New Cold War Archives - Page 6 of 18 - Friends of Socialist China

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Activists demand Biden and Congress end war on Korea

In the following article, which was originally published by Workers World, Joe Piette reports on the broad-based National Mobilization to End the Korean War, that was held in Washington DC, July 27-28, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the signing of the armistice agreement that ended three years of bitter fighting on the Korean peninsula.

Events included a press conference in front of the US Capitol, a rally in front of the White House, and a conference at George Washington University, where the keynote speaker was the renowned progressive scholar, Professor Bruce Cumings.

Joe also points out that the current US war drive against China is once again increasing the threat to the Korean people, too. “To stop this campaign,” Joe writes, “peace-loving people must organize resistance. This effort must include self-education to undermine mass media misinformation against China. Recommended reading should include The East is Still Red, by Carlos Martinez [co-editor of this website].”

July 27 was the 70th anniversary of the 1953 armistice that ended combat in the Korean War. That agreement — among the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north, the People’s Republic of China and the United States — to suspend fighting was expected to be temporary, in anticipation of negotiations for a peace treaty after three months. The Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south was not a signatory of the truce.

Since then, however, the U.S. has stationed tens of thousands of troops in South Korea, tensions remain high, and to this day a peace agreement has never been reached.

The 70 years of U.S. (and more recently, U.N.) sanctions, isolation and military threats have denied the DPRK’s population the necessities of life, prevented the reunification of Korea and prolonged the state of war. It is time to end the Korean War and reunite Korean families, demilitarize the Korean Peninsula and reduce the risk of nuclear war in northeast Asia.

The stated goal of the Korea Peace Action Coalition organizers is to urge “President Biden and Congress to support a formal end to the Korean War. In Congress, we’re asking for the support of H.R.1369, the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act, which calls for diplomacy with North Korea to formally end the Korean War, a comprehensive review of travel restrictions to North Korea, and the establishment of liaison offices in the U.S. and North Korea.”

End the Korean War now!

A news conference on July 27 in front of the U.S. Capitol featured a broad array of activists and organizations: Christine Ahn, Women Cross DMZ; Joy Gebhard, Divided Family Member; Rick Downes, Coalition of Families of Korean & Cold War POW/MIAs; Lt. General (Retired) Daniel P. Leaf, U.S. Air Force; Joyce Ajlouny, American Friends Service Committee; Hana Marie Kim, 30 Under 30 activist and high school student; and Barbara Lee, U.S. Congress member from California.

Following the press event, an emotional Han ceremony at the Foundry United Methodist Church gave the many participants of Korean ancestry an opportunity to express and manage the complex emotions of sorrow, resentment, grief, sadness and hope that afflict many members of families separated during the Korean War and the following seven decades of a divided Korea.

Later, a rally in front of the White House featured Echo Hyunsook Cho, Women Cross DMZ; Medea Benjamin, Code Pink; internet personality Nick Cho, “Your Korean Dad”; and other speakers. It was followed by a spirited mile-long march past the Korean War Veterans Monument to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where an interfaith vigil was held.

DPRK expresses full solidarity with China in light of US provocations

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has expressed its full solidarity with its socialist neighbour and ally after the United States recently declared its intention to provide the Chinese renegade province of Taiwan with a further 345 million dollars’ worth of weapons.

In a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on August 4, Maeng Yong Rim, director general of the Department of Chinese Affairs in the DPRK’s Foreign Ministry, noted that the US action, “constitutes a flagrant violation of the one China principle, which the US committed itself to before the Chinese government and people, and of the spirit of the three China-US joint communiqués. It is also an interference in the internal affairs of China and a grave encroachment on China’s sovereignty and security.”

According to the DPRK official:

“While talking about the improvement of relations with China, the present US administration is clinging to the Taiwan issue, the most important core interests of China. Its intention is clear.

“It is the sinister intention of the US to turn Taiwan into an unsinkable advanced base against China and the first-line trench for carrying out its strategy for deterring China and thus secure its hegemonic position in the Asia-Pacific region.

“But the US ambition for hegemony can never work on the strength of the powerful Chinese people.”

Maeng Yong Rim went on to warn: “Independent and sovereign states in the Asia-Pacific region have the strength and will to firmly defend their sovereignty and core interests from the US high-handed and arbitrary practices.”

His statement concluded: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will fully support any measure of the People’s Republic of China to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and achieve the sacred cause of the unification of the Chinese nation.”

The following article was originally carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Maeng Yong Rim, director general of the Department of Chinese Affairs of the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK, issued the following press statement on August 3:

Recently, the U.S. made public “Weapons Aid Package” for providing Taiwan with weapons worth 345 million U.S. dollars, thus driving the military tensions in the Asia-Pacific region to another ignition point of war.

In less than three years since the present U.S. administration came into power, it provided military aid to Taiwan as times as the preceding administration had done.

The U.S. is planning to provide Taiwan with military aid worth 10 billion U.S. dollars for the coming five years and emergency defense aid worth a billion U.S. dollars every year.

This constitutes a flagrant violation of the one China principle, which the U.S. committed itself before the Chinese government and people, and of the spirit of the three China-U.S. joint communiqués. It is also an interference in internal affairs of China and a grave encroachment on China’s sovereignty and security.

The U.S. says in public that it abides by the principle of one China but instigates in the rear the “independence” of Taiwan, inseparable part of China. Such shameless duality and double-dealing of the U.S. are a dangerous political and military provocation totally destroying the stability of the regional situation and an anti-peace reckless act which must be condemned by the world people.

‘The East Is Still Red’ a necessary read

In this review, first published in Workers World, John Catalinotto commends Carlos Martinez’s recently-released The East is Still Red as a valuable contribution to the discussion among Marxists regarding the class character of the People’s Republic of China. John considers that the book “arms anti-imperialists with the truth” about China, and convincingly argues the need for those in the West to resolutely struggle against the calamitous US-led New Cold War.

The East is Still Red can be purchased in paperback and digital formats from Praxis Press.

With his recently published book, “The East Is Still Red,” Carlos Martinez has clarified the role of the Chinese revolution in improving the lives of a fifth of humanity. The book is a contribution to the discussion among Marxists regarding the class character of the People’s Republic of China.

As the title implies, Martinez argues that the PRC is still socialist and that anti-imperialists worldwide should defend People’s China against U.S. and world imperialism.

The book’s six chapters are based on articles published in 2021 and 2022, organized into a succinct and well-sourced presentation of Martinez’s arguments.

Martinez shows the achievements of People’s China in the chapters, “China’s long war on poverty” and “China is building an ecological civilisation.” If it were just a problem of presenting facts, he would win by a landslide. His challenge is overcoming imperialism’s domination of the worldwide media and miseducation, aka, the Big Lie.

For example, Martinez quotes from international agencies to point out that China’s recent economic growth has moved hundreds of millions of people out of poverty into a stable and secure life: “To eradicate extreme poverty in a developing country of 1.4 billion people — which at the time of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 was one of the poorest countries in the world, characterized by widespread malnutrition, illiteracy, foreign domination and technological backwardness — is without doubt ‘the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history,’ in the words of United Nations Secretary General António Guterres.” (un.org/press/en/2019/sgsm19779.doc.htm)

This should convince anyone. However, imperialism’s Big Lie condemns everything in China, twisting reality into its opposite and imposing a distorted version of the world. This skews perception among much of the population in the imperialist heartlands of North America, Europe, Japan and Australia.

In the chapter, “Manufacturing consent for the containment and encirclement of China,” the author describes how mind-bending weapons of the imperialist ruling class have waged a relentless ideological assault on People’s China, in preparation for war.

What makes the book important is that it arms anti-imperialists with the truth. They can learn from it and repeat this truth to all who will pay attention. This process is a first step to building solidarity with People’s China at a time when the U.S. government wages an economic war and sails warships near the Chinese coast.

Is China socialist?

The big question for those who consider themselves to be on the side of socialist revolution is: What is the class character of People’s China?

Martinez notes that, “[F]or many on the left (particularly in the West), 1978 marked a turning point in the wrong direction — away from socialism, away from the cause of the working class and peasantry. The introduction of private profit, the decollectivization of agriculture, the appearance of multinational companies and the rise of Western influence: these added up to a historic betrayal and an end to the Chinese Revolution [this part of the left argues].

“The consensus view within the Communist Party of China is that socialism with Chinese characteristics is a strategy aimed at strengthening socialism, improving the lives of the Chinese people, and consolidating China’s sovereignty.”

Martinez agrees with the CPC’s consensus. He spends a good part of the book presenting the Chinese experience since 1978. Nearly 100 million party members are defending socialist property rights, even though a capitalist class has grown — it includes billionaires — and great inequalities in wealth exist. Imperialist corporations are exploiting Chinese labor. The CPC’s success in continually improving the daily lives of all China’s inhabitants, he argues, has cemented the working class’s loyalty to the Beijing government and to the CPC.

That China’s economy has weathered the 2008 capitalist crisis that brought capitalist finance to the brink of collapse is proof that the billionaires are not driving decisions, even though they were allowed to join the CPC. The party stayed in control and built “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

That China came through the COVID-19 challenge, began a shift toward defending the environment and was able to plan industrial development instead of letting the hunt for profit distort its growth are themselves proof of this success.

In the chapter, “Will China suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union?” Martinez presents in a positive light the CPC’s position of strength, and does it well. One point Workers World disagrees with, however, is attributing the Soviet failure to individual Soviet misleaders, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. These two were representatives of broad sectors within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and their decisions reflected a long process of deterioration of the CPSU, under relentless pressure from the world capitalist class. This point will require further analysis.

An important question worthy of further discussion is the possible consequence of limiting mass mobilizations in the long struggle for communist ideals — such as “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” If sacrifices are necessary to defend the socialist state with Chinese characteristics, for example, from imperialist attack, how does the party fire up ideological commitment from its population without this mobilization? How will the CPC mobilize international support from the masses without an appeal to egalitarian ideals?

Defend People’s China

Martinez convinces the reader in the chapter, “The left must resolutely oppose the U.S.-led New Cold War on China,” of the necessity of this task. In doing this, he performs a service to the worldwide movement for socialism.

The struggle against the New Cold War is an indispensable component of the struggle for socialism

The Communist Party USA held its second International Conference on 29 July 2023. Below is the video and text of the presentation delivered by Carlos Martinez on behalf of Friends of Socialist China. Carlos describes the escalating US-led New Cold War against China and warns of its dangers, concluding: “The struggle against imperialism, against hegemony and against Cold War is not a ‘nice to have’ for our movement; it’s an indispensable component of our work, of our struggle for socialism and a brighter future for humanity.”

The conference also featured contributions by representatives of the governing communist parties of China, Vietnam and Cuba, alongside speeches by numerous other organizations and individuals. The full event is can be viewed on YouTube.

Greetings on behalf of Friends of Socialist China to the CPUSA International Conference 2023. It’s an honour to be invited to participate in this event; to join you in struggle against an imperialist system that’s destroying the planet, whilst spreading war, chaos, poverty, inequality and misery.

As you know well, the United States is leading a multifaceted campaign of containing and encircling China. This escalating Cold War has multiple components: sanctions; a trade war; a propaganda war; the undermining of the One China Policy; the arming of Taiwan province; so-called Freedom of Navigation Assertions in the South China Sea; the formation of AUKUS – a trilateral nuclear pact with Australia and Britain, which is in clear violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; the encouraging of Japanese re-armament; the attempt to stop China developing advanced semiconductor technology; the attacks on Huawei and TikTok. The list goes on.

It’s a Cold War in the sense that it doesn’t currently involve direct military engagement between the main protagonists, but that may well not permanently be the case, given the levels of recklessness and stupidity prevailing in Washington DC and elsewhere in the imperialist camp.

What’s the purpose of this New Cold War? It’s not only about suppressing China, or rolling back the Chinese Revolution. Just as the original Cold War was fought not exclusively against the Soviet Union but against the very notion that the nations of the world could exercise sovereignty and independence; so is this Second Cold War about preventing humanity’s trajectory towards a multipolar system of international relations, about preserving, defending and consolidating US hegemony – or as Truman called it, “a world environment in which the American system can flourish.”

China is the primary target – because it’s become a major power; because it’s become the economic centre of gravity for the Global South; because it’s become a science and technology powerhouse; because its people live increasingly well; because its extraordinary successes in tackling poverty, improving its people’s living standards, developing green energy systems, fighting the pandemic and more provide material proof that Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” was a mirage, that neoliberal capitalism is not the final stage of human development.

There’s a great deal at stake in today’s epic struggle between the forces of imperialism and the forces of multipolarity and socialism.

Book review: IF Stone – The Hidden History of the Korean War

Written to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement, this book review by Carlos Martinez of IF Stone’s recently re-issued The Hidden History of the Korean War seeks to identify the lessons to be learnt from the so-called “forgotten war”, and to draw out parallels between the original Cold War in the Pacific and the New Cold War in the Pacific.

A shorter version of this review was published in the Morning Star.

The 27th of July 2023 marks 70 years since the signing of the armistice agreement at Panmunjom, finally bringing about a cessation of hostilities in a war that was extraordinarily destructive but which has been largely ignored.

As Bruce Cumings writes in his preface to I.F. Stone’s classic The Hidden History of the Korean War – first published in 1952 and recently reissued by Monthly Review Press – the Korean War is a forgotten war, “remembered mainly as an odd conflict sandwiched between the good war (World War 2) and the bad war (Vietnam).”

For those seeking to build a peaceful and prosperous future for humanity, the lessons of the Korean War must not be forgotten. Indeed re-reading The Hidden History it becomes clear that there are several crucial parallels with today’s world.

Stone’s meticulous investigation provides abundant proof that most of the key players in the US government and military actively wanted the Korean War; that it was the right war, in the right place and the right time in terms of US imperialist interests.

Top US generals have since admitted that their “police action” in Korea gave them just the excuse they needed to construct the military infrastructure of Cold War in the Pacific: a vast network of overseas bases; large-scale, long-term deployments of US troops in Korea and Japan; and the permanent stationing of nuclear warheads in the region.

The Korean War set the whole military-industrial complex in motion. It created the national security state. It was the first major test case for the Truman Doctrine of “support for democracies against authoritarian threats” and helped establish the US in its self-assumed role of global policeman. By forcing through a United Nations endorsement of its invasion, the US was able to establish its dominance of the UN-based international system.

Reading Izzy Stone’s reporting today, it’s striking the extent to which these mechanisms of Cold War still exist and are being used to wage a New Cold War. The military bases, the troop deployments, the nuclear threats that aimed to contain socialism and prevent the emergence of a multipolar world in the 1950s continue to serve the same purposes in 2023.

Stone’s book emphasises that peace was very much an option in 1950.

The Soviet Union of course wanted peace; having lost 27 million lives and sustained incredible damage to its infrastructure in the course of saving the world from Nazism, the Soviets needed space to rebuild. The People’s Republic of China also wanted peace; having only been founded in October 1949 after long years of civil war and struggle against Japanese occupation, the last thing the new state needed was to become embroiled in another war. (In the event, nearly 400,000 Chinese volunteers gave their lives fighting in Korea).