In the following article on Geopolitical Economy, Ben Norton exposes the extreme anti-China views of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Ben notes that, in his 2020 book American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, Hegseth describes the Chinese as “literally the villains of our generation” and warns: “If we don’t stand up to communist China now, we will be standing for the Chinese anthem someday”.
This anti-China sentiment is not restricted to the past. “As defense secretary, Pete Hegseth has pushed for extremely aggressive policies against Beijing”, commenting just this month on Fox News that the United States is prepared to go to war with China. He calls for the US to stop trading with China and to do everything within its power to stop China’s rise.
These alarming views are combined with flagrant islamophobia, misogyny and homophobia.
Hegseth is not the only China hawk in Trump’s cabinet. As we have noted previously, “Marco Rubio is an anti-China fanatic, who stands for more tariffs, more sanctions, more slander, more support for Taiwanese separatism, more provocations in the South China Sea, and more destabilisation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Mike Waltz has long pushed for closer military cooperation with India, Japan, Australia and other countries in the region in preparation for war against China.”
Increasingly, there is consensus within US policy circles in favour of an escalation of the campaign to encircle and contain China. Progressive and anti-war movements in the West must resist this dangerous trajectory.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is a self-declared “crusader” who believes the United States is in a “holy war” against the left, China, and Islam.
In his 2020 book American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, Hegseth vowed that, if Trump could return to the White House and Republicans could take power, “Communist China will fall—and lick its wounds for another two hundred years”.
Hegseth declared that the Chinese “are literally the villains of our generation”, and warned, “If we don’t stand up to communist China now, we will be standing for the Chinese anthem someday”.
In Hegseth’s conspiratorial worldview, Chinese communists and the international left are conspiring with Islamists against the United States and Israel, which are sacred countries blessed by God.
Under Trump’s leadership, Hegseth promised, “Israel and America will form an even tighter bond, fighting the scourge of Islamism and international leftism that will never fully abate”.
“Islamists will never get a nuclear weapon but will be preemptively bombed back to the 700s when they try”, he added.
In the book, Hegseth heaped praise upon the medieval Crusaders, and he argued that Western conservatives in the 21st century should continue the holy war they started a millennium ago.
One of his chapters is titled “Make the Crusade Great Again”.
On the first page of the book, Hegseth proudly said his “American crusade” is a “holy war”, and he insisted that leftists are not “mere political opponents. We are foes. Either we win, or they win—we agree on nothing else”.
Hegseth also stated with certainty that there will soon be a civil war in the United States, between the right and left.
The following statement has been issued by the Friends of Socialist China US Committee in response to the Trump administration’s announcement of new tariffs on Chinese imports.
The Trump administration’s decision to slap additional tariffs on the People’s Republic of China is something that should be condemned by every person who cares about peace and progress. These moves are making the world a more dangerous place and are part of a larger anti-China policy being pursued by the Trump administration – a policy begun under the Obama administration and deepened during the Biden administration.
These tariffs are in effect a tax on working people here in the United States and will result in rising prices for our necessities and wants. They will have no impact whatsoever on the lifestyles of the billionaires. Indeed, the money raised from increased prices will be used to fund the Trump regime’s tax cuts for the super-rich. Furthermore, these tariffs will harm the U.S. economy more than China’s. People’s China has a more diversified economy, more trading partners, and a greater share of world trade.
To quote Mao Zedong, “Lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behavior of certain fools.” This certainly applies to Trump and his wealthy backers.
The tariffs against China exist in a larger context. The U.S. empire is in a state of stagnation and decline, while People’s China is developing at an incredible speed. Wall Street and the Pentagon are working to “contain” and encircle China. They are increasing the spending for war preparations, attempting to draw countries in the region into hostile alliances aimed at China, and encouraging separatist forces in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang. The tariffs supplement the hundreds of U.S. sanctions against China in textiles, solar energy, computers and more.
For the past decade, U.S. policy makers have talked about “decoupling” the U.S. economy from that of China. Washington DC’s trade war is a part of that process, and it cannot be separated from preparations for other kinds of war in the Pacific, including those fought by military means.
Socialist China has made incredible achievements. China has waged a real war on poverty, while the U.S. government is waging a war on working people. China is by far the world leader in renewable energy production, electric transport, biodiversity protection and afforestation. China takes public health seriously. That’s why its life expectancy consistently goes up. Here in the U.S., we have measles outbreaks, and vaccine “skeptics” running the show. China wants peace. No serious person can say that about the U.S. today.
We demand that the tariffs directed at China be rolled back. We oppose the Trump administration’s anti-China policy, including any and all preparations for war. And we stand in solidarity with socialist China as it heads into a bright future.
Amidst the tsunami of proto-fascist measures unleashed by the Trump-Vance-Musk regime’s ‘carnival of reaction’, a central place is taken by the threats to deport millions of migrant workers and their families – a threat that has already become grim reality for thousands arrested, terrorised, humiliated, and flown, shackled and handcuffed, in military planes to their countries of origin. This obscene spectacle of performative sadism has also already been aped in Britain by the Starmer ‘Labour’ government.
Trailing this policy during the election campaign, Trump claimed that tens of thousands of undocumented Chinese migrants had recently entered the US, warning his audience that “they’re all military age and they are mostly men.” Trump accused these immigrants of “trying to build a little army in our country.”
In a historical essay, published by the World Socialist Website eight days before Trump’s inauguration, and which we reprint below, Paul Montgomery notes:
“In portraying Chinese immigrants as an invading army, Trump and [his ‘border czar’ Tom] Homan echo the worst rhetoric of the Yellow Peril and Chinese Exclusion era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is an escalation of the anti-Chinese rhetoric Trump used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and it seeks to place the US ever more openly on a war footing against China.”
Drawing critically, in the first instance, on recent material produced by the National Public Radio (NPR), the author outlines the history of the Chinese Exclusion era, which lasted from the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 to its repeal in 1943. During this period, federal law prevented Chinese immigrants from entering the United States.
However, he correctly points out that: “To understand Chinese Exclusion, it must be placed in the context of the development of capitalism in the United States and the early development of US imperialism in the Pacific and East Asia.” And goes on to quote Karl Marx writing to Friedrich Engels in 1858:
“The real task of bourgeois society is the creation, at least in outline, of a world market, and of a type of production resting on this basis. Since the world is round, this task seems to have been brought to a conclusion with the colonisation of California and Australia and the inclusion of China and Japan.”
Montgomery quotes the late Asian-American historian Ronald Takaki: “Capital used Chinese laborers as a transnational industrial reserve army to weigh down white workers during periods of economic expansion and to hold white labor in check during periods of overproduction.” By recruiting Chinese laborers, employers could “boost the supply of labor and drive down the wages of both Chinese and white workers. The resulting racial antagonism generated between the two groups helped to ensure a divided working class and a dominant employer class.”
And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker, he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the ‘poor whites’ to the Negroes in the former slave states of the USA. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.
In this regard, the article highlights the reactionary role of the early labour aristocratic trade union movement in fuelling and perpetuating anti-Chinese racism:
“Leading labor organizations of this period, formed by craft unions and claiming hundreds of thousands of members, also directed workers toward the anti-Chinese position. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Knights of Labor both called for the exclusion of Chinese workers. At its founding conference in Pittsburgh in 1881, the AFL, then known as the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, adopted a resolution that declared ‘the presence of Chinese, and their competition with free white labor’ to be ‘one of the greatest evils with which any country can be afflicted.’ The AFL pledged to use its ‘best efforts to get rid of this monstrous evil.’”
One important criticism made by Montgomery of the NPR material is its ignoring of the anti-Chinese and racist positions taken by the Democratic Party in California in the period under review.
He writes: “Absent from NPR’s analysis is the Democratic Party, which championed anti-Chinese policies from the moment California became a state. Portraying the apparent cowardice of the Republican Party before anti-Chinese mobs while ignoring the reactionary politics of the Democratic Party is more convenient for the political aims and assumptions of NPR writers and podcasters. But the Republican Party of the 1870s and 1880s was only adapting itself to positions held by the Democratic Party since the 1850s.”
Drawing on the work of a respected Chinese American historian, he continues: “The Chinese Question, writes historian Mae Ngai, ‘became a bedrock principle of the Democratic Party in California.’ Among the major early advocates for exclusion was Democrat John Bigler, an attorney whose political ambitions led him to become California’s third governor. In an 1852 address to the California legislature, Bigler called for ‘measures to be adopted’ that would halt the ‘tide of Asiatic immigration.’ Insisting that the ‘Chinese Question’ required a national solution, Bigler called on the United States Congress to use its power to ‘entirely exclude this class of Asiatic immigrants.’”
The article concludes:
The anti-Chinese positions now expressed by Donald Trump and Tom Homan, like those of the exclusion era, are clearly racist and xenophobic. But that is not all they are. They come in the midst of growing class struggles and in the context of escalating conflict between US imperialism and the Chinese state. That Trump now claims a Chinese threat lurks behind the Panama Canal, which he proposes to annex by force, if necessary, is enough to demonstrate that the anti-Chinese rhetoric of his past and future administration, just as in the exclusion era, is significant for reasons that extend far beyond the question of racism in the United States. The attempt to portray Chinese immigrants, once again, as an invading army is the domestic expression of the Trump administration’s drive to reassert US global hegemony through a direct confrontation with China.
The incoming Trump administration is preparing to initiate a program of mass deportations and attacks against the rights of immigrants. There are growing indications that Chinese immigrants will be among the first targeted.
In the following article, which was originally published on TomDispatch, Joshua Frank dissects the reasons behind US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to seize, possibly by armed force, the Danish colony of Greenland.
Frank looks in some detail at the influence of military bases and strategy, fossil fuels, and minerals, particularly those needed in green technologies, on Trump’s calculations and designs, but his essential conclusion is that, “it’s all about China”:
He wants to boost US mining of critical minerals because he knows that China, his archnemesis, is leading the global charge for their acquisition. [Note: This is one of a couple of places in the article where we believe the argument could have been better phrased. This, however, does not negate its essential validity or importance.] Trump doesn’t seem to understand that it’s hard to stimulate investment in critical minerals if the future appetite for the technologies they support remains uncertain. As a result of his battle against electric vehicles, manufacturing expectations are already being slashed.
While he may not comprehend how contradictory that is or even care, he certainly understands that the US depends on China for many of the critical minerals it consumes. Around 60% of the metals required for renewable technologies come directly from China or Chinese companies. Trump’s tariffs on China have even worried his buddy (and electric car producer) Elon Musk, who’s been working behind the scenes to block additional tariffs on graphite imports. Chinese graphite, an essential component of the lithium-ion batteries in his Teslas, may face new tariffs of as high as – and no, this is not a misprint – 920%. Such pandemonium around imports of critical minerals from China may be the true factor driving Trump’s impetus to steal Greenland from the clutches of Denmark.
Explaining Greenland’s colonial history and status, Frank writes: “Greenland’s Indigenous Inuit people, the Kalaallit, account for 88% of that island’s population of 56,000. They have endured vicious forms of colonisation for centuries. In the 12th century, Norwegians first landed in Greenland and built early colonies that lasted 200 years before they retreated to Iceland. By the 1700s, they returned to take ownership of that vast island, a territory that would be transferred to Denmark in 1814.
“In 1953, the Kalaallit were granted Danish citizenship, which involved a process of forced assimilation in which they were removed from their homes and sent to Demark for reeducation. Recently uncovered documents show that, in the 1960s, Danish authorities forcibly inserted intrauterine devices (IUDs) in Kalaallit women, including children, which post-colonial scholars describe as a ‘silent genocide’.
“In other words, the colonisation of Greenland, like that of the United States, was rooted in violence and still thrives today through ongoing systemic oppression. The Kalaallit want out. In 2016, 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark, and today, 85% oppose Trump’s neocolonial efforts to steal the territory.”
He quotes the island’s autonomous prime minister, Múte Egede, who leads the democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit party, as saying, “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale.” [Note: The article mistakenly states that Inuit Ataqatigiit won 80% of the votes in Greenland’s last general election. In fact, whilst pro-independence parties, did win 80% backing, the support for Inuit Ataqatigiit was 36.6%. Siumut, like Inuit Ataqatigiit a left-wing pro-independence party, won 29.4%. Another pro-independence party, Naleraq, came third with 12.0% of the votes. Nunatta Qitornai, which advocates a more rapid transition to independence, won 2.4% of the votes but lost its sole parliamentary representative. These results gave pro-independence parties 26 parliamentary seats against five for the unionist parties. A detailed account of the outcome of the April 2021 election can be found here.]
So, for Frank, Egede’s statement “brings us back to what this imperialist struggle is all about. The island is loaded with critical minerals, including rare earth minerals, lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, and other materials used in green technologies. Some estimates suggest that Greenland has six million tons of graphite, 106 kilotons of copper, and 235 kilotons of lithium. It holds 25 of the 34 minerals in the European Union’s official list of critical raw materials, all of which exist along its rocky coastline, generally accessible for mining operations.”
He concludes: “Greenland and its resources are merely the latest potential casualty of Trump’s quest for global domination and his fear of China’s economic power. His interest in the green energy sector does not signify a change of heart regarding the dangers of climate chaos or the value of renewables but rather a drive for global financial supremacy. Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all – the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside. Regarding the Kalaallits and their aspirations, he could care less.”
In early January, Donald Trump Jr.’s private plane landed on a snowy airfield in Greenland. There was little fanfare upon his arrival, but his 14 million social-media fans were certainly tagging along.
“Greenland coming in hot…well, actually really really cold!!!” President Trump’s eldest son captioned a video he posted on X. It was shot from the cockpit of the plane, where a “Trumpinator” bobblehead (a figurine of his father as the Terminator) rattled on the aircraft’s dashboard as it descended over icy blue seas.
It was a stunt of MAGA proportions. Don Jr. was arriving in Greenland on behalf of his father who, along with his new buddy Elon Musk, had announced a desire to seize that vast Arctic landmass from Denmark through strong will or even, potentially, by force. There’s been plenty of speculation as to why Trump wants to make Greenland, the largest island on this planet, a new territory of the United States. And yes, his inflated ego is undoubtedly part of the reason, but an urge for geopolitical dominance also drives Trump’s ambitions.
His fascination with Greenland can be traced back to his first administration when, in late 2019, he signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act establishing the U.S. Space Force. “There are grave threats to our national security,” he said shortly after signing the bill. “American superiority in space is absolutely vital. The Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground.”
A historic leader of the multinational US proletariat, and student of Mao Zedong, José Jiménez, popularly known as Cha Cha, passed away in Chicago on January 10, 2025. He was 75 according to the Freedom Road Socialist Organisation (FRSO) and 76 according to the New York Times.
Jiménez was the Chairman of the Young Lords Organisation, a youth organisation of the Puerto Rican national minority in the United States, who took up revolutionary organising and the study of Marxism-Leninism and who supported and forged links with socialist China.
Extending condolences to his family, friends and comrades, FRSO wrote:
All those who knew him appreciated Jiménez’s determination and his ability to motivate others to action, all the while teaching about the need for revolution and socialism. A revolutionary to the end, he often quoted Mao Zedong on the united front strategy, ‘Unite the many to defeat the few!’
The Young Lords Organisation was founded… in 1968 in the Lincoln Park neighbourhood of Chicago. Puerto Ricans and other working people were being forced out of the now wealthy neighbourhood by big financiers and real estate firms working with Mayor Richard Daley’s Democrat political machine.
At that time, Jiménez turned a street gang into one of the most successful political movements of its day, resisting community displacement and opposing the US war in Vietnam. Their militant tactics attracted masses of people to protest for better housing, education, childcare and health care in Chicago. The Young Lords spread to New York and many other cities, inspiring Puerto Rican people who were forced to move from the island by US domination and exploitation.
FRSO’s article, published on January 17, also details how the Young Lords under Jiménez’s leadership, forged links with and learned from the Black Panther Party, especially Fred Hampton, as well as a number of other organisations, particularly the Brown Berets, who were fighting for Chicano self-determination, and the Young Patriots, a youth group of poor whites from Appalachia. Together they formed the original Rainbow Coalition.
A July 2019 interview with Jiménez’s conducted by FRSO’s Fight Back News! is full of fascinating and important details of those times, which remain rich in lessons for revolutionary and progressive struggles in the United States and elsewhere. Towards the end he manages to conflate two of Mao Zedong’s most famous and important sayings into a single short sentence:
“We must be clear on who are our enemies and who are our friends so that we can unite with the many to defeat the few.”
And added: “Ours is not about individuals but a people’s struggle led by the common folk. Ours is a protracted struggle that will take years and we must prepare ourselves for the long run via structured community programs specific to the revolution. We stand for Puerto Rico, all Latin American nations and oppressed nations of the world, against colonialisms and for self-determination and neighbourhood empowerment.”
The New York Times published a detailed obituary of Jiménez on January 22, which even quoted from the FRSO interview.
The Young Lords Speak: From the Streets of Chicago to Revolutionary Organization – Edited by Jacqueline Lazú and with a foreword by José Jiménez, written just before his passing, is due to be published by Haymarket in August.
The Freedom Road Socialist Organization shares its condolences with the family, friends and comrades of Jose “Cha Cha” Jimenez, chairman of the Young Lords Organization. He died on January 10, 2025, at the age of 75 in Chicago.
All those who knew him appreciated Jimenez’s determination and his ability to motivate others to action, all the while teaching about the need for revolution and socialism. A revolutionary to the end, he often quoted Mao Tse Tung on the united front strategy, “Unite the many to defeat the few!”
In the opinion piece below, Yuan Sha, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, reports on Donald Trump’s outlandish threat to “take back” the Panama Canal. She notes that the threat “reveals Trump’s hidden agenda to resurrect the infamous Monroe Doctrine” and that, “eying the geostrategic importance of the canal, Trump wants to renege on the agreements and regain US control of the canal”.
Trump and his cronies have justified their increasingly aggressive comments by claiming that China is “operating the canal” and that this compromises US national security. While China is the second largest user of the canal, Yuan Sha points out that “China does not participate in the management and operation of the canal and has never interfered in its affairs”.
Wielding the threat to “take back” the canal – that is, to invade a sovereign country – is a clear violation of international law. Unfortunately it seems this threat has already extracted a concession from the Panamanian government, which has announced its intention to withdraw from the Belt and Road Initiative.
As the author notes, “Trump’s bullying rhetoric on Panama has sent shockwaves across the world, revealing the administration’s penchant to revive the Monroe Doctrine which once provided the pretext for prolonged U.S. military, diplomatic and economic interventions. This is bound to cause more tensions in the region and beyond, eventually disrupting the international order.”
Since returning to the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to “take back” the Panama Canal, alleging – falsely – that it is operated by China. The outlandish threat actually reveals Trump’s hidden agenda to resurrect the infamous Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823 to curb Europe’s expansion and promote America’s commercial and security interests, as a pathway to achieve the “Golden Age of America.”
As the new U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio begins his first official trip abroad to Central America, including a stop in Panama, there is worldwide concern about Trump’s end goal, what coercive tactics he might use, and whether he would succeed in bullying the region into giving him what he wants. These questions are critical in assessing the nature of Trump 2.0 foreign policy and its challenges to the international order.
Trump’s outlandish claims
The Panama Canal is a key strategic waterway in Central America linking the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Up to 14,000 ships pass through the canal each year, accounting for around five percent of global maritime trade.
The U.S. used to control the canal from the early 20th century until the end of 1999, after which it handed over control of the canal to the Panama government in accordance with the treaties signed between the Carter administration and Panama in the 1970s. But now, eying the geostrategic importance of the canal, Trump wants to renege on the agreements and regain U.S. control of the canal.
To justify this, he has lambasted the canal being “foolishly given to Panama,” accusing Panama of charging U.S. ships “exorbitant” fees to use the waterway. He is also falsely claiming that China is “operating the canal,” and cites national security as the necessity for an American takeover.
Trump’s assertion to “take back” the Panama Canal is effectively an infringement on Panama’s sovereignty and goes against international law. Panama has owned and administered the canal since 1999. Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino has rejected Trump’s claim as “nonsense,” saying the canal “was not a gift” from the U.S.
Trump’s claim about China is also outright disinformation. China undoubtedly is the second largest user of the canal, following the U.S., and a major investor in infrastructure in Panama as Panama is the first Latin American country to join the Belt and Road Initiative. But as the Panama government and China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs have clarified, China does not participate in the management and operation of the canal and has never interfered in its affairs.
Trump’s outlandish claims actually reflect his heightened concern over China’s growing investment in Panama. As the Trump 2.0 administration is ready to escalate the “great power competition” with China around the globe, the Panama Canal, not surprisingly, has become a new flashpoint.
What could Trump do?
The question is how serious Trump’s bombastic rhetoric to regain control of the canal is and what he might do to achieve that end.
Trump has hinted at taking it back by force. He could cite the 1977 Neutrality Treaty with Panama which stipulates that the U.S. shall remain permanently neutral, but it reserves the right to defend any threat to the canal’s neutrality by using military force. This outright threat to use military force is regarded as bluff to exact concessions from Panama.
Trump is also likely to use tariffs as a coercive tool. He might repeat the successful maneuver in pressuring Colombia to accept the flights carrying Colombians deported from the U.S. by threatening to impose 25 percent tariff. Trump’s goal is to force the Panama government to curb its engagements with China as well as regain U.S. control over Panama.
Trump has the support of the Republican-controlled Congress. Republican senators recently introduced a resolution, calling on the government of Panama to cut its political and economic ties with China and Chinese businesses. Republican representatives have also introduced a bill in the House to authorize the president to enter into negotiations to acquire the canal from Panama. These legislative moves will further empower Trump’s brazen actions on this matter.
Trump’s new Monroe Doctrine
Trump’s bullying rhetoric on Panama has sent shockwaves across the world, revealing the administration’s penchant to revive the Monroe Doctrine which once provided the pretext for prolonged U.S. military, diplomatic and economic interventions.
In fact, Trump wanted to resuscitate the doctrine in his first administration itself. In September 2018, he declared in the United Nations General Assembly, “It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs.” He also expressed his admiration for President Theodore Roosevelt, who seized the Panama Canal and added the famous “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, stating that the U.S. had the right to intervene in Latin American domestic affairs.
The Trump 2.0 administration seems to be all out to revive this doctrine, along with the bluster to force Denmark to sell Greenland to the U.S., make Canada the 51st state of the U.S., and change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” Trump has also made startling proclamations in his inaugural address such as the U.S. needs to “expand our territory” and “carry our flag into new and beautiful horizons.” He has made no secret of his intention to reinstate U.S. control over the Western Hemisphere.
However, the Monroe Doctrine is dead and anachronistic and Trump’s bullying has already triggered pushbacks. Panama has made a formal complaint to the United Nations, emphasizing that the UN Charter precludes “the threat or use of force” against territorial integrity. Denmark, Canada and Mexico have also rejected Trump’s outrageous claims.
But it is disconcerting that with a unified Congress, a loyal cabinet and the strong Make America Great Again movement, as well as the obsession with competition with China, Trump might face little constraint in practicing an expansionist foreign policy agenda. This is bound to cause more tensions in the region and beyond, eventually disrupting the international order.
The London Region of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) held its 2025 Annual Conference online on Sunday 12 January.
Friends of Socialist China co-editor Keith Bennett was among the speakers in a session entitled, NATO, war, nukes: Outlook for 2025, where he was joined by CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt; Jess Barnard, a member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee (NEC); Carol Turner, Chair of London CND and a Vice Chair of national CND; and Vijay Prashad, Director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. The session was chaired by Christine Shawcroft, a Vice Chair of London CND and editor of Labour Briefing.
A keynote opening speech on Prospects for Peace and Justice was given by Jeremy Corbyn, former Leader of the Labour Party and now the Independent Member of Parliament (MP) for Islington North, introduced by Murad Qureshi, a Vice President of London CND and a former Chair of the Stop the War Coalition.
Further discussions focused on Ukraine and the Middle East as testing grounds for new tech weapons, with expert input from Peter Burt, a researcher for Drone Wars UK; and Dave Webb, Convenor of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space; chaired by former MP Emma Dent-Coad; and a final session on Peace Movement Priorities, with Baroness Jenny Jones from the Green Party; Tony Staunton, a Vice Chair of CND; and Angie Zelter, a founder of Lakenheath Action for Peace; chaired by Hannah Kemp-Welch, a Vice Chair of London CND.
Keith’s speech focused on the prospects for relations between China and the United States during Donald Trump’s second presidency. We reprint it below.
An edited version was also carried by Labour Outlook. The full conference proceedings can be viewed on the YouTube channel of London CND.
Thank you to London Region CND for the invitation to take part in this distinguished panel.
With war raging in Ukraine for nearly three years and with the unrelenting genocide in Gaza, now well into its second year, both naturally forming the main day-to-day focus of most peace campaigners, is it self-indulgence or overreach to also turn our attention to the Asia Pacific region?
I would argue that it is not. No analogy is ever exact, but a clear parallel can be drawn with events in the 1930s. Local conflicts, in Spain, Ethiopia and, indeed China, were the proverbial canaries in the mine, which presaged the global conflagration of World War II.
Today, no bilateral relationship is more important, more strategic and more fraught than that between the United States and China. On the potentially positive side, the world needs these two powers to work together constructively if humanity is to meet an existential threat like climate change. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of China, and of a couple of US politicians, there is little sign of this happening. Something that will most likely be exacerbated when Trump quits the Paris Climate Change Accord. Again.
US president-elect Donald Trump has been touting tariffs as a means to reduce both income taxes and the national debt, which currently exceeds 120 percent of GDP. In the article below, Ben Norton describes these claims as “utterly false, and mathematically absurd”.
Ben notes that, during Trump’s first term, significant tax cuts were enacted, primarily benefiting the wealthiest Americans. These cuts resulted in the richest billionaire families paying a lower effective tax rate than the bottom half of US households. Consequently, federal deficits increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 2017 to 4.6 percent in 2019, prior to the pandemic-induced surge to 14.7 percent in 2020.
The article observes that “every advanced economy got its start through protectionism”, but that the US from the 1940s has been preaching (and sometimes violently imposing) free trade as a means of opening up markets for its exports. “However, something happened in the 21st century that changed everything: the People’s Republic of China carried out the most remarkable campaign of economic development in history.”
China’s extraordinary rise has taken place in parallel with a sharp decline in US manufacturing and an increasing financialisation of the US economy. “The US capitalist class decided it would much rather be the banker of the world rather than the factory of the world, because creating parasitic financial and tech oligopolies that use monopolistic market control and intellectual property to extract rents is much more profitable than actually making things.”
Trump’s proposed tariffs will not help the US to re-industrialise – such a project would require massive long-term investment in infrastructure, education, and research and development. In reality, tariffs will be used “to justify cutting taxes even further on the rich” and, further, “to escalate the new cold war on China, which is a bipartisan gift to the Military-Industrial Complex that will only distract from the domestic problems caused by the US ruling class and externalise the blame”.
Donald Trump cited billionaire egghead venture capitalist Marc Andreessen to advocate for high tariffs. Trump argued that tariffs will magically replace the income tax and pay off US public debt (which is more than 120% of GDP). This is utterly false, and mathematically absurd.
For Trump, tariffs are just another convenient excuse to cut taxes on the rich — which will in fact increase the US deficit, and therefore public debt.
Thanks to Trump’s tax cuts during his first term, the richest billionaire families in the US paid a lower effective tax rate than the bottom half of households in the country. Meanwhile, US federal deficits increased from 3.4% of GDP in 2017 to 4.6% of GDP in 2019 (before the deficit blew out to 14.7% of GDP in 2020, due to the necessary stimulus measures during the pandemic).
As Trump continues to reduce taxes on fellow oligarchs, tariffs will decidedly not make up for the lost revenue. A study by the Wharton School, the elite business school of the University of Pennsylvania, estimated that Trump’s economic policies will increase the US deficit by $5.8 trillion over the next decade.
Nevertheless, the sudden interest in tariffs shown by US billionaires is about much more than just taxes; what it is really about is industrial hegemony and economic dominance.
Here is the actual history, which oligarchs like Trump and Andreessen don’t know:
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States used tariffs as a form of infant industry protection, to build up its domestic manufacturing capabilities, following the dirigiste ideas of Alexander Hamilton.
Every advanced economy got its start through protectionism (including Great Britain, France, Japan, South Korea, etc.). The state needed to protect infant industries during the initial industrial “catch-up” period, because it is very difficult for a developing economy to compete with a dominant economic power that already has an established industrial base that benefits from economies of scale.
By the 1940s, the US became the dominant industrial power on Earth, especially after World War Two destroyed its competitors in Europe. In 1946, US net exports were 3.2% of GDP; then, in 1947, they were 4.3% of GDP. This was a peak the US would never see again. (US net exports have been negative without exception since 1976, as the US has run the largest consistent current account deficits ever seen in history, which have only been possible to balance due to the fact that the US prints the global reserve currency, and can thus sell more and more Treasury securities and other financial assets to foreign holders of dollars.)
In the 1940s, US industry no longer had significant competition, so Washington lifted tariffs and began to preach “free trade”. This benefited the US, because at that time it had a large surplus, and insufficient domestic demand, so by imposing “free trade” (often forcibly), it could open new markets for its exports.
The US wasn’t concerned about losing local market share to a foreign manufacturer, because there weren’t any left at the top of the value chain. So US companies could dominate both foreign and domestic markets.
What the United States did was not unique; the British empire did the exact same thing in the mid 19th century. After the UK established industrial dominance, it repealed the Corn Laws in 1846, moved away from strict protectionism, and began to impose “free trade” on its colonies. (This history was detailed by economist Ha-Joon Chang in his groundbreaking book Kicking Away the Ladder.)
However, something happened in the 21st century that changed everything: the People’s Republic of China carried out the most remarkable campaign of economic development in history.
By 2016, China overtook the United States as the largest economy on Earth (when GDP is measured at purchasing power parity, according to IMF data).
Meanwhile, the US lost its industrial hegemony, due to the deindustrialization and financialization of its economy in the neoliberal era. The US capitalist class decided it would much rather be the banker of the world rather than the factory of the world, because creating parasitic financial and tech oligopolies that use monopolistic market control and intellectual property to extract rents is much more profitable than actually making things.
Just 10% of US GDP consists of manufacturing. More than double, 21%, is made up by the FIRE sector: finance, insurance, and real estate.
Today, US companies can no longer compete with Chinese firms. So what is the response of the US government, which is the representative of US monopoly capital? It has abandoned the “free trade” ideology it had spent decades imposing on the world, and has instead returned to its old strident protectionism.
During his first administration, Trump launched a trade war on China. But this is totally bipartisan (as is the case with almost all US wars). Joe Biden has continued Trump’s trade and tech war on China, imposing even more tariffs.
Demagogues such as Trump like to scapegoat China for the problems that were caused by US oligarchs like him and Andreessen, who got much, much, much richer thanks to the deindustrialization and correspondent financialization of the US economy.
Now they think tariffs are the panacea that will fix everything. But they won’t, because the US industrial base has seriously eroded, and that can’t be rebuilt quickly; it takes many years.
Even more importantly, billionaire oligarchs on Wall Street — who are close friends and allies of Trump, Andreessen, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Elon Musk — will fight tooth and nail against a significant devaluation of the dollar, which would be needed to re-industrialize, reduce production costs, and disincentive imports. Financial speculators want a strong dollar, to keep inflating the biggest bubble in the history of US capital markets.
So the logical result of this is that Trump will use tariffs not truly to re-industrialize, but rather for two main reasons: one, to justify cutting taxes even further on the rich (thereby increasing US public debt, which will be pointed to to demand neoliberal austerity and slashes to social spending); and two, to escalate the new cold war on China, which is a bipartisan gift to the Military-Industrial Complex that will only distract from the domestic problems caused by the US ruling class and externalize the blame.
In the following commentary, which was originally published by Global Times, the Canadian writer and anti-imperialist activist Arnold August addresses the Canadian government’s slanderous attacks on China’s human rights record, especially in Xinjiang and Xizang (Tibet), and contrasts this to Canada’s own lamentable record.
Arnold notes that: “As part of this disinformation campaign, Canadian authorities, Western ‘Tibetan’ advocacy groups and corporate press refer to the ‘suppression of Tibetans’. They point to boarding schools or ‘camps’ in Xizang and neighbouring Qinghai Province, where approximately one-fifth of the population is Tibetan. In a baseless charge made on December 10, Ottawa claimed that Tibetans held in ‘camps’ faced ‘psychological, physical, or sexual violence’ and lacked ‘freedom of religion and expression.’”
He continues: “The following is a testimony of a youth in a boarding school, also known as a residential school: The authorities constantly berated him, beat him, barred him from speaking his language and practicing his culture, and sexually assaulted him. Did this incident occur in China? No, it happened in Canada. Moreover, multiply this by hundreds of thousands.
“It has been revealed that in Canada, more than 150,000 Indigenous children were forced to attend residential schools and an estimated 6,000 children died in these institutions. However, experts suggest the number based on unmarked graves could be higher.”
He also draws attention to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, commissioned by the [outgoing] Trudeau government itself, which issued its report in 2019. “It concluded that violence experienced by thousands of Indigenous women and girls is part of a ‘genocide.’ The Canadian government formally received it but did not act on it.”
This, Arnold notes, prompted a Member of Parliament from the New Democratic Party (NDP – Canada’s main social democratic party) to table a bill to end ‘residential school denialism’ by making it a criminal offence. “Yet, this was also ignored.”
Further noting the contamination by mercury of the water used by the people of the Asubpeeschoseewagong (also known as Grassy Narrows) First Nation, in Northern Ontario, which is still leading to fatalities after three generations, Albert contrasts it to the cafeteria in a boarding school he visited in a Tibetan minority area of Qinghai Province, adding that, “the quality and variety of the food and beverages available… would be the envy of many Canadian students from working-class families.”
Canada, he concludes, should focus on the well-being of its own people, who would benefit from further development of economic ties with China.
China has decided to impose countermeasures against two Canadian organizations as well as 20 personnel from these organizations in accordance with the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law. The decision took effect on December 21, 2024.
China’s measures responded to the Canadian government’s Human Rights Day announcement on December 10. On a day devoted to honoring human rights, rather than examining Canada’s human rights records, the Justin Trudeau government imposed sanctions on Chinese officials for the so-called violation of human rights in Xinjiang and Xizang. The slanders against China regarding Xinjiang and the Uygurs have been widely debunked, including by countless visitors there.
As part of this disinformation campaign, Canadian authorities, Western “Tibetan” advocacy groups and corporate press refer to the “suppression of Tibetans.” They point to boarding schools or “camps” in Xizang and neighboring Qinghai Province, where approximately one-fifth of the population is Tibetan. In a baseless charge made on December 10, Ottawa claimed that Tibetans held in “camps” faced “psychological, physical, or sexual violence” and lacked “freedom of religion and expression.”
In the following article, which first appeared in slightly shorter form in Labour Outlook, Carlos Martinez assesses the prospects for the US-led New Cold War against China under a second Trump presidency, and the possibility of military conflict between the world’s two largest economies.
The article begins by noting that US policy towards China has been relatively consistent for over a decade, starting with the Obama-Clinton ‘Pivot to Asia’ in 2011, followed by the Trump administration’s trade war, and then the Biden administration’s sanctions, tariffs, semiconductor war, military provocations and the creation of AUKUS.
What will change under Trump? Carlos notes that “a deepening of economic confrontation seems more than likely”, given Trump’s repeated promises to impose unprecedented tariffs on Chinese goods. And while Trump made noises during his election campaign about wanting to end the US’s “forever wars”, “the appointment of inveterate China hawks Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz as secretary of state and national security adviser sends a clear signal that Trump is planning to escalate hostilities”.
Marco Rubio is an anti-China fanatic, who stands for more tariffs, more sanctions, more slander, more support for Taiwanese separatism, more provocations in the South China Sea, and more destabilisation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Mike Waltz has long pushed for closer military cooperation with India, Japan, Australia and other countries in the region in preparation for war against China.
The article notes that China’s consistent offer to the West is based on working together “to tackle the urgent issues facing humanity, including climate change, pandemics, peace, nuclear proliferation, food security and development”. However, it is clear that only mass movements will force Western governments to take up such an offer.
Although the Pivot to Asia was initiated by the Obama administration – when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was tasked with developing a strategy for “America’s Pacific Century” – it was the Trump presidency from 2017-21 that really turned up the dial in terms of US anti-China hostility.
Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 on a promise to protect jobs by addressing the US’s trade deficit with China: “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country and that’s what they’re doing. It’s the greatest theft in the history of the world.”
In power, the Trump administration launched a full-scale trade war, imposing enormous tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports. This was combined with a systematic attack on Chinese technology companies, removing Huawei from US telecoms infrastructure and attempting to prevent TikTok and WeChat from operating in the US.
Militarily, Trump ramped up the US’s presence in the South China Sea and sought to revitalise the Quad group (US, Japan, India and Australia), working towards a broad regional alliance against China.
The State Department oversaw a crackdown on Chinese students and researchers, and, with the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump resorted to flagrant racism, talking repeatedly about the “kung flu” and the “China virus” – all of which fed in to a horrifying rise in hate crimes against people of East Asian descent.
As such, many breathed a sigh of relief when Joe Biden was elected four years ago. Unfortunately, however, Biden has essentially maintained the anti-China strategic orientation of his predecessor, albeit without the crassly confrontational rhetoric and overt racism. Biden in many ways has been more systematic in pursuit of military and economic containment of China, particularly when it comes to building an international coalition around US strategic interests.
In September 2021, the US, Britain and Australia announced the launch of AUKUS – a nuclear pact, manifestly contravening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and evidently designed to counter China.
Biden has hosted numerous Quad summit meetings, at which the member states have reiterated their “steadfast commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific” – that is, to preserving a status quo in which the US maintains over 300 military bases in the region, along with tens of thousands of troops, nuclear-enabled warplanes, aircraft carriers, and missile defence systems aimed at establishing nuclear first-strike capability.
The combination of the Quad and AUKUS looks suspiciously like an attempt to create an Asian NATO. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 trip to Taiwan Province was the highest-level US visit to the island in quarter of a century. In 2023, Biden signed off on direct US military aid to Taiwan for the first time; a BBC headline from November 2023 noted that “the US is quietly arming Taiwan to the teeth”. This undermines the Three Joint Communiqués – which form the bedrock for US-China diplomatic relations – and is clearly aimed at inflaming tensions across the Taiwan Strait and setting up a potential hot war with China over Taiwan. A recently-leaked memo from four-star general Mike Minihan predicted war over Taiwan in 2025: “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025”.
The Biden administration has expanded Trump-era restrictions against China’s technology industry, in particular by launching a ‘chip war’ to slow down China’s progress in semiconductor production, artificial intelligence, mobile phones and more. And while the US government under Biden has set several ambitious climate goals, it has also introduced sweeping sanctions on Chinese solar materials and imposed huge tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.
The unfortunate truth is that there is a consensus among Democrats and Republicans. In Biden’s words, “we’re in a competition with China to win the 21st century” – and the US must win this competition at all costs.
To what extent can we expect the situation to change under a second Trump presidency?
What follows is a blog post by Sophie Bolt, the new General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), on the threat posed by the Trump presidency to global peace.
Sophie notes that Trump has promised to “stop wars, not start them”, and yet he has already nominated several notorious warmongers to his cabinet, including Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Michael Waltz as National Security Adviser, and John Ratcliffe as CIA director. Marco Rubio is an anti-China fanatic, who stands for more tariffs, more sanctions, more slander, more support for Taiwanese separatism, more weapons to Taipei, more provocations in the South China Sea, and more destabilisation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Waltz has long pushed for closer military cooperation with India, Japan, Australia and other countries in the region in preparation for war against China. Ratcliffe refers to China as “the top threat to US interests and the rest of the free world”.
The article points out that the incoming administration is likely to escalate the US-led New Cold War against China, as well as continuing the drive towards hot war:
As well as intensifying Trump’s protectionist ‘America First’ policy, by increasing tariffs on Chinese goods, a key focus will be racheting up a military confrontation with China. A military build up across the Asia Pacific has been underway for more than a decade, supported by 400 US military bases encircling China and the AUKUS nuclear alliance with Britain and Australia.
Meanwhile Trump’s climate denialism will be another major setback to global cooperation around the climate crisis.
In Trump’s victory speech, he said he was going to stop wars, not start them. Excuse me if I’m not reassured. Based on his track record and the ultra-hawks he’s putting in the State Department, the threat of war and nuclear confrontation looks higher than ever.
Last time he was President, the US bombed Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, carried out extra-judicial killings and developed ‘useable’ nuclear weapons. Under his leadership, the US withdrew from landmark nuclear arms control treaties including the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). And it withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Trump’s new team for the State Department includes ultra China and Iran hawks, Marco Rubio, expected to be nominated for Secretary of State, and Mike Waltz, appointed National Security Advisor. Certainly Trump’s victory and open support for annexing the West Bank has already emboldened Netanyahu’s genocidal expansionism. This increases the risk of an all-out war on Iran.
As well as intensifying Trump’s protectionist ‘America First’ policy, by increasing tariffs on Chinese goods, a key focus will be racheting up a military confrontation with China. A military build up across the Asia Pacific has been underway for more than a decade, supported by 400 US military bases encircling China and the AUKUS nuclear alliance with Britain and Australia. Richard O’Brien, former security advisor to Trump, laid out in Foreign Affairs what to expect next. ‘As China seeks to undermine American economic and military strength,’ O’Brien argues, ‘Washington should return the favor—just as it did during the Cold War, when it worked to weaken the Soviet economy.’ This prospect of a new cold war is truly horrifying , when we remember how the nuclear arms race in the 1980s, lead to a permanent state of nuclear danger.
With speculation about what Trump will do in Ukraine, the new British government doesn’t want to take any chances of de-escalation. Starmer has again pressed Biden to agree to Ukraine’s use of its long-range Storm Shadow missiles, which could strike deep into Russian territory. He knows full well that Russia has changed its nuclear use policy in response to such an attack. This only reinforces the need for an urgent negotiated settlement.
NATO membership of Ukraine remains a key factor in the conflict and Ukrainian neutrality will be critical for de-escalating the crisis. But there is absolutely no evidence to back up concerns amongst NATO hawks that Trump will abandon the world’s most powerful nuclear alliance. On the contrary, Trump has called on NATO states to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. So, continuing to push the burden of funding onto the populations of NATO states. This means the toxic combination of increased militarism, nuclear dangers and austerity policies will continue across Europe.
Trump’s election will strengthen the far right and fascists globally. In Britain, Farage and Tommy Robinson will be emboldened further to whip up hatred, justifying greater military spending for another world war.
And, as the US is one of the world’s largest polluters, Trump’s decision to pull out of Paris Climate Accord again, is another major set-back for climate action and investment in green technologies.
This shows more starkly than ever how war, racism, austerity, climate breakdown and nuclear annihilation are increasingly interlinked. We can’t allow this recklessly dangerous leader to drag the world towards annihilation. This is why CND is working with all those who oppose Trump to help build the broadest alliance possible for peace, justice and a sustainable, nuclear-free future.
In this insightful article for Stop the War Coalition, Andrew Murray discusses the implications of Trump’s return to the presidency for the anti-war movement in Britain.
Andrew notes that the collapse in the Democrat vote “is surely in part attributable to the Biden-Harris administration’s sustained and unqualified support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people”. While there is little prospect of a Trump administration being any better on this issue, the Democrats’ utter failure to stand up against the Gaza genocide has clearly lost them support among progressive voters.
In relation to China, while many had high hopes that Biden would adopt a less confrontational approach than Trump, in reality “Biden’s rhetoric and actions have been the most aggressive of any president since the 1960s”. Under the incoming Trump administration, “continuity in escalating confrontation is most likely”.
Andrew writes that, for the anti-war movement, “our fight is against imperialism” and, in Britain specifically, “the critical issue remains disengaging from the US war chariot”, regardless of whether it is driven by a Democrat or a Republican; regardless of whether its character is “centrist liberal war-mongering” or “populist chauvinist war-mongering”.
Andrew Murray is the political correspondent of the Morning Star. He has served as the Chair of the Stop the War Coalition, Chief of Staff at Unite the union, and as an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn MP when he was Leader of the Labour Party. The author of several books, he has contributed a chapter to the recently-released volume People’s China at 75 – The Flag Stays Red.
Donald Trump’s unexpectedly emphatic election victory clearly poses new challenges for the anti-war movement in Britain and globally, and calls for sober analysis.
Trump appears to have won the support of most working-class people who bothered to vote, including millions of Muslim Americans and larger minorities of African-Americans and Hispanic Americans than a Republican can usually expect.
Many issues obviously contributed to this, including the state of the US economy and cultural questions, broadly defined. However, war and peace impacted in two ways.
First, the huge collapse in the Democrat vote from 2020 (Trump’s poll also declined, but by much less) is surely in part attributable to the Biden-Harris administration’s sustained and unqualified support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.
This made the idea of supporting Kamala Harris quite impossible for millions, who may instead have voted for Green candidate Jill Stein, other progressive candidates where they made the ballot, or simply have sat the election out. There is an analogy here to the masses who refused to back Keir Starmer’s Labour in July because of its support for Israel.
Second, part of Trump’s base lies in sections of the working class sick of the “forever wars” in which a liberal-neoconservative elite send ordinary Americans to die for US hegemony. The Biden administration has sat squarely in that imperialist tradition.
To those voters can be added a larger number who are receptive to the position advanced by Trump, and more stridently by his vice-president J D Vance, that the vast sums being sent in military and economic aid to Ukraine to prolong the war with Russia would be better spent on other things, or not at all.
Trump’s own record and rhetoric on world issues is reactionary without doubt. However, he has made much of not starting any fresh wars when last in office, and of trying to extricate the US from direct engagement in those that he inherits, or at least diminishing its involvement.
The following article by the Bronx [New York] Anti-War Coalition, which was originally published by Workers World, reports on their October 11 screening of the documentary film, ‘Dope is Death’. The event included a Q&A session with Walter Bosque, an acupuncturist and former Young Lord.
The Young Lords were a youth organisation of the Puerto Rican national minority in the United States, who took up revolutionary organising and the study of Marxism-Leninism and who supported and forged links with socialist China.
‘Dope is Death’ highlights the late Dr. Mutulu Shakur’s transformative work with the Young Lords and the Black Panther Party, who used acupuncture to combat drug dependency. Their efforts not only rescued individuals from addiction but also empowered the community to rebuild, laying the groundwork for revolutionary change. [Mutulu Shakur was a political prisoner and member of the Black Liberation Army and other revolutionary organisations as well as the stepfather of the rapper Tupac Shakur.]
Having drawn attention to the ‘Opium Wars’ waged by British imperialism against China in the 19th century, the article notes:
After the 1949 revolution, the People’s Republic of China swiftly eradicated opium production and consumption through revolutionary social reform… Mao Zedong’s landmark 1965 health-care speech and his June 26 directive emphasised accessible health care in rural areas, leading to the ‘barefoot doctors’ program. This initiative trained community health workers to provide basic medical services in rural areas, blending modern and traditional medicine to meet the needs of under-served communities. By 1968, this program became a key component of national health policy.
As we celebrate 75 years of the Chinese Revolution, China’s achievements in eradicating addiction, reducing poverty and advancing public health testify to the transformative potential of revolutionary movements. Ultimately, China’s rise as a global power signifies the rise of the Global South, as it extends a helping hand to nations historically oppressed by the US empire and sanctions.
It goes on to outline how the Palestinian resistance had created Muslim youth associations, community clubs and Islamic social gatherings to combat drug trafficking, help individuals overcome addiction and strengthen social cohesion and concludes:
“This history of social resilience and organized resistance across the Bronx, the People’s Republic of China and Gaza highlights the power of community-led healing in the face of systemic oppression.”
The Bronx Anti-War Coalition hosted a film screening on Oct. 11 of the documentary “Dope is Death” as part of our guerrilla cinema series. The widely attended event featured a Q&A session with former Young Lord and acupuncturist Walter Bosque, where community members engaged in a lively discussion about continuing and expanding the revolutionary movement of healing.
In recent years, the Bronx, a predominantly Black, Brown and working-class borough in one of the most densely populated areas of Turtle Island, has experienced a sharp rise in opioid use, including oxycodone, street fentanyl and heroin.
We recognize that drug use, particularly opioids, is not merely a personal struggle but a symptom of systemic issues rooted in capitalism and government neglect. This crisis profoundly harms our community. Those most affected by poverty, alienation and exploitation often turn to drugs for temporary relief from oppressive daily conditions. Addiction burdens those already suffering from state-imposed violence and capitalist exploitation.
Rather than supporting and uplifting working-class communities, capitalist society allows drugs like fentanyl, heroin and crack to infiltrate and erode social bonds, deteriorate health and stifle revolutionary potential. Addiction acts as a tool of oppression, weakening communities and diverting energy away from organizing and resistance.
The following opinion piece, written by International Manifesto Group convenor and Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Radhika Desai for CGTN, critiques the Canadian government’s recent decision to slap 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).
Radhika notes that the Trudeau government’s stated justification for the tariffs – that “China has an intentional state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry” – is pure misdirection. The real reason is to prove Canada’s loyalty to the US in the run-up to the renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As for China’s “intentional state-directed policy”, “the most authoritative development economists will agree that there are no known instances of successful industrialisation where the state has not played a central role. This is as true of Japan or Germany or South Korea as it is of the US itself and even Canada.”
China’s government has intentionally concentrated resources on the EV industry for over 20 years, “particularly focusing research and development in making lithium iron phosphate batteries that were safer and cheaper than lithium nickel manganese cobalt batteries almost as energy dense as the latter.” The authorities provided further support by buying vast numbers of electric buses to provide low-emission public transport, and by building EV charging infrastructure throughout the country.
As for the oft-repeated trope about China’s “overcapacity”, Radhika writes that “if anything, the world needs more production of these things” – echoing the sentiments of former under-secretary-general of the United Nations and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme Erik Solheim.
Radhika observes: “What such complaints really mean is that there is a market for high-technology goods that is no longer being supplied by the US or the West, thus endangering their 200-year-old monopoly on such goods. Well, for all the crocodile tears Western politicians weep over the poverty and lack of the development in so much of the world, they do get mighty upset when one part of it, namely China, manages to develop and even push back the technological frontier.”
The article concludes by noting that the US and Canada, having followed the path of neoliberalism and financialisation for several decades, have precious little chance of success in competing with China on advanced manufacturing.
Three months after the U.S. announcement slapping 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EV), Canada has followed suit. As local observers see it, the Trudeau government faced a choice. On the one hand, it could risk retaliatory tariffs from China on Canada’s much smaller economy: The memory of those imposed on Canadian canola, pork and soybeans worth billions in trade in 2019 in retaliation for Canada’s illegal arrest of Meng Wanzhou remains fresh. On the other hand, it could risk U.S. anger should China extend even part of its EV supply chain into Canada to get the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement access to the U.S. market. Such anger would be bound to spill over into the renegotiation of that agreement in 2026.
Canada chose to avoid risking U.S. anger. But that was not how it justified the decision. Instead, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland claimed that “China has an intentional state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry … We simply will not allow that to happen to our EV sector, which has shown such promise.” This justification is clearly cooked up.
Let’s take all the elements of that statement in turn.
The reference to “intentional state-directed policy” is a bizarre instance of trying to tar a virtue as a vice. The most authoritative development economists will agree that there are no known instances of successful industrialization where the state has not played a central role. This is as true of Japan or Germany or South Korea as it is of the U.S. itself and even Canada.
The right to pursue industrial policy was recognized by the erstwhile General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and is recognized by its successor, the World Trade Organization. Moreover, both the U.S. and Canada are themselves talking about industrial policy and state subsidies to sectors facing competition from China.
As a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pointed out, China’s success in EV development is a classic case of a successful industrial policy. It began investing in the sector as early as 2001 when it became clear that its internal combustion and hybrid car industries were too far behind major manufacturers in the U.S., Germany and Japan.
Moreover, EVs would also have beneficial effects in reducing pollution and oil imports. Chinese authorities concentrated resources on this nascent industry, particularly focusing research and development in making lithium iron phosphate batteries that were safer and cheaper than lithium nickel manganese cobalt batteries almost as energy dense as the latter. They also began providing the fledgling industry with markets by buying its vehicles for public transport.
Nor was China at all autarkic. On the contrary, it invited Tesla in, giving it the same tax and subsidy treatment as domestic producers. Tesla extended its supply chains into China while also stimulating domestic producers to compete with it.
Next, let us come to “overcapacity and oversupply.” Since when did the production of low-cost and high-quality products, particularly those that advance the world towards its critically important climate goals, become a matter of overcapacity and oversupply? If anything, the world needs more production of these things. Canada, the U.S. and the West should join in the effort to produce such goods.
What such complaints really mean is that there is a market for high-technology goods that is no longer being supplied by the U.S. or the West, thus endangering their 200-year-old monopoly on such goods. Well, for all the crocodile tears Western politicians weep over the poverty and lack of the development in so much of the world, they do get mighty upset when one part of it, namely China, manages to develop and even push back the technological frontier.
As for “crippling our (Canadian) industry,” that’s pretty ridiculous coming from countries that have been sparing no effort – sanctions, tariffs, military alliance and base building, “freedom of navigation” and other military exercises, propaganda, fear-mongering and false “development” advice – to prevent the rise of China and, one might add, that of most of the developing world.
Finally, Freeland speaks of Canada’s own EV sector “that has shown so much promise.” Undoubtedly, the thing that countries like Canada and the U.S. ought to do is find a sector or product that they have the unique strengths to develop, as China did with EVs, knowing that it could not compete internationally on conventional cars or hybrids.
However, there is a big distance between “should” and “can.” Today, notwithstanding the corporate subsidies that the U.S. and Canada are giving to their manufacturers, it is unlikely that they will be able to replicate China’s success in manufacturing, not least because, as they have gone down the road of neoliberalism and financialization, they have lost the capacity for sustained industrial policy they once had.
The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-founder Danny Haiphong, first published in Global Times on 13 August 2024, addresses the crisis of legitimacy facing the United States’ political and economic system.
Politicians from both major parties attempt to deflect attention from the US’s structural failings by pointing the finger at China and others, leading to an escalating New Cold War and moves towards hot war. Danny writes that the Biden and Trump administrations’ “continuity on US foreign policy toward China extends into their military posture as both administrations saw greatly intensified US militarization in the Asia Pacific presence along China’s border and dangerous escalations over Taiwan in violation of the one-China principle”.
Ironically though, this aggressive stance towards China is not only failing to address the US’s internal problems, but is actually exacerbating them. “Nothing about US foreign policy, whether it targets China or another nation, benefits the American people. Trillions of US dollars have gone unaccounted for, while many Americans struggle with debt, increasing rates of poverty, lowering life expectancy, inflation and stagnant wages.”
With Kamala Harris taking on the foreign policy legacy of her predecessors – promising to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century” – progressives in the US will “continue to look for ways to fulfill their desire for a more people-driven and people-centered political agenda”.
The US is confronting a political system facing a crisis of legitimacy. A major component of the crisis is structural and inherent to US governance. Politicians in the US do not succeed in politics because of their service to the people. They are first selected by a tiny fraction of society wielding immense wealth and power before they are presented to voters.
Nowhere is the gap between the policies that US politicians pursue and the well-being of the people bigger than foreign policy. A cursory look at the economic approach to China under the administrations of former president Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden demonstrates this clearly. Under the Trump administration, the US imposed tariffs on Chinese exports and sanctions on China’s tech sector. Under the Biden administration, the US increased these tariffs to include the Chinese electric vehicle sector, expanded “black list” of Chinese tech corporations and targeted the semiconductor industry as a flashpoint in arresting China’s high-tech development. The two US administrations’ continuity on US foreign policy toward China extends into their military posture as both administrations saw greatly intensified US militarization in the Asia Pacific presence along China’s border and dangerous escalations over Taiwan in violation of the one-China principle.
Nothing about US foreign policy, whether it targets China or another nation, benefits the American people. Trillions of US dollars have gone unaccounted for, while many Americans struggle with debt, increasing rates of poverty, lowering life expectancy, inflation and stagnant wages. This has led to a crisis of political legitimacy where support for Congress and the president are at an all-time low while support for third-party alternatives to the two-party system is at a high point. The question is, then, why do US politicians fail to serve the interests of their constituents? What makes them choose to enrich military contractors and monopoly financial institutions while neglecting the ordinary worker?
The US is not a democracy. It’s a plutocracy of private capital. One percent of the US population owns more than one-third of US wealth. But more importantly, this one percent comprises the property owners of the biggest monopolies and financial institutions in the US and have designed a political system where their patronage directly corresponds to US policy. While politicians may promise ordinary Americans that their policies will benefit them. However, once elected these same politicians pursue an agenda which enriches the wealthiest corporations at the expense of the well-being of the people. In 2014, two US scholars conducted a study on the impact that various interest groups hold on government policy. They found that big business and interest groups made a huge impact on US policy and average citizens made little to no impact at all. Their findings find no shortage of validation. While the vast majority of people face economic and social strife, US politicians are busy sending more military aid to Ukraine and Israel and holding fundraisers with the richest in the corporate and finance sectors. This has given way to political malaise in some respects, but it has also encouraged more people to seek alternative political avenues to the two-party system.
As the gap between US policy and the interests of humanity reaches an all-time high, US politicians will continue to compete among themselves over how to best manage a growing crisis of legitimacy. An ever-increasing number of Americans will grow disdainful of this process. This means that an even more polarized political environment is coming to the United States as people navigate gross power distortions between the average American and the elites. Meanwhile, they continue to look for ways to fulfill their desire for a more people-driven and people-centered political agenda.
On July 27, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met in Vientiane with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the latter’s request. The two men were both attending various international meetings held under the auspices of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the Laotian capital. Laos currently holds the rotating chair of ASEAN.
China’s official report of the meeting clearly indicates the grave situation in which the two countries’ bilateral relationship continues to finds itself.
Wang Yi said that in the past three months, the diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, and climate teams of the two governments and the two militaries have maintained communication, and people-to-people exchanges have been on the rise. However, he continued, it must be pointed out that the US has not stopped, but rather doubled down on its containment and suppression of China. The risks facing China-US relations are still building and the challenges are rising.
He added that China’s policy towards the United States is consistent, and the US side should earnestly implement the commitments made by President Biden (at his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in California in November 2023) and return to a rational and pragmatic China policy. The US, Wang Yi pointed out, holds a wrong perception of China, always seeing China with its own hegemonic mindset.
The Chinese Foreign Minister added that Taiwan is part of China, and it never has been and never will be a country. “Taiwan independence” and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. “We will keep reducing the space for ‘Taiwan independence’ and work toward the goal of complete reunification.”
Wang Yi also said that China’s position on the Ukraine issue is fair and transparent. The US should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction. China rejects false accusations and will not succumb to pressure or blackmail. China will take resolute and robust measures to protect its major interests and legitimate rights.
From Laos, Blinken went on to visit Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore and Mongolia, his main purpose being to try to rig up anti-China alliances, attempt to encircle China and thereby prepare for and heighten the risk of a catastrophic war. While this found expression in the conclusion of new military agreements with Japan and the Philippines, Vietnam, Mongolia and Singapore displayed no interest in disturbing their friendly and mutually beneficial relations with China or in being drawn into US schemes.
On July 27, 2024 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Vientiane at the latter’s request. The two sides exchanged views on current China-U.S. relations, and agreed to maintain communication at all levels and further implement the important common understandings reached by their Presidents at the San Francisco meeting.
Wang Yi said that in the past three months, the diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, and climate teams of the two governments and the two militaries have maintained communication, and people-to-people exchanges have been on the rise. However it must be pointed out that the U.S. has not stopped, but rather doubled down on its containment and suppression of China. The risks facing China-U.S. relations are still building, and the challenges rising. The relationship remains at a critical juncture of deescalation and stabilization. We need to continue to recalibrate the direction, manage risks, properly address differences, remove interference, and advance cooperation.
Wang Yi said that China’s U.S. policy is consistent, and adheres to the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation. The U.S. side should earnestly implement the commitments made by President Biden, and return to a rational and pragmatic China policy. The two sides need to work together for a stable, healthy, and sustainable China-U.S. relationship.
Wang Yi pointed out that the U.S. side holds a wrong perception of China, always seeing China with its own hegemonic mindset. China is not the United States, nor does China want to become like the United States. China does not pursue hegemony, or practice power politics. China has the best record on peace and security among all major countries. The third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee adopted a major resolution on further deepening reform comprehensively to advance Chinese modernization. We will stay committed to our founding aspiration, and focus on seeking happiness for the Chinese people, and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation. China will stay on the path of peaceful development, and promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. It is hoped that the U.S. side will better understand the CPC as well as China’s present and future through this resolution.
Wang Yi said that Taiwan is part of China, and it never has been and never will be a country. “Taiwan independence” and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Each time “Taiwan independence” forces make provocation, we will definitely take countermeasures. We will keep reducing the space for “Taiwan independence” and work toward the goal of complete reunification.
Wang Yi reiterated the ins and outs of the Ren’ai Jiao (Reef) issue. Now that China has agreed on a provisional arrangement with the Philippines on managing the situation, the Philippine side should honor its commitment, and not ship construction materials any more. The U.S. side should not take any more action to fan the flames, stir up trouble, or undermine maritime stability.
Wang Yi said that China’s position on the Ukraine issue is fair and transparent, and China will continue to encourage and promote peace talks. The U.S. side should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction. China rejects false accusations, and will not succumb to pressure or blackmail. China will take resolute and robust measures to protect its major interests and legitimate rights.
Blinken said that the United States is strongly committed to stabilizing U.S.-China relations and continues to follow the one-China policy. The U.S. side looks forward to keeping in regular communication with the Chinese side and continuing the cooperation in such areas as counternarcotics and artificial intelligence. The U.S. would like to manage differences between the two sides and avoid misunderstanding and miscalculation.
The two sides also exchanged views on the situation concerning Gaza and the Korean Peninsula, and the question of Myanmar, among other matters.
In this interesting piece for People’s Dispatch, Eugene Puryear reflects on the century-long history of solidarity between the Black liberation struggle in the US and the revolutionary movements in China and India.
He notes that, as early as 1927, Black newspapers and colleges in the US were reporting on the Chinese Revolution and opposing US intervention. The article also references the famous 1934 visit to China by the great poet, playwright and activist Langston Hughes, who was inspired by the anti-imperialist struggle of the Chinese people. In 1937, “People’s Voice – a joint project of the Communists and civil rights leader Adam Clayton Powell – read by 40,000-50,000 Black New Yorkers a week, often used the slogan ‘Free India, Free China, Free Africa!'”
Following the victory of the Chinese Revolution in 1949, the Chinese people consistently showed solidarity with oppressed communities in North America. For example, following Mao’s Statement in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression in 1968, people gathered in workplaces, schools and neighborhoods throughout China. “Chants like ‘Oppressed nations and peoples of the world, unite! Down with the reactionaries of all countries! Support our Black brothers and sisters!’ rang out.”
Eugene points to the continuing relevance of these historical connections:
Recovering stories from an earlier time, underpinned by a more liberatory vision, helps us find reference points for our movements and parties to conduct the radical course corrections needed to save humanity.
The movements that gave us modern India, China, and Black America were, for a time, deeply conversant with one another. Jawaharal Nehru was a lifetime member of the NAACP, whose founder, W.E.B. Du Bois was on friendly terms with Mao Tse-Tung. James Lawson, a Black Methodist Minister, who refused to fight in Korea, traveled to India, studied Gandhi, and later brought his teachings to the Civil Rights Movement. China would name Paul Robeson the Chairman of its relief efforts in World War Two. He would then go on to publish a newspaper in the heart of McCarthyism tying these strands together.
Amidst the rise of the “Asian Century” and the era of Black Presidents, the legacies of those movements are in danger. Risking being turned into a caricature by the Cold War politics, a fascistic upsurge, and the fragmentation of the world into a poorer, hungrier, more dangerous, and less livable place; recovering stories from an earlier time, underpinned by a more liberatory vision, helps us find reference points for our movements and parties to conduct the radical course corrections needed to save humanity.
Haryana to Harlem
In 1948, a journalist traveling in India reported:
“When I asked some farmers in a village in West Bengal how they felt about American assistance to “raise the standard of living/of people in underdeveloped areas such as India, one elderly farmer replied: “We will believe in America’s altruistic motives after we see the American government raise the living standard of the Negroes and extend to them full justice and equality.”[1]
This consciousness of Jim Crow policies was rooted in a long history of interaction between the Indian freedom movement and Black America. A 1922 report from US Naval Intelligence noted with concern: “the present Hindu revolutionary movement has definite connection with the Negro agitation in America.” They took note of the African Blood Brotherhood, whose leader, Cyril Briggs, noted the Indian Freedom Movement as one of a few “factors” that “help us here, right here in Harlem.”[2]
The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-founder Danny Haiphong, originally published in Beijing Review, discusses the growing opioid crisis in the United States and the tendency of US politicians to place blame for the crisis on China. Noting that opioid overdoses caused over 112,000 deaths in 2023, Danny writes that “the causes for the spike in both the use of fentanyl and its deadly consequences have been obscured by the rampant politicization of the issue”.
The House Select Committee on “Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party” claims that China has been promoting the manufacture and export of the precursor chemicals critical to the production of fentanyl. Danny observes however that this claim is not substantiated by meaningful evidence, and furthermore “disregards China’s serious efforts in cracking down on the trafficking of fentanyl despite having no domestic problem with opioid abuse.” For example, in 2019, “China became the first country in the world to include all fentanyl-related substances in its supplementary list of controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.”
In truth the regulatory failures are taking place in the US, not China – “in large part due to the influence of corporate power on politics”. The attempt to pin blame on China is part of a broader New Cold War agenda in which China is demonised and its rise presented as an existential threat to the Western way of life. This narrative in turn serves to justify the US military build-up in the Pacific and the escalating campaign of China encirclement.
It is no secret that drug addiction is a major problem in the United States. When it comes to opioids, the crisis has become increasingly deadly. Over 112,000 fatal overdoses occurred in the U.S. in 2023. The potent synthetic opioid, fentanyl, is now a household name for its role in aggravating overdoses in the country to such a historic scale.
However, the causes for the spike in both the use of fentanyl and its deadly consequences have been obscured by the rampant politicization of the issue. In recent years, U.S. political elites have attempted to explain away the crisis by blaming a convenient scapegoat: China.
The House Select Committee on “Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party” in April released a report claiming that China has directly subsidized precursor chemicals critical to the production of fentanyl.
The insinuation is that China is directly trading these substances with illicit fentanyl producers and therefore fueling the opioid crisis in the U.S.
Blaming China for the opioid crisis didn’t begin this year, however. Political officials placed fentanyl production at the top of their domestic agenda in 2021 and immediately blamed China for the deadly consequences. U.S. President Joe Biden stated prior to his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC conference in San Francisco, California, last November that he would make pressuring China on fentanyl a key topic and claimed a “diplomatic victory” after China and the U.S. agreed to resume talks on the issue.
Blaming China for the U.S. opioid overdose crisis is rife with problems. For one, the House committee is a byproduct of a broader Cold War agenda and the credibility of its report is in serious question given the majority of its sources are anecdotal or regurgitation of Western media claims.
Furthermore, U.S. claims disregard China’s serious efforts in cracking down on the trafficking of fentanyl despite having no domestic problem with opioid abuse. In 2019, China became the first country in the world to include all fentanyl-related substances in its supplementary list of controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The country has also taken numerous security measures in compliance with the law, and many of these actions include cooperating directly with U.S. export-import control mechanisms.
It’s also important to note that the responsibility of how precursor chemicals are utilized falls on the importing country. The U.S. has consistently ignored necessary regulations on the sale and distribution of opioids in large part due to the influence of corporate power on politics.
U.S. pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma LP is infamous for starting the opioid epidemic in the U.S. beginning in the 1990s as the maker and aggressive peddler of OxyContin, a strong and potentially addictive pain medication.
Purdue Pharma opened the floodgates to the over-prescription of opioids within an already profit-driven health insurance and medical system. For the past 30 years, pharmaceutical corporations have poured billions of dollars into political campaigns to ensure that their products receive legislative priority and protection.
The close relationship between U.S. politicians and pharmaceutical corporations has created what’s called the “revolving door.” For example, during the Donald Trump administration, former Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb resigned to join the board of directors of Pfizer, one of the world’s premier pharmaceutical and biomedical enterprises.
And the revolving door is no partisan affair. Major members of Biden’s staff, such as former Deputy Chief of Staff Jennifer O’Malley Dillon and current Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, have worked for law firms representing major pharmaceutical corporations such as Pfizer and Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The U.S. geopolitical footprint on the illicit drug trade has contributed to countless suffering and chaos throughout the Global South, or the nations of the world that are considered to have a relatively low level of economic and industrial development and are typically located to the south of more industrialized nations. The U.S. played a role in the Opium Wars in the 19th century which led to China’s “century of humiliation” and was a major force in the global opium trade of that period. Throughout the Cold War, covert U.S. wars in Latin America led to the proliferation of the drug trade from Colombia to Central America. And Afghanistan, suffering decades of U.S. interventions, became the top producer of opium in the world for much of the 21st century until its growth and distribution was banned by the Taliban in 2022 following the U.S. withdrawl from the country.
Blaming China won’t address any self-inflicted wounds. It is U.S. policy, or rather the lack thereof, that is responsible for making American society an attractive market for the illicit drug trade. Despair, stress, poverty and racial discrimination make for a toxic mix that continues to fester and grow in the heart of American society. Political leaders and their elite sponsors are the ones who need to be held accountable. Not China.
In the following article, originally published in the Morning Star, Roger McKenzie contrasts the economic priorities of the US with those of China.
Reporting from Washington DC and New York City, and reflecting on the recent Friends of Socialist China delegation to China, he compares the level of investment in infrastructure in the two countries. A train journey between DC and NYC “revealed a picture of severe urban decay in supposedly the world’s most important and richest nation” – a reflection of the fact that, in the US, “the government, of any colour, prefers to spend immense amounts of money on the military as opposed to the people.”
The article continues:
The US is visibly decaying economically as well as politically, while China is clearly stable, able to act on behalf of the people and on the way up. The transport infrastructure, road, rail and airport systems in China have undergone a massive upgrades in length and quality over the last decade. This is a sentence you simply can’t apply to the US.
In the five cities I visited during my 10-day visit to China I never saw a single homeless person and felt entirely safe to walk the streets and speak with anyone I wanted. Nobody stopped me from doing any of those things. I never felt the same level of safety in DC — or New York for that matter.
Roger notes that the US could learn a great deal from China. If it were willing to adapt to a multipolar reality and give up on its dream of a New American Century, it could prioritise the needs of its people over those of the military-industrial complex. However, he warns that the current trajectory is towards leveraging the US’s military power to maintain its global dominance, even as its economic power wanes. “The temptation will be for the empire to strike back as its power crumbles. Unfortunately it is something I think we are already seeing in Ukraine and in its attempts to stoke up tensions in the breakaway Chinese province of Taiwan.”
The challenge for the left is therefore to build a powerful mass movement that combines the struggle for socialism at home with the struggle against imperialism and war.
EMPIRES always end. All of them. The only question is about the nature of that end. We can see this before our eyes as the United States empire reaches its inevitable end, internationally and domestically.
We can see it happening in front of our eyes if we choose to look. One of the advantages of travelling by train instead of flying is you get to see much more of the reality of a country.
The Acela Express train ride of 230 miles or so for three hours from New York City to the US capital, Washington DC, was depressing in so many ways.
The train itself was better and more comfortable than many I have travelled on in Britain, but the journey revealed a picture of severe urban decay in supposedly the world’s most important and richest nation.
You could see the wealth on the skyline represented by the skyscraper office blocks of the major cities we passed through — Philadelpia and Baltimore — but much of the rest was a picture of severe urban decay.
The industrial base of the country has been gutted. It reminded me of the train journey through the once thriving Black Country in Britain. Once a hive of industrial activity, now hollowed out with miles of left-to-rot former factories.
In the US the choice has clearly been made that the government, of any colour, prefers to spend immense amounts of money on the military as opposed to the people.
I can’t believe that the minority of the US population that actually bother to come out and vote don’t understand this. It’s no secret that the US spends by far the largest amount on the military of any country on Earth.
The US spends more on the military than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Germany, France and South Korea combined.
Between them China and Russia account for only around 13 per cent of the world’s military spend. Not the vast amounts the corporate media would have you believe.
But while content to project its power abroad, the US is crumbling. One visit to the vast and imposing US embassy in London will show you just how much the US is intent on projecting its power. To the US size really does matter.
In the following article, well-known Marxist economist Michael Roberts assesses the latest set of protectionist measures taken by the Biden administration against China. Roberts notes that these measures include “a quadrupling of the tariff rate to 100% on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports, doubling the levy on solar cells and more than tripling the fee on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries.” These tariffs constitute a doubling-down by President Biden on the measures introduced by the Trump administration in 2018-19.
The article observes that “Chinese EVs are now better and cheaper than their Western counterparts”, and this reflects China’s rapid advance in several key areas of green technology.
China has scaled up its green industries rapidly. It now produces nearly 80% of the world’s solar PV modules, 60% of wind turbines and 60% of electric vehicles and batteries. In 2023 alone, its solar-power capacity grew by more than the total installed capacity in the US.
Biden’s protectionist measures are being justified on the basis that they will stimulate domestic production of green technology in the US. However, Roberts argues that this is unlikely to be the outcome, given historical precedent. Previous tariffs on solar panels, introduced in 2012 and later expanded, did not revitalise the US solar industry. “On the contrary, the American global market share of the solar industry has considerably decreased since the original tariffs were placed — from 9% in 2010 to 2% today. Meanwhile, China’s share of the industry rose from 59% to 78%. There’s no reason to believe that the recent tariff increase will reverse this trend. There’s even less hope that they will help spur a domestic EV industry.”
The article also points to the irony of the US accusing China of violating WTO rules with its green tech subsidies, whilst simultaneously introducing a substantial package of its own green subsidies. “It seems that China’s industrial policy of subsidies is ‘gaming the system’, while US industrial policy of similar subsidies is just ‘protecting’ US industry.”
Rather than boosting domestic production, the tariffs are likely to have the opposite effect, by raising costs for US consumers and businesses and disrupting supply chains. The article notes that “Trump and Biden’s imposition of tariffs risks hindering the adoption of low-emission technologies by American businesses and consumers.”
In general, the US’s strategy of attempting to stifle China’s development will not be successful and will certainly not benefit the US economy; indeed “the cost to the US economy and the profitability of US industry will be considerable, and even more to the real incomes of Americans.” However, in a context where “the US is losing its imperialist profit extraction from trade with China and increasingly being squeezed out of world markets by Chinese goods”, there appears to be a bipartisan consensus on continuing with these last-ditch attempts at destabilising and weakening China, even if ultimately they prove to be a classic case of “lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet.”
The article was originally published on Michael Roberts’ blog on 20 May 2024.
Last Tuesday, the trade and technology war launched by the US on China back in 2019 took another ratchet up.
The US government announced a new series of protectionist measures on Chinese goods imported into the US. It included a quadrupling of the tariff rate to 100% on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports, doubling the levy on solar cells and more than tripling the fee on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries. These tariffs are equivalent to an annual $18bn of Chinese goods on top of the previous $300bn slapped down under Trump.
The new tariffs specifically target ‘green goods’, most notably EVs, but tariffs on lithium-ion batteries, critical minerals and solar cells will also be substantially increased. The measures are set to take effect this year (with the exception of graphite, where Chinese dominance is most stark, so tariffs begin in 2026).
China is the world leader in EV production and innovation. Chinese EVs are now better and cheaper than their Western counterparts. Biden’s intention is to stave off Chinese competition while stimulating domestic EV supply. But China’s EV imports are only 2% of the US market. And all the goods that these new tariffs were slapped on constitute only about 7% of US-China trade. What this shows is that, even the US government recognizes that the US still relies heavily on Chinese goods imports and cannot cut them all dead.
That’s because the tariff and technology war is not just about protecting the ailing US auto industry. China is totally dominant in EV manufacture because it’s also totally dominant in battery (cell) manufacture. And it’s also totally dominant in the manufacture of the chemicals that go into those cells (cathode & anodes).
China is also utterly dominant when it comes to the refining of the materials that then go into the chemicals that then go into the cells which go into the EVs.
