States, argues that the US is on a collision course with socialist China. Scholarly international relations journals, such as Foreign Affairs, regularly carry articles about a coming war between the two countries.

Mick notes that in a rapidly changing world China is ascending while the United States is being left behind, with China’s rapid development standing in great contrast to the deteriorating economic position of the US. The bellicose war threats from Washington are a sign of weakness, not strength.

Giving a historical context, he points out that from the victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949 until the early 1970s, US foreign policy towards China was characterized by extremely hostility. Then came “ping pong diplomacy,” and in 1972 both countries signed the Shanghai Communiqué agreeing that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” This One China principle was reaffirmed when Beijing and Washington established formal diplomatic relations at the end of 1979

In the following decades, the US followed a strategy of “peaceful evolution,” which held that by using political, economic and cultural ties, it would be possible to foster forces in China antithetical to socialism, capitalism would prevail, and a Western-style government would ultimately be established. The application of this strategy was played out in the late 1980s when the US did everything it could to encourage turmoil in China and the other socialist countries. In China, however, socialism continued to not only survive but to thrive, creating incredible social achievements such as the elimination of extreme poverty.

Mick concludes that: “Socialist China is a beacon of progress. Its existence demonstrates that socialism brings peace and prosperity, while the United States controls a declining empire that is continuously at war. The difference between the two roads these respective countries offer could not be starker. When US warmongers talk about ‘modernising’ nuclear weapons, in the next breath they mention China. Progressives and revolutionaries in the United States must do everything in our power to stop them and join with people around the world who want to do the same.”

The article originally appeared in the book, China Changes Everything. It is republished here from Workers World.

Greenland in the New Cold War

The following article from Beijing Review, written by Carlos Martinez, situates Donald Trump’s renewed threats to seize Greenland within the broader context of Washington’s escalating strategic confrontation with China. While framed publicly as a matter of “national and world security,” the push to bring Greenland under direct US control reflects a desire to lock in long-term dominance over Arctic territory, resources and shipping routes that are becoming increasingly important as climate change reshapes global logistics.

In 2017, Beijing proposed incorporating Arctic sea lanes into the Belt and Road Initiative, developing a “Polar Silk Road” in cooperation with Russia. These routes could reduce shipping times between China and northern Europe by 30 percent, and furthermore offer an alternative to US-controlled maritime chokepoints. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland sits at a critical junction in the North Atlantic–Arctic corridor and offers leverage to disrupt or control these emerging routes in any future conflict.

The island’s vast reserves of critical minerals, including rare earth elements, add to its strategic significance. China currently dominates global rare earth mining and processing, giving it a major advantage in high-tech manufacturing and a potential counterweight to US sanctions and trade pressure. Securing Greenland’s resources is therefore seen as part of a wider effort to weaken China’s industrial and technological position.

Carlos argues that US ambitions in Greenland are less about immediate access – already largely guaranteed through existing agreements with Denmark – and more about preventing any future scenario in which Greenlandic self-determination could constrain US power. In this sense, Greenland becomes a central piece in Washington’s emerging New Cold War strategy of containing China’s rise.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed threats to bring Greenland under American control—”the easy way” if possible, “the hard way” if necessary—have sent shockwaves through Europe and put NATO’s future in question, at a moment when the Atlantic alliance is already under considerable strain.

Clearly intent on starting the year off “with a bang”—having abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and threatened a renewed bombing campaign against Iran—Trump has reiterated his long-standing interest in “acquiring” Greenland from Denmark, employing a combination of economic and military threats. What followed has been nothing short of a geopolitical rollercoaster ride.

On January 17, Trump announced he would impose a 10-percent import tariff on eight European allies that have opposed his bid to purchase the island: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Britain and the Netherlands. In an NBC News interview just two days later, he pointedly refused to rule out seizing Greenland by force, declaring on social media that the island is “imperative for National and World Security” and that “there can be no going back.”

On January 21, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump reversed course, claiming he had no intention of a forcible takeover. Instead, he framed the pursuit as a strategic necessity, citing the territory’s position between the U.S., Russia and China, and recasting history to suit his pitch. While accurately noting the U.S. had defended Greenland during World War II, he falsely claimed America “gave Greenland back” to Denmark after the war, asserting, “All the U.S. is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago.”

This rewriting obscures the fact that Greenland was never America’s to give—it has long been a self-governing part of Denmark.

Hours after his Davos speech, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that he had agreed to a “framework” with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte for a “future deal with respect to Greenland” and “the entire Arctic region.” As part of this arrangement, he stated he would suspend the threatened tariffs on European allies next month.

Trump’s National Security Strategy lays bare the imperialist ambitions of the US ruling class

The following article by Carlos Martinez argues that the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) marks a sharper and less diplomatic phase of US imperial policy. Its most notable feature is the explicit reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, pledging to block “non-Hemispheric competitors” from controlling strategic assets or positioning forces in the Americas. The article interprets this as a signal of escalating hybrid war against Latin American and Caribbean states that resist US dominance and maintain strong ties with China, Russia, Iran and other countries that resist imperialist hegemony.

A parallel theme is Europe’s changing role in US strategy. While previous Cold War alliances treated Western Europe as Washington’s primary partner against the Soviet Union, the NSS portrays Europe as economically weakened, politically fragmented, and strategically unreliable. The US instead expects Europe to accept a more clearly subordinate relationship, to spend its taxpayers’ money on the US military-industrial complex, to align fully with US sanctions and technology controls, and to absorb higher tariffs or punishment if it deviates. The document’s rhetoric on migration, “demographic collapse” and low birthrates is fuel for rising far-right nationalist politics that Washington may leverage.

Despite limited direct mentions of China, the NSS outlines a long-term confrontation strategy focused on the Indo-Pacific, strengthening US military presence in the Western Pacific, reinforcing the First Island Chain, boosting allies’ military budgets, and deepening support for Taiwan as a geopolitical flashpoint. The article concludes that the NSS prioritises maintaining US hegemony, disrupting China’s global influence, and suppressing multipolar alternatives, framing the strategy as a continuation and escalation of the US’s longstanding campaign of containment and encirclement of China.

A shorter version of this article first appeared in Beijing Review.

The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS), released in late November, has inspired widespread comment and a diverse array of interpretations.

The most striking feature of the document is its explicit re-assertion of the Monroe Doctrine, shifting the focus of US military strategy towards “defending our hemisphere”, with “more troops, bases and military operations” in the Americas. Hegemony over the Western Hemisphere is of course a constant of US foreign policy, but previous administrations have at least made some pretence at multilateralism and respect for international law. The NSS does away with any such niceties:

How the US lost its chip war on China

The following article by Gary Wilson, originally published in Struggle La Lucha, argues that the United States has effectively lost its attempt to contain China’s rise and preserve US monopoly control over advanced technology through semiconductor export controls. The Trump administration’s recent decision to allow renewed exports of Nvidia’s H200 AI chips to China, albeit with restrictions and fees, is a tacit admission that the chip war has failed. “The chip war did not revive US industry. It exposed its fragility.”

Tracing the origins of the chip war to the Obama-era Pivot to Asia, the article situates semiconductor restrictions within a broader strategy of military, economic, and technological containment. Under Trump and Biden, this evolved into an aggressive weaponisation of global supply chains, using export controls, sanctions and alliance pressure to block China’s access to advanced chips, manufacturing tools and software ecosystems.

Gary observes that China’s response was decisive and systematic. Through long-term state planning, and integration of AI into production and infrastructure, Chinese firms – Huawei in particular – have made rapid advances in domestic hardware and systems design. By compensating for individual chip inferiority with massive, coordinated clusters, China narrowed performance gaps and accelerated technological self-reliance. Export controls, instead of halting progress, intensified China’s drive toward technological sovereignty.

The fallout has been global. US reshoring efforts have yielded little fruit thus far; the US’s allies have been forced to absorb substantial losses, and trust in US-controlled supply chains has reached an all-time low. Allowing Nvidia exports is therefore essentially a retreat aimed at preserving residual influence through software dependence. The article concludes that monopoly enforcement has reached its limits: coercion cannot replace production, and the era of US-dictated technological dominance is ending.

Imperialist monopoly capitalism cannot outplan a system organized for long-term development. Coercion cannot substitute for production. Sanctions cannot replace planning… What comes next will not be decided by chips alone. It will be decided by which social system can organise production, labor, and technology to meet real needs over time. On that terrain, the chip war has already delivered its verdict.

When the White House quietly approved renewed exports of Nvidia’s H200 AI accelerators to China — with a 25% fee attached — it marked more than a policy adjustment. It marked the effective collapse of Washington’s semiconductor containment strategy.

After years of escalating export controls, sanctions, and alliance pressure, the United States is now conceding what the chip war made clear: China cannot be technologically frozen, and U.S. monopoly control over advanced technology is no longer enforceable.

Japan and the US move toward open military confrontation over Taiwan

In the following article, which was originally published by Struggle/La Lucha, Sharon Black analyses the joint moves of Japan and the United States to instigate war against socialist China.

Regarding new Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s statement that any Chinese move to reunify Taiwan with the mainland would threaten Japan’s very survival – and that Tokyo would be ready to join military action to stop it she writes:

“For Beijing, the message was clear: Japan was abandoning its long-standing stance of avoiding any commitment to take sides in a conflict over Taiwan and was now declaring that it would join the United States in a military response.”

Noting reports claiming that Donald Trump had privately urged Takaichi to tone down her public threats, Sharon observes:

“The move fits a familiar Trump pattern: loud public belligerence paired with quiet tactical repositioning when trade negotiations or economic pressure campaigns stall… But far from signaling a real shift, this is political maneuvering. Even as the administration adjusts its tone for trade talks with China, US war planning continues without pause, and Washington is pouring new investments into Japan’s military.

“At the same time that Japan was escalating its rhetoric, the United States approved a new $330 million arms package for Taiwan on November 13 – the first such sale under Trump’s return to office.”

Japan, she notes, remains the centrepiece of Washington’s military strategy in the western Pacific. The United States operates more than 120 military installations across the country, including 15 major bases, and stations over 54,000 troops there – the largest concentration of US forces anywhere outside the continental United States. Okinawa carries the heaviest burden of this occupation, with bases crowding the island and dominating local life.

Sharon also reminds readers that China’s response to Japan’s renewed new militarism cannot be understood without remembering the past. In the first half of the 20th century, the Japanese Empire invaded, occupied, and devastated large parts of China. The War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression brought mass displacement, famine, and systematic atrocities. The most infamous was the Nanjing Massacre of 1937, when Japanese troops killed an estimated 200,000 civilians and carried out widespread rape and torture. In the course of the eight-year war, more than 20 million Chinese people were killed.

She further explains that Taiwan’s modern history is inseparable from the Chinese revolution. As the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defeated the reactionary Kuomintang on the mainland, Chiang Kai-shek evacuated roughly 1.5 to 2 million soldiers, officials, and supporters to Taiwan.

Once ensconced on the island, the KMT imposed martial law and unleashed the “White Terror,” a brutal campaign of repression against workers, students, leftists, and anyone suspected of sympathising with the Chinese revolution. Tens of thousands were imprisoned, thousands were executed, and many simply disappeared into military prisons. The terror lasted for decades, well into the 1980s.

Meanwhile, in June 1950, US President Harry Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait, blocking the PLA from liberating Taiwan. For two decades Washington insisted that the Kuomintang remnants represented “Free China” and maneuvered to keep the People’s Republic out of the United Nations.

“This had nothing to do with ‘defending democracy.’ It was part of a broader US effort to contain the Chinese revolution and suppress anti-colonial movements rising across Asia.”

However: “Today, the world situation has changed dramatically. Both the United States and Japan are facing deep capitalist stagnation – marked by slowing growth, rising prices, and long-term economic decline. These crises are pushing the ruling classes in both countries toward greater militarism abroad. At the same time, socialist China has emerged as one of the central engines of the global economy.

Why is the West waging a propaganda war against China?

In the following text, based on a speech given by at a Black Liberation Alliance day school in London, Carlos Martinez explains why China’s rapid rise and its policy of win-win cooperation with the Global South threaten Western hegemony and fuel today’s New Cold War.

Carlos begins by emphasising the extraordinary scale of China’s transformation: from one of the poorest countries in the world just 75 years ago to a global leader in renewable energy, infrastructure, telecommunications, AI, electric vehicles and other advanced technologies. This economic and technological leap has been accompanied by vast improvements in living standards – average life expectancy has risen from 35 in 1949 to 79 today – and China is steadily pursuing “modernisation of common prosperity,” ensuring the fruits of development are reaped by the whole population.

Carlos contrasts this progress with the West’s neoliberal trajectory of inequality and stagnation. Crucially, China’s rise has not been based on colonialism or war. Instead, China aligns itself with the Global South, strengthens multipolar institutions such as BRICS and the SCO, and forms partnerships grounded in sovereign equality and mutual benefit. China’s investments in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean come without the coercive conditionalities typical of Western trade and investment relationships.

China therefore challenges imperialism both materially and ideologically. Materially, it helps countries escape underdevelopment while defending their sovereignty. Ideologically, it presents the pre-eminent modern example of a socialist-oriented model delivering prosperity, stability and green development. As living standards for Chinese workers approach – and start to surpass – those in Western countries, the legitimacy of Western capitalism weakens by the day.

In response, the US and its allies are escalating their long-term containment campaign in addition to waging a propaganda war which portrays China as authoritarian, repressive, expansionist and predatory. Carlos concludes that progressive and anti-war forces in the West have a vital responsibility to challenge this war propaganda and stand in solidarity with China and the Global South.

I’ve been asked to speak about why China’s rise and its programme of win-win cooperation with the Global South pose such a threat to western hegemony – and how that manifests itself in a New Cold War and as red scare propaganda.

The first thing then is to understand the dimensions of China’s rise, which is really nothing short of remarkable.

China has gone from being one of the poorest and most technologically backward countries in the world, to being the world’s second largest economy in terms of nominal GDP, the world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, the world’s only renewable energy superpower, a world leader in telecommunications, advanced infrastructure, high speed rail, artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, quantum computing, space exploration, and a whole range of other cutting edge technologies.

And these advances have taken place in combination with an unprecedented improvement in living standards for ordinary people. China’s average life expectancy in 1949, at the time of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, was approximately 35 years, substantially below the global average. Today it’s 79 years, substantially above the global average, and surpassing that of the United States (actually in terms of its healthy lifespan, China is many years ahead of the US). The draft of the 15th Five Year Plan, which will kick off next year, sets out a roadmap for life expectancy to reach at least 80 years by 2030, which will put China in a very exclusive club.

The US war on China, Venezuela and the international left

Over the past two months, the US has been engaged in an alarming military buildup around Venezuela, launching lethal strikes in international waters and openly weighing plans for direct attacks on Venezuelan territory. It is the largest US military concentration in the region in decades.

The arrival of the USS Gerald R Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, along with three destroyers and more than 5,500 troops, has heightened fears of imminent assault. The Ford joins roughly 10,000 US troops already stationed in the region. Ostensibly, these deployments are to counter drug trafficking, but Washington has provided exactly zero to substantiate any such threat. Since early September, US forces have carried out at least 19 airstrikes, killing nearly a hundred people on boats in international waters. These attacks have been widely denounced as being extrajudicial killings and blatant violations of international law.

The article below, written by CODEPINK activists Megan Russell and Michelle Ellner for Counterpunch, argues that the escalation against Venezuela is part of a multi-front war – domestically through repression and abroad through sanctions, tariffs, proxy wars and military aggression – to maintain US hegemony; to assert control over natural resources; and to subvert the global trajectory towards a multipolar world. The US push for war against both China and Venezuela “is but a violent reaction to the impending truth that US hegemonic status is slipping, and with it, its control on global resources, political power, and the ability to dictate the terms of development and sovereignty for the rest of the world.”

A similar point is made by Jeremy Corbyn in a piece for the Stop the War Coalition, in which he writes that the attack on Venezuela “is about the United States reasserting power in its (imperially named) ‘backyard’. It is no coincidence that this action is being taken at a time when countries in Latin and South America are looking increasingly towards BRICS trading partners, particularly China. Military intervention is just one part of a concerted assault on multipolarity.”

Megan and Michelle observe that China’s growing partnership with Venezuela provides a crucial counterweight to US hegemonism. Through loans, infrastructure projects, and friendly, mutually respectful relations, China has provided indispensable support for Venezuela’s sovereign development.

China has, over the past few decades, maintained a strong alliance with Venezuela. Starting in the early 2000s, China began providing Venezuela with tens of billions of dollars in loans to be repaid in oil shipments. This has enabled Venezuela to fund social programs and infrastructure while bypassing Western-controlled financial systems like the IMF and World Bank… China has also helped Venezuela build railways, housing projects, and telecommunications infrastructure as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to foster development across the Global South.

In response to this latest escalation, China has taken a clear and principled stand, continuing to develop its bilateral cooperation with Venezuela and roundly condemning the US’s “unilateral and excessive enforcement operations”, stressing that these violate international law and the UN Charter. China has urged the US to return to proper judicial cooperation frameworks rather than acting as a self-appointed global policeman. In contrast to Washington’s coercion, China’s position rests on respect for sovereignty and international law, and an orientation towards peace.

The article concludes with a call for the broadest possible solidarity:

The struggle against US imperialism is a global struggle. To stand with Venezuela, with China, or with any nation resisting domination is to stand for the possibility of a new internationalism rooted in solidarity across borders.
That is our task–to connect these struggles, to see in every act of resistance the reflection of our own, and to build a world of shared humanity and global equality.

Everywhere you look, the United States is at war– at home, through military occupation of cities, institutional violence, and state-sanctioned kidnappings, and abroad, through economic coercion, proxy warfare, and endless intervention. In times like these, when it is far too easy to be overwhelmed by the inexhaustible nature of the war machine, we must remember that these are not separate crises, but different fronts of the same struggle. And to resist one is to resist them all.

The enemy, in every case, is U.S. imperialism.

Resistance movements against U.S. imperialism have sprouted up all over the world in response to its indiscriminate violence and disregard for human life. Together, they form the living front of the international left, a network of people and organizations that seek liberation from the same systems of domination and colonial control. While their forms differ, from student encampments to workers’ strikes, the purpose remains the same: an end to empire and the creation of a new multipolar world rooted in the simple truth of our shared humanity and the equal worth of every nation and people.

The alliance between China and Venezuela is part of this broader project. And the U.S. push for war against both nations is but a violent reaction to the impending truth that U.S. hegemonic status is slipping, and with it, its control on global resources, political power, and the ability to dictate the terms of development and sovereignty for the rest of the world.

Martin Jacques and Carlos Martinez discuss Western misconceptions of China

In this episode of Wave Media’s Roughly Chinese podcast, hosted by Mimi Zhu and recorded live in Shanghai in October 2025, Martin Jacques (British academic and author of the bestselling When China Rules the World) and Carlos Martinez (co-editor of Friends of Socialist China and author of The East is Still Red) discuss their motivations for researching and writing about China; the trajectory of Britain-China relations; changing perceptions of China in the West; the long-term crisis of capitalism and its manifestation in an ascendant far-right in Britain; and more.

Germany is sabotaging its relations with China on behalf of Washington

In the following article, Sevim Dağdelen, German member of parliament from 2005-25 and foreign policy spokesperson of the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), contrasts two moments in German–Chinese relations, arguing that today’s German foreign policy is abandoning the mutual respect that characterised earlier diplomacy. She begins with the 1975 visit of West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to Beijing. Schmidt explicitly sought to break from European colonial attitudes, and called for the West to treat China as an equal partner.

Fifty years later, Dağdelen argues, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul represents the opposite approach. She describes Wadephul as adhering to Washington’s geopolitical dictates rather than pursuing an independent German foreign policy. His planned visit to China was cancelled at the last minute, following a trip to Asia in which he issued assorted slanders against Beijing. “His appearance gives the impression that he wants to continue the anti-Chinese turn in German foreign policy from 1937, and again pursue an alliance with Japan against China and Russia.”

Dağdelen writes that “neither German nor European foreign policy seems prepared to apply the principle of reciprocity in international relations.”

Wadephul appears in Asia only as the squire of knight Trump, who attempts to fight the Chinese wind-mills. Concretely, one laments China’s restrictions on the export of rare earths for Western arms companies without recognising that the export bans to China came from the USA. One laments Chinese tariffs on US products without mentioning that the first shot in the trade war with Beijing was clearly fired by the USA. One allows via the Netherlands a Chinese chip-manufacturer to be placed under Western control and then complains that China no longer delivers chips to Europe and Volkswagen’s production lines stand still. And one wants to teach Beijing morals on human rights, yet supports – as the German government does – Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, with arms and trade privileges.

Such behaviour is reprehensible; moreover, it will not succeed, as “China is a country that is ready to accept a challenge”.

The article concludes that Germany, by aligning with Washington’s confrontational stance, risks destroying 50 years of productive relations with China, undermining its own economic interests, and isolating itself from an emerging multipolar world order. Such a trajectory must be firmly resisted.

China is a centre of the multipolar world order. This insight is urgently needed. A German foreign policy that acts in the interest of the desperate maintenance of the USA’s doomed unipolar world order is destined to fail. In the interest of the German population however lies being in good relations with this centre.

This article first appeared in German in the Berliner Zeitung, and was published in English in Geopolitical Economy Report.

The visit of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to Beijing 50 years ago was a visit that lifted German-Chinese relations to a completely new level. On 31 October 1975, Schmidt met the Chinese head of state Mao Zedong. In preparation he had read Mao’s poems. It was the first visit of a German chancellor to China.

Schmidt remained someone who, throughout his life, wanted to break with the colonial past of the West in China, and advocated relations on equal footing and with mutual respect. For example, in his discussion of the book The Governance of China by Chinese President Xi Jinping, he called on the West to replace arrogance with fair competition in its relationship with China. Good relations with China were among the priorities of German foreign policy.

Trump makes fools of Britain’s China hawks

In this witty and perceptive article, originally published on his Substack, ‘The Rest is Bullshit’, Steve Howell excoriates Britain’s right wing anti-China hawks in politics and the media, arguing that Donald Trump’s positive meeting with President Xi Jinping in the Republic of Korea has exposed their foolishness.

Having noted that, “The US and China surprised almost everyone last week by calling off their trade war – for now at least. The summit between presidents Xi and Trump ended with both parties dropping plans for tougher trade restrictions and tariffs,” Howell adds:

“This was awkward for the British media. For weeks, they had been pumping out headlines on what they called the China spy scandal – the collapse of the prosecution [of] two men accused of passing information to China. There were virtually no dissenters to the view that the charges being dropped was bad news. The only issue for the media was who to blame for the failure to convict the two defendants, as if the small matter of their actual guilt was not in doubt.”

Giving the recent historical background, he writes that:

“In the build up to the US elections of 2016, both Bernie Sanders and Trump – from very different perspectives – made cheap imports from China an issue and blamed them for the de-industrialisation of the Midwest ‘rust belt’ states. On being elected, Trump introduced the first wave of tariffs on China, marking the start of a new Washington consensus that President Biden not only continued but escalated. True to form, Britain fell into line.”

However: “Amid the furore over the China ‘spy’ case, our commentariat appears not to have noticed the emerging change of policy in Washington.

“The Telegraph’s Sherelle Jacobs was certainly caught out badly, having written shortly before the summit that the government’s ‘refusal to break with China has explosive geopolitical implications.’ She thought that Britain’s ‘inaction over China’ could send Trump ‘over the edge’ and claimed that ‘if anything ends up destroying the Special Relationship it will be our gutless cosying up to Beijing.’ She must have been mortified when Trump described his meeting with Xi as ‘the G2 summit’, relegating the G7 – of which Britain is a member.”

He adds: “It remains to be seen what Trump’s China game plan is. The trade agreement arising from his summit with Xi has yet to be finalised. There is talk of Xi visiting Washington. Whatever happens, a couple of things are clear. Firstly, Britain’s long-standing policy – whoever occupies Downing Street – of hanging on to America’s coattails is a recipe for being badly bruised when there is a sudden change of direction. Secondly, if the US has had to treat China with respect, it is absurd for Britain to act as if it is ready to send gunboats up the Yangtze again.”

Steve Howell served as the Labour Party’s deputy director of strategy and communication in 2017, during the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. He is the author of ‘Game Changer: Eight Weeks That Transformed British Politics’, about Britain’s 2017 general election; ‘Collateral Damage’, a political and international relations thriller; and ‘Cold War Puerto Rico: Anti-Communism in Washington’s Caribbean Colony (Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond)’ (forthcoming).

The US and China surprised almost everyone last week by calling off their trade war – for now at least. The summit between presidents Xi and Trump ended with both parties dropping plans for tougher trade restrictions and tariffs. Asked to evaluate it on a scale of one to ten, Trump said that he thought “it was a 12.”

This was awkward for the British media. For weeks, they had been pumping out headlines on what they called the China spy scandal – the collapse of the prosecution two men accused of passing information to China. There were virtually no dissenters to the view that the charges being dropped was bad news. The only issue for the media was who to blame for the failure to convict the two defendants, as if the small matter of their actual guilt was not in doubt.

War of position vs. war of manoeuvre: China’s Gramscian trade strategy

The article below, written by CJ Atkins for People’s World, analyses the recent Trump–Xi summit in Busan, South Korea, noting that while both leaders announced modest compromises – with the US easing tariffs and approving limited chip exports, and China resuming agricultural purchases and delaying rare earth export regulations – the meeting “represents a truce, not a treaty”.

The ambitions of the U.S. corporate oligarchy to derail China’s growth and hobble their competition have not been set aside. Nor have China’s desires to continue developing its economy and raising living standards for its 1.4 billion people… There is still a contest underway between the world’s biggest capitalist power and the world’s biggest socialist country, and the leaders of the two nations are following very different strategies as they seek to bring the rest of the globe onside.

To interpret this ongoing struggle, the article draws on Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s distinction between a “war of manoeuvre” and a “war of position.” A war of manoeuvre is a rapid, frontal assault to disrupt the status quo; a war of position is slower, focused on building long-term consensus and influence within institutions and public opinion. “Neither strategy was inherently right or wrong, Gramsci said; it was a matter of surveying the battlefield, so to speak, and determining which was appropriate given the political situation at the time.”

Trump’s trade war embodies the war of manoeuvre: abrupt tariffs, bans on technology exports, and pressure on allies to cut trade with China. His aim is to force quick concessions and signal dominance to domestic political supporters and corporate interests.

China by contrast is engaged in a war of position. The Chinese leadership emphasises cooperation, multilateralism, and shared prosperity. Rather than retaliating aggressively against the US’s unilateral measures, China strengthens regional institutions and trade networks – upgrading the China–ASEAN free-trade agreement, deepening APEC cooperation and upgrading trade partnerships. As a result, China is seen as a predictable and responsible global partner.

The article argues that Trump’s aggressive tactics have largely failed: US tariffs raised domestic inflation, damaged the agricultural sector, and highlighted China’s success over the course of recent years diversifying suppliers and trade partners. “By trying to enforce subservience to his demands, Trump’s strategy has actually generated further legitimacy for China’s model of multilateral cooperation in the eyes of much of the world.” CJ concludes:

Trump’s war of manoeuvre has depended on flashy claims and regular assurances of victories that are yet to materialise. But as China is showing in practice, and as Gramsci concluded in his Prison Notebooks, “In politics, the ‘war of position,’ once won, is decisive definitively.”

Fresh off his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump hailed the summit as “amazing,” a “12” on a scale of 1 to 10. Xi’s assessment was also positive but more measured in tone. “In the face of winds, waves, and challenges,” he said, “we should stay the right course, navigate through the complex landscape, and ensure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China-U.S. relations.”

Headlines in the media, meanwhile, rattled off details of the agreements reached in Busan: A delay of Chinese rare earth export controls, the lowering of the U.S.’ supposedly fentanyl-linked tariff rates, the resumption of Chinese purchases of American soybeans, U.S. approval for the sale of some advanced microchips to Chinese firms, the mutual lowering of port fees, further talks about the future of TikTok, and more.

Understanding the changes unseen in a century

The following text is based on a presentation given by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez at the Thinkers Forum, held at Fudan University, Shanghai, on 16 October 2025, which event brought together thinkers and scholars from around the world to discuss “Global Changes and the Reshaping of the World Order.”

Carlos explores the meaning of Xi Jinping’s observation that “the world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century”, arguing that these changes reflect a historic shift from Western-led unipolar dominance toward a multipolar, post-imperialist global order. The article traces these changes back to the October Revolution of 1917, which opened a new era of socialist development and anti-colonial liberation.

After the setbacks of the 1980s and 1990s — including the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of neoliberal globalisation — Western commentators like Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”. Yet, as Deng Xiaoping noted, history advances through contradictions and reversals. The 2008 financial crisis, widening inequality and environmental collapse have since exposed the limits of neoliberal capitalism.

Meanwhile, a multipolar world is emerging. China stands at the centre of this process, advancing initiatives such as the Belt and Road, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative — all based on sovereignty, non-interference, and mutual benefit. Such efforts are helping countries of the Global South break from dependency and pursue sustainable, sovereign development.

The US and its allies, meanwhile, cling to hegemony through wars, sanctions, economic coercion and destabilisation. Humanity faces a stark choice: socialism or barbarism, cooperation or confrontation. Carlos concludes by calling for a global united front of socialist, anti-imperialist, and progressive forces to ensure that this century’s transformations lead to peace, justice, and sustainable development.

Carlos’s presentation was summarised in the popular Chinese news website Guancha.

General Secretary Xi Jinping has observed several times that “the world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century”. What are these changes, and what are their implications for the current global situation?

Before addressing the changes the world is experiencing today, it is worthwhile reflecting on the major changes that occurred a century ago, since the dramatic shifts of that time laid the foundations for the transformations we are witnessing now.

The October Revolution of 1917 was a watershed moment marking the beginning of humanity’s transition from capitalism to socialism. The revolution in Russia led to the formation of the world’s first socialist state – the Soviet Union – which became a revolutionary base area for the working class and oppressed peoples of the world. The Soviet Union provided crucial support for the liberation of, and construction of socialism in, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere.

The Soviet Union and China played the decisive role in the defeat of fascism in World War II. This victory gave tremendous impetus to the anti-colonial movement and national liberation struggles around the world – in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in the Caribbean and the Pacific. The colonial system was no longer viable.

As such, the October Revolution constituted the first major breach in the imperialist world system, thereby marking the start of the current era of human development.