New Cold War Archives - Page 2 of 17 - Friends of Socialist China

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

The US ruling class, not China, is responsible for the opioid crisis

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-founder Danny Haiphong, originally published in Beijing Review, discusses the growing opioid crisis in the United States and the tendency of US politicians to place blame for the crisis on China. Noting that opioid overdoses caused over 112,000 deaths in 2023, Danny writes that “the causes for the spike in both the use of fentanyl and its deadly consequences have been obscured by the rampant politicization of the issue”.

The House Select Committee on “Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party” claims that China has been promoting the manufacture and export of the precursor chemicals critical to the production of fentanyl. Danny observes however that this claim is not substantiated by meaningful evidence, and furthermore “disregards China’s serious efforts in cracking down on the trafficking of fentanyl despite having no domestic problem with opioid abuse.” For example, in 2019, “China became the first country in the world to include all fentanyl-related substances in its supplementary list of controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.”

In truth the regulatory failures are taking place in the US, not China – “in large part due to the influence of corporate power on politics”. The attempt to pin blame on China is part of a broader New Cold War agenda in which China is demonised and its rise presented as an existential threat to the Western way of life. This narrative in turn serves to justify the US military build-up in the Pacific and the escalating campaign of China encirclement.

It is no secret that drug addiction is a major problem in the United States. When it comes to opioids, the crisis has become increasingly deadly. Over 112,000 fatal overdoses occurred in the U.S. in 2023. The potent synthetic opioid, fentanyl, is now a household name for its role in aggravating overdoses in the country to such a historic scale.

However, the causes for the spike in both the use of fentanyl and its deadly consequences have been obscured by the rampant politicization of the issue. In recent years, U.S. political elites have attempted to explain away the crisis by blaming a convenient scapegoat: China.

The House Select Committee on “Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party” in April released a report claiming that China has directly subsidized precursor chemicals critical to the production of fentanyl.

The insinuation is that China is directly trading these substances with illicit fentanyl producers and therefore fueling the opioid crisis in the U.S.

Blaming China for the opioid crisis didn’t begin this year, however. Political officials placed fentanyl production at the top of their domestic agenda in 2021 and immediately blamed China for the deadly consequences. U.S. President Joe Biden stated prior to his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC conference in San Francisco, California, last November that he would make pressuring China on fentanyl a key topic and claimed a “diplomatic victory” after China and the U.S. agreed to resume talks on the issue.

Blaming China for the U.S. opioid overdose crisis is rife with problems. For one, the House committee is a byproduct of a broader Cold War agenda and the credibility of its report is in serious question given the majority of its sources are anecdotal or regurgitation of Western media claims.

Furthermore, U.S. claims disregard China’s serious efforts in cracking down on the trafficking of fentanyl despite having no domestic problem with opioid abuse. In 2019, China became the first country in the world to include all fentanyl-related substances in its supplementary list of controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

The country has also taken numerous security measures in compliance with the law, and many of these actions include cooperating directly with U.S. export-import control mechanisms.

It’s also important to note that the responsibility of how precursor chemicals are utilized falls on the importing country. The U.S. has consistently ignored necessary regulations on the sale and distribution of opioids in large part due to the influence of corporate power on politics.

U.S. pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma LP is infamous for starting the opioid epidemic in the U.S. beginning in the 1990s as the maker and aggressive peddler of OxyContin, a strong and potentially addictive pain medication.

Purdue Pharma opened the floodgates to the over-prescription of opioids within an already profit-driven health insurance and medical system. For the past 30 years, pharmaceutical corporations have poured billions of dollars into political campaigns to ensure that their products receive legislative priority and protection.

The close relationship between U.S. politicians and pharmaceutical corporations has created what’s called the “revolving door.” For example, during the Donald Trump administration, former Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb resigned to join the board of directors of Pfizer, one of the world’s premier pharmaceutical and biomedical enterprises.

And the revolving door is no partisan affair. Major members of Biden’s staff, such as former Deputy Chief of Staff Jennifer O’Malley Dillon and current Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, have worked for law firms representing major pharmaceutical corporations such as Pfizer and Gilead Sciences, Inc.

The U.S. geopolitical footprint on the illicit drug trade has contributed to countless suffering and chaos throughout the Global South, or the nations of the world that are considered to have a relatively low level of economic and industrial development and are typically located to the south of more industrialized nations. The U.S. played a role in the Opium Wars in the 19th century which led to China’s “century of humiliation” and was a major force in the global opium trade of that period. Throughout the Cold War, covert U.S. wars in Latin America led to the proliferation of the drug trade from Colombia to Central America. And Afghanistan, suffering decades of U.S. interventions, became the top producer of opium in the world for much of the 21st century until its growth and distribution was banned by the Taliban in 2022 following the U.S. withdrawl from the country.

Blaming China won’t address any self-inflicted wounds. It is U.S. policy, or rather the lack thereof, that is responsible for making American society an attractive market for the illicit drug trade. Despair, stress, poverty and racial discrimination make for a toxic mix that continues to fester and grow in the heart of American society. Political leaders and their elite sponsors are the ones who need to be held accountable. Not China.

Wang Yi: BRICS is opening up a new chapter of the Global South

The Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of the BRICS dialogue mechanism was held on June 10 in the Russian city of Nizhny Novgorod. Russia holds the rotating chair of BRICS for 2024 and the meeting of foreign ministers was preparatory to the annual summit, to be held in Kazan. It was attended by the nine current BRICS member countries, along with 12 other developing countries, namely Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Türkiye, Mauritania, Cuba, Venezuela and Bahrain.

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the participants had an in-depth exchange of views on BRICS cooperation and international and regional hotspot issues. All parties spoke highly of the important role of the BRICS mechanism and the achievements of its membership expansion. They agreed that the accession of more countries to BRICS has accelerated the process of building a multipolar world and promoted a more just and equitable international order. They also voiced support for the establishment of partner countries. All parties called for adherence to multilateralism, opposition to unilateralism and protectionism, promoting reform of the international financial architecture, enhancing and improving global governance, and increasing the voice and representation of developing countries. They also emphasised the need for peaceful settlement of disputes through dialogue and consultations and their support for all efforts conducive to peaceful resolution of crises. The meeting adopted a joint statement, the full text of which can be read here.

In his speech to the meeting, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that: “Over the past year, BRICS cooperation has moved forward with highlights, with speed and with strength.We made pioneering efforts and expanded the BRICS mechanism, opening up a new chapter of the Global South seeking strength through unity… Upon expansion, BRICS countries account for nearly half of the global population and one-fifth of global trade, and their total economic output has overtaken that of the G7 in PPP [Purchasing Power Parity] terms.”

Unmistakeably referring to the United States, Wang said that a major country was “still harbouring Cold War mentality, is cobbling up geopolitical blocs and even publicly challenging United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, which erodes the authority of multilateral mechanisms. Economic issues are politicised; the notion of national security is overstretched; and unilateral sanctions and technology barriers are growing. In the face of a contest between forces promoting world multipolarity and forces holding onto unipolar hegemony, between globalisation and anti-globalisation, we must follow the trend of history, stand on the side of fairness and justice, and make the right choice.”

He further stressed the need to, “firm up determination to safeguard peace and security and make new contributions to the political settlement of international hotspot issues. History shows that Cold War mentality, bloc confrontation or external interference cannot solve problems. Instead, they will create bigger problems or even crises. No matter how complex the situation is, parties must not give up dialogue and consultation. No matter how acute the conflict is, political settlement must be pursued.”

Addressing the two major conflicts in the world today, China’s top diplomat said that the war in Gaza is testing human conscience and sense of justice. We must push for an immediate ceasefire that is comprehensive and lasting, ease the humanitarian crisis and prevent further spillover of the conflict. We should support Palestine’s bid for full UN membership, support its efforts to restore legitimate national rights, restart the two-state solution, and bring about lasting peace in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine also continues. China supports the convening, in due course, of a true international peace conference that is recognised by both Russia and Ukraine, participated in by all sides on an equal footing, and where all peace plans are discussed fairly. BRICS countries should take an independent, objective and just stance, help build international consensus for peace, and oppose attempts to instigate a new Cold War.

He also alluded to the need to break dollar hegemony in international banking and finance, saying: “We should work for early breakthroughs on local currency settlement and cross-border payment cooperation through the financial track. We should promote the use of more diverse currencies at the New Development Bank for financing and increase the share of local currencies in investment and financing activities.”

Wang Yi also held a number of bilateral meetings with his counterparts on the sidelines of the gathering.

Meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he noted that President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to China was a great success, adding that both sides should fully implement the important common understandings reached between the top leaders of the two countries and advance cooperation in various fields.

Lavrov said that Russia is willing to closely cooperate with China on multilateral platforms including the UNSC and enhance diplomatic coordination. The number of like-minded countries continues to increase in international and regional affairs while BRICS expansion reflects this positive trend.

Speaking with South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor, Wang Yi congratulated South Africa on the smooth holding of the general election and the African National Congress (ANC) on continuing to play a leading role in South Africa’s politics as the largest party. He expressed the belief that the ANC will remain true to its original aspiration and firm faith and continue to lead the South African people to make greater achievements in building a new South Africa enjoying unity, stability and prosperity. Last year, President Xi Jinping paid a state visit to South Africa and attended the BRICS Summit, during which he reached important common understandings with President Cyril Ramaphosa, ushering in a new era of building a high-level China-South Africa community with a shared future. The historic expansion of the BRICS mechanism in South Africa has further encouraged the Global South countries to seek strength through unity.

China, he added, attaches importance to South Africa’s role as a major developing country, and stands ready to keep close multilateral coordination, be an objective, balanced and constructive voice on the Ukraine crisis and other hotspot issues, and contribute to world peace and stability.

Naledi Pandor said that last year, South Africa was honoured to host President Xi Jinping and thanked China for supporting South Africa in successfully hosting the BRICS Summit. South Africa not only attaches great importance to its relations with China, but also attaches great importance to Africa’s cooperation with China and the role of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). Cooperation with China is the most important part of Africa’s international cooperation. Naledi Pandor looks forward to China strengthening cooperation in such fields as infrastructure, digital economy, renewable energy and human resources development in light of Africa’s development needs, so as to contribute to the continent’s stable development.

Meeting with Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira, Wang Yi noted that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of China-Brazil diplomatic relations, a significant year in bridging the past and the future for the development of bilateral relations. As President Xi Jinping stressed, both sides should grasp the strategic importance of the China-Brazil relationship, enhance its mutually beneficial nature, and highlight its comprehensiveness. China values Brazil’s significant influence in the Latin American region and is willing to jointly promote cooperation between China, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur).

For his part, Mauro Vieira said that Brazil highly values its relationship with China, is ready to closely engage in high-level exchanges with China, strengthen cooperation in various fields including trade and economy, and define a new positioning for bilateral relations to open new prospects for the next 50 years. Brazil and China share similar stances on many issues, and the joint statement on the six common understandings on the political settlement of the Ukraine issue is of great importance. Noting that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva firmly believes that dialogue and cooperation between China and CELAC are highly significant, Vieira said the China-CELAC Forum is a beneficial platform, and Brazil is willing to work with China to arrange forum activities and promote its further development.

On meeting with Iranian Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani, Wang Yi expressed condolences once again over the unfortunate passing of President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in a helicopter accident. Wang Yi said that during the current period, the Iranian state and nation has undergone a significant test. As a comprehensive strategic partner, China supports the Iranian government and people in adhering to their established domestic and foreign policies, maintaining independence, sovereignty, stability and development, and wishes Iran a successful presidential election.

Ali Bagheri Kani, on behalf of the Iranian government, thanked China for expressing condolences over the unfortunate passing of the President and Foreign Minister and for sending a special representative to attend the memorial service.

Under the current international circumstances, he continued, developing Iran-China relations not only benefits the people of both countries but is also conducive to regional and world peace and stability, as well as to building a fairer and more reasonable international order and safeguarding the legitimate rights of developing countries. Unilateralism has reached a dead end, and cannot solve domestic problems, let alone global issues, as is fully proved in the prolonged Gaza conflict. Iran is willing to strengthen communication and coordination with China in international and regional affairs, jointly uphold multilateralism, and seek solutions to global issues.

Meeting with Taye Atske Selassie, the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia, a new member of BRICS, Wang noted that Ethiopia is an influential African nation and the seat of the African Union (AU) headquarters. Over the past two years, Ethiopia has made orderly progress in its domestic peace process and made remarkable achievements in economic and social development. Wang Yi expressed his belief that the Ethiopian government and people will achieve even greater success on the path of peace, development, and prosperity.

Noting Ethiopia’s deep friendship with China, Taye Atske Selassie said the elevation of bilateral relations to an all-weather strategic partnership is warmly welcomed by the Ethiopian government and people. China is Ethiopia’s largest source of foreign investment and export destination, and bilateral cooperation has strongly promoted Ethiopia’s economic and social development. Ethiopia is willing to learn from China’s development experience and to work with other African countries to promote greater development in China-Africa cooperation.

In his meeting with Lao Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Saleumxay Kommasith, Wang Yi said that under the strategic guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping and General Secretary Thongloun Sisoulith, solid progress has been made in building a China-Laos community with a shared future. In the face of the complex international situation and domestic development tasks, China and Laos, as friendly neighbours with a shared future, need to work together to meet challenges, eliminate all kinds of external interference, oppose stoking bloc confrontation, and earnestly safeguard regional peace and stability. China firmly supports Laos in serving as the rotating chair of ASEAN (the Association of South East Asian Nations) and working together to build an even closer China-ASEAN community with a shared future.

Saleumxay Kommasith said that both Laos and China are socialist countries with similar ideas and systems. They both adhere to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and are committed to safeguarding international justice and world peace. In the face of the current complex international and regional situation, the importance of Laos-China cooperation has never been greater.

Wang Yi also met with Thai Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa and noted that China is full of confidence in the prospect of China-Thailand relations and is willing to strengthen high-level exchanges with Thailand, enhance cooperation in various fields, accelerate the construction of the China-Thailand Railway and other major projects, and realise the vision of interconnected development of China, Laos and Thailand at an early date.

Maris Sangiampongsa said that Thailand hopes to learn from China’s successful experience in economic development, strengthen practical cooperation in various fields, and better achieve economic and social development. Thailand stands ready to work with China to jointly plan the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of their diplomatic relations next year so as to highlight the close friendship between the two peoples. Thailand is also ready to join the BRICS mechanism as soon as possible, play a more active role in South-South cooperation, and strengthen coordination and cooperation with China on multilateral platforms.

The following articles were originally published on the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Pooling Strengths and Working Together For a Brighter Future of BRICS

June 11 (Foreign Ministry)

Remarks by H.E. Wang Yi at the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs / International Relations Meeting

Nizhny Novgorod, June 10, 2024

Dear Colleagues,

Good morning. It is a great pleasure to join you at Nizhny Novgorod for the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs / International Relations Meeting. I thank Minister Lavrov and the Russian government for the thoughtful arrangements.

The perils and promise of the emerging multipolar world

In his recent article for Common Dreams, Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs describes the world’s trajectory towards multipolarity over the past three decades. He notes that, “in 1994, the G7 countries constituted 45.3% of world output, compared with 18.9% of world output in the BRICS countries (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates). The tables have turned. The BRICS now produce 35.2% of world output, while the G7 countries produce 29.3%.”

The West’s political influence is also waning, as exemplified by the failure of the US-led sanctions against Russia from 2022: “When the US-led group introduced economic sanctions on Russia in 2022, very few countries outside the core alliance joined. As a result, Russia had little trouble shifting its trade to countries outside the US-led alliance.”

Sachs notes that emerging economies such as China, Russia are Iran are breaking the imperialist stranglehold on technological innovation. In China’s case, it “clearly has a large lead in the manufacturing of cutting-edge technologies needed for the global energy transition, including batteries, electric vehicles, 5G, photovoltaics, wind turbines, fourth generation nuclear power, and others. China’s rapid advances in space technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other technologies is similarly impressive.” All of this is “underpinned by enormous R&D spending and its vast and growing labor force of scientists and engineers.”

And yet US strategists refuse to accept this new reality, and are instead doubling down on their efforts to maintain their hegemony, primarily through military means:

The US is still trying to maintain primacy in Europe by surrounding Russia in the Black Sea region with NATO forces, yet Russia has resisted this militarily in both Georgia and Ukraine. The US is still trying to maintain primacy in Asia by surrounding China in the South China Sea, a folly that can lead the US into a disastrous war over Taiwan. The US is also losing its standing in the Middle East by resisting the united call of the Arab world for recognition of Palestine as the 194th United Nations member state.

In a post-hegemonic, multipolar world, it is crucial that the US and its allies give up on this dangerous and futile quest for global dominance.

The World Bank’s release on May 30 of its latest estimates of national output (up to the year 2022) offers an occasion to reflect on the new geopolitics. The new data underscore the shift from a U.S.-led world economy to a multipolar world economy, a reality that U.S. strategists have so far failed to recognize, accept, or admit.

The World Bank figures make clear that the economic dominance of the West is over. In 1994, the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., U.S.) constituted 45.3% of world output, compared with 18.9% of world output in the BRICS countries (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates). The tables have turned. The BRICS now produce 35.2% of world output, while the G7 countries produce 29.3%.

As of 2022, the largest five economies in descending order are China, the U.S., India, Russia, and Japan. China’s GDP is around 25% larger than the U.S.’ (roughly 30% of the U.S. GDP per person but with 4.2 times the population). Three of the top five countries are in the BRICS, while two are in the G7. In 1994, the largest five were the U.S., Japan, China, Germany, and India, with three in the G7 and two in the BRICS.

As the shares of world output change, so too does global power. The core U.S.-led alliance, which includes the U.S., Canada, U.K., European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, was 56% of world output in 1994, but now is only 39.5%. As a result, the U.S. global influence is waning. As a recent vivid example, when the U.S.-led group introduced economic sanctions on Russia in 2022, very few countries outside the core alliance joined. As a result, Russia had little trouble shifting its trade to countries outside the U.S.-led alliance.

The world economy is experiencing a deep process of economic convergence, according to which regions that once lagged the West in industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuries are now making up for lost time. Economic convergence actually began in the 1950s as European imperial rule in Africa and Asia came to an end. It has proceeded in waves, starting first in East Asia, then roughly 20 years later India, and for the coming 20-40 years in Africa.

These and some other regions are growing much faster than the Western economies since they have more “headroom” to boost GDP by rapidly raising education levels, boosting workers’ skills, and installing modern infrastructure, including universal access to electrification and digital platforms. The emerging economies are often able to leapfrog the richer countries with state-of-the-art infrastructure (e.g., fast intercity rail, 5G, modern airports and seaports) while the richer countries remain stuck with aging infrastructure and expensive retrofits. The IMF’s World Economic Outlook projects that the emerging and developing economies will average growth of around 4% per year in the coming five years, while the high-income countries will average less than 2% per year.

It’s not only in skills and infrastructure that convergence is occurring. Many of the emerging economies, including China, Russia, Iran, and others, are advancing rapidly in technological innovations as well, in both civilian and military technologies.

China clearly has a large lead in the manufacturing of cutting-edge technologies needed for the global energy transition, including batteries, electric vehicles, 5G, photovoltaics, wind turbines, fourth generation nuclear power, and others. China’s rapid advances in space technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other technologies is similarly impressive. In response, the U.S. has made the absurd claim that China has an “overcapacity” in these cutting-edge technologies, while the obvious truth is that the U.S. has a significant under-capacity in many sectors. China’s capacity for innovation and low-cost production is underpinned by enormous R&D spending and its vast and growing labor force of scientists and engineers.

Despite the new global economic realities, the U.S. security state still pursues a grand strategy of “primacy,” that is, the aspiration of the U.S. to be the dominant economic, financial, technological, and military power in every region of the world. The U.S. is still trying to maintain primacy in Europe by surrounding Russia in the Black Sea region with NATO forces, yet Russia has resisted this militarily in both Georgia and Ukraine. The U.S. is still trying to maintain primacy in Asia by surrounding China in the South China Sea, a folly that can lead the U.S. into a disastrous war over Taiwan. The U.S. is also losing its standing in the Middle East by resisting the united call of the Arab world for recognition of Palestine as the 194th United Nations member state.

Yet primacy is certainly not possible today, and was hubristic even 30 years ago when U.S. relative power was much greater. Today, the U.S. share of world output stands at 14.8%, compared with 18.5% for China, and the U.S. share of world population is a mere 4.1%, compared with 17.8% for China.

The trend toward broad global economic convergence means that U.S. hegemony will not be replaced by Chinese hegemony. Indeed, China’s share of world output is likely to peak at around 20% during the coming decade and thereafter to decline as China’s population declines. Other parts of the world, notably including India and Africa, are likely to show a large rise in their respective shares of global output, and with that, in their geopolitical weight as well.

We are therefore entering a post-hegemonic, multipolar world. It too is fraught with challenges. It could usher in a new “tragedy of great power politics,” in which several nuclear powers compete—in vain—for hegemony. It could lead to a breakdown of fragile global rules, such as open trade under the World Trade Organization. Or, it could lead to a world in which the great powers exercise mutual tolerance, restraint, and even cooperation, in accord with the U.N. Charter, because they recognize that only such statecraft will keep the world safe in the nuclear age.

On China’s overcapacity

The article below, written for Friends of Socialist China by Shiran Illanperuma, addresses the latest ideological weapon in the Biden-Trump trade war against China: that of ‘overcapacity’. According to Western politicians and neoliberal economists, China’s industrial subsidies and production capacity are to blame for the US’s trade deficit and its apparent inability to reindustrialise its economy.

Shiran, citing fellow Marxist economist Michael Roberts, observes that the US and EU have sustained trade deficits since decades ago, before China’s emergence as an industrial superpower: “In a previous era, it was Japan and Germany that were the source of the US’s protracted trade deficits.” This rather suggests that “the main problem is the decline in the competitiveness and productive capabilities of the US itself rather than China’s (or, for that matter, anyone else’s) industrial policies.”

The article shows that China’s capacity utilisation and inventory levels almost exactly match those of the US. Hence, according to standard metrics, China is no more guilty of ‘overcapacity’ than the US itself. What is true is that China is actively working to contain excess capacity in mature industries such as coal and steel. However, in emerging technologies – particularly those required for solving the climate crisis – China is leveraging its socialist market economy to rapidly innovate and develop its productive forces. It should be noted that this strategy is responsible for a decrease in solar PV and wind energy costs of around 90 percent over the last decade. From the standpoint of maintaining a habitable Earth, the accusations of Chinese ‘overcapacity’ are beyond absurd.

Ultimately, what’s driving these accusations is that “Western imperialism is in crisis and can no longer sustain the position of its old labour aristocracy.”

The thesis of Chinese overcapacity therefore serves a dual purpose. First, it provides the Western ruling class with a means to deflect criticism of its own neoliberal policies in order to scapegoat China for the destruction of its industrial base. Second, it allows that same ruling class to resort to protectionism and subsidies on behalf of monopoly capitalists.

Shiran concludes:

For its part, China is developing technologies that are crucial for the future of mankind. It has done so while the ruling elite in the West gamble away wealth produced by workers through stock buybacks and real estate speculation. It is up to the Western Left to organise workers against imperialism and anti-China chauvinism, and to fight to liberate the productive forces necessary to address the socioeconomic and ecological challenges of this century.

Shiran Illanperuma is an independent journalist and researcher. He is currently reading for a master’s degree in economic policy at SOAS University of London.

In the last few months, there has been an intensified campaign by Western politicians, academics, and mainstream media to popularise the narrative of “Chinese overcapacity.” Like the disproven narrative of the “Chinese debt trap” before it, this appears to be a coordinated attempt by the West to scapegoat China for structural problems and imbalances in the world capitalist economy.

The thesis of China’s manufacturing overcapacity has been in circulation since at least the global financial crisis. In short, the argument goes that China’s investment-driven growth model creates both local and global imbalances. It is argued that higher investment suppresses consumption (as a share of GDP) and drives income inequality and excess production capacity within China. It is further argued that such imbalances are to blame for China’s excessive exports and massive trade surplus, which is said to be at the cost of the United States’ trade deficit.

In academia, this argument has been popularised by Keynesian economist Michael Pettis, who is a Professor of Finance at Peking University. Brad Setser, a former senior advisor to the United States Trade Representative, has also been a champion of this argument. Notably, the overcapacity thesis has also been a consistent theme of the IMF on China.

In May, the IMF Mission to China published a report stating that in order to ensure growth, China’s key priorities should include “rebalancing the economy towards consumption by strengthening the social safety net, liberalising the services sector, and scaling back distortive supply side policies that support the manufacturing sector [emphasis added].”

The IMF is, of course, a Western-dominated institution, where China controls just 6% of voting shares despite contributing to 18% of global GDP.

The overcapacity thesis has been an increasing source of diplomatic tension. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has attempted to rally the G7 on the issue and coax Global South countries such as India and Mexico into the debate. Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has argued that Chinese industrial policy is distorting the EU market for electric vehicles (EVs).

The Chinese side has reacted strongly to these allegations. Chinese President Xi Jinping said that there was no such thing as a Chinese overcapacity problem. Meanwhile, Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yadong has said that the accusation of Chinese overcapacity was a typical Western double standard. More recently, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said, “Overcapacity is just a pretext the US uses to try to coerce G7 members into creating fences and restrictions for Chinese new energy products.”

Following in Trump’s footsteps, the Biden administration recently threw up a slew of new tariffs against Chinese products, including 25% on steel and aluminium, 50% on semiconductors, 50% on solar panels, and a whopping 100% on electric vehicles (EVs). As the US-led trade war against China intensifies, it is worth reflecting on the facts behind the overcapacity thesis.

Measuring China’s overcapacity

French entrepreneur and analyst Arnaud Bertrand has argued that the concept of overcapacity can be measured with a few standard metrics: 1. capacity utilisation rates; and 2. inventory levels.

In economics, capacity utilisation refers to the share of production capacity that is in use at any given time. Generally speaking, a prolonged period of high capacity utilisation can indicate a need to expand productive capacity. In contrast, a prolonged period of low capacity may indicate a need to reduce productive capacity. Bertrand points out that the capacity utilisation rate in China is 76%, which is around the same as in the United States, which is 78%.

Inventory levels are generally used as a measure of how well sales are doing. A growing inventory of goods might mean a combination of sluggish demand or overproduction, while a shrinking inventory might mean growing demand and underproduction. Bertrand points out that the finished good inventory index PMI for China stood at 49, while a similar index for manufacturing inventory for the United States stood at 50.

Neither of the above numbers suggests that China has any more overcapacity than the US. On the contrary, the fact that Chinese industrial profits continue to grow suggests that there is ready demand for Chinese manufactures. Several analysts have also argued that China’s drive to increase production capacity for new energy products makes it indispensable in the global fight for ecological sustainability.

Contrasting the US’s severe urban decay with China’s extraordinary infrastructure development

In the following article, originally published in the Morning Star, Roger McKenzie contrasts the economic priorities of the US with those of China.

Reporting from Washington DC and New York City, and reflecting on the recent Friends of Socialist China delegation to China, he compares the level of investment in infrastructure in the two countries. A train journey between DC and NYC “revealed a picture of severe urban decay in supposedly the world’s most important and richest nation” – a reflection of the fact that, in the US, “the government, of any colour, prefers to spend immense amounts of money on the military as opposed to the people.”

The article continues:

The US is visibly decaying economically as well as politically, while China is clearly stable, able to act on behalf of the people and on the way up. The transport infrastructure, road, rail and airport systems in China have undergone a massive upgrades in length and quality over the last decade. This is a sentence you simply can’t apply to the US.

In the five cities I visited during my 10-day visit to China I never saw a single homeless person and felt entirely safe to walk the streets and speak with anyone I wanted. Nobody stopped me from doing any of those things. I never felt the same level of safety in DC — or New York for that matter.

Roger notes that the US could learn a great deal from China. If it were willing to adapt to a multipolar reality and give up on its dream of a New American Century, it could prioritise the needs of its people over those of the military-industrial complex. However, he warns that the current trajectory is towards leveraging the US’s military power to maintain its global dominance, even as its economic power wanes. “The temptation will be for the empire to strike back as its power crumbles. Unfortunately it is something I think we are already seeing in Ukraine and in its attempts to stoke up tensions in the breakaway Chinese province of Taiwan.”

The challenge for the left is therefore to build a powerful mass movement that combines the struggle for socialism at home with the struggle against imperialism and war.

Roger will be among the speakers at the upcoming webinar China proves that a new world is possible! on 16 June.

EMPIRES always end. All of them. The only question is about the nature of that end. We can see this before our eyes as the United States empire reaches its inevitable end, internationally and domestically.

We can see it happening in front of our eyes if we choose to look. One of the advantages of travelling by train instead of flying is you get to see much more of the reality of a country.

The Acela Express train ride of 230 miles or so for three hours from New York City to the US capital, Washington DC, was depressing in so many ways.

The train itself was better and more comfortable than many I have travelled on in Britain, but the journey revealed a picture of severe urban decay in supposedly the world’s most important and richest nation.

You could see the wealth on the skyline represented by the skyscraper office blocks of the major cities we passed through — Philadelpia and Baltimore — but much of the rest was a picture of severe urban decay.

The industrial base of the country has been gutted. It reminded me of the train journey through the once thriving Black Country in Britain. Once a hive of industrial activity, now hollowed out with miles of left-to-rot former factories.

In the US the choice has clearly been made that the government, of any colour, prefers to spend immense amounts of money on the military as opposed to the people.

I can’t believe that the minority of the US population that actually bother to come out and vote don’t understand this. It’s no secret that the US spends by far the largest amount on the military of any country on Earth.

The US spends more on the military than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Germany, France and South Korea combined.

Between them China and Russia account for only around 13 per cent of the world’s military spend. Not the vast amounts the corporate media would have you believe.

But while content to project its power abroad, the US is crumbling. One visit to the vast and imposing US embassy in London will show you just how much the US is intent on projecting its power. To the US size really does matter.

Tariffs, technology and industrial policy

In the following article, well-known Marxist economist Michael Roberts assesses the latest set of protectionist measures taken by the Biden administration against China. Roberts notes that these measures include “a quadrupling of the tariff rate to 100% on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports, doubling the levy on solar cells and more than tripling the fee on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries.” These tariffs constitute a doubling-down by President Biden on the measures introduced by the Trump administration in 2018-19.

The article observes that “Chinese EVs are now better and cheaper than their Western counterparts”, and this reflects China’s rapid advance in several key areas of green technology.

China has scaled up its green industries rapidly. It now produces nearly 80% of the world’s solar PV modules, 60% of wind turbines and 60% of electric vehicles and batteries. In 2023 alone, its solar-power capacity grew by more than the total installed capacity in the US.

Biden’s protectionist measures are being justified on the basis that they will stimulate domestic production of green technology in the US. However, Roberts argues that this is unlikely to be the outcome, given historical precedent. Previous tariffs on solar panels, introduced in 2012 and later expanded, did not revitalise the US solar industry. “On the contrary, the American global market share of the solar industry has considerably decreased since the original tariffs were placed — from 9% in 2010 to 2% today. Meanwhile, China’s share of the industry rose from 59% to 78%. There’s no reason to believe that the recent tariff increase will reverse this trend. There’s even less hope that they will help spur a domestic EV industry.”

The article also points to the irony of the US accusing China of violating WTO rules with its green tech subsidies, whilst simultaneously introducing a substantial package of its own green subsidies. “It seems that China’s industrial policy of subsidies is ‘gaming the system’, while US industrial policy of similar subsidies is just ‘protecting’ US industry.”

Rather than boosting domestic production, the tariffs are likely to have the opposite effect, by raising costs for US consumers and businesses and disrupting supply chains. The article notes that “Trump and Biden’s imposition of tariffs risks hindering the adoption of low-emission technologies by American businesses and consumers.”

In general, the US’s strategy of attempting to stifle China’s development will not be successful and will certainly not benefit the US economy; indeed “the cost to the US economy and the profitability of US industry will be considerable, and even more to the real incomes of Americans.” However, in a context where “the US is losing its imperialist profit extraction from trade with China and increasingly being squeezed out of world markets by Chinese goods”, there appears to be a bipartisan consensus on continuing with these last-ditch attempts at destabilising and weakening China, even if ultimately they prove to be a classic case of “lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet.”

The article was originally published on Michael Roberts’ blog on 20 May 2024.

Last Tuesday, the trade and technology war launched by the US on China back in 2019 took another ratchet up.

The US government announced a new series of protectionist measures on Chinese goods imported into the US. It included a quadrupling of the tariff rate to 100% on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports, doubling the levy on solar cells and more than tripling the fee on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries. These tariffs are equivalent to an annual $18bn of Chinese goods on top of the previous $300bn slapped down under Trump.

The new tariffs specifically target ‘green goods’, most notably EVs, but tariffs on lithium-ion batteries, critical minerals and solar cells will also be substantially increased. The measures are set to take effect this year (with the exception of graphite, where Chinese dominance is most stark, so tariffs begin in 2026).

China is the world leader in EV production and innovation. Chinese EVs are now better and cheaper than their Western counterparts. Biden’s intention is to stave off Chinese competition while stimulating domestic EV supply. But China’s EV imports are only 2% of the US market. And all the goods that these new tariffs were slapped on constitute only about 7% of US-China trade. What this shows is that, even the US government recognizes that the US still relies heavily on Chinese goods imports and cannot cut them all dead.

That’s because the tariff and technology war is not just about protecting the ailing US auto industry. China is totally dominant in EV manufacture because it’s also totally dominant in battery (cell) manufacture. And it’s also totally dominant in the manufacture of the chemicals that go into those cells (cathode & anodes).

China is also utterly dominant when it comes to the refining of the materials that then go into the chemicals that then go into the cells which go into the EVs.

Three US wars threaten World War Three: $95 billion targets Palestine, Iran, Russia and China

The following article by Sara Flounders, originally published in Workers World, discusses the 95 billion dollar “supplemental aid” bill passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on 24 April 2024. Of the $95 billion, $61 billion is allocated to Ukraine, $26 billion to Israel and $8 billion to Taiwan and the Pacific region. Sara writes that the package constitutes “a declaration of war on the world … an ominous and highly publicised military escalation on three fronts.” She continues:

In an era when uncontested US economic, productive and technological hegemony has decisively deteriorated, the only way that US corporate power can assert its dominance is in the military destruction of its rivals. Instigating wars and imposing sanctions are desperate efforts to destroy the emerging poles of development, cooperation and trade in West Asia, Russia and China that are outside of US control.

Sara observes that, as the bill was being signed, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in China – “not to promote diplomacy, but to make threats”. Blinken was demanding that China support the US’s unilateral and illegal sanctions against Russia, while back in Washington funds were being assigned to support Taiwanese separatism and stir up tensions in the Taiwan Strait. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

The article concludes:

The bill finances a drive toward World War III on three fronts: the U.S.-Israeli genocidal war aimed at Palestine, the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, and preparation for a US-led war in the Pacific against People’s China and the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea.

The powerful global movement that has taken bold steps to stop Israeli genocide will be stronger as it grows to understand that this whole imperialist system is its enemy.

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. policy of continued arming and fully supporting the Israeli genocide is an accident or a mistake need only look at the $95 billion “supplemental aid” bill just passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on April 24.

The same group of war criminals in Washington who back genocide in Gaza also support the NATO-provoked proxy war in Ukraine and maneuvers in the Pacific that threaten war against China.

The U.S. “supplemental” military aid package is a declaration of war on the world. It is an ominous and highly publicized military escalation on three fronts.

In an era when uncontested U.S. economic, productive and technological hegemony has decisively deteriorated, the only way that U.S. corporate power can assert its dominance is in the military destruction of its rivals. Instigating wars and imposing sanctions are desperate efforts to destroy the emerging poles of development, cooperation and trade in West Asia, Russia and China that are outside of U.S. control.

U.S. accelerates aid to Israel

The $26 billion in additional aid to Israel, part of the supplement package, is a public statement of complete support for genocide in Gaza. It confirms U.S. determination to escalate the brutal aggression.

Moreover, it is sending a threat of escalating war to Iran, Lebanon, Yemen and the vast majority of the people of the world who support the Palestinian people’s justified resistance to colonial occupation.

This $26 billion is in addition to Washington’s $4 billion a year allotment to Israel, which has already been committed through 2028, and the over 100 military aid transfers to Israel that are intentionally kept out of the accounting process.

Since World War II, the U.S. has provided more foreign aid to Israel than to any other country. In 2022, 99.7% of those funds went to the Israeli military.

The huge infusion of aid to Israel confirms the decision by U.S. corporate powers to prop up Washington’s primary strategic ally in West Asia. This has been the goal behind the billions of dollars allocated to the apartheid state over decades.

Despite receiving enormous funds and creating massive destruction, Zionist forces have failed to defeat the unified Palestinian Resistance. This is a political blow to Israel and a humiliating setback to U.S. imperialism’s position in the entire region.

For this reason, Israel and some U.S. policy strategists are seeking to widen the war by bombing Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the billions of dollars in U.S. assistance, writing on X (formerly Twitter) that it “demonstrates strong bipartisan support for Israel and defends Western civilization.” He immediately announced plans to proceed with a major military operation in Rafah.

Funds for humanitarian assistance are supposedly included in the bill. Yet its language stipulates that financial allocations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees are prohibited. UNRWA is a lifeline for nearly two million people in Gaza and for Palestinians in the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Without this U.N. agency’s help, there is no way to provide food aid, teachers or medical care.

Daniel Ortega: China is contributing to development in Africa, Asia and Latin America

In a recent speech commemorating the anniversary of the death of Nicaraguan freedom fighter and politician Tomás Borge, President Daniel Ortega surveyed the current geopolitical landscape, in particular expressing Nicaragua’s solidarity with the Palestinian people and applauding the student protests in the US and elsewhere: “The Peoples cannot accept, they cannot understand that a genocide is being committed with the participation of the powers of the Empires, headed by the North American Rulers, the Germans, the English, the French.”

Ortega describes the escalating campaign of encirclement and containment against China, asking “what threat is the People’s Republic of China?”

He contrasts China’s foreign policy with that of the Western powers: China “is not installing military bases like so very many military bases the United States has and has installed here in Latin America and the Caribbean alone”; China “is not promoting any war.”

The problem the US and its allies have with China is that “the People’s Republic of China has been growing, developing and has become close with the world’s developing countries… it is contributing to the development of these Peoples, contributing to the fight against poverty among these Peoples, to generating employment”. These are the same countries of the Global South which “the colonialist, imperialist countries used as nothing more than a source of wealth that they could steal.”

The threat to them, the greatest threat to them, to the Europeans, to the United States, is the way in which China has been growing, the threat is that the Chinese economy will grow, when on the other hand history tells us that the economies of the colonialist and imperialist Countries have only grown, using their economies, making them serve so as to dispossess other Peoples, to occupy other Peoples, to exploit other Peoples.

The speech was first published in English on the Tortilla Con Sal website.

Good evening, Nicaraguan Brothers and Sisters, Families of these Blessed Lands. Good evening, Beloved Internationalist Brothers and Sisters. And we are the expression that a New World is possible.

Here we meet as Brothers and Sisters, Compañeros and Compañeras born in the United States of America, born in Switzerland, like that Compañero who died murdered by the bullets of the Empire; Compañeros and Compañeras born in different Countries, Developed and Developing, and we meet, we join each other, in this year of the 45th Anniversary of the Revolution we meet, affirming, assuring, that the day will come when we will all become truly Brothers, Sisters.

That day will come, here is an example, and this has multiplied at different times in history, where Peoples have fought together and continue to fight for Peace; in a World that today more than ever insists on Peace, demands Peace.

And we see youth in North America raising the protest, the condemnation of the genocide that is being committed against the Palestinian People. North American youth protesting, right now, yes, they are protesting, and the protest is multiplying not only in North America, but in every country of our planet.

The Peoples cannot accept, they cannot understand that a genocide is being committed with the participation of the powers of the Empires, headed by the North American Rulers, the Germans, the English, the French.

That is, precisely that World where the Rulers pride themselves on being the most just, the most democratic, the most respectful of Rights, of International Law, they are unmasking themselves. Because they have managed to deceive our Peoples for a long time, thinking that Europe, North America, are Democracies, forgetting or getting us to forget how in a Developed Country, in a democratic Country, Germany, with the support of the great North American capital, Nazism came to Government.

And the war, that great war, that terrible war that caused millions of deaths, originated in a European country, it did not originate in an African country, nor did it originate in a Latin American or Caribbean or Asian country, it originated in Germany… Germany! And then the United States showing off that they own the atomic weapon, because in that war they started looking for how to build atomic weapons, Hitler wanted atomic weapons and the United States also wanted atomic weapons.

The United States had the atomic weapon and it did not take them long to launch it, to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities where there was no Army, two Cities where the victims were the civilian citizens of Japan, and where that horrendous crime caused more than 200,000 deaths as well as the incurable damage, as a result of radiation, in children, who as they were growing up were manifesting multiple diseases as adults and the elderly, finishing them off.

That is to say, they managed to cover up all those crimes over time. There was no condemnation of the use of atomic weapons. And today, well, there are atomic weapons everywhere, and that’s why the world has become more tense, pushing humanity to its limits.

There is a lot of talk about not crossing the red line, because now it is no longer a question of one Country against another, but one where all of humanity is exposed to crimes such as those now being committed against the Palestinian People, and the rulers of Israel insist on that, while as a People, the People of Israel is a People that we respect.

DPRK exposes US military strategy in the Pacific

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the official news agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), published two important commentaries in April concerning US strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, noting that its principal target is China.

Writing on April 12, Jong Min, an international security analyst, focused on the US attempt to deploy intermediate-range missiles in the region.

He said that not long ago, the US army Pacific commander claimed that the Chinese army is taking an irresponsible way in the use of military means, adding that the US forces are planning to deploy new intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region later this year to restrain China.

Jong adds: “Not content with persistently escalating the situation and inciting constant war fever through frequent dispatch of strategic assets to the Asia-Pacific region, the US is scheming to deploy even ground-launched intermediate-range missiles capable of directly aiming at specific countries in the region and promptly striking them at any moment. This clearly shows what phase the US ambition for military supremacy has reached.”

He notes that the US started to develop and modernise intermediate-range missiles, as soon as it unilaterally withdraw from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles between Russia and US in August 2019 and completed the development of an intermediate-range missile system by the end of 2022.

“This fact goes to prove that the US attempt to deploy intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region is not a defensive step to cope with ‘threat’ from someone but a product of the offensive and hegemonic military strategy which has been steadily pushed forward in a sequential and planned way for a long time.

“The US attempt to deploy intermediate-range missiles is dangerous enough to explosively aggravate the political and military situation in the Asia-Pacific region, trigger off strong rebuff and counteraction of China and other regional countries and spark off a fierce arms race in the region.

“In view of the range of those missiles, their deployment in Guam, Hawaii and other territories of the US has no military significance. Accordingly, they will have to be deployed in such allies of the US in the Asia-Pacific region as Japan and the puppet Republic of Korea (ROK).

“The US arms buildup to check China’s peaceful development and growth and restrain it militarily will inevitably invoke strong countermeasures. And Japan and the puppet ROK or any third country might be well aware of the fact that they would be the first target of military retaliation if the US intermediate-range missiles were deployed in their territories.

“After all, the US deployment of intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region is not for protecting its junior allies. On the contrary, it will lead them to the fate of being victims and sacrifices of the US strategy for hegemony.”

Then, on April 25, international affairs analyst Kang Jin Song commented on the US attempt to expand the AUKUS military alliance, presently consisting of Australia, Britain and the United States, to other countries, starting with Japan.

He notes that since its founding, AUKUS has been called a nuclear mine planted in the waters of the Asia-Pacific as ‘the Anglo-Saxon nuclear submarine alliance’ for seeking nuclear supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region by detouring the international nuclear non-proliferation system.

It is the sinister intention of the US to make Japan a crewmember of a confrontation ship called AUKUS and put it at the outpost line of the anti-China pressure and push the nuclear minefield in the Asia-Pacific region closer to China.

He goes on to outline how the Biden administration recently held a tripartite summit of the US, Japan and the Philippines in the wake of a US-Japan summit to call for strengthened security cooperation between Manila and Tokyo, as well as Canberra and Seoul.

“This is mainly aimed at building double and triple infrastructure for implementing the ‘integrated deterrence strategy’ against China by ultimately putting together tools designed for achieving supremacy existing in the Asia-Pacific region in a ‘latticed’ way.

“The reality goes to prove once again that the ‘competition accompanied by dialogue’ with China and the ‘installation of a guard rail’ in bilateral relations, heard from US public officials, are nothing but deceptive slogans and their thinking and practice are oriented to anti-China confrontation from A to Z.

“Owing to the establishment of a ‘small group’ of the US whose arch enemy is China and its ceaseless attempt to expand the group, the Asia-Pacific region, where opportunities and potentials for development are richer than any other region of the world, is turning into a theatre of muscle-flexing and a touch-and-go nuclear minefield.”

The following articles were originally published by KCNA.

The latest danger from China: too much clean energy?

This brief article by Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Stefania Fusero, originally published in Italian in Futura Società, brings some much-needed clarity to the question of US allegations concerning China’s “over-capacity”, particularly in green technologies such as renewable energy, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries.

Stefania rightly points out that, by demanding that China curtail its production of materials that are essential for a global green transition, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen “implicitly admits that the priority for the US government is not to join in the global fight against climate breakdown, but instead to sustain the profits of US corporations and financial elites.” This in turn serves to reiterate that “Western governments serve the interests of small oligarchic minorities, not the masses of their populations.”

Stefania notes that the diverging priorities of China and the US are amply evidenced by the fact that, while China directs enormous resources towards development, infrastructure, sustainable energy, and the fight against poverty, the US devotes enormous resources to war, domination, hegemonism, and the pursuit of a ‘rules-based international order’ where the rules are written in Washington and serve the exclusive interests of the US ruling class.

The article concludes by predicting failure for the US’s tactic, citing Radhika Desai’s recent article in CGTN: China “will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialised US corporations may be advanced.”

The article was translated into English by the author.

Giuseppe Masala gave an exhaustive explanation in l’Antidiplomatico of the real reasons which brought US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen back to China.

Among other things, after quoting from a statement by Yellen – ”we now see the development of excess capacity in ‘new’ industries such as solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles” – Masala rightly states that, translated into simple language, Yellen is saying that the US productive system cannot cope with Chinese competition.

Simplicius the Thinker gets to the same conclusion in his post Yellen Dispatched to Beg China for Face-Saving Slowdown: “The fact of the matter is, China is simply leaping ahead of the decrepit, deteriorating U.S. by every measure and the panicked elites have sent Yellen to beg China to ‘slow down’ and not embarrass them on the world stage.”

There’s more to it, though. When Yellen denounces and laments China’s “overcapacity of clean energy” – specifically mentioning solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries – she gets straight to the issue of the global climate breakdown.

In this context, contrary to incessant Western smearing campaigns, China has acted consistently with the commitment to defend the environment Xi Jinping announced in 2014, and has translated it into a climate strategy the extent of which has never been seen before, as acknowledged by the president of the Environmental Defense Fund: “the world has never before seen a climate program on this scale.”

In solar energy alone, the International Energy Agency noted that China’s PV-focused industrial policies have contributed to more than 80 percent cost reductions, helping the sector become the most cost-effective electricity generation technology in many parts of the world – an important contribution to global decarbonisation.

Complaining about what she calls “clean energy overcapacity”, Yellen implicitly admits that the priority for the US government is not to join in the global fight against climate breakdown, but instead to sustain the profits of US corporations and financial elites. She lays bare the fact that Western governments serve the interests of small oligarchic minorities, not the masses of their populations.

Just take a simple look at the composition of the US public debt, which has reached the stratospheric figure of $34 trillion, of which 14 trillion has gone to military spending since the start of the war in Afghanistan. While the US has been throwing money into the bottomless pit of its endless wars ‘on terror’, China has been investing in the development of its economy, its infrastructure, as well as the fight against poverty, demonstrating that the priority of the PRC is development, whereas the priority of the US is war.

It is thus unsurprising that the foreign policies of the two countries are poles apart, both in the guiding principles and the parlance set out in their respective official documents, and in the posture adopted towards other countries.

China uses the language of diplomacy, rejects the logic of opposing blocs, is not part to any military alliances, and engages with partners for its various international projects, the Belt and Road Initiative first and foremost, in ways which are beneficial both to itself and to them. The US, on the other hand, does not want partners, but vassals from whom it demands exclusive allegiance to the point of agreeing to sacrifice their own interests, and does not hesitate to use the weapons of military and economic threat, in line with a purported ‘international rules based order’, which the US bends to its own will and convenience.

Will China bow to the requests and more-or-less veiled threats coming from the USA and its satellites?

As Radhika Desai writes in a recent article: “Sadly, for Yellen, China is neither Japan nor Europe but a socialist economy whose government is oriented towards advancing egalitarian development for its people. Yellen will find it willing to cooperate for the benefit of people and the planet. But it will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized US corporations may be advanced.”