Category: New Cold War

‘Asian NATO’: brought to you by South Korean repression

In this detailed article, which was originally published by The Real News Network, Ju-Hyun Park, the network’s engagement editor, analyses the implications for regional peace, security and economics of the tripartite summit between the United States, Japan and South Korea, that US President Joe Biden hosted at Camp David in August, and relates them to the intensified crackdown on the labour movement and wider sections of civil society since a new conservative administration took office in South Korea.

According to Park, this budding tripartite alliance is a “dream come true for Washington in the New Cold War. And it wouldn’t be happening without South Korean President Yoon’s [Yoon Suk Yeol] war on labour and the opposition.”

Noting that, at Camp David, “for the first time, South Korea, Japan, and the US pledged to share data on North Korean missiles, coordinate joint military responses to threats in the region, and host a new annual trilateral military exercise,” Park explains: “These outcomes indicate a realignment of forces in East Asia that significantly raises the risks of potential major power conflict with China… The Camp David summit is a sure step towards achieving one of Washington’s long-standing goals: establishing an Asian equivalent to NATO as a bulwark to protect US interests in the Pacific.”

Roping South Korea into an alliance with Japan has been an aim of US policymakers since the Korean War (1950-53), but consummating it has proved elusive, both because of the bitter legacy of Japanese colonial rule on the Korean peninsula and latterly South Korea’s burgeoning and mutually beneficial economic relationship with China:

“China overtook the US as South Korea’s primary trade partner almost 20 years ago, and South Korea’s largest corporations depend on China for labour, production, and markets. While South Korea’s capitalists also benefit from the US military occupation of the peninsula, there are few benefits to them in picking sides in a zero-sum conflict between the US and China.”

Biden’s apparent success, therefore, in binding the two powers together in a joint embrace with the United States may been seen as a victory for deft diplomacy, but “there is another cause that deserves significantly more credit: For the past year, current South Korean President Yoon Seok Yeol has waged a ruthless war on the sections of South Korean civil society standing in the way of Washington’s agenda, attacking labour, peace groups, and the general public.”

Yoon’s principal target has been South Korea’s militant labour movement. In January this year, hundreds of police officers raided the offices of multiple progressive organisations, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which represents over two million workers.

Yoon has also overseen a drastic escalation in the frequency and intensity of joint military exercises between South Korea and the US, with more than 20 planned for this year alone.

According to Park:

“Labour repression within South Korea also plays a significant role in facilitating Washington’s aims to technologically and economically isolate China… The war on Chinese tech goes beyond targeting individual Chinese conglomerates. Under Biden, a strategy has slowly taken shape to attempt to bring as much high-tech production back to the US as possible while simultaneously taking measures to exclude China from existing international supply chains that rely heavily on production in Taiwan and South Korea. Two of Biden’s biggest legislative wins, the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act, contain provisions that effectively force South Korean companies to abandon their investments in China in favour of building electric vehicle and semiconductor factories in the US. South Korean EV battery makers have already committed $13 billion to build new plants and expand existing ones in seven US states.

“This has all come at a steep cost to South Korea. South Korean technology exports to the Chinese market plummeted in the wake of the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts. From 2022 until June 2023, South Korea suffered the most severe trade deficit in its history, haemorrhaging some $47.5 billion in 2022 alone. By far, the leading cause of this deficit was the sudden reversal in trade with China.

“Squeezed between rising inflation and spiralling economic prospects, South Korea’s workers are bearing the brunt of this economic realignment. At the same time, the Yoon government is scrambling to find some way to reverse its poor economic performance without making concessions to workers. Hence, Yoon’s war on trade unions – the only vehicles available for the working class to organise independently and fight back… South Korean labour is one of the only organised obstacles within the US-led bloc to Washington’s economic offensive against China. Crushing the unions means clearing the way for the unhindered reengineering of South Korea’s economy in Washington’s vision.”

Whilst noting that Chinese President Xi Jinping seems determined to maintain cordial relations with South Korea, if at all possible, Park adds that analysts have also warned of the possibility that the trilateral alliance could be used as a mechanism to draw South Korean forces into US wars abroad – including in the Taiwan Strait.

Park also explains that the tightening of a US-led hegemonic bloc in the Pacific inevitably comes up against the law that every action has a reaction, in this case in terms of further consolidating the ties between Pyongyang, Moscow and Beijing:

“North Korea, isolated and encircled for so long, now has a wide and reliable rearguard of support in Moscow and Beijing. As the centre of economic gravity pivots towards China, opportunities for North Korea’s advancement will only proliferate.”

While largely unnoticed by the US public, the trilateral summit between Japan, South Korea, and the US that took place at Camp David this August sent shockwaves throughout East Asia. 

US President Joe Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio punctuated the end of the three-day summit by releasing a joint declaration rife with the kinds of diplomatic ambiguities and appeals to vague principles typical of this sort of affair. The three leaders pledged their support for a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” for an international “rules-based order,” and for “peace and stability” around the world. But, of course, the historic significance of the summit had less to do with the rhetoric and more to do with the concrete commitments made by the three governments. 

The Pacific today looks a lot like Europe on the eve of the First World War—a hotbed of military powers sharply divided into opposing blocs driven by irreconcilable interests, ready to be pulled into war at a moment’s notice.

For the first time, South Korea, Japan, and the US pledged to share data on North Korean missiles, coordinate joint military responses to threats in the region, and host a new annual trilateral military exercise. 

These outcomes indicate a realignment of forces in East Asia that significantly raises the risks of potential major power conflict with China. Japan and South Korea have been individual allies of the US for decades—but the three have never before been part of a shared military structure. Now, with an agreed-upon “commitment to consult,” tighter military integration and coordination between the three countries than ever before is assured. 

While there is no treaty to bind this budding alliance together yet, the unprecedented “trilateral security cooperation” born from the Camp David summit is a sure step towards achieving one of Washington’s long-standing goals: establishing an Asian equivalent to NATO as a bulwark to protect US interests in the Pacific. The result, which is already manifesting, is a much more divided and hostile region than existed before—where the possibility of great power conflict between nuclear states seems to be more a matter of time than a mere hypothetical.

WRANGLING SOUTH KOREA

Roping South Korea into an alliance with Japan has been an aim of US policymakers since the Korean War, when then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson sought to weld South Korea and Japan together into an economic bloc that could revive Japanese industry post-World War II and ward off communist influence in Asia. In recent years, however, the rise of China as an economic powerhouse, coupled with the nuclearization of North Korea, has brought renewed urgency to this long-sought objective.

For years, Seoul proved to be a slippery fish in Washington’s net. Yoon’s predecessor, Moon Jae-In, delicately navigated support for US military expansion in Korea without making ironclad commitments to insert South Korea into an anti-China bloc. 

The reasons for South Korea’s previous ambiguity lay in a divergence of interests between Seoul and Washington in light of a rapidly changing world. China overtook the US as South Korea’s primary trade partner almost 20 years ago, and South Korea’s largest corporations depend on China for labor, production, and markets. While South Korea’s capitalists also benefit from the US military occupation of the peninsula, there are few benefits to them in picking sides in a zero-sum conflict between the US and China. 

This is all rather inconvenient for those in Washington intent on preserving US hegemony indefinitely. South Korea is not only geostrategically important in a conflict against China—it also has the largest military of any US ally in the region, and is also a crucial producer of advanced technologies which US corporations and the Pentagon depend on. To put it simply, the US needs South Korea to succeed in containing China far more than South Korea needs to participate in this conflict. 

Then there’s the other, far thornier issue of Japan’s 35-year colonization of Korea and the deep imprint it has left—and continues to have—on Korea. Japan has yet to fully acknowledge, apologize for, or offer satisfactory compensation for its many colonial crimes against the Korean people. This matter remains an open wound on the Korean psyche, and a thorn in the side of Tokyo and Washington. 

The litany of Japanese atrocities in Korea are too many to name here, but the most prominent issue at the moment concerns Japan’s forced conscriptions of Koreans during WWII. From 1939 to 1945, Japan forcibly conscripted hundreds of thousands of Koreans to fight its wars, and mobilized more than 3 million Koreans as forced laborers throughout its empire. Among the most heinous and best known of these crimes was the conscription of an estimated 200,000 Korean women into sexual slavery for Japan’s military—a program euphemistically known as the “comfort women” system. 

In 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court ordered Japanese conglomerate Mitsubishi, which profited from wartime forced labor, to pay reparations to their surviving victims. This incident set off a diplomatic row that escalated to the level of a trade dispute that lasted for years.

For Washington, the renewed push to force Japan to address and atone for these historical injustices could not have come at a more inconvenient time. Just a year before, in 2017, India, Australia, Japan, and the US had revived the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or the Quad—a military alliance intended to serve as the main axis of a new anti-China bloc. 

The Trump administration was keen to rope South Korea in as a fifth member of the Quad, but this goal never materialized. Entering any kind of explicit alliance with Japan was, and still is, politically toxic in South Korea. Moreover, as the world enters a new era where the US is losing its footing as the globe’s preeminent military and economic power, South Korea, among other nations, was quite sensibly reading the room and attempting to hedge its bets.

Upon entering office, Biden’s administration set achieving a trilateral partnership between the US, Japan, and South Korea as a high priority, seeking to accomplish what its predecessor could not. The Camp David summit represents a major step towards achieving this goal. While the White House and its cheerleaders have already claimed this as a victory for deft diplomacy, there is another cause that deserves significantly more credit: For the past year, current South Korean President Yoon Seok Yeol has waged a ruthless war on the sections of South Korean civil society standing in the way of Washington’s agenda, attacking labor, peace groups, and the general public. 

ENTER YOON SEOK YEOL

Despite less than 18 months in office, Yoon has earned the dubious distinction of being South Korea’s least popular head of state ever—not to mention one of the most maligned leaders in the world. His administration has been pilloried by civil society groups and the main opposition Democratic Party for its corruption and ineptitude, while simultaneously characterized as a “prosecutor’s dictatorship” where escalating abuses of executive power are interpreted by many as signs of backsliding towards South Korea’s days of autocratic rule.

Domestically, the Yoon administration has declared war against its political enemies, particularly against the labor movement. In January of this year, hundreds of police officers raided the offices of multiple progressive organizations, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which represents over 2 million workers.

Yoon’s domestic crackdown isn’t taking place in a vacuum separate from the formation of the trilateral alliance. These repressive measures are the necessary internal complement to an international agenda primarily determined not in Seoul, but in Washington. 

Wielding trumped-up charges ranging from racketeering to spying on behalf of North Korea, the Yoon administration has weaponized law enforcement to continue its crackdown on labor and progressive organizers throughout this year. Over 1,000 members of the Korean Construction Workers Union alone are currently under federal investigation, and more than 30 are now in jail. One local KCWU leader, Yang Hoe-dong, died by self-immolation in protest of these charges—transforming himself into a martyr for the movement to rally around.

It’s not just labor unions that have found themselves in Yoon’s crosshairs. The 6.15 Committee has also been the target of official persecution. Originally founded in 2000, the 6.15 Committee has chapters on both sides of the Korean peninsula and overseas that work towards building support for Korean peace and reunification through people-to-people exchanges. At the same time that the KCTU’s offices were raided, members of the 6.15 Committee in Jeju province were arrested on espionage charges. The evidence? They had previously hosted a public screening of a North Korean film.

Perhaps most brazenly, the Yoon administration has also escalated attacks on the media. Two news outlets, Newstapa and the Joongang Tongyang Broadcasting Company, were raided by prosecutors on Sept. 14, 2023, for publishing a story in 2022 spotlighting Yoon’s alleged participation in an illegal loan scheme. Press freedom has never stood on firm ground in South Korea, even after the supposed era of “democratization” in the 1990s. Ousted former President Park Geun-hye notoriously maintained a blacklist banning thousands of artists considered unfriendly to her government. Yet no other president since the days of military dictatorship ever dared to use state security forces against a media office, until Yoon.

Yoon’s domestic crackdown isn’t taking place in a vacuum separate from the formation of the trilateral alliance. These repressive measures are the necessary internal complement to an international agenda primarily determined not in Seoul, but in Washington. 

OLD AUTOCRACY, NEW COLD WAR

As president, Yoon has overseen several dramatic changes in South Korean foreign policy that benefit US interests and require the repression of internal dissent to achieve: scuttling relations with North Korea, joining US attempts to technologically isolate China, and reconciling with Japan to clear the way for the Camp David summit. 

Since coming into office, Yoon has overseen a drastic escalation in the frequency and intensity of joint military exercises between South Korea and the US. These military exercises began in the 1970s as annual affairs—now, there are more than 20 planned for 2023 alone. These war drills routinely rehearse invasions of North Korea within miles of the DMZ, the de facto border that has divided Korea since the 1953 armistice. 

The KCTU and other labor groups have provided some of the most stalwart opposition to these war games. Last year, in response to the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises, the KCTU joined hands with the more moderate Federation of Korean Trade Unions to deliver a joint statement denouncing war maneuvers—a statement that was, significantly, also signed by their union umbrella counterpart in North Korea. 

Predictably, Yoon and Biden’s acts of aggression have prompted parallel North Korean shows of force, which then provide the pretext for Washington, Seoul, and, increasingly, Tokyo to escalate in turn. The Biden administration deployed two US nuclear submarines to Korea for the first time in 40 years this summer, and the US and South Korea warned in a joint statement that “Any nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its allies is unacceptable and will result in the end of that regime.”

Labor repression within South Korea also plays a significant role in facilitating Washington’s aims to technologically and economically isolate China, a crucial pillar of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s “New Washington Consensus.” Here, the intersection of technological and military power are key. US domination of tech patents is one of the pillars of its premiere position in the global economy—a position it can only hold so long as Chinese attempts to develop domestic tech production capacity are foiled.

Maintaining US dominance of the tech market also has more obvious military implications for Washington, which depends on semiconductors produced in South Korea and Taiwan to operate its weapons of mass destruction. Gregory C. Allen, an analyst with the hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, describes Washington’s tech offensive against China as “actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry—strangling with an intent to kill.”

Attempts to “strangle” Chinese tech have escalated sharply under the Trump and Biden administrations. Two of the clearest and highest-profile examples of this have been US attempts to sanction Huawei, going as far as to coordinate the arrest of the company’s CFO during a visit to Canada, as well as the push to ban TikTok, which culminated in a bizarre and ridiculous Senate hearing earlier this year.

But the war on Chinese tech goes beyond targeting individual Chinese conglomerates. Under Biden, a strategy has slowly taken shape to attempt to bring as much high tech production back to the US as possible while simultaneously taking measures to exclude China from existing international supply chains that rely heavily on production in Taiwan and South Korea. Two of Biden’s biggest legislative wins, the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act, contain provisions that effectively force South Korean companies to abandon their investments in China in favor of building electric vehicle and semiconductor factories in the US. South Korean EV battery makers have already committed $13 billion to build new plants and expand existing ones in seven US states.

This has all come at a steep cost to South Korea. South Korean technology exports to the Chinese market plummeted in the wake of the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts. From 2022 until June 2023, South Korea suffered the most severe trade deficit in its history, hemorrhaging some $47.5 billion in 2022 alone. By far, the leading cause of this deficit was the sudden reversal in trade with China. 

Squeezed between rising inflation and spiraling economic prospects, South Korea’s workers are bearing the brunt of this economic realignment. At the same time, the Yoon government is scrambling to find some way to reverse its poor economic performance without making concessions to workers. Hence, Yoon’s war on trade unions—the only vehicles available for the working class to organize independently and fight back. As President Yoon himself put it, the crackdown on unions is necessary “so that corporate value can rise, capital markets can develop, and many jobs can be created.” South Korean labor is one of the only organized obstacles within the US-led bloc to Washington’s economic offensive against China. Crushing the unions means clearing the way for the unhindered reengineering of South Korea’s economy in Washington’s vision.

Amid this political and economic chaos, Yoon was able to broker a new understanding with Tokyo that put an end to years of diplomatic and economic clashes. In a move many critics described as unconstitutional, the Yoon administration unilaterally modified the 2018 Supreme Court decision ordering restitution from Japanese companies for Korean survivors of wartime forced labor. Instead, the survivors will now be compensated from a fund paid into by South Korean corporations, letting their Japanese counterparts off the hook. Despite being opposed by some 60% of South Koreans, this arrangement allowed for a thaw in Seoul and Tokyo’s relations, which, in turn, set the stage for the summit at Camp David this August. 

Analysts have also warned of the possibility that the trilateral alliance could be used as a mechanism to draw South Korean forces into US wars abroad—including in the Taiwan Strait. 

The specter of North Korean nuclearization was presented as the primary justification for the Camp David summit and the resulting trilateral security cooperation alliance. But the outcomes of Camp David were not exclusively military in nature. Japan and South Korea also pledged to share data on critical supply chains with the US. 

Domestically, Yoon’s participation in the Camp David Summit was widely lambasted as a betrayal of South Korea’s interests. The summit has not only heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula; it has also done significant damage to South Korean relations with Russia and China, although China’s Xi Jinping seems determined to maintain cordial relations. Analysts have also warned of the possibility that the trilateral alliance could be used as a mechanism to draw South Korean forces into US wars abroad—including in the Taiwan Strait. 

The Camp David Summit has only brought more darkness to the political climate in South Korea. Days before he left for the US, Yoon gave a national address for Liberation Day, which marks the anniversary of the end of Japanese colonial rule in Korea. Rather than offer reflections on the human toll of the colonial period or the legacy of the Korean independence movement, Yoon fixated on a different target: “The forces of communist totalitarianism have always disguised themselves as democracy activists, human rights advocates, or progressive activists while engaging in despicable and unethical tactics and false propaganda,” he said. “We must never succumb to the forces of communist totalitarianism.” 

In South Korea, anticommunism and state repression have gone hand-in-hand since the “Republic of Korea” was first established in a widely opposed, US-sponsored election process in 1948. Before the Korean War officially began in 1950, a mass uprising on the island of Jeju against Korea’s division ended in the slaughter of between 30,000 and 60,000 people. In the early days of the Korean War itself, the South Korean government massacred between 100,000 and 200,000 political dissidents that had previously been forced to register in the so-called National Guidance League.

Throughout the long night of South Korea’s military dictatorships, which lasted from the end of WWII to the 1990s, strikes were broken, activists tortured and disappeared, and families of the massacred and vanished were silenced and surveilled in the name of suppressing the communist threat. When the city of Gwangju took up arms in 1980 to demand democracy and appealed to the US to intervene, President Jimmy Carter greenlit the deployment of South Korean paratroopers from the DMZ to butcher as many as 2,000 of the city’s residents. In the aftermath, the Chun Doo Hwan regime blamed the events in Gwangju on North Korean infiltrators and communists. 

For now, the Yoon administration has limited the scale and brutality of its crackdown to incarcerations and prosecutorial witch hunts. But the echoes of Korea’s recent history leave many wondering if, or when, the bloodletting will return. For its part, the Biden administration has followed in the footsteps of every previous administration by refusing to acknowledge the political repression unfolding under Yoon’s South Korea. Corporate media, in turn, has largely ignored the outcry against the Camp David summit by South Koreans themselves.

DIVIDING KOREA, DIVIDING THE PACIFIC

The joint statement delivered at Camp David cast the new US-Japan-South Korean axis in terms of a partnership based on a mutual desire for global peace and prosperity. But the immediate consequences of the summit strongly indicate that things are, in fact, moving in the opposite direction.

Rather than deescalating military tensions and breaking down barriers to international cooperation, the Camp David Summit signals an escalation of military threats coinciding with the tightening of a US-led hegemonic bloc in the Pacific. Every action has a reaction, and the reaction here is coming in the form of a consolidated counter-bloc between Pyongyang, Moscow, and Beijing.

The reestablishment of cooperative relations between North Korea, China, and Russia has been a long time coming. Relations between the three countries turned cold after the destruction of the Soviet Union. For decades, Russia and China acquiesced to UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea—something which they no longer are willing to abide.

In recent years, Beijing and Moscow have increasingly turned to each other, and to Pyongyang, as fellow targets of US sanctions, military encirclement, and propaganda. For all its bombastic proclamations about protecting peace and freedom around the world, Washington has created the conditions for a new unity of interests to emerge among those states it names as its enemies. 

Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow were all united in their alarm and rejection of the Camp David Summit—and not without reason. All three countries were explicitly named in the Camp David Principles and Joint Statement as problems to be managed by the self-appointed triumvirate. China and Russia also share borders with Korea, which will be the primary site of military escalation by Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul. Beijing and Pyongyang swiftly denounced the new bloc. Moscow even suggested the start of trilateral naval exercises between the three countries as a counter to US-led military maneuvers.  

On Sept. 12, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un boarded an armored train for the Russian Far East in his first foreign visit as head of state since 2019. In a meeting with Vladimir Putin, Kim expressed his government’s full support for Russia in its conflict against NATO, and received pledges to assist with developing space technologies from Moscow. 

For the time being, the two Korean states have aligned with opposing global interests. The possibility of reunification and reconciliation, which seemed so tantalizingly close just a few years before, now appears to be far out of reach. Yet even as the currents of world politics pull Korea apart once again, opportunities for a different future remain. 

South Korea, which ascended economically for decades on Washington’s coattails, now finds itself on the side of a declining power. Already, Seoul is being forced to choose between its objective interests in closer ties with its neighbors and Washington’s contravening political preferences. The result appears to be a declining trend in South Korea’s fortunes—something key stakeholders in the country may not tolerate forever. 

North Korea, isolated and encircled for so long, now has a wide and reliable rearguard of support in Moscow and Beijing. As the center of economic gravity pivots towards China, opportunities for North Korea’s advancement will only proliferate. The unintended result in the not-too-distant future could well be two Koreas that can stand on truly equal footing and finally become one, ending the division of Korea and the centrality of that division in manufacturing regional conflict.

But perhaps such predictions are too optimistic for the present moment. After all, Korea must survive intact for such a future to be possible. The Pacific today looks a lot like Europe on the eve of the First World War—a hotbed of military powers sharply divided into opposing blocs driven by irreconcilable interests, ready to be pulled into war at a moment’s notice. That war was so cataclysmic that for a generation it could only be remembered as The Great War. The war to come will be even more vicious, and so far, it’s being served to us with a smile.

A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions

On 26 September 2023, the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China issued a white paper titled “A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions”, setting out China’s high level foreign policy and describing a bold vision for building a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable future for humanity.

The central theme of the document is succinctly stated in the preface:

To build a global community of shared future, all peoples, all countries, and all individuals – our destinies being interconnected – must stand together in adversity and through thick and thin, navigating towards greater harmony on this planet that we call home. We should endeavor to build an open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity, turning people’s longing for a better life into reality.

The white paper describes the current division in geopolitics; the fork in the road, with one direction characterised by a “Cold War mentality that deepens division and antagonism and stokes confrontation between blocs” and the other aimed at developing common wellbeing of humanity, solidarity, cooperation, openness, equality and respect. “The tug of war between these two options will shape the future of humanity and our planet in a profound way.”

The paper can be considered as a modern reiteration of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence – mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual non-aggression; non- interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence – which have been the lodestar of Chinese foreign policy since their announcement in 1954. Core to these principles is the notion – embedded in the UN Charter – of the sovereign equality of all states. The white paper observes:

The world needs justice, not hegemonism. No country has the right to dominate global affairs, dictate the future of others, or monopolize development advantages. Countries should safeguard the international order based on international law, uphold the authority of the international rule of law, and ensure equal and unified application of international law. The practice of double standards or selective application of law should be rejected.

This stands in contrast with the much-vaunted ‘rules-based international order’, which is in fact a euphemism for the primacy of the US and its allies, and the imposition of their will on the rest of the world.

The document reiterates China’s commitment to environmental sustainability and to the highest level of international cooperation in preventing catastrophic climate change.

We should reconcile industrial development with nature, and pursue harmony between humanity and nature to achieve sustainable global development and all-round human development. We should respect nature, follow its ways, and protect it. We should firmly pursue green, low-carbon, circular and sustainable development… We should make our world clean and beautiful by pursuing green and low-carbon development… We must follow the philosophy of harmony between humanity and nature and observance of the laws of nature and pursue a path of sustainable development, so that everyone is able to enjoy a starry sky, lush mountains and fragrant flowers.

Recognising the potentially catastrophic consequences of war in the nuclear age, the white paper also re-states China’s commitment to the principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and to the goal of complete nuclear disarmament.

China actively advocates the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and it is the only nuclear country that has publicly committed to no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-weapon-free zones.

While “it is normal for countries to have differences”, there is always the possibility for these to be overcome through peaceful means and within a framework of international law. “No conflict is too big to resolve and no ice too thick to break.”

Quoting a number of powerful proverbs from around the world – including the Russian proverb “Together we can weather the storm”, the African proverb “One single pillar is not sufficient to build a house” and the Arabic proverb “If you want to walk fast, walk alone; if you want to walk far, walk together” – the document notes that the concept of a global community of shared future is not unique to China but runs deep through the history of civilisation. It is a unifying dream of humanity, which can inspire this generation to work seriously towards its realisation.

If the peoples of the world can work together to build a global community of shared future, “emerging countries and established powers can avoid falling into the Thucydides trap” and can “find the right way to get along in mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation.” (Thucydides trap is a term popularised by US political scientist Graham Allison, describing a tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power).

The white paper describes the ways in which China, particularly over the last decade, has worked tirelessly towards building a global community of shared future. This includes the Belt and Road Initiative, which has already brought tremendous benefits to the people of Pakistan, Laos, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tajikistan and many other countries. The Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative – proposed by China in 2021, 2022 and 2023 respectively – provide an important framework for helping to meet humanity’s collective need for material prosperity, peace, and cultural progress and mutual learning.

The document concludes with a powerful call to joint action:

In the face of common challenges, no person or country can remain isolated. The only response is to work together in harmony and unity. Only by strengthening coordination and cooperation, and ensuring that the interests of the people of every country will be kept in line with those of all others, can all countries move forward towards a global community of shared future…

When all countries unite in pursuing the cause of common good, plan together, and act together day by day towards the right direction of building a global community of shared future, we can build an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world of lasting peace, universal security and shared prosperity, and jointly create a better future for all of humanity.

We reprint the full text of the white paper below. It was originally published on the website of the State Council Information Office.

A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions

The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China
September 2023

Continue reading A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions

The West’s blueprint for goading China was laid out in Ukraine

The following article by Jonathan Cook (first published by Middle East Eye) explores the complex and contradictory policies of the Western powers in relation to China. On the one hand, Western leaders talk of wanting a collaborative relationship with China, and on this basis “US and European officials have scurried to Beijing for so-called talks”, including a high-profile visit by British foreign secretary James Cleverly in August. On the other hand, these same leaders are taking reckless steps towards confrontation: “showering Taiwan with weapons systems”; setting up AUKUS; forging a trilateral security arrangement between the US, Japan and South Korea; and developing new military bases in the Pacific as part of an ongoing strategy of encirclement. NATO last year declared Beijing a challenge to its “interests, security and values.”

Jonathan writes that “European leaders are torn. They fear losing access to Chinese goods and markets, plunging their economies deeper into recession after a cost-of-living crisis precipitated by the Ukraine war. But most are even more afraid of angering Washington, which is determined to isolate and contain China.”

The manifestation of these contradictory motivations is a policy of aggression combined with the pretence of a meaningful desire for peaceful engagement. “But the only real engagement is the crafting of a military noose around China’s neck, just as a noose was crafted earlier for Russia.” And the crafting of this military noose is justified to ordinary people in the West – who will inevitably shoulder the economic costs of the deteriorating relationship – with an absurd but carefully-curated narrative about protecting Taiwan. This “obscures Washington’s less palatable aim: to enforce US global dominance by smashing any economic or technological threat from China and Russia.”

The West is writing a script about its relations with China as stuffed full of misdirection as an Agatha Christie novel.

In recent months, US and European officials have scurried to Beijing for so-called talks, as if the year were 1972 and Richard Nixon were in the White House.

But there will be no dramatic, era-defining US-China pact this time. If relations are to change, it will be decisively for the worse.

The West’s two-faced policy towards China was starkly illustrated last week by the visit to Beijing of Britain’s foreign secretary, James Cleverly – the first by a senior UK official for five years.

While Cleverly talked vaguely afterwards about the importance of not “disengaging” from China and avoiding “mistrust and errors”, the British parliament did its best to undermine his message. 

The foreign affairs committee issued a report on UK policy in the Indo-Pacific that provocatively described the Chinese leadership as “a threat to the UK and its interests”. 

In terminology that broke with past diplomacy, the committee referred to Taiwan – a breakaway island that Beijing insists must one day be “reunified” with China – as an “independent country”. Only 13 states recognise Taiwan’s independence.

The committee urged the British government to pressure its Nato allies into imposing sanctions on China.

The UK parliament is meddling recklessly in a far-off zone of confrontation with the potential for incendiary escalation against a nuclear power, a situation unrivalled outside of Ukraine. 

But Britain is far from alone. Last year, for the first time, Nato moved well out of its supposed sphere of influence – the North Atlantic – to declare Beijing a challenge to its “interests, security and values”.

There can be little doubt that Washington is the moving force behind this escalation against China, a state posing no obvious military threat to the West.

Continue reading The West’s blueprint for goading China was laid out in Ukraine

Stop the War Coalition condemns war preparations against China

Britain’s Stop the War Coalition held its Annual General Meeting in London on September 16.

In a significant development, a resolution proposed by Manchester Stop the War, opposing the preparation for war against China, was passed unanimously. It notes that the US Biden administration, “is overseeing a massive military buildup in the Pacific amidst constant talk of war with China”, and continues:

“Just as Ukraine served as a proxy to aggravate Russia, the US is stoking Taiwan with arms and military trainers, creating uncertainty around the One China policy agreed with China and supported internationally.”

The resolution further notes the attempts being made to extend NATO’s reach into Asia and criticises Britain’s participation in the AUKUS pact alongside the Australia and the United States, as well as its increased military collaboration with Japan.

Key speakers at the meeting included Stop the War leaders Lindsey German and Andrew Murray, Irish Member of the European Parliament Clare Daly, independent Member of Parliament for Leicester East Claudia Webbe, and President of the RMT rail and transport union Alex Gordon. Videos of their speeches can be viewed here. A message of solidarity was also read from former Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn.

We reprint the full text of the resolution below. The full texts of all the resolutions passed can be read here along with the news report carried in the Morning Star.

Opposing the preparation for war against China

  1. This Conference notes that:
  • Biden’s administration is overseeing a massive military buildup in the Pacific amidst constant talk of war with China – now the main ‘strategic competitor’ – predictions ranging from 2 to 10 years;
  • Just as Ukraine served as a proxy to aggravate Russia, the US is stoking Taiwan with arms and military trainers, creating uncertainty around the One China policy agreed with China and supported internationally, in order to provoke aggression;
  • Increasing military activity in disputed waters in the South and East China Seas and around Taiwan runs a high risk of accidental collision escalating rapidly into a catastrophic war;
  • Increasing tensions jeopardise international cooperation essential to address the mounting climate catastrophe;
  1. We also note that:
  • With the claim ’Euro-Atlantic and IndoPacific security are linked’, the US is building an Atlantic-Pacific Global NATO-style partnership, drawing NATO into Asia, with Britain the most active accomplice;
  • Through AUKUS and a military forces exchange with Japan, Britain is not only stoking a Pacific arms race but also runs the risk of a direct clash with China;
  • Rishi Sunak has identified China as ‘the biggest challenge to the world’;
  • Spending on preparations for war with China is pushing up Britain’s military budget significantly.
  1. This Conference believes that a war between the US and China must be stopped before it starts.
  • We say no to war preparations and provocations;
  • We support the peaceful dialogue across the Taiwan Strait as well as between the countries bordering the South China Sea to resolve differences;
  • We oppose outside interference since this can only complicate dialogue, with failure likely leading into conflict;
  • We call for British withdrawal from AUKUS and from military commitments in the IndoPacific; the government should refrain from any moves that may contribute to destabilising the situation regarding Taiwan;
  • We support activists in the Pacific region opposing militarisation and the arms race, and calling for de-escalation of tensions.
  1. This Conference resolves to step up campaigning to oppose Britain’s part in the war preparations by

(i) developing understanding of the issues and dangers through discussion among our membership supported by educational materials;

(ii) raising public awareness of the dangers of Pacific militarisation and Britain’s part in this;

(iii) including in our campaigning to reverse the TUC’s decision on increasing military spending, factual material on the costs of Britain’s ‘IndoPacific tilt’.

At both the G20 and in Vietnam, US hegemony looks ever more perilous

In this article, which was originally published by People’s World, Amiad Horowitz makes an assessment of US President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Asia, which saw him first attend the G20 summit meeting in the Indian capital New Delhi and then continue to Vietnam.

Horowitz notes that Biden used the G20 Summit to announce an international infrastructure development program which seeks to compete with China’s very successful Belt and Road Initiative, called the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). He adds:

“One cannot help but notice the irony that the Biden administration is so eager to invest in infrastructure abroad to counter China while repeatedly failing to invest in the crumbling US infrastructure at home. This is opposed to China, whose government has completed countless major infrastructure programs both at home and abroad.”

Turning to Biden’s visit to the Vietnamese capital Hanoi, Horowitz observes that the US has long sought to use the country to ‘encircle and contain’ its neighbour China:

“Leading up to this trip, many so-called experts claimed that the goal of this trip was to up the pressure on Vietnam to join the US anti-China coalition. If that was Biden’s goal, he failed.

“In the days leading up to his arrival, high-level Vietnamese officials met with their Chinese counterparts, and both sides assured each other about their continued friendship. China remains Vietnam’s biggest economic partner, and both countries cooperate in all fields—from defense, to culture, to their shared goals of building socialism in their respective countries.”

Noting that the US and Vietnam agreed to upgrade their bilateral diplomatic relations from a comprehensive partnership to a comprehensive strategic partnership, the author goes on to note that, in his speech in Hanoi, Biden made a number of errors in this regard, specifically he, “incorrectly claimed that a ‘comprehensive strategic partnership’ was the highest level of bilateral relations in Vietnam’s foreign policy. In actuality, ‘special strategic partnership’ is the highest level. Vietnam’s relationships with China, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are rated at this level.”

The author is a long-term resident of Vietnam.

President Joe Biden just finished a major trip to Asia for the G20 Summit in India, with an important stopover in Hanoi, Vietnam. The trip saw a mix of successes and setbacks for the Biden administration.

This year’s G20 Summit took place from September 9 to 10 in the Indian capital of New Delhi. It was the first G20 meeting since last month’s major expansion of BRICS and was seen by many watchers as a forum for the U.S. and its allies to maintain their current waning dominance over the global economy. Another goal of the meeting, of course, was to reaffirm the pro-NATO narrative that Russia is economically and politically isolated.

Some of the highlights of the gathering included the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member of the economic group and a push for greener economic initiatives, such as the Global Biofuel Alliance.

Biden also used the summit to announce an international infrastructure development program which seeks to compete with China’s very successful Belt and Road Initiative, called the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). Biden repeated the often-debunked claim that China’s Belt and Road program uses economic coercion to get countries to sign on.

Meanwhile, his government claims that despite decades of U.S.-led predatory international trade and investment programs through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that this new program would be better.

One cannot help but notice the irony that the Biden administration is so eager to invest in infrastructure abroad to counter China while repeatedly failing to invest in the crumbling U.S. infrastructure at home. This is opposed to China, whose government has completed countless major infrastructure programs both at home and abroad.

One major setback for Biden’s agenda at the G20 was the summit’s final statement. The U.S. failed to get the other participants to accept language condemning Putin and the war in Ukraine. After hundreds of hours of negotiations and many drafts, the final statement made no mention of Russia and simply called for all countries to settle their differences through negotiations. The final language is being seen as a Biden defeat and a victory for Indian President Narendra Modi, whose government maintains friendly relations with Russia.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Biden ally and French President Emmanuel Macron claimed that the G20 Summit somehow proves that the U.S.-led attempt to isolate Russia has succeeded.

After the summit concluded, Biden moved on to Hanoi. Vietnam has one of the quickest growing economies in the world and is a major leader in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The country also shares a border with China, and the U.S. has repeatedly sought to use Vietnam to further “encircle and contain” China.

Leading up to this trip, many so-called experts claimed that the goal of this trip was to up the pressure on Vietnam to join the U.S. anti-China coalition. If that was Biden’s goal, he failed.

In the days leading up to his arrival, high-level Vietnamese officials met with their Chinese counterparts, and both sides assured each other about their continued friendship. China remains Vietnam’s biggest economic partner, and both countries cooperate in all fields—from defense, to culture, to their shared goals of building socialism in their respective countries.

The highlight of Biden’s side trip was the signing of an agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam to raise the bilateral diplomatic relationship from a “comprehensive partnership” to that of a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” This upgrade in diplomatic ties offers a lot of potential economic and trade benefits for both countries and is generally seen as a win-win for Washington and Hanoi.

However, Biden’s speech in Vietnam featured a number of errors of fact. First, Biden incorrectly claimed that a “comprehensive strategic partnership” was the highest level of bilateral relations in Vietnam’s foreign policy. In actuality, “special strategic partnership” is the highest level. Vietnam’s relationships with China, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are rated at this level.

Later in his remarks to the media, Biden began to drift from the pre-press conference plan and had to be abruptly interrupted by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Even after she called an end to the press conference, however, the president continued to inaudibly answer another question that was shouted from the press pool.

After this trip, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the U.S.’ international influence is continuing to decline as the world speeds further toward a new multipolar reality. India was able to prevent the U.S. from forcing its anti-Russia language into the G20 summit’s final statement, and Vietnam was able to upgrade its bilateral relationship with the U.S. while avoiding having to join the U.S. led anti-China coalition, and in fact, maintaining its close and friendship relationship with Beijing.

The New Cold War is failing

On 6 September 2023, Carlos Martinez and Dr Ken Hammond joined Danny Haiphong live on his YouTube channel to discuss the latest developments regarding the US’s hybrid war on China and the multipolar world.

They have a detailed discussion on the US attempts to prevent China from developing advanced semiconductors; the recent advances made by Huawei and SMIC in precisely the field of advanced semiconductors; the contradiction between the requirements of the US business community and the strategic designs of the New Cold War; the state of the Chinese economy; the successes of the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg; the significance of BRICS; China’s prioritisation of relations with the countries of the Global South and those countries outside the US imperialist orbit; and more.

The three pay tribute to the recently-deceased comrade and veteran friend of China Isabel Crook, and also discuss Carlos’s and Ken’s books on China, both of which have been published in 2023.

Global Times interview with Carlos Martinez

What follows below is the full text of a written interview of Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez, conducted by the Global Times.

The interview deals with a wide range of issues, including the New Cold War on China, the nature of Chinese socialism, the Belt and Road Initiative, capitalist versus socialist democracy, and anti-China propaganda in the Western media.

An abridged version was published in the Global Times on 31 August 2023.

Could you please briefly introduce yourself to us? When did you start to study China? And what made you start to be interested in the country?

I’m an author and campaigner from London, Britain, with a longstanding interest in the socialist countries and global anti-imperialism. My first book, released in 2019, was about the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was involved in setting up the No Cold War campaign in 2020, and the Friends of Socialist China platform in 2021.

There were two main motivations for me to start studying China. The first comes from being a Marxist and wanting to understand how socialism is constructed in the real world. The second comes from being anti-imperialist and anti-war, and wanting to understand China’s role in the development of a peaceful and multipolar world.

The more I study China, the more I realise how poorly it’s understood in the West. In recent years, the anti-China propaganda in the media has been increasingly intense, corresponding to the rise of the US-led New Cold War. Many people have this absurd idea of China as some sort of authoritarian dystopia that’s intent on taking over the world. Many people believe the media’s disgraceful slanders about the suppression of human rights in Xinjiang, and so on.

China is misunderstood even on the left: lots of people believe that, because China uses market mechanisms, or because there are some very rich people in China, that it can’t be socialist any more. But then how do we explain China’s achievements? China has raised living standards beyond recognition; it’s become the world leader in renewable energy; it’s gone from being a poor and backward country to being a science and technology powerhouse; it’s leading the global shift to multipolarity; its life expectancy now exceeds that of the US. All this is historic and unprecedented progress, on a scale which has never been achieved by any capitalist country. Why on earth would the left want to attribute these successes to capitalism rather than socialism?

Continue reading Global Times interview with Carlos Martinez

NYT McCarthyite “exposé” carries water for the MAGA right

In an August 11 statement, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) joined the chorus of solidarity with Roy Singham, a progressive American businessman, and the network of organisations that stand for peace and positive relations with China that he reportedly funds, following the launch of a scurrilous witch-hunting attack, thinly disguised as “investigative journalism”, in the pages of the New York Times on August 5.

Condemning the article as one that, “would have made Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and J. Edgar Hoover green with envy”, the CPUSA states:

“Once again, we see the revival of the notion that challenging US foreign policy is tantamount to acting as an ‘agent of a foreign power,’ a charge drawn straight from the playbook of the old House Un-American Activities Committee.”

It notes that, at the height of the McCarthy period, even a world-renowned scholar like Dr. WEB DuBois, then aged 83, was “handcuffed by the government on such patently false premises.”

According to the CPUSA, the New York Times’ work is not investigative journalism, but rather, “the putrid leftovers of a conspiracy theory that was already rotten the first time around, served up to delegitimise China’s emergence as a global power and discredit critics of US foreign policy.

“If the individuals and organisations targeted in the article were part of the welter of privately-funded NGOs, think tanks, conferences, and media networks used by the US ruling class to promote its foreign policy priorities, there would be no story here.”

We reprint the full text of the CPUSA statement below. It was originally published on the party’s website.

It’s official: The new Cold War is on—and the New York Times “proves” it by warning of a nefarious Chinese plot to influence U.S. public opinion.

In an article that would have made Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and J. Edgar Hoover green with envy, the Times puts a bullseye on the activity of groups like Code Pink, the People’s Forum, and the Tricontinental Institute and the financial support they supposedly rely on from Neville Roy Singham, a wealthy American with a history of donating to left organizations.

The most damning piece of evidence in the prosecution’s arsenal is saved for the hit job’s ending sentence: “Just last month, Mr. Singham attended a Chinese Communist Party propaganda forum. In a photo, taken during a breakout session on how to promote the party abroad, Mr. Singham is seen jotting in a notebook adorned with a red hammer and sickle.” A notebook emblazoned with a red hammer and sickle? Oh no!

The article is replete with such “proof.” According to the Times, Singham also has offices in a building in Shanghai and has been seen in the company of Chinese officials at events where China’s role in the world is presented in a way that does not align with U.S. foreign policy discourse.

Continue reading NYT McCarthyite “exposé” carries water for the MAGA right

Documents show Taiwan working with FBI to prosecute Chinese Americans and intimidate US politicians

The following report by Alan MacLeod, first published in MintPress News, provides convincing proof that separatists in the Taiwanese administration are working with US intelligence agencies to drum up anti-China hostility, intimidate US politicians, influence US media, and drive a McCarthyite agenda.

The documents reviewed by MintPress reveal that Taiwanese officials are monitoring Chinese Americans and passing intelligence to the FBI with a view to having them prosecuted. Furthermore, Taiwan is spending millions in order to influence US public opinion against China and in favor of Taiwanese independence.

When Chinese American groups protested Tsai-Ing Wen’s visit to the US in early 2023, “it appears that Taiwan attempted to have these groups arrested and prosecuted as foreign agents.” In order to render pro-China or anti-Cold War campaigners liable for prosecution, Taiwanese officials aim to “collect clear and concrete evidence” that such campaigners are “directed by Chinese government”. Clearly this contributes to a broader campaign, led by reactionary US politicians and billionaire media, to stigmatize and criminalize any opposition to the pursuit of a reckless New Cold War.

The article observes that this escalating McCarthyism “has already helped create a culture of fear among Chinese Americans”, with 72 percent of Chinese researchers in the US feeling unsafe, according to a recent survey. Meanwhile, “hate crimes against Asian Americans have skyrocketed.”

With the US dangerously promoting a hegemonist agenda and using economic, diplomatic, propaganda and military means to try and put an end to China’s rise, it’s crucial that progressive and anti-war forces stand up against Cold War, against McCarthyism, and against interference in China’s internal affairs – including the question of Taiwan.

Amid a controversial visit from Vice President William Lai (the front-runner to be his country’s next leader), official documents reviewed by “MintPress News” show that the Taiwanese government is attempting to drum up anti-China hostility, influence and intimidate American politicians and is even working with the FBI and other agencies to spy on and prosecute Chinese American citizens.

Key points of this investigation
• Taiwanese officials are monitoring Chinese Americans and passing intelligence to the FBI in attempts to have them prosecuted.
• Taiwan is working with “friends” in media and politics to create a culture of fear towards China and Chinese people in the US
• Taiwanese officials claim they are “directing” and “guiding” certain US politicians.
• Taiwan is monitoring and helping to intimidate U.S. politicians they deem to be too pro-China.
• The island is spending millions funding US think tanks that inject pro-Taiwan and anti-China talking points into American politics.

Working with the feds to prosecute Chinese Americans

Vice President Lai’s journey to the United States is, officially, only a stopover on his way to Paraguay (the U.S. does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent state). He is scheduled to make appearances in both New York and San Francisco.

Lai himself is an outspoken leader of the growing movement for Taiwanese independence. Many nationalists see Taiwan as culturally different from the mainland and argue it would be better off as a fully independent state. To achieve this goal, they are attempting to gain American backing and influence American public opinion. China, however, sees the matter as purely internal, and American attempts to wrest Taiwan out of its orbit as a potential trigger for World War Three.

Continue reading Documents show Taiwan working with FBI to prosecute Chinese Americans and intimidate US politicians

Jeffrey Sachs: The US economic war on China

In this latest article from his syndicated New World Economy column, Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University) argues convincingly that – despite its protestations to the contrary – the US is waging an economic war on China, and that the US is losing.

Sachs writes that “starting around 2015, US policy-makers came to view China as a threat rather than a trade partner”, following the realization that China was not going to accept a permanent position at the bottom of US-led global value chains, but was in fact advancing “to the cutting edge of robotics, information technology, renewable energy, and other advanced technologies.”

The Trump administration launched a full-scale economic war against China, which the Biden administration has only escalated. One result is a significant decrease in US-China trade: “Between June 2022 and June 2023, US imports from China fell by a whopping 29 percent.” Naturally this has affected China’s economy in the short-term, but the long-term damage will be to the US, since China’s deep economic relations with the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the Pacific render it relatively less vulnerable to the US’s coercion. “China can substantially increase its exports to the rest of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, through policies such as expanding the Belt and Road Initiative.”

Sachs concludes that “the US attempt to contain China is not only wrongheaded in principle, but destined to fail in practice.”

China’s economy is slowing down. Current forecasts put China’s GDP growth in 2023 at less than 5%, below the forecasts made last year and far below the high growth rates that China enjoyed until the late 2010s. The Western press is filled with China’s supposed misdeeds: a financial crisis in the real-estate market, a general overhang of debt, and other ills. Yet much of the slowdown is the result of US measures that aim to slow China’s growth. Such US policies violate World Trade Organization rules and are a danger to global prosperity. They should be stopped.

The anti-China policies come out of a familiar playbook of US policy-making. The aim is to prevent economic and technological competition from a major rival. The first and most obvious application of this playbook was the technology blockade that the US imposed on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet Union was America’s declared enemy and US policy aimed to block Soviet access to advanced technologies.

The second application of the playbook is less obvious, and in fact, is generally overlooked even by knowledgeable observers. At the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, the US deliberately sought to slow Japan’s economic growth. This may seem surprising, as Japan was and is a US ally. Yet Japan was becoming “too successful,” as Japanese firms outcompeted US firms in key sectors, including semiconductors, consumer electronics, and automobiles. Japan’s success was widely hailed in bestsellers such as Japan as Number One by my late, great colleague, Harvard Professor Ezra Vogel.

In the mid-to-late 1980s, US politicians limited US markets to Japan’s exports (via so-called “voluntary” limits agreed with Japan), and pushed Japan to overvalue its currency. The Japanese Yen appreciated from around 240 Yen per dollar in 1985 to 128 Yen per dollar in 1988 and 94 Yen to the dollar in 1995, pricing Japanese goods out of the US market. Japan went into a slump as export growth collapsed. Between 1980 and 1985, Japan’s exports rose annually by

7.9 percent; between 1985 and 1990, export growth fell to 3.5 percent annually; and between 1990 and 1995, to 3.3 percent annually. As growth slowed markedly, many Japanese companies fell into financial distress, leading to a financial bust in the early 1990s.

Continue reading Jeffrey Sachs: The US economic war on China

Book review: China and America’s Tech War from AI to 5G

In this review of China and America’s Tech War from AI to 5G: The Struggle to Shape the Future of World War, the new book by AB Abrams, Will Podmore notes that China has major advantages in five crucial areas of strategic and economic significance, namely artificial intelligence, quantum computing, green and nuclear technologies, telecommunications, and semiconductor chips. China is also, he notes, the world’s largest R&D investor and accounts for nearly half of all patent applications lodged worldwide.

Podmore writes that its unaffordability deters many US citizens from university study, but in China the numbers are rising fast. Moreover, the Chinese percentage of STEM graduates among its student cohort is double that of the US. China has also overtaken the US in the number of peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals. 

The US response, Podmore observes, has been to step up its attacks on China’s Huawei. But, as Abrams notes: “By initiating hostilities the US may only have accelerated its own decline by pressing China and its suppliers to phase out reliance on both American inputs such as software as well as on US chips.”

Britain’s decision to strip out Chinese equipment from its 5G network within seven years will cost over £7 billion and delay 5G rollout by at least three years. Podmore evokes a famous aphorism of Mao Zedong when he describes all this as “lifting a rock, only to drop it on your own feet.”

For their part, the editors of the MIT Technology Review write: “It’s becoming increasingly clear in the West that while the venture capital model is good at building things people want, it’s less good at producing things society needs in order to solve hard, long-term problems like pandemics and climate change.”

Abrams’ book is published by Lexington Books. However, at £96, it is beyond the reach of all but a handful of individual readers. A Kindle edition is currently available at a slightly more affordable £38. It may also be possible to order it through your library.

This review was originally published by the Morning Star.

China has major advantages in five key broad areas of technological competition with high strategic and economic significance — artificial intelligence, quantum computing, green and nuclear technologies, telecommunications and semiconductor chips — due to its greater home market scale, flexible regulatory environment and faster product integration loop.

China is the world’s largest overall (public and private) R&D investor. And China is not producing copies, as is commonly alleged: China files nearly half all the patent applications submitted worldwide.

The unaffordability of higher education in the United States means that fewer US citizens are going to university, but in China the numbers receiving higher education are rising fast. In 2013, 40 per cent of Chinese students graduated in STEM subjects, under 20 per cent in the US.

In the period 2016-2018, China overtook the US in the number of peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals. The 2019 PISA (the OECD Programme for International Student Assessments) found that Chinese students were the best educated in the world.

The US responded not by upping its investments in high tech but by stepping up its attacks on China’s Huawei.

By 2019, 40 per cent of the world’s population used telecoms that passed through Huawei equipment. The US government alleged that Huawei was using its equipment to spy on other countries.

Nevertheless, the US House of Representatives intelligence committee had concluded in 2012 that there was no evidence that the firm was installing back doors in its equipment for espionage purposes.

Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security found no evidence of any security threat or malpractice from Huawei. And, as Abrams points out, “It was the NSA, not a Chinese government agency, which sought to install back doors into Huawei equipment for espionage purposes.”

The NSA made US tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Apple assist its surveillance efforts.

Continue reading Book review: China and America’s Tech War from AI to 5G

Cleverly’s Beijing mission a welcome contrast to backbench warmongering

The following Morning Star editorial discusses British foreign secretary James Cleverly’s recent visit to Beijing.

Before setting off, Cleverly observed that “no significant global problem – from climate change to pandemic prevention, from economic instability to nuclear proliferation – can be solved without China.” This is certainly true. Furthermore Britain would derive clear economic benefits from improved Britain-China relations.

Unfortunately, as the editorial points out, Cleverly’s relatively balanced position stands in stark contrast to that found elsewhere in parliament, “where the foreign select committee not only urges Aukus expansion but calls for Britain to join another anti-China military bloc, the Quad, a prescription for miring us still deeper in the preparations for a Pacific war that a US general has predicted for the year after next.”

What’s more, the basic political dynamics underlying the deterioration in relations have not meaningfully changed. The US is leading a New Cold War that includes military encirclement (via AUKUS, war games, freedom of navigation assertions and so on), attempting to stoke conflict across the Taiwan Strait, sanctions, tariffs, and a vicious propaganda war. Britain has involved itself in all of this. Prioritising our status as a loyal junior partner to US imperialism has become a consensus position in British politics.

The editorial concludes that a powerful mass peace movement is a necessary force to counter the Cold Warriors in Westminster.

The Foreign Secretary’s visit to Beijing is a welcome attempt to keep communications open with an economic, scientific and technological giant.

James Cleverly is spot on when he says global problems cannot be addressed without China, whether we are talking about climate change, co-operation on pandemics or — the elephant in the room given the feverish warmongering on Tory back benches — avoiding World War III.

The government’s attitude contrasts favourably to that of critics like ex-work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith. For Duncan Smith, for whom “anything to do with China is a security threat,” simply holding talks with Chinese leaders is “appeasement.”

Labour’s David Lammy does not go quite so far, though he calls on Cleverly to secure “tangible diplomatic wins” such as the removal of sanctions on British parliamentarians.

Continue reading Cleverly’s Beijing mission a welcome contrast to backbench warmongering

Camp David summit outlines military alliance against China

The following article by Sara Flounders, originally posted on Workers World, provides a critical analysis of US President Joe Biden’s diplomatic “victory” at Camp David, in which he brought together Japan and South Korea to form a security pact with the US. Sara observes that this pact has nothing to do with the maintenance of peace, but is directed towards upgrading the US’s military threat against China and the DPRK, as well as blocking China’s development and regional trade.

The article notes the enormous US military infrastructure which already exists in the region: “US troops have occupied both Japan and South Korea since 1945. There are still 53,700 US troops in Japan on 120 military bases — more bases than in any other country. Some 26,400 US troops are stationed on 73 bases in South Korea, including Fort Humphreys, the largest overseas US military base. This overwhelming US military presence exerts extreme political pressure.” This is on top of the recent creation of AUKUS and the revival and upgrading of the QUAD.

As such, the agreement at Camp David is simply “a further step in Washington’s strategy of inserting tensions, instability and continuing provocations in the region in an attempt to block China’s development and its growing regional trade with its neighbors.”

Sara points out that the US’s anti-China strategy of sanctions and tariffs is actually punishing South Korea and Japan more than China. “By expanding sanctions on China affecting chip technology, software and equipment, Washington disrupts global supply chains and damages the economies of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.” Indeed the US economy will suffer too. But as far as US strategists are concerned, China’s suffering is a higher priority than US prosperity. Unfortunately for Washington’s cold warriors, however, “though China will feel the impact of sanctions, its economy is larger than those of its Asian neighbors, and its many global trading partners may give it a greater capacity to adjust, including by reinforcing its domestic economy.”

August 22 — U.S. war threats against China heightened this week. On Aug. 18, President Joe Biden framed an aggressive military alliance, with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida dutifully attending, at an ominous summit at Camp David. This trilateral military pact of the United States, South Korea and Japan is directly aimed at China and at the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

Both U.S. and Chinese, as well as other international media, all described the meeting as a confirmation of a new Cold War against China.

The military pact of South Korea and Japan with the U.S. intentionally damages both the South Korean and Japanese economies, as China has been the major trading partner of both countries. However, right-wing militarists in office in each country seem willing to act against their own people’s interests.

Continue reading Camp David summit outlines military alliance against China

Xi Jinping at 15th BRICS Summit: Cold War mentality is still haunting our world

Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech to the 15th BRICS Summit, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on August 23.

Aptly titled, ‘Seeking Development Through Solidarity and Cooperation and Shouldering Our Responsibility for Peace’, and noting that BRICS is an important force in shaping the international landscape, the Chinese leader said early in his speech that:

“We [the BRICS countries] choose our development paths independently, jointly defend our right to development, and march in tandem toward modernisation. This represents the direction of the advancement of human society, and will profoundly impact the development process of the world.”

Making a series of practical proposals, the Chinese leader called for deepening business and financial cooperation to boost economic growth. Development, he noted, is an inalienable right of all countries, not a privilege reserved for a few. “We BRICS countries should be fellow companions on the journey of development and revitalisation, and oppose decoupling and supply chains disruption as well as economic coercion. We should focus on practical cooperation, particularly in such fields as digital economy, green development, and supply chain, and bolster economic, trade and financial exchanges.”

He also called for expanding political and security cooperation to uphold peace and tranquility.

“The Cold War mentality is still haunting our world, and the geopolitical situation is getting tense. All nations long for a sound security environment. International security is indivisible. Attempts to seek absolute security at the expense of others will eventually backfire.”

Regarding the Ukraine crisis, he said that it had “evolved to where it is today because of complex reasons. What is pressing now is to encourage peace talks, promote de-escalation, end the fighting, and realise peace. No one should add fuel to the fire to worsen the situation.”

Turning to the talk of the so-called ‘rules based international order’ touted by a handful of countries, Xi said that:

“International rules must be written and upheld jointly by all countries based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, rather than dictated by those with the strongest muscles or the loudest voice. Ganging up to form exclusive groups and packaging their own rules as international norms are even more unacceptable.”

The following is the full text of President Xi’s speech. It was originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.

Your Excellency President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa,

Your Excellency President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva,

Your Excellency President Vladimir Putin,

Your Excellency Prime Minister Narendra Modi,

I am very pleased to join you in Johannesburg for the important discussions on BRICS cooperation and development. It is especially significant that the BRICS Summit is held in Africa for the third time. I wish to thank President Ramaphosa and the South African government for the thoughtful arrangements.

We gather at a time when the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation. It is undergoing major shifts, division and regrouping, leading to more uncertain, unstable and unpredictable developments.

BRICS is an important force in shaping the international landscape. We choose our development paths independently, jointly defend our right to development, and march in tandem toward modernization. This represents the direction of the advancement of human society, and will profoundly impact the development process of the world. Our track record shows that we have consistently acted on the BRICS spirit of openness, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation, and taken BRICS cooperation to new heights in support of our five countries’ development. We have upheld fairness and justice in international affairs, stood up for what is right on major international and regional issues, and enhanced the voice and influence of emerging markets and developing countries. BRICS countries invariably advocate and practice independent foreign policies. We always address major international issues based on their merits, making fair remarks and taking fair actions. We do not barter away principles, succumb to external pressure, or act as vassals of others. We BRICS countries share extensive consensus and common goals. No matter how the international situation changes, our commitment to cooperation since the very beginning and our common aspiration will not change.

Continue reading Xi Jinping at 15th BRICS Summit: Cold War mentality is still haunting our world

US warships provoke in South China Sea, but don’t help fight fires in Hawaii

In this editorial the Chinese newspaper Global Times addresses the prolonged wildfires that have ravaged Hawaii’s Maui Island, which, as of Thursday August 17, had claimed the lives  of 99 people, with more than 1,000 missing. 

Global Times contrasts the US’ response to such disasters, citing also that to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as well as the recent East Palestine train derailment, with its ability to project military power around the world, with its network of over 800 foreign military bases. It quotes a US internet user as observing:

“Our warships can provoke China in the South China Sea, they can shadow China in Alaska, but they can’t come to Hawaii to help Americans.” 

Global Times comments: “While the wildfires were raging in Hawaii, what was Washington busy with? It was occupied with imposing investment restrictions on China, preparing for the Camp David summit with Japan and South Korea, and announcing $200 million in new military aid to Ukraine. However, the specific amount of assistance provided by the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] for the Hawaii wildfires, as announced to date, is a payment of $700 per household… The US government prefers to hype harmless balloon accidents as major security threats, but remains ‘calm’ about the tragic disasters causing significant casualties right in front of it.”

After a week of fierce wildfires in parts of Hawaii’s Maui Island in the US, the death toll continues to rise. As of Tuesday noon local time, 99 people have died and over 1,000 remain missing. This has been labeled by the US media as the deadliest wildfires in the country in a century. The dire situation in the affected areas has inflicted immense psychological shock upon the American people. Reports said local residents have “lost everything,” with some even being “forced to jump into the Pacific Ocean to escape the smoke and fire conditions.” Criticisms of failures in warnings, inadequate disaster relief efforts, and inaction from the stationed US military in Hawaii have fueled “growing anger.”

Such a large number of casualties would be a major disaster in any country, and it is even more shocking when it occurs in the world’s most developed country. The US is prone to natural disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes. However, the country’s patchy response when dealing with these disasters is perplexing. The US has always proclaimed itself as a “world leader” and claims to be capable of responding rapidly to security threats around the globe. It possesses over 800 military bases overseas and projects its military power with aircraft carriers worldwide. But when it comes to domestic disasters or public safety incidents within the US, its response is slow and its ability to cope seems inadequate.

Although Hawaii is not located on the continental US, it remains one of the most critical military bases for the country. Hawaii serves as the headquarters of the US Indo-Pacific Command. The Indo-Pacific Command claims to “govern” over 50 percent of the world’s surface area, but ironically remains indifferent to the disasters that occur in its own location. What has fueled anger among the local community is the fact that the initial relief work was largely organized by residents themselves, with little presence from the National Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state government, or local authorities. An American internet user sarcastically remarked, “Our warships can provoke China in the South China Sea, they can shadow China in Alaska, but they can’t come to Hawaii to help Americans.” This aptly illustrates the hierarchy of decision-making in the US.

US sluggish and indifferent response to its domestic catastrophic incidents sharply contrasts with its fervent resource mobilization in “competition” with other nations. Leaving a deep impression on us, there was the Hurricane “Katrina” in 2005 that resulted in the loss of 1,836 lives, and the train derailment in East Palestine earlier this year carrying hazardous chemicals. There was also the Florida building collapse in 2021 that claimed 98 lives, and the slow rescue efforts during that time were referred to as “archaeological-style rescue.” A foreign netizen said, “The ‘American-style rescue’ in Hollywood movies is nowhere to be seen, with no American rescue heroes or high-tech equipment.” This observation seems to be perfectly fitting for every disaster in America, including the current Hawaii wildfires.

While the wildfires were raging in Hawaii, what was Washington busy with? It was occupied with imposing investment restrictions on China, preparing for the Camp David summit with Japan and South Korea, and announcing $200 million in new military aid to Ukraine. However, the specific amount of assistance provided by the FEMA for the Hawaii wildfires, as announced to date, is a payment of $700 per household. The few discussions about the wildfires mostly serve as the latest pretext for mutual attacks between the two parties. The American media, which has always emphasized “supervision,” seems to consider all of this as a matter of course, leading to the repetition of the same events without any profound reflection.

The US actively exercises hegemony in its foreign affairs, and its internal mechanisms are very backward, failing to take the protection of citizens’ security as the starting point and foundation of national security. Specifically, the US wastes a large amount of resources meaninglessly in fighting against “imaginary external opponents,” while ignoring the life-threatening threats faced by its domestic population. The US focuses its investment in military power and military-related technological fields in terms of national security, while investing inadequately in domestic infrastructure construction, disaster reduction, and relief efforts that concern people’s wellbeing and national security.

The problems exposed by the deadly wildfires in Hawaii belong to the entire US. We can see that from the “9/11” attacks to the present, the US has witnessed numerous major events related to citizens’ security. However, there has been almost no obvious improvement in the construction of institutional mechanisms for responding to domestic disasters and accidents by the US government. The US government prefers to hype harmless balloon accidents as major security threats, but remains “calm” about the tragic disasters causing significant casualties right in front of it. When the next disaster strikes, the performance of the US government is unlikely to be any better. Every disaster is a reminder to the US, using innocent lives to remind it who its real enemies and challenges are. The US’ disregard for this reminder is the greatest desecration of the lives lost.

US steps up effort to drive a wedge between Vietnam and China

In this article, which was originally carried in People’s World, Amiad Horowitz takes up a recent off-handed comment by US President Joe Biden, that he intends to travel to Vietnam shortly, noting that CNN described it as another attempt to “counter China’s influence.” Amiad further identified this as “part of the US’ new Cold War aimed at China and other socialist and progressive states, [with] leaders in Washington [hoping] to drive a wedge between China and Vietnam.”

Amiad notes that Washington has now been pursuing this policy for years, but with little success. Going along with this, he explains, “would go against the established tenets and guidelines of Vietnam’s foreign policy.”

The US has remained undeterred, but as “the Biden administration amps up the tensions in Asia, the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have chosen to pursue a path of cooperation and peace.”

To illustrate his argument, Amiad refers to high-level diplomatic meetings between the two socialist countries on August 9 and 10 as well as to other recent encounters:

“In fact, as the two largest socialist countries, their relationship takes on a special significance, a relationship of ‘brothers plus comrades’, as a joint statement put it in November last year.”

Immediately following the original publication of this article, on August 16, China’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Wang Yi met in Kunming the provincial capital of Yunnan, with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Tran Luu Quang.

Wang Yi told his visitor that, as neighbouring countries sharing the same ideology, “the two sides should prepare for the next stage of high-level exchanges.” They should also, Wang added, jointly uphold the ideals and beliefs of the communist party and the cause of socialism.

Tran was attending the Seventh China-South Asia Expo, along with other senior leaders from countries in the region, including Laos, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

Amiad Horowitz studied at the Academy of Journalism and Communications at Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics. He lives in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi.

Last Tuesday, in an offhanded remark, President Joe Biden mentioned that he intends to travel to Vietnam “shortly” as part of an effort “to change our relationship” with the country. While no official plan, agenda, or timeline was given, CNN was quick to report that the Biden administration continues to hope it will be able bring Vietnam into the campaign to “counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region.”

As part of the U.S.’ new Cold War aimed at China and other socialist and progressive states, leaders in Washington hope to drive a wedge between China and Vietnam. The two socialist states share a border, and it appears U.S. imperialism is determined to integrate Vietnam into its strategy of encircling China from all sides.

While the United States has pursued this wedge policy toward Vietnam for years, it hasn’t met with much success so far. Any explicitly anti-China agreement with the U.S. would go against the established tenets and guidelines of Vietnam’s foreign policy, which include peaceful coexistence with all states, avoiding entanglement in any military alliances, and never using the threat of violence against another country.

Washington remains undeterred in its effort to draw Vietnam in, however. As the Biden administration amps up the tensions in Asia, the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have chosen to pursue a path of cooperation and peace.

Continue reading US steps up effort to drive a wedge between Vietnam and China

A transformative period in world history

This article by Irish journalist and former hunger striker Tommy McKearney, first published in Socialist Voice, assesses the deepening economic and political crisis of global capitalism – a crisis which is evolving into a full-blown crisis of legitimacy, given a powerful new factor: “the presence of a viable alternative in the east, that is, the People’s Republic of China.”

McKearney describes China’s growing weight in international relations, writing that it “has now become a leading influence in three of the world’s most important regions, and has done so without the use of military expansionism.” China’s multipolar strategy, and its consistent adherence to the principles of non-interference and win-win cooperation, have earned it the trust and support of much of the Global South. As far as the imperialist ruling classes are concerned, this constitutes more than just an economic problem: “A deeper concern is that the Communist Party of China has overseen the development of an economic template that is much more successful than that promoted by free-marketeers.”

The imperialists’ response to this crisis is the initiation of a reckless New Cold War – a strategy of hegemonism and hybrid warfare which is now more-or-less a consensus position in the corridors of power in Washington and London.

Referring to some of the Western left’s previous criticisms and misunderstandings of Chinese socialism, McKearney concludes his article with a significant comment: “Whatever view we took in the past about the Chinese path to socialism, it is incumbent upon us now to give adequate consideration to developments in that amazing country where the East is still glowing red.”

Over the past few months the public, or at least a section of it, has been watching with interest the trials and tribulations of two high-profile political demagogues. We refer, of course, to the arraignment of Donald Trump and the British House of Commons voting to censure Boris Johnson.

Yet in spite of what appeared to be damning indictments against both men, they have not been completely ostracised. Mainstream conservatives in both the United States and Britain have deliberately avoided outright condemnation of their actions. It is important to analyse the reason for this reluctance, as it casts a light on significant developments internationally.

The capitalist ruling class, led from the United States and embedded in Western Europe, has had more than two centuries to perfect techniques for retaining power. For the most part they prefer to create the appearance of governing by consensus. They do, after all, control the means of production, giving them enormous influence over employment, thereby facilitating the divide-and-rule strategy used to split working-class communities.

Moreover, ownership of the mass media allows for the creation of a self-justifying narrative. Granting the people a vote every few years lends the appearance of legitimacy to all of this.

Continue reading A transformative period in world history

Report: Online launch of The East is Still Red

On Sunday 13 August 2023, Friends of Socialist China, the International Manifesto Group, Midwestern Marx and Critical Theory Workshop jointly held an online book launch for Carlos Martinez’s The East is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century.

Speakers included Carlos Martinez, Ben Chacko (editor of the Morning Star), Chen Weihua (China Daily EU bureau chief), Amanda Yee (writer and podcaster), Dan Kovalik (author of NICARAGUA: A History of US Intervention and Resistance), Sara Flounders (author of SANCTIONS – A Wrecking Ball in a Global Economy) and Charles Xu of Qiao Collective. The event was chaired by Professor Radhika Desai.

In Carlos’s introduction, he focused on debunking the notion that China has become an imperialist country, describing this as a powerfully demobilising idea at a time when we should be uniting the broadest possible forces against the US-led New Cold War. Carlos posed the following questions about China: Does it seek to dominate foreign markets, land, labour and resources? Does it use its economic strength to dictate policy or assert hegemony over poorer countries? Does it go to war in pursuit of its economic interests? Does it engage in regime change, destabilisation, unilateral sanctions and economic coercion, in pursuit of its economic interests?

Carlos argued that the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. He pointed out that China has not been involved in a war in over four decades, and does not have a global infrastructure of military bases or troop deployments. He also pointed out that China does not engage in regime change, destabilisation or unilateral sanctions, and has never used its economic strength to dictate policy or assert hegemony over poorer countries. He contrasted this with the record of the US and its allies – a record of military, economic and political imperialism.

Ben Chacko pointed out that it is crucial to develop a better understanding of China at the current time, in the context of rising US hostility and an emerging New Cold War. Highlighting the Biden regime’s extreme inconsistency in its China policy – on the one hand saying that it wants a cooperative relationship, and on the other hand undermining the One China Principle and escalating attempts at containment and encirclement – Ben noted that the US isn’t at all sure of its ability to actually win a Cold War against China. As such, it is making preparations for a potential hot war on China, which would clearly be disastrous for humanity.

Continue reading Report: Online launch of The East is Still Red

China’s ecological civilization a profound contribution to humanity

In this opinion piece for the Global Times, Carlos Martinez describes the extraordinary progress made by China over the past two decades, emerging as a world leader in renewable energy, electric vehicles, green public transport and biodiversity protection. That China rather than the advanced capitalist countries has made such progress is “a reflection of China’s socialist system, which is structured in such a way that political and economic priorities are determined not by capital’s drive for constant expansion but by the needs and aspirations of the people.”

The West on the other hand, more interested in protecting its global hegemony than preventing climate breakdown, is moving in the opposite direction. The US’s proxy war on Russia has led to a huge increase in US exports of fracked shale gas to Europe; a rise in coal consumption in Europe; and ramped up oil drilling in the North Sea. Meanwhile the US and Britain have both recently announced major new drilling projects. And rather than cooperating with China, these countries impose sanctions on its renewable energy industry.

However, the countries of the Global South are enthusiastically cooperating with China and benefitting from its experience, support and investment. “Environmentalists in the West should draw the appropriate lessons, resolutely reject anti-China hysteria, oppose decoupling, oppose the new cold war, and promote maximum global cooperation to save the planet.”

Tuesday, August 15, marks China’s first National Ecology Day. On August 15, 2005, 18 years ago, Xi Jinping, then Secretary of the Zhejiang Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), first put forward the concept that green mountains are themselves gold mountains, when he visited Yucun, a village in Zhejiang Province.

At a national conference on ecological and environmental protection in July 2023, Chinese President Xi Jinping said China should support high-quality development with a high-quality ecological environment and promote the modernization featuring the harmonious co-existence between human and nature. 

Over the past decades, China has made extraordinary progress, emerging as a world leader in renewable energy, electric vehicles, green public transport and biodiversity protection.

A BBC News article of June 29 noted that, of the half a trillion US dollars spent worldwide on wind and solar last year, China accounted for 55 percent. China’s solar capacity is now greater than that of the rest of the world combined. Indeed, it can reasonably be considered as the first “renewable energy superpower.”

Around 99 percent of the world’s electric buses are in China, along with 70 percent of the world’s high-speed rail. China is carrying out the largest reforestation project in the world, with forest coverage having doubled from 12 percent in 1980 to 24 percent last year.

And China’s commitment to green development is only deepening. Environmental sustainability is a central theme at all levels of government, and the nation’s ambitious goals to achieve peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060 are actively informing China’s economic strategy.

Continue reading China’s ecological civilization a profound contribution to humanity

The new cold war is being fought at the planet’s expense

The following editorial from the Morning Star addresses recent absurd claims by British politicians and journalists that Chinese electric vehicles are being (or may be) used to spy on Britain. The author points out that this laughable notion is in fact part of “a weird trade protectionism operated on behalf of a foreign government (the United States)”, itself a component of a broader campaign of China containment.

The editorial observes that “major problems facing humanity require international co-operation — and China’s leading position in green technology makes co-operation in this field essential.” Given that China is home to nearly half of all electric vehicles and two-thirds of high-speed rail worldwide, and given that it “installed more renewable energy last year alone than the US has in its whole history”, coordination with China on environmental issues is a matter of urgent and obvious interest to the people of Britain and indeed the rest of the world. And yet the imperialist ruling classes continue to adhere to their Cold War slogan of better dead than red.

THE summer parliamentary recess once meant “silly season” for the newspapers because there was no politics to report.

Today it is politicians themselves publicising nonsense. MPs’ scaremongering that importing electric vehicle technology from China will allow our cars to spy on us is laughable.

The gaggle of ministers and backbenchers running to the Telegraph with their national security concerns do not, of course, suggest that China’s dominant position in the renewables industry says anything positive about it.

China might be home to nearly half of all electric vehicles worldwide, two-thirds of high-speed rail, and have installed more renewable energy last year alone than the United States has done in its whole history. It might account for 60 per cent of wind power manufacturing and 75 per cent of solar.

Anything to learn from this? The advantages of economic planning? Of targeted public investment in strategic sectors?

No, the MPs show no concern with investing in the British renewables sector. Their priority is to keep China out — even if it means ditching green tech.

Rules suggesting car-dealers hit a minimum quota of 22 per cent of sales being of electric vehicles by next year should be scrapped, they say.

Mournfully they hint that perhaps even the plan to ban sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 must be cast aside, in case it proves a Trojan horse for Beijing.

The most reactionary wing of the Conservative Party has scented an opportunity since their Uxbridge by-election victory — assigned by both Tories and Labour to the unpopularity of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s ultra-low emissions zone.

The PM quickly painted himself as the champion of motorists. He trumpeted daily reliance on cars by a majority of British households as evidence that cars are fantastic, not that something needs to be done about our public transport system. Advocates of buses, trains or bicycles are ivory-tower dwelling elitists, says a man who criss-crosses England by private jet.

By the end of July the Express was reporting plans of a “major rebellion” by Tories against any phase-out for petrol and diesel cars. Back-bench MP Nick Fletcher calls low-traffic neighbourhoods a “socialist plot” — if electric cars can be depicted as a communist conspiracy, so much the better for Big Oil.

Of course, MPs are not just hyping the China threat to protect fossil fuel interests.

The new cold war is a much wider phenomenon. This is not the first time Britain has shot itself in the foot in order to “decouple” from China: in 2020 the government scrapped its agreement with Huawei to deliver 5G, a move former business secretary Vince Cable pointed out was not based on security concerns but blind obedience to the United States.

But major problems facing humanity require international co-operation — and China’s leading position in green technology makes co-operation in this field essential.

Sanctions applied to Chinese solar panel exports based on US allegations of forced labour slowed commissioning of new solar energy plants in the US by an estimated 25 per cent last year.

We are hobbling emissions reduction based on rumours — nothing more. Even the much-vaunted “spy balloon” shot down by the US earlier this year never did any spying, Washington quietly admitted a few weeks later.

In the process, we are shoring up US dominance of high-tech and digital platforms — with the transatlantic furore against TikTok being used to drive out a rare non-US-owned digital player and entrench the position of companies like Apple, Google and Facebook, which are repeatedly caught spying on their users.

The new cold war is becoming a vehicle for the right to secure liberal consent to greater censorship, a weird trade protectionism operated on behalf of a foreign government (the United States) and abandonment of environmental targets.

The left should not fall into the same trap.