China

[blindpig]

Fred Goldstein’s analysis of capitalism, imperialism, and China resonates today

April 11, 20


Photo: Liz Green

Fred Goldstein, a prominent Marxist thinker, revolutionary socialist, and author who contributed significantly to the international communist movement, died a year ago on April 11, 2023. His enduring legacy lies in his significant contributions to the international communist movement, notably his unwavering defense of socialist China.

As the Palestinian people in Gaza face the brutality of the U.S.-armed Zionist entity, Palestinian liberation leader Leila Khaled recently emphasized the imperialist forces’ preparations to attack China. “We know that they speak about terrorism, but they are the heroes of terrorism. The imperialist force everywhere in the world, in Iraq, in Syria, in different countries. Now they are preparing to attack China,” Khaled said

In his work “The New Cold War Against China,” Goldstein wrote:

“The conflict between imperialist capitalism, headed by Washington, Wall Street and the Pentagon, and the Chinese socialist economic system, with state-owned industry at its core and planned economic guidance, is becoming much sharper, and imperialism is growing more openly hostile.”

Goldstein’s steadfast belief in the importance of revolutionary Marxism shines through in his document, “Reviving Marx and Lenin.” He argued that understanding the struggle for socialism, including the achievements and challenges faced by the USSR, is crucial for contemporary struggles. This document serves as essential reading for revolutionary socialists, particularly in the United States, given the U.S. role as the primary instigator of war and oppression as the bulwark of world capitalism.

Goldstein authored two influential books, “Low-Wage Capitalism: Colossus with Feet of Clay” (2008) and “Capitalism at a Dead End: Job destruction, overproduction, and crisis in the high-tech era” (2012), which analyzed the impact of technology on the global working class and the restructuring of capitalism in the post-Soviet era.

To explore Goldstein’s extensive work, visit the Marxists Internet Archive.

https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2024/ ... tes-today/

China’s unfair ‘overcapacity’

April 11, 2024 Michael Roberts


Assembly line at Chinese all-electric car company Nio.

The recent nonsense issued by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on China’s ‘overcapacity’ and ‘unfair subsidies’ to its industries is particularly pathetic. As Renaud Bertrand put it: “The so-called threat of China’s ‘industrial overcapacity’ is a buzzword that actually means that China is simply too competitive, and by asking it to address this, what Yellen is truly asking of China is akin to a fellow sprinter asking Usain Bolt to run less fast because he can’t keep up.”

Indeed, let me quote Bertrand’s rebuttal of Yellen’s claims of ‘overcapacity’: “Let’s start with capacity utilization rates. It’s crystal clear they’ve been pretty much constant in China for the past 10 years, standing at roughly 76% right now, which is in the same ballpark as America’s own utilization rates, at about 78%. So, there’s no issue there.”

Bertrand goes on: “Despite the very low prices for its EVs or solar panels, Chinese companies involved still make a profit (industrial profits are rising at double-digit growth), and they DO charge higher prices abroad than at home. The competitiveness of Chinese companies is overwhelming: today, in scores of industries – like solar or EVs – there is simply no way for American or European companies to compete with Chinese ones. This is the real issue: Yellen and Western leaders are afraid that if things keep going, China will simply eat everyone’s lunch.”

China is the only country in the world that produces all categories of goods classified by the World Customs Organization (WCO). This gives it a key advantage when it comes to end prices: when you want to build something in China, you can literally find the entire supply chain for it at home. Bertrand: “China has become an innovation powerhouse. In 2023, it filed roughly as many patents as the rest of the world combined, and it’s now estimated to lead 37 out of the 44 critical technologies for the future. All this, too, has implications when it comes to the final prices of its products.”

Europe’s leaders have been echoing Yellen’s claims. After meeting Xi in Beijing last December, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen noted the EU’s trade deficit with China had ballooned to €400bn from €40bn 20 years ago, as she highlighted a series of complaints, including China’s industrial ‘overcapacity,’ she said: “European leaders will not be able to tolerate that our industrial base is undermined by unfair competition.”

But let’s get this right: the EU trade deficit with China has risen from $40bn to $400bn in 20 years! Not two years, not five years, not ten years, but throughout this century. First, that makes the rise in the deficit not so large per year, say about $10-15bn, and throughout that period, we heard little complaint from the EU that China was adopting unfair trade practices. Suddenly, after the debacle of rising energy costs after cutting off Russian energy imports and a virtual two-year recession in the major EU countries, von der Leyen now blames China. Indeed, most of the increase in the ‘China deficit’ has come in the post-pandemic period.



As for the U.S., currently, the bilateral trade deficit between the U.S. and China relative to the size of the U.S. economy, is the lowest it’s been since 2002. As Bertrand says, “So it’s an odd time to complain so vociferously about trade imbalance with China since, from America’s standpoint, the trade imbalance is the lowest it’s been in over 20 years.”

Nevertheless, the Keynesian/China experts promote and parrot Yellen’s message. Here is a quote from a Western media source: “Against the backdrop of rising international concern, experts believe the manufacturing strategy will not deliver on Beijing’s growth targets. Exports already account for a fifth of GDP, and China’s share of global manufacturing stands at 31 percent. Absent an explosion of demand, they say it is unlikely the rest of the world could soak up China’s exports without shrinking its own manufacturing.”

Who are these great experts? The usual suspects.

Michael Pettis tells us that if China goes on expanding its manufacturing exports, it will have to be “accommodated by the rest of the world.” And the rest of the world is unlikely to do that. Really? It seems that China has no problem selling its exports to the rest of the world’s consumers and manufacturers, who are eager to buy.

Another expert is Brad Setser. Setser tells us that “China’s domestic EV market was created via industrial policy; it didn’t appear out of thin air. A critical point, and one that is often now forgotten. Same is true of HSR and wind, and China is trying in other sectors as well.” Shock, horror; it was not achieved through market forces but through state-led investment. He goes on, “The reality that many of China’s export success stories now didn’t originate with the magic of the market no doubt complicates global trade, as adjusting to accommodate China’s successes doesn’t “feel” like a true market adjustment.“ In other words, the U.S. and Europe and Japan cannot compete. So what to do? Setser says, “I think the U.S. should make a real effort to offset China’s economic coercion here. It will take a bit of sacrifice but I at least am willing to step up.” So competition is now called ‘coercion,’ and the U.S. must respond with coercion itself, with Setser ready to help Yellen on that.

The rationality of this nonsense is found in the Western mainstream view that China is stuck in an old model of investment-led export manufacturing and needs to ‘rebalance’ towards a consumer-led domestic economy where the private sector has free rein. China’s weak consumer sector is forcing it to try to export manufacturing ‘over capacity’.

But the evidence for this is not there. According to a recent study by Richard Baldwin, he finds that the export-led model did operate up to 2006, but since then, domestic sales have boomed so that the exports to GDP ratio has actually fallen. “Chinese consumption of Chinese manufactured goods has grown faster than Chinese production for almost two decades. Far from being unable to absorb the production, Chinese domestic consumption of made-in-China goods has grown MUCH faster than the output of China’s manufacturing sector.”



Chinese manufacturers remain highly competitive in world markets, despite all the efforts of the West to impose tariffs and other protectionist measures. China is doing particularly well in electric vehicle production, solar energy and other green technologies. But as Baldwin points out, this export success does not mean that China depends on exports for growth. China is growing mainly because of production for the home economy, like the U.S.



But there is a more worrying feature of this ‘overcapacity’ nonsense. It has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by economists in the Chinese banking sector, who were mainly trained in Western universities. Take the recent speech by the chief economist at the China Bank, Zu Gao. His speech was highly praised by the likes of Pettis and Setser. Xu argued that “the significantly lower consumption-to-GDP ratio in China, compared to the global average, is the fundamental cause of the country’s lackluster domestic demand and economic slowdown.”

Xu explains that “weak domestic demand, compounded by lackluster external demand or export volumes, results in insufficient total demand, thereby stifling economic growth. In that sense, the long-term growth constraints on the Chinese economy lie not in the supply but in demand.” Really? China’s relative growth slowdown in the past decade has been due to the slowing expansion of its labor force with economic growth then depending primarily on raising the productivity of labor. And that depends on investment in productivity-boosting technology, not consumption, which is a deduction from resources for investment. Moreover, which countries have achieved faster growth in the last few years: the consumer-led West or low-consumption China?



Xu follows up his classic crude Keynesian theory by saying that “the objective of economic growth is to fulfill the people’s expectation for a better life, which is primarily manifested through their expectation for enhanced consumption—better quality food, clothing, and leisure activities. When a country’s consumption constitutes a small fraction of its GDP, it indicates a misalignment between the aggregate economic growth (as depicted by GDP) and the lived experiences of its people.”

But this is just not true. A low consumption-to-GDP ratio does not necessarily mean low consumption growth. And China’s consumption growth has been way faster than the consumer-led economies of the West.



Then we get to the real purpose of Xu’s speech: “The extensive presence of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China, whose profits and dividends primarily flow to the state rather than households, diminishes the wealth effect that might otherwise stimulate household consumption.” You see, it’s China’s state-led economy that’s the problem: it is stopping “an efficient market mechanism” from working.

So what to do? “Of course, SOEs in China are technically owned by the people, yet their equity is predominantly held by the state. Consequently, the dividends from SOEs primarily flow to the state rather than the households; the profits retained post-dividend distribution from SOEs are not directly connected to the balance sheets of households, making it difficult to contribute to household wealth. So says Xu, “We need to distribute all SOE stocks to citizens,” i.e., privatise the state-owned companies.

The chief economist of China Bank seems to reckon that the only answer to the perceived ‘lack of demand’ and ‘overcapacity’ in China is to restore the dominance of the ‘efficient market mechanism”.

https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2024/ ... rcapacity/

Meh, China's bankers can say this and that but the tail does not wag the dog and the Party rules and is indeed tightening up a bit on the capitalists who put themselves and the market before the people.

Green Berets ‘permanently’ stationed in Taiwan near China’s mainland coast
April 11, 2024 Chris Fry


Green Berets are now permanently stationed on Quemoy, within sight of the Chinese mainland coast.

On May 6, 2016, the New York Times published an obituary for Donald W. Duncan, a former Green Beret master sergeant and later an outspoken critic of the U.S. war against Vietnam. Duncan wrote articles and a memoir and spoke at many anti-war rallies.

The Green Berets, a “special operation” military unit, was first sent into Vietnam in 1957, not long after Ho Chi Minh and the liberation forces drove the French colonial forces out of Indochina. They were tasked with training soldiers for the newly formed U.S.-created “South” Vietnam puppet regime.

Duncan told the radical journal Ramparts about his special forces training, which “…included ‘methods of torture to extract information,’ including ‘the delicate operation of lowering a man’s testicles into a jeweler’s vise.’ He said he later witnessed the use of such techniques in Vietnam.”

Mr. Duncan also testified that year [1967] at an unofficial “war crimes tribunal” organized by the philosopher Bertrand Russell in Denmark, and at a South Carolina court-martial, where he spoke in defense of Capt. Howard R. Levy, a Green Beret who had also turned against the war. Captain Levy was convicted of disobeying orders and attempting to incite disloyalty, and eventually served 26 months in prison.

Duncan’s testimony about the military and the war industry is just as true now as it was then:

I also know that we have allowed the creation of a military monster that will lie to our elected officials, and that both of them will lie to the American people.

After the U.S. was driven out of Vietnam in 1973, the Green Berets were sent by President Ronald Reagan to guide the secret illegal war to support the “Contras” in Nicaragua and their murderous campaign against the Sandinista government. The contras were responsible for killing thousands of civilians, including many members of the clergy.

In 2001, the Green Berets were the first shock troops sent into Afghanistan when the U.S. began its 20-year occupation of that country, and in 2003, they were then sent into Iraq to overturn the government there, resulting in the deaths of more than 300,000 people, mostly civilians.

Biden sends Green Berets to Taiwan to set up ‘live fire’ exercises.

On March 20, Newsweek reported that:

“Taiwan has confirmed there are U.S. troops stationed on its islands in the Taiwan Strait on a permanent basis, including an island just over a mile off China’s southeast coast.

“The [U.S.] National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2023 paved the way for their arrival to conduct training programs for troops on Taiwan’s front line.”

The Green Berets are now permanently stationed on Quemoy, also called Kinmen, within sight of the Chinese mainland coast, as well as Penghu, some 70 miles away.

Of course, “training” is actually down the list of duties for these soldiers. More importantly, they act as a “tripwire” for U.S. imperialism as it attempts to provoke China into open war.

The South China Morning Post reported that Taiwan’s quasi-regime will conduct 20 days of “live fire drills” on Quemoy, which the Pentagon says the Green Berets will participate in:

A military source said various guns and cannons, including M60A3 main battle tanks, 20mm cannons, 120mm mortars, and high-explosive 155mm and 105mm Howitzers, will be used during the exercises that will simulate defending against attacks from the People’s Liberation Army.

On March 7, the Eurasian Times website reported that Taiwan and the U.S. will test the Israeli-made Spyder air defense missile system as it makes its debut during these “fire drills.”

An opinion piece by Alex Lo in the South China Morning Post on March 19 puts this all into perspective:

Now imagine how Washington would react if China had permanently stationed some of its most elite troops a couple of kilometers from Hawaii, Guam or worse, the continental United States. The Pentagon would probably deploy more than a few coastguard vessels as a response.

Taiwan residents are not eager to be Washington’s proxies in war with the PRC.

The Global Affairs website published a March 2022 article about two polls conducted in Taiwan with questions about how willing the residents were to fight off an invasion by mainland China.

The article stated that the results differed sharply depending on who sponsored the poll, whether it was by the ruling pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) or a more non-aligned conductor:

One organization’s [DPP] poll had 62 percent of respondents say yes and 27 percent say no, while the other survey, with a slight difference in its wording asking whether “you or your family” would be willing to fight, found only 40 percent said yes and 51 percent said no.

In January of this year, elections were held in Taiwan. The DPP candidate won the presidency with only 40 percent of the vote, while the combined opposition vote was close to 60 percent. The opposition parties also took control of Taiwan’s “legislature.”

The aptly named Institute for the Study of War, whose board is made up of retired Pentagon generals, former neo-con officials, and Wall Street bankers and hedge fund operators, published a March 22 “China-Taiwan Weekly Update.”

While Washington frequently boasts that Taiwan is “democratic,” this article complains that the DPP war preparations are being hampered by the opposition parties in the legislature:

The Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) are pursuing political reforms that threaten to undermine the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) governance by expanding legislative oversight of the executive branch.

The opposition’s plan to impose checks and balances on the DPP could significantly hamper the government’s ability to pass policy by miring it in defensive actions against accusations of overstepping authority or corruption.

For these well-heeled gentlemen, imperialist war to crush socialist China is far too important to be stopped by the people that would bear the consequences of it, whether in Taiwan, mainland China, or the U.S..

Meanwhile, on April 1, former Taiwan “president” Ma Ying-jeou traveled from Taiwan to mainland China for an 11-day trip. He is expected to meet with PRC President Xi Jinping.

“This is a trip of peace as well as of friendship,” Ma told reporters in brief remarks at the airport in Taiwan before flying to the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen in Guangdong province.

Ma added that he hoped to convey a message that Taiwan’s people love peace and hope to avoid war.

As U.S. imperialism faces setback after setback in its proxy wars in Ukraine, in Gaza, and in Yemen, as it faces more and more opposition in the streets here and abroad for its devastating drumbeat for war while fundamental people’s rights are under attack, the anti-war movement must be vigilant and ready to mobilize against this threat to People’s China!

There is one China!

Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people!

U.S., hands off Taiwan! Remove the Green Berets now!

https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2024/ ... and-coast/

[blindpig]

What the US really means by overcapacity

In the article below, prominent Marxist economist and International Manifesto Group convenor Radhika Desai responds to the media hype about China’s putative “overcapacity” in renewable energy production – a story that gathered steam during US energy secretary Janet Yellen’s recent visit to China, in which she accused China of “flooding” the world’s energy markets with cheap green energy.

Radhika starts off with the very reasonable point that, given the number of climate records that were broken in 2023, “one might think everyone would welcome China’s plentiful and cheap clean energy equipment”. China’s unparalleled investment in solar and wind energy have resulted in a dramatic fall in the cost of these technologies worldwide, thereby providing a powerful boost to humanity’s efforts to avoid climate catastrophe.

Furthermore, when it comes to “distorting markets” via subsidies, “the US offers billions in industrial subsidies and talks of reviving industrial policy. Moreover, it denies the simple fact that no country has industrialized without protecting itself, and using myriad forms of state direction, including subsidies.” Indeed China’s subsidies are perfectly consistent with WTO rules.

The article notes that declining conditions of the US working class are caused not by Chinese “overcapacity” but by “pro-corporate and pro-financialization neoliberal US policies” which have “deindustrialized the US, stagnated working class wages and, by shifting income and wealth from the ordinary people towards a tiny elite, generated vast inequality”.

Radhika concludes by observing that, as a socialist government committed to the welfare of its people, China “will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized US corporations may be advanced”.

This article first appeared on CGTN.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was recently in China to talk about its “clean energy overcapacity.” What can that possibly mean? At a time when the world needs more and cheaper clean energy equipment to deal with climate change, isn’t China helping the world by making this equipment more widely available at prices more of the world can afford? Surely, that is just what the world needs in 2024.

After all, 2023 broke so many climate records. It was the warmest year on record. There were record-breaking forest fires and floods. It was the hottest northern hemisphere summer. July 2023 was the hottest month on record. Considering these facts, one might think everyone would welcome China’s plentiful and cheap clean energy equipment.

Evidently, not. The U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen accused China of flooding the world with cheap clean energy exports, distorting global markets and harming workers. What explains this perversity?

The crux of the problem is the U.S.’s stance on climate change. It would be understandable if it supported solutions that were beneficial to it and its people. However, not only does the U.S. seek benefits not for its people but its corporations, it seeks solutions that not only benefit them but also put them in a dominant position.

Yellen kicked off her campaign against Chinese overcapacity at a solar energy plant in Georgia just days before she set foot in Beijing. She alleged that China had previously inflicted overcapacity in steel and aluminium and was now doing this in the clean energy sector, particular in solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles. “China’s overcapacity distorts global prices and production patterns and hurts American firms and workers,” she stated.

Capacity can only be excessive in relation to demand. When the problem is labelled overcapacity the ‘solution’ is to cut (other nations’) capacity. One could always see it as a problem of restricted demand, to be solved by expanding it. U.S. elites have long approached the crisis of the 1970s as one of over-capacity and sought to deal with the problem by restricting or even reducing industrial capacity in its rivals. It did this to Japan starting in the 1990s. It is currently doing this to Europe, forcing it to deindustrialize, allegedly in order to fight the hyped-up danger that Russia poses. And now, Yellen has brought this effort to China.

If China’s industrial capacity is deemed excessive, it must be restricted so that, when such equipment becomes scarce, U.S. products of lesser quality and higher cost will find markets. It also amounts to saying that the U.S. absolutely does not wish to increase the rest of the world’s capacity to demand more by increasing development and therefore demand there.

In speaking of China distorting markets, Yellen is saying that China captures markets through subsidies. This is, of course, particularly rich when the U.S. offers billions in industrial subsidies and talks of reviving industrial policy. Moreover, it denies the simple fact that no country has industrialized without protecting itself, and using myriad forms of state direction, including subsidies. This understanding defined the terms on which China entered the World Trade Organization in 2000. The U.S. was willing to grant these terms only because it assumed that China would be no more successful than other developing countries in using such provisions to industrialize and become a technological leader. It was wrong.

Finally, Yellen speaks of China harming U.S. workers. The sad, even macabre, reality is that U.S. workers have been harmed over all these neoliberal decades not by China but by the pro-corporate and pro-financialization neoliberal U.S. policies. They have deindustrialized the U.S., stagnated working class wages and, by shifting income and wealth from the ordinary people towards a tiny elite, generating vast inequality.

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

https://socialistchina.org/2024/04/12/w ... rcapacity/



Left-wing political parties from Arab countries thank China for its support of Palestinian national rights

A delegation of left-wing political parties from Arab countries, led by Bassam Zakarneh, a member of the Revolutionary Council of Palestine’s Fatah, recently visited China.

Meeting the delegation on March 28, Li Mingxiang, Vice-Minister of the Communist Party of China’s International Department (IDCPC), said that China will continue to make unremitting efforts to promote a ceasefire in Gaza and achieve lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. The CPC is willing to deepen strategic communication and experience exchanges in state governance and administration with left-wing political parties in Arab countries, help build a China-Arab community with a shared future in the new era, and jointly advance the cause of human progress.

Zakarneh thanked the Chinese side for its firm support for the Palestinian peoples’ just cause of regaining their legitimate national rights. Left-wing political parties in Arab countries are willing to strengthen exchanges with the CPC and learn from its successful experience in promoting theoretical innovation and Chinese modernisation.

The below article was originally published on the website of the IDCPC.

Beijing, March 26th—Li Mingxiang, Vice-minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, met here today with a delegation of left-wing political parties in Arab countries led by Bassam Zakarneh, Member of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.

Li spoke positively of relations between China and Arab countries. Combining the spirit of China’s “Two Sessions”, he elaborated on the bright prospect of Chinese modernization in an in-depth manner. Li said that the Chinese side is willing to work with the international community to continue to make unremitting efforts to promote a ceasefire in Gaza and achieve lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. The CPC is willing to deepen strategic communication and experience exchanges in state governance and administration with left-wing political parties in Arab countries, help build a China-Arab community with a shared future in the new era, and jointly advance the cause of human progress.

Zakarneh said that China-Arab relations in the new era have achieved rapid development on the basis of traditional friendship, injecting confidence and impetus into regional and world peace, stability, development and prosperity, and thanked the Chinese side for its firm support for the Palestinian peoples’ just cause of regaining their legitimate national rights. Left-wing political parties in Arab countries are willing to strengthen exchanges with the CPC and learn from the CPC’s successful experience in promoting theoretical innovation and Chinese modernization.

https://socialistchina.org/2024/04/09/l ... al-rights/

*******

Small clique politics draws firm opposition

US-Japan ties should not undermine peace and stability, China says
By JIANG XUEQING in Tokyo and MO JINGXI in Beijing | China Daily Global | Updated: 2024-04-12 09:25


Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida leaves following a joint press conference with US President Joe Biden, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC, US, April 10, 2024. [Photo/Agencies]

The relationship between the United States and Japan should not target any other countries, harm their interests or undermine peace and stability of the region, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said on Thursday, emphasizing China's strong opposition to small-clique politics.

The remarks came after the two allies attacked and smeared China on the Taiwan question, and maritime and other issues during a summit in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, where US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida unveiled plans to strengthen their alliance.

"In disregard of China's severe concerns, the US and Japan grossly interfered in China's internal affairs and seriously violated the basic norms governing international relations," Mao told reporters at a regular news briefing in Beijing.

Mao said China strongly opposes attempts to form small circles motivated by a Cold War mentality, as well as words and deeds that stoke and aggravate conflict and undermine the strategic security and interests of other countries.

The spokeswoman refuted the distortion of truth and facts about China in a joint leaders' statement issued after Biden and Kishida's meeting, saying it is the US and Japan that pose the real threat to regional peace and stability.

Mao said that China's activities in the East and South China Seas are in full compliance with international law and beyond reproach. She added that "China has indisputable sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters."

The spokeswoman also said that Biden and Kishida's concerns over China's nuclear policy were nothing but a false narrative that is unfounded and ill-intended.

As China has pledged "no first use" of nuclear weapons and not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones, Mao said those who do not use nuclear weapons against China have nothing to worry about.

On the contrary, the international community has every reason to feel seriously concerned about Washington's expanded cooperation with its allies to develop advanced military technologies given that the US "possesses the biggest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world", she added.

As the US and Japan announced a significant upgrade of their military alliance, insightful individuals in Japan and China urged Tokyo to reexamine its position on Sino-Japanese relations, correct its mistaken understanding of security, and avoid returning to the path of war.

Huang Xingyuan, China's representative director of the Japan-China Friendship Center, said the US is continuously drawing closer to Japan.

According to Huang, Japan is also actively approaching or even binding itself to the "Indo-Pacific strategy" of the US, or what is referred to as a strategy of containment against China. He believes that this trend is worth being vigilant about.

Risk of tensions

The notable upgrade of the US-Japan alliance has raised apprehensions about escalating tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.

"The upgraded Japan-US alliance is highly targeted. This is based on Japan wrongly positioning China as its challenge and threat. Japan has introduced measures under the guise of security to ensure 'absolute security', which may lead to new instability and new dangers," Huang said.

The doubts of the Japanese authorities about China's development, the positioning of Sino-Japanese relations, and the mistaken understanding of security have led to its current actions, he said.

Japanese citizens held a rally in Tokyo on Tuesday, opposing their government's expansion of military power.

Shunkichi Takayama, a lawyer in Tokyo, said he feels as if an invasive war is approaching, which is something that Japanese citizens absolutely cannot allow.

Reflecting on Japanese history, Takayama said he feels like the country is stepping onto a dangerous path that it must never tread upon.

Cheng Yonghua, former Chinese ambassador to Japan, stressed that the Japan-US security treaty cannot replace the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between China and Japan.

The Japan-US security treaty is a product of the Cold War, he said, and in the post-Cold War era, the alignment of the two countries against third parties does not conform to the current international order, he added.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20240 ... c18d8.html

[blindpig]

Canadian Journalist Arnold August: My Xizang Field Trip Tells a Story Different From the West’s Lies About the Region (Interview)
APRIL 17, 2024


Typical illustration depicting China's Xizang Autonomous Region. Photo: Global Times/Liu Xiangya.

Over the past decades, Southwest China’s Xizang Autonomous Region (Tibet) has experienced a period of unprecedented development. This year marks the 65th anniversary of Serfs’ Emancipation Day, a day to commemorate the emancipation of more than one million serfs in Xizang in 1959. Xizang, once plagued by poverty and backwardness, is now embarking on a new journey of modernization. This huge change astonished Canadian author and journalist Arnold August, who visited Xizang and neighboring Qinghai Province last year. He shared with Global Times reporter Xia Wenxin his experiences during his field trip to this region as well as his thoughts on its development.

Global Times: You visited Xizang and Qinghai in the second half of last year. Can you share with us what you saw in these regions? What aspect of their development impressed you the most?

August: Our visit to a boarding school in Gonghe county in the largely Tibetan-speaking Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai Province provided us with an eyewitness account to counter the allegations to which you refer. There are so many positive and enlightening features of this school that people in Western countries should know about.

Based on transparent and open-ended questions and answers during the tour of the classrooms (education is free), the dormitories (modern and well-equipped), the sports fields, the cafeteria (great health manual), the state-of-the-art multimedia rooms and classrooms, the exercise facilities for both the teachers and students, and much more, the veil of “mystery” surrounding boarding schools was completely torn apart. I asked our hosts about the dormitories. The very term “boarding school” in North America rightly conjures up images of colonial genocide against indigenous peoples. But the answer was: “Normally, students sleep in the dormitories during the week. It’s convenient for their studies, in terms of time, and if they have any questions, they can just go and ask their teachers. Most students go home for the weekend. However, if they want to stay in school on the weekends, it’s okay – they can stay if they want to.”

In response to the sub-question about why Western forces want to create these lies about boarding schools, in brief, it is to discredit Chinese socialism. People in the West are increasingly looking for an alternative to capitalism. China does not present itself as a model. But China’s earth-shattering modernization and its cultural progress – in the broad sense of a civilized, peaceful, collective society, as opposed to the American individualistic jungle – is increasingly attractive. Hence the inevitable spoiler: “What about the boarding schools in Tibet?” We counter what we call “whataboutism” by turning the tables on the skeptics, by asking “what about” the universally recognized facts of the Canadian and American states’ responsibility in the actual genocide of the first peoples in the boarding schools? And side by side, we present the facts about China, based on firsthand evidence by visitors and analysts.



Global Times: There is a view that Xizang is a microcosm of China’s achievements in construction and development and an all-encompassing window into Chinese modernization. Do you agree with this? How does the development of Xizang reflect the characteristics of Chinese modernization?

August: Yes, this view is supported by our visits to several such sites as examples of Chinese achievements. But let’s focus on one, the National Innovation Base, which is a long bus ride from Lhasa. It was built by the local government in 2017. Its basic purpose is to give post-university young people the opportunity to build their own businesses or, in the words of the hosts there, to build their own dreams. They are provided with free office space for a period of three years. Water, electricity and housing fees are covered by the government. They told us that “the young people just need to bring their computers and start working here. Everyone has access to the site’s online platform to sell their products.”

This center is not only an example of China’s achievements in construction and development and a comprehensive window on Chinese modernization, but it is also an example of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In short, this innovative path seeks to avoid the extremes of full public ownership of the means of production and a planned economy. How does it do this? It does this by redefining the relationship between state ownership and individual effort with the goal, as our hosts told us, of “realizing dreams.” Thus, while all the conditions for individual success are created, the individual is also socialized. It is thus an example of the balance between state and market, a sine qua non for further Chinese modernization.

Global Times: On March 28, 1959, the central government led the people in Xizang to launch democratic reform, abolishing Xizang’s feudal serfdom under a theocracy. After learning about this part of the history, how do you see the life of the Tibetan people after 65 years?

August: As part of the preparation for our field trip, I was able to acquire a documentary on the social and economic reality of Xizang from 1951 to 1959, to which Zhaxi Wangdui, a Tibetan cameraman, contributed significantly. Replete with videos, the documentary tells how the ruling class consisted of three groups of landowners: feudal officials, aristocrats and upper-class lamas. They represented only 5 percent of Xizang’s total population, while serfs made up 95 percent of the population. The ruling 5 percent controlled most of the arable land, pastures, forests, mountains, rivers, wetlands and most of the agricultural tools and livestock. The remaining 95 percent of the population, who were slaves and serfs (they themselves were the property of the serf owners) had neither land nor pasture. They had to work for the serf owners and paid land rent to them.

Everywhere we went [in Xizang], in museums and other venues, we saw footage and photos of Tibetans joyfully burning the legal documents that kept them in serfdom for centuries. As a result, March 28 was declared Serfs’ Emancipation Day. The day was designated to commemorate the historic date in 1959 when one million serfs were freed in Xizang.

Our hosts were proud to tell us that absolute poverty was eliminated by the end of 2019. While this is an amazing achievement in the rest of China, given the harsh social-economic Tibetan conditions, it is nothing short of a miracle.

Many Western media and governments tend to respond to these achievements, such as the elimination of extreme poverty, by saying, “But at what cost?” As usual, they infer from their preconceived notions that this poverty alleviation program was imposed on the people, somehow at the expense of their cultural heritage and language. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, our visits included the Xizang University, the Xizang Museum and a school dedicated to promoting traditional Tibetan culture to youth through music and dance. Moreover, a simple stroll through the streets of Lhasa confirms this. Furthermore, our regular daily interactions with the Tibetan guide, who was with us the entire time from Beijing to Lhasa and back to Beijing, showed his pride in the Tibetan heritage as well as the Chinese government.

https://orinocotribune.com/canadian-jou ... interview/

******



Lavrov: China and Russia working to establish a fair multipolar world order

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently visited Beijing – a visit that is widely considered preparatory to a state visit by President Putin, which many reports suggest may be slated for May.

Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Lavrov on April 9. The Chinese leader asked Lavrov to convey sincere greetings to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Noting that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries, Xi said China and Russia have embarked on a new path of harmonious coexistence and win-win cooperation between major countries and neighbours, which has benefited the two countries and their peoples and contributed wisdom and strength to international fairness and justice.

Xi stressed that China supports the Russian people in following a development path that suits their national conditions, and supports Russia in combating terrorism and maintaining social security and stability.

China always attaches great importance to the development of China-Russia relations and stands ready to strengthen bilateral communication with Russia and enhance multilateral strategic coordination in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

He added that the two countries will show more responsibility, unite countries in the Global South in the spirit of equality, openness, transparency, and inclusiveness, promote the reform of the global governance system, and vigorously lead the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

Lavrov conveyed President Putin’s cordial greetings and good wishes to President Xi. He said that under the strong leadership of President Xi, China has made achievements that have attracted global attention and provided important opportunities for other countries to achieve common development, which Russia deeply admires.

He added that Russia is willing to earnestly implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, strengthen bilateral and multilateral coordination, and work with other countries of the Global South to strengthen solidarity and cooperation in order to contribute to creating a more fair and just international order.

Lavrov also held talks with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi the same day, with both sides expressing hope for strengthening practical cooperation in various fields.

They also had in-depth exchanges of view on the Ukraine issue, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the situation in the Asia-Pacific region and other international and regional issues of common concern.

At a joint press briefing after the talks, Wang said that in order to further consolidate and develop bilateral relations, China and Russia should follow five principles:

The two countries should always follow the strategic guidance of head-of-state diplomacy.
The two countries should always adhere to the principle of no-alliance, no-confrontation and no-targeting at any third party.
The two countries should always stay on the right course on major matters of principle. As permanent members of the UN Security Council and major emerging countries, China and Russia actively respond to the common aspirations and legitimate concerns of the people of all countries, advocate a new path of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership rather than confrontation and alliance, and actively promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.
The two countries should always pursue win-win results through cooperation. China and Russia will continue to advocate inclusive economic globalisation that benefits all, jointly oppose unilateralism and protectionism, and foster new drivers of global development and progress.
The two countries should always advocate an equal and orderly multipolar world. China and Russia support the central role of the United Nations in the global governance system and will further strengthen international coordination.
In his remarks, Minister Lavrov said: “The issues we are addressing in the economy, trade, investment, and innovative technology are directly related to the effort to establish a fair multipolar world order free from diktat, hegemony, and neo-colonial and colonial practices, which are being used to the utmost extent by the United States and the rest of the collective West that has bowed without question to Washington’s will.

“China and Russia will continue to defend the need to rectify this situation in international economic relations and to be committed to democratising these relations and returning to the principles that were proclaimed a while ago and consist in the requirement to respect the market processes, fair competition, inviolability of property, presumption of innocence, and much more, which the West is flouting in the grossest of manners by its practical steps expressed in imposing illegal sanctions on a number of states, including Russia. But they are beginning to use the same policy with regard to the People’s Republic of China, including in a bid to restrict its economic and technological development capabilities, or, speaking plainly, to get rid of a rival.”

Noting the significance of the 75th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic relations, he continued:

“Minister Wang Yi mentioned that we discussed the forthcoming 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. As a reminder, the Soviet Union was the first to recognise the People’s Republic of China the very next day it was established and helped it rebuild the nation. We agreed to prepare a series of commemorative events to mark this anniversary. We also explored potential initiatives for marking the upcoming 80th anniversary of victory over German Nazism and Japanese militarism next year. It’s important to recognise the pivotal role played by the peoples of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in defeating Germany and militaristic Japan.”

Regarding the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Lavrov said that: “In June, the People’s Republic of China will replace Kazakhstan as the SCO chair. There are promising opportunities to align the SCO agendas for advancing this vast Eurasian region with the BRICS programmes, which advocate similar ideals and principles on a global scale. This alignment serves to advance the interests of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, especially amid the declining Western globalisation model which has lost almost all of its credibility.

The Russian Foreign Minister also addressed the conflict in Ukraine: “We are grateful to our Chinese friends for their unbiased, balanced position and their readiness to play a positive role in the political and diplomatic settlement. The well-known ‘12 points’ that China put forward in 2023 clearly articulate the need, first, to take into account the root causes of this conflict, and second, in efforts to resolve it, to seek to eliminate these causes, first and foremost, in the context of ensuring equal and indivisible security, including in Europe and in the entire world. Chinese friends make it clear that it is necessary to take into account the legitimate concerns of all parties involved, first and foremost their security. In this context, my Chinese colleagues and I have confirmed the conclusion about the futility of any international efforts that do not take into account Russia’s position but completely ignore it and promote an absolutely empty, ultimatum-like ‘Zelensky’s peace formula,’ and are therefore completely detached from reality.

“With regard to the situation around Taiwan, which is an integral part of China, we are unanimous with Beijing in rejecting any interference from outside, as it is an internal affair of the People’s Republic of China. We talked about the situation on the Korean peninsula. We are interested in peace and stability in this region, just like our Chinese friends.”

In response to a question regarding the specific economic problems created by the unlawful policy of unilateral sanctions, Lavrov noted:

“We will address them within the framework of BRICS and the SCO. At a time when the United States and its satellites are capable of disrupting steady financing, logistics, transport and investment chains at any moment, it is time to think about how these issues, such as transition to national currencies, creating alternative payment platforms, including the decisions in this regard adopted within BRICS, and the activities of regional organisations such as the above-mentioned SCO and CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), can be considered and addressed by different entities.”

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Xi meets Russian foreign minister
BEIJING, April 9 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Beijing.

Xi asked Lavrov to convey sincere greetings to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Noting that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries, Xi said China and Russia have embarked on a new path of harmonious coexistence and win-win cooperation between major countries and neighbors, which has benefited the two countries and their peoples and contributed wisdom and strength to international fairness and justice.

“President Putin and I have agreed to continue to maintain close exchanges to ensure the smooth and steady development of China-Russia relations. The two sides should take the opportunity of celebrating the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties and the China-Russia Years of Culture to fully implement the important consensus reached by President Putin and me,” he said.

Xi stressed that China supports the Russian people in following a development path that suits their national conditions, and supports Russia in combating terrorism and maintaining social security and stability.

China always attaches great importance to the development of China-Russia relations, and stands ready to strengthen bilateral communication with Russia and enhance multilateral strategic coordination in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Xi said.

He added that the two countries will show more responsibility, unite countries in the Global South in the spirit of equality, openness, transparency and inclusiveness, promote the reform of the global governance system, and vigorously lead the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

Lavrov conveyed President Putin’s cordial greetings and good wishes to President Xi. Lavrov said that under the strong leadership of President Xi, China has made achievements that have attracted global attention and provided important opportunities for other countries to achieve common development, which Russia deeply admires.

Lavrov said the priority of Russia’s foreign policy is to comprehensively consolidate and upgrade relations with China, and the smooth reelection of President Putin guarantees the continuity of Russia-China relations.

He added that Russia is willing to earnestly implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, strengthen bilateral and multilateral coordination, and work with other countries of the Global South to strengthen solidarity and cooperation in order to contribute to creating a more fair and just international order.

Chinese, Russian FMs hold talks
BEIJING, April 9 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov in Beijing Tuesday, and both sides expressed hope for strengthening practical cooperation in various fields.

Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, extended congratulations to President Putin on his reelection. Wang said that China will continue to support Russia’s development and revitalization under the leadership of President Putin and support the Russian people’s independent choice of development path.

Wang said that the China-Russia relations have been of irreplaceable value to maintaining global strategic stability. Maintaining and developing sound China-Russia relations is the natural choice of the two major, neighboring countries and serves the fundamental interests of the two peoples.

Wang said China is willing to work with Russia, in accordance with the consensus reached by the two heads of state, to strengthen the synergy of the two countries’ development plans and promote practical cooperation in various fields.

Lavrov noted that Russia-China relations are based on mutual respect, equal cooperation and trustworthy dialogue. Russia abides by the one-China principle and is willing to work with China to maintain close high-level exchanges, and deepen practical cooperation in economy, trade and other fields.

Russia supports the Global Security Initiative, and is willing to deepen cooperation with China on multilateral platforms to promote the establishment of a more just and democratic international order, Lavrov added.

The two sides also had in-depth exchanges of view on the Ukraine issue, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the situation in the Asia-Pacific region and other international and regional issues of common concern.

At a joint press briefing after the talks, Wang said that in order to further consolidate and develop bilateral relations, China and Russia should follow five principles:

The two countries should always follow the strategic guidance of head-of-state diplomacy.

The two countries should always adhere to the principle of no-alliance, no-confrontation and no-targeting at any third party.

The two countries should always stay on the right course on major matters of principle. As permanent members of the UN Security Council and major emerging countries, China and Russia actively respond to the common aspirations and legitimate concerns of the people of all countries, advocate a new path of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership rather than confrontation and alliance, and actively promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

The two countries should always pursue win-win results through cooperation. China and Russia will continue to advocate inclusive economic globalization that benefits all, jointly oppose unilateralism and protectionism, and foster new drivers of global development and progress.

The two countries should always advocate an equal and orderly multipolar world. China and Russia support the central role of the United Nations in the global governance system, and will further strengthen international coordination.

During the press briefing, Wang elaborated on China’s stance and proposition on resolving current international and regional hotspot issues.

According to him, principles to which China adheres for resolving hotspot issues are:

— upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, international law and basic norms governing international relations;

— actively promoting parties concerned to resolve conflicts through dialogue and consultation;

— properly accommodating the legitimate concerns of all parties and seeking sustainable solutions;

— and upholding genuine multilateralism and opposing camp confrontation, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.

Wang said that on the issue of Ukraine, China calls for ceasefire as soon as possible, and supports the timely convening of an international conference recognized by Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation of all parties and fair discussion of all peace plans.

On the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Chine believes that the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council are binding and should be effectively implemented to achieve an immediate, unconditional and lasting ceasefire, he added.

Wang also said that greater attention should be given to solving other global and regional hotspot issues, including the continued fight against terrorism.

The international community should firmly support the efforts of all parties to safeguard national security and stability and strengthen international counter-terrorism cooperation, he said.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference with PRC Foreign Minister Wang Yi following talks, Beijing, April 9, 2024
(Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) — Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express one more time my gratitude to my colleague and friend, PRC Foreign Minister Wang Yi, for his invitation and the hospitable reception given to our delegation.

Yesterday and today, we held detailed and specific talks on a broad range of issues of interest to both sides. As Minister Wang Yi has just noted, we focused on the schedule of top-level contacts, because the leaders’ diplomacy is, without any exaggeration, the central element of the Russian-Chinese comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. It is thanks to the leaders’ diplomacy in the first place that our bilateral relations have reached an unprecedentedly high level and continue to develop dynamically amid a very challenging situation in the world.

As I said, the focus was on the schedule of top-level contacts and the upcoming meetings between our leaders on the sidelines of various international events, including the BRICS Summit in Kazan in October, and the SCO Summit in Astana in June. There will certainly be other opportunities for maintaining our regular political dialogue.

We also discussed foreign ministry contacts. We have just signed in your presence yet another plan of consultations between our foreign ministries for 2024. We have touched upon briefly certain issues of intergovernmental cooperation in practical areas. This set of tasks will be considered in more detail later this year during the upcoming meetings of five intergovernmental commissions led by deputy prime ministers to be held as part of preparations for the regular prime ministerial meeting.

The issues we are addressing in the economy, trade, investment, and innovative technology are directly related to the effort to establish a fair multipolar world order free from diktat, hegemony, and neo-colonial and colonial practices, which are being used to the utmost extent by the United States and the rest of the collective West that has bowed without question to Washington’s will.

China and Russia will continue to defend the need to rectify this situation in international economic relations and to be committed to democratising these relations and returning to the principles that were proclaimed a while ago and consist in the requirement to respect the market processes, fair competition, inviolability of property, presumption of innocence, and much more, which the West is flouting in the grossest of manners by its practical steps expressed in imposing illegal sanctions on a number of states, including Russia. But they are beginning to use the same policy with regard to the People’s Republic of China, including in a bid to restrict its economic and technological development capabilities, or, speaking plainly, to get rid of a rival.

We discussed the Russia-China cross-cultural years which will start soon. Additionally, we explored various other areas of cultural cooperation, including the planning of new projects such as the Intervision international song contest, the Open Eurasian Film Award, and several sporting events. Building upon the events held in Kazan in February-March, such as the Games of the Future, in which Chinese athletes took part, forthcoming events include the BRICS Games, the Children of Asia International Sports Games, and the World Friendship Games. Unlike certain other events, numerous upcoming sporting events will rely on the foundational ideals of Olympism that are enshrined in the Olympic Charter. It is regrettable that the current leadership of the International Olympic Committee disregards these principles in favour of appeasing certain hegemonic powers that strive to preserve their hegemony at all costs.

Minister Wang Yi mentioned that we discussed the forthcoming 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. As a reminder, the Soviet Union was the first to recognise the People’s Republic of China the very next day it was established and helped it rebuild the nation. We agreed to prepare a series of commemorative events to mark this anniversary. We also explored potential initiatives for marking the upcoming 80th anniversary of Victory over German Nazism and Japanese militarism next year. It’s important to recognise the pivotal role played by the peoples of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in defeating Germany and militaristic Japan.

For obvious reasons, we focused on aligning our strategies on the global stage. This coordination relies on largely overlapping interests and approaches to key international challenges. Given Russia’s current BRICS chairmanship, much attention was paid to the future of the alliance with more members to join it, the establishment of a new category of partner nations, and the general agenda of the upcoming summit in Kazan scheduled for October. The Council of Foreign Ministers will meet in Nizhny Novgorod in June. Mr Wang Yi confirmed his participation in it. At this meeting, we will review pivotal issues to be considered by our respective leaders.

We discussed cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. In June, the People’s Republic of China will replace Kazakhstan as the SCO chair. There are promising opportunities to align the SCO agendas for advancing this vast Eurasian region with the BRICS programmes, which advocate similar ideals and principles on a global scale. This alignment serves to advance the interests of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, especially amid the declining Western globalisation model which lost almost all of its credibility.

Of course, we also addressed bilateral cooperation across other platforms, such as the UN, the G20, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). We have close, mutually beneficial, and productive ties in each of the above organisations.

We spoke about the current state of affairs regarding the Ukrainian crisis. We are grateful to our Chinese friends for their unbiased, balanced position and their readiness to play a positive role in the political and diplomatic settlement. The well-known “12 points” that China put forward in 2023 clearly articulate the need, first, to take into account the root causes of this conflict, and second, in efforts to resolve it, to seek to eliminate these causes, first and foremost, in the context of ensuring equal and indivisible security, including in Europe and in the entire world. Chinese friends make it clear that it is necessary to take into account the legitimate concerns of all parties involved, first and foremost their security. In this context, my Chinese colleagues and I have confirmed the conclusion about the futility of any international efforts that do not take into account Russia’s position but completely ignore it and promote an absolutely empty, ultimatum-like “Zelensky’s peace formula,” and are therefore completely detached from reality.

We spoke at length about the tasks of ensuring security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region against the background of the US policy of creating closed military-political alliances with a limited set of members. They have a blatant anti-Chinese and anti-Russian bias and, among other things, are aimed at breaking the security architecture that has been developed for many decades around ASEAN according to the very formats that this Association has offered to its partners, which are based on inclusiveness, consensus, mutual respect and rejection of unilateral actions. All this does not suit the United States and its allies. They, as I said, are promoting bloc approaches here and declaring the need to introduce the North Atlantic Alliance into the region.

With regard to the situation around Taiwan, which is an integral part of China, we are unanimous with Beijing in rejecting any interference from outside, as it is an internal affair of the People’s Republic of China. We talked about the situation on the Korean peninsula. We are interested in peace and stability in this region, just like our Chinese friends.

We discussed in detail the Middle East settlement and what is happening around the Gaza Strip. We also have common positions here, which we defend at the UN Security Council.

In a broader context, we exchanged views on the prospect of forming a new security structure in Eurasia against the background of the complete stagnation and self-destruction of Euro-Atlantic mechanisms.

The talks took place in an atmosphere of friendship, traditional for Russian-Chinese relations, and once again demonstrated the commonality of our countries’ views on major global developments and our desire to strengthen bilateral ties in the interest of peace and stability in the region and on the entire planet. We will continue our dialogue on the basis of the plans we have just endorsed in your presence. I once again express my gratitude to our Chinese friends.

Question: The collective West is using aggressive dual deterrence methods against Russia and China to prevent their progress and to hinder the implementation of the sovereign policies. Are you and your Chinese partners considering dual deterrence response measures? What could they be?

Sergey Lavrov: I won’t give away a secret if I say that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi came up with the formula of “double counteraction to double deterrence” yesterday. Our respective leaders, President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping, have repeatedly underscored Russia and China’s resolve to counter the attempts to slow down the formation of a multipolar world and the long overdue processes of democratisation and justice that are knocking at the door of the modern world order. The United States and its allies are trying to stop them in an effort to perpetuate their unjust position within the international system. We remember how our leaders formulated the task of standing back to back and shoulder to shoulder against the attempts to slow down the objective course of history.

My colleague covered in detail the specific economic problems created by the unlawful policy of unilateral sanctions. We will address them within the framework of BRICS and the SCO. At a time when the United States and its satellites are capable of disrupting steady financing, logistics, transport and investment chains at any moment, it is time to think about how these issues, such as transition to national currencies, creating alternative payment platforms, including the decisions in this regard adopted within BRICS, and the activities of regional organisations such as the above-mentioned SCO and CELAC, can be considered and addressed by different entities.

The West has proved that the system of the international financial and economic ties that it created and offered to the rest of the world is unreliable, because the West can at any moment punish anyone who disagrees with its neocolonial policy.

These processes are underway in almost all spheres of public life, including the economy and security. We share our focus on strengthening security in Eurasia. For a long time now, there has been a Euro-Atlantic security entity in the form of NATO and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. They have crossed themselves out from the list of relevant organisations that can be used to conduct meaningful talks and to agree on things based on a balance of interests.

Considering this, forming Eurasian security is an issue that needs to be addressed. President Vladimir Putin mentioned this in his address to the Federal Assembly. We have agreed with our Chinese friends to begin a dialogue on this matter and involve other like-minded countries.

Question: I would like to talk about the drone strikes by Ukraine against the Zaporozhye NPP. The situation clearly calls for decisive action. What may the response be like?

Sergey Lavrov: With regard to another terrorist strike by the Ukrainian regime, this time on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, the Foreign Ministry, our representative to the IAEA, and our representative to the UN Security Council have made statements. We will bring this issue to special meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council. We will insist on obtaining direct, without any prevarication, assessments of the Ukrainian regime’s actions.

When we agreed to have the IAEA experts to be the permanently present at the ZNPP, we were guided, among other things, by the need to provide an objective assessment of what is happening there, how the plant is managed, and how nuclear and physical safety is ensured. We assumed that such attacks against Europe’s largest nuclear power plant would be documented. So far, the provocations by the Ukrainian regime have, to our deep regret, caused only “regret” and “concern” in the statements by IAEA Director General Rafaelo Grossi and his staff. They failed to state the obvious which is from where and by whom the terrorist attacks were plotted and carried out. I believe this time they will not get away with it.

We are interested in cooperating with the IAEA and the UN Secretariat, but we will push for them to provide an honest recognition of what is happening not only around ZNPP, but around Ukraine in general as well.

So far, the assessments provided by international officials of all aspects of the developments unfolding around this country and within the special military operation in response to the hybrid war unleashed against us by the West with the hands of the Ukrainians have been, to put it mildly, one-sided. This state of affairs should be redressed. Unfortunately, it reflects the situation where the secretariats of numerous intergovernmental and interstate organisations become subordinate to the West and overstaffed with employees from the Western countries to the detriment of fair geographical representation of the Global Majority countries. We raised this issue last year. We will do our best to push forward the reform of this system.

https://socialistchina.org/2024/04/15/l ... rld-order/



Angolan President: We know what colonisation is and the Chinese are not colonising Africa but cooperating with us

Angolan President João Manuel Gonçalves Lourenço paid a state visit to China from March 14-17 at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

Whilst in China he gave an exclusive interview to He Yanke for the CGTN series Leaders Talk.

He Yanke noted that Lourenço has visited China on numerous occasions since 2000, including as the Secretary General of the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), as the Special Envoy of his predecessor, and this is his third visit as head of state.

Summing up his impressions from all these visits, Lourenço remarked that what impressed him most was that China was continually making progress and bringing surprises to the world.

Noting that last year saw the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Angola, he described the relationship as exemplary. During very difficult times for his country, for example the period of post-war reconstruction, China had lent a helping hand. And the same was true, not only for his country but for the world, when humanity was suddenly faced with the Covid pandemic.

Asked for his views on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), he recalled that China has provided Angola with strong financial support for infrastructure construction, including for roads, ports, airports, and hydropower plants, all of which are necessary for development. In his last few days in China, he had talked with 24 major companies, who had shown willingness to take risks and invest in his country.

Noting that China was building what will be Africa’s largest hydropower plant in Angola, and also training local personnel for the project, that will not only meet his country’s needs but also produce surplus electricity to be supplied to neighbouring southern African countries, Lourenço was asked, given that Chinese companies are providing tens of thousands of jobs in Angola, how he would respond to the accusations levelled against China’s role in Africa from some quarters.

His answer was emphatic. Not just the Portuguese colonialists, he said, but the Europeans in general, including the British and French, had been in Africa for centuries. They had never engaged in the kind of infrastructure construction that we are seeing now. They are not just critics but slanderers acting out of malice. The facts are clear: China has not invaded any African country. The Chinese in Africa are not there for colonisation. We know what colonisation is and the Chinese are not colonising Africa but cooperating with us. China did not come to us fully armed but with funds and technology and a willingness to work with us.

The results are plain to see. In 2002 (when Angola’s long-running civil war finally ended), our country was in ruins. Thanks to the help from China, we now have land-based infrastructure connecting provinces and cities which didn’t exist before.

The construction of roads, bridges, ports and railways was all done with the help of China. If these critics want to be part of the process, then they must act and do better than China. But we don’t believe they can.

Asked about President Xi Jinping’s three global initiatives, on development, security and civilisation, President Lourenço described the Chinese leader as a visionary and insightful statesman. Without peace and security, there can be no development – this is true both from the Angolan experience and also on a world scale.

The full interview with President Lourenço is embedded below.

https://socialistchina.org/2024/04/16/a ... g-with-us/

[blindpig]

Developing Whole-Process People’s Democracy and ensuring the people run the country

The following article, which we reprint from the English language July/August 2023 edition of Qiushi, the theoretical journal of the Communist Party of China (CPC), outlines how, since the CPC’s 18th National Congress in 2012, President Xi Jinping has put forward a key concept of whole-process people’s democracy. This concept has further enriched Marxist democratic theory and represents a historic achievement and landmark in the development of democracy in China in the new era.

This, the article states, has not only advanced China’s socialist democracy, but also offered Chinese insights and solutions for other countries as they explore and develop paths of democracy suited to their own conditions.

The article notes that: “President Xi has also creatively put forward a framework for judging whether a country is democratic or not: ‘The key factor in deciding whether a country is democratic or not is whether the people truly run the country. We must evaluate whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate; what promises they are given during elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are delivered after elections; what kind of political procedures and rules are set through state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; and whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public oversight and checks.’”

It further explains that:

President Xi has summarised the CPC’s adherence to and development of people’s democracy in five basic points.

First, people’s democracy is the life of socialism; without democracy, there would be no socialism, socialist modernisation, or national rejuvenation.

Second, the running of the country by the people is the essence and heart of socialist democracy. The very purpose of developing socialist democracy is to give full expression to the will of the people, protect their rights and interests, spark their creativity, and provide a system of institutions to ensure that it is they who run the country.

Third, the Chinese socialist path of political advancement is the right path, as it conforms to China’s national conditions and guarantees the position of the people as the masters of the country. It is the logical outcome of history, theory, and practice based on the endeavours of the Chinese people in modern times. It is a requisite for maintaining the nature of the Party and fulfilling its fundamental purpose.

Fourth, China’s socialist democracy takes two important forms: one in which the people exercise their rights by means of elections and voting, and another in which people from all walks of life are consulted extensively in order to reach the widest possible consensus on matters of common concern before major decisions are made. Together these make up the institutional features and strengths of China’s socialist democracy.

Fifth, the key to developing China’s socialist democracy is to fully leverage its features and strengths. As we continue to advance socialist democracy with well-defined institutions, standards, and procedures, we can provide better institutional safeguards for our Party and country’s prosperity and long-term stability.

These five basic points systematically encapsulate the essence of socialist democracy. They enrich and expand the political, theoretical, and practical significance of socialist democracy and set the goals, direction, and approach for developing whole-process people’s democracy.

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) held in 2012, President Xi Jinping has comprehensively reviewed achievements and experiences in building China’s socialist democracy, deepened understanding of the laws governing the development of democracy, and put forward a key concept of whole-process people’s democracy. This concept has further enriched Marxist democratic theory and represents a historic achievement and landmark in the development of democracy in China in the new era.

I. President Xi Jinping’s original theoretical achievement in the area of socialist democracy

Whole-process people’s democracy is a new form of political advancement developed by the people under the leadership of the Party. Its essence is the principle of the people running the country. In November 2019, during his visit to Hongqiao Subdistrict in Shanghai, President Xi first proposed that “people’s democracy is whole-process democracy.” In July 2021, at the ceremony marking the CPC’s centenary, he declared that the Party would “practice a people-centered philosophy of development and promote whole-process people’s democracy.” In October 2021, at a central conference on work related to people’s congresses, President Xi provided a comprehensive and systematic elucidation of whole-process people’s democracy. In November 2021, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee adopted the third resolution concerning the Party’s history, which listed “developing whole-process people’s democracy” as an important element of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. At its 20th National Congress in October 2022, the Party set forth overarching plans for “developing whole-process people’s democracy and ensuring the people run the country.”

The efforts to propose, implement, and develop whole-process people’s democracy have clearly illustrated the CPC’s firm commitment to the position of people’s democracy and the principle of the people running the country and provided sound guidance for promoting socialist political advancement in the new era. Furthermore, they have offered Chinese insights and solutions for other countries as they explore and develop paths of democracy suited to their own conditions.

President Xi has repeatedly emphasized that there are eight criteria to evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective, specifically, “We must observe whether the succession of its leaders is orderly and law-based, whether the people can participate in the management of state, social, economic, and cultural affairs in accordance with the law, whether the public can express their needs through open channels, whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country’s political affairs, whether the country’s decision-making can be conducted in a rational and democratic manner, whether people of all fields can join state leadership and administrative systems by way of fair competition, whether the governing party can lead state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and whether the exercise of power is subject to effective checks and oversight.”

President Xi has also creatively put forward a framework for judging whether a country is democratic or not: “The key factor in deciding whether a country is democratic or not is whether the people truly run the country. We must evaluate whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate; what promises they are given during elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are delivered after elections; what kind of political procedures and rules are set through state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; and whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public oversight and checks.”

The president has also stressed that “Whether a country is democratic or not should be determined by its own people, and not a handful of outsiders.”

These important conclusions have provided well-founded answers to questions concerning democracy, debunked some of the myths about democracy, and demonstrated firm confidence in our path and system. They have effectively countered attacks and distortions directed toward China’s socialist democracy by certain Western countries. They have also bolstered the Chinese people’s confidence and resolve in upholding and developing whole-process people’s democracy and reinforced their commitment and determination to follow the Chinese socialist path of political advancement.

President Xi has summarized the CPC’s adherence to and development of people’s democracy in five basic points.

First, people’s democracy is the life of socialism; without democracy, there would be no socialism, socialist modernization, or national rejuvenation. Second, the running of the country by the people is the essence and heart of socialist democracy. The very purpose of developing socialist democracy is to give full expression to the will of the people, protect their rights and interests, spark their creativity, and provide a system of institutions to ensure that it is they who run the country. Third, the Chinese socialist path of political advancement is the right path, as it conforms to China’s national conditions and guarantees the position of the people as the masters of the country. It is the logical outcome of history, theory, and practice based on the endeavors of the Chinese people in modern times. It is a requisite for maintaining the nature of the Party and fulfilling its fundamental purpose. Fourth, China’s socialist democracy takes two important forms: one in which the people exercise their rights by means of elections and voting, and another in which people from all walks of life are consulted extensively in order to reach the widest possible consensus on matters of common concern before major decisions are made. Together these make up the institutional features and strengths of China’s socialist democracy. Fifth, the key to developing China’s socialist democracy is to fully leverage its features and strengths. As we continue to advance socialist democracy with well-defined institutions, standards, and procedures, we can provide better institutional safeguards for our Party and country’s prosperity and long-term stability.

These five basic points systematically encapsulate the essence of socialist democracy. They enrich and expand the political, theoretical, and practical significance of socialist democracy and set the goals, direction, and approach for developing whole-process people’s democracy.

II. An embodiment of the rich essence, characteristics, strengths, and practical requirements of socialist democracy

Whole-process people’s democracy is deeply rooted in Chinese society and well-suited to China’s national conditions and realities. It has garnered unanimous support from the Chinese people. It was the people who decided that China should develop whole-process people’s democracy and improve the institutions and systems by which the people run the country. This was an inevitable choice given China’s national conditions and realities and the result of long-term development, gradual improvement, and internally driven evolution based on China’s history, cultural traditions, and economic and social development. The reason why whole-process people’s democracy truly works is that it has grown out of the soil of Chinese society. To continue thriving in the future, it must remain deeply rooted in this soil.

The main actors in whole-process people’s democracy are the people, and the ultimate goal is to ensure that the people run the country. The development of whole-process people’s democracy embodies the Party’s ideals, convictions, fundamental stand, and founding mission. It embodies the CPC’s fundamental purpose of wholeheartedly serving the people and the constitutional principle that all power in China belongs to the people. The CPC leads the people in developing whole-process people’s democracy in order to provide support and guarantees for the people running the country. It ensures that our more than 1.4 billion people can exercise state power through democratic systems and channels at all levels and in all fields to realize their aspirations for a better life.

China’s various systems are designed and built around the principle of the people running the country, with the entire national governance system revolving around this tenet. In terms of institutional procedures, the principle of the people running the country is reflected in China’s form of state, form of government, and the series of basic political systems it has instituted. As a result, a comprehensive and well-integrated system for ensuring the people run the country has taken shape, and diverse, smooth, and orderly democratic channels have been established. The basic elements of these institutional procedures are enshrined in both the CPC’s Constitution and the state Constitution and laws, thus providing a robust institutional guarantee for the development of whole-process people’s democracy. To ensure complete participation in practice, this principle is applied in all areas and at every stage of the democratic process, including elections, consultations, decision-making, management, and supervision, all of which are conducted in strict accordance with the law. In accordance with legal provisions, the people also manage state, economic, cultural, and social affairs through various means and forms, thus the principle of the people running the country is realized in an extensive and multilayered manner.

Whole-process people’s democracy functions extraordinarily well and offers notable advantages. In China, people not only enjoy the right to vote but also the right to extensive participation. They not only express their will but also see it effectively fulfilled. They not only promote national development but also share in its gains.

Whole-process people’s democracy spans all links in the democratic chain from elections and consultation to decision-making, management, and supervision. It permeates all spheres of political and social life and encompasses all initiatives and efforts toward economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological advancement. China, the world’s largest developing country, covering a territory of 9.6 million square kilometers, with more than 1.4 billion people comprising 56 ethnic groups, has created an extensive, authentic, and effective democratic system. This has facilitated broad and sustained participation from the vast majority of people and helped develop a vibrant, stable, and united political atmosphere.

It is important to define the objectives, trajectory, and key tasks for the development of whole-process people’s democracy. On the new journey before us, we must unswervingly follow the Chinese socialist path of political advancement and maintain the unity of Party leadership, the people running the country, and law-based governance. We must firmly grasp the values, concepts, principles, institutional procedures, tasks, and requirements of whole-process people’s democracy, continue to boost public participation in political affairs, enrich democratic forms and broaden democratic channels to develop a more extensive, complete, and robust people’s democracy. In doing so, we will form a mighty force for inspiring our people to strive in unity.

III. An important institutional vehicle for realizing whole-process people’s democracy

President Xi Jinping has pointed out, “The system of people’s congresses is an important institutional vehicle for realizing whole-process people’s democracy in China.” This statement encapsulates the theoretical and practical development of this system over the past 60-plus years and augments both the contemporary significance and practical requirements of this system.

The system of people’s congresses is not merely an important means but also the highest form through which the Chinese people run their own country

All power in China belongs to the people. The organs through which the people exercise state power are people’s congresses at all levels, which are formed through democratic elections and are accountable to the people and under their oversight. State administrative, supervisory, judicial, and procuratorial bodies are formed by, accountable to, and under the oversight of people’s congresses. All state bodies and their employees must rely on public support, maintain close contact with the people, listen to their opinions and suggestions, accept public oversight, and work hard in the people’s interests. Deputies to people’s congresses at all levels faithfully represent the interests and will of the people in exercising state power.

These are the important elements of the system of people’s congresses. They provide reliable institutional guarantees for developing whole-process people’s democracy and ensuring the people run the country.

The system of people’s congresses vigorously promotes the development of whole-process people’s democracy

Democratic principles are upheld throughout the system of people’s congresses, from elections and consultations to decision-making, management, and supervision, thus ensuring the people can exercise their democratic rights according to law.

The electoral system for people’s congresses operates on the principles of universal suffrage, equal rights, multiple candidates, direct and indirect elections, and secret ballot. These principles constitute the foundation of the system of people’s congresses. Newly elected deputies across the five levels of people’s congresses total more than 2.77 million, achieving a high degree of representativeness. Of these, about 2.62 million are deputies to county and township congresses. They were elected by more than 1 billion voters nationwide, based on one vote per person. This is an exemplification of China’s whole-process people’s democracy.

When deliberating and formulating laws and regulations, reviewing and approving plans and budgets, deciding on major issues concerning economic and social development and issues regarding the vital interests of the people, and making resolutions and decisions, people’s congresses adhere to the principle of democratic centralism. They extensively solicit opinions and conduct thorough discussions and consultations to pool wisdom and build consensus. Collective decisions are made according to the opinions of the majority to ensure sound and democratic decision-making. In accordance with the law, they also conduct oversight of state bodies and their employees, respond to public concerns, and safeguard people’s rights and interests, while consciously accepting public oversight.

The system of people’s congresses has provided robust legal guarantees for developing whole-process people’s democracy

People’s congresses and their standing committees have advanced whole-process people’s democracy and ensured that the people run the country on the basis of complete law-based governance by formulating and refining laws and regulations. The National People’s Congress (NPC) and its Standing Committee, through the exercise of state legislative power, have formulated and revised China’s Constitution to define citizens’ basic rights and obligations and stipulate that the state shall respect and protect human rights. They have formulated and amended laws and regulations to guarantee people’s political rights and regulate the methods and procedures through which people exercise their democratic rights. They have formulated and amended laws in the civil, criminal, administrative, economic, cultural, social, ecological, and environmental spheres to safeguard people’s interests, enhance their wellbeing, and ensure social fairness and justice. When formulating or amending laws and regulations such as the Legislation Law, the NPC Organic Law, and the NPC Rules of Procedure, they have adhered to the requirements of whole-process people’s democracy. Moreover, through law enforcement inspections, work report hearings, and other means, they have promoted comprehensive and effective enforcement of the Constitution and laws to ensure that people’s democratic rights and other lawful rights and interests are guaranteed.

https://socialistchina.org/2024/04/24/d ... e-country/



China’s modernisation of a huge population: an unprecedented challenge

In the following article, an abridged version of which was published in Chinese in People’s Daily on 31 March 2024, Carlos Martinez addresses the unprecedented scale of China’s modernisation process.

Other countries have achieved modernisation, but never on the scale of China. Furthermore, the process of modernisation in North America, Western Europe and Japan was built to a significant degree on colonialism, imperialism and the oppression of the nations of the Global South.

The article asks: How can we explain China’s successes? Answering that, “above all, they are a function of China’s political system, its revolutionary history, and the leadership of the CPC” – or as Xi Jinping has put it: “Our greatest strength lies in our socialist system, which enables us to pool resources in a major mission. This is the key to our success.”

Carlos continues:

The overall trajectory of China’s economy and the top-level allocation of resources is determined by the government – led by the CPC – rather than being in the hands of a small group of people who own and deploy capital. The interests of the people always come first. This is the ‘secret ingredient’ that allows China to blaze a trail towards modernisation in a country with a huge population.

China’s successful modernisation will double the proportion of the global population living in high-income countries and will, in the words of President Xi Jinping, “completely change the international landscape and have a far-reaching impact on humanity.”

In his speech of February 2023 entitled Chinese modernisation is a sure path to building a great country and rejuvenating the nation, Comrade Xi Jinping observed that “Chinese modernisation is unprecedented in human history in terms of both scale and difficulty.”

Other countries have achieved modernisation, but never on the scale of China. Furthermore, the process of modernisation in North America, Western Europe and Japan was built to a significant degree on colonialism, imperialism and the oppression of the nations of the Global South.

The most important precursors of the West’s modernisation are colonialism, slavery and genocide: the conquest of the Americas, the settlement of Australia, the transatlantic slave trade, the colonisation of India, the rape of Africa, the Opium Wars, the theft of Hong Kong, and more. Meanwhile, Japan’s rapid rise was facilitated first by its brutal expansionist project in East Asia, and then through its adaptation to and integration with the US-led imperialist system in the post-World War 2 era.

Such a path to modernisation is not available to China, and anyway the Chinese people would never walk down that path. China’s commitment to peaceful development is well established, and is enshrined in the country’s constitution. As Foreign Minister Wang Yi has stated firmly: “On how to accomplish this modernisation of the largest scale in human history, China has given an unequivocal and steadfast answer: to unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development.”

Thus there are no precedents for the task that China has set itself. By 2035, China aims to reach a per-capita GDP on a par with that of the mid-level developed countries such as Spain or the Czech Republic; to join the ranks of the world’s most innovative countries in the realm of science and technology; to become a global leader in education, public health, culture and sport; to guarantee equitable access to basic public services; and to ensuring modern standards of living in rural areas. Furthermore, all this should be achieved whilst steadily lowering greenhouse gas emissions and protecting biodiversity, so as to restore a healthy balance between humans and the natural environment.

To achieve modernisation in a country with such an enormous country will be an incredible achievement, particularly since one of the requirements of China’s modernisation is that it should feature common prosperity; it is the modernisation of the Chinese people as a whole, not only the wealthier sections of society.

Even in a small country such as Singapore, with its population of 5.5 million, solving the problems of employment, healthcare, education, housing, childcare and elderly care is complex and difficult. China’s population is 250 times larger, and the level of complexity and difficulty is almost infinitely greater.

Impressive progress
China is still a developing country and there remains a long road to travel before the journey of modernisation can be considered complete. Nonetheless China has already made historic progress in that direction.

Life expectancy has more than doubled since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, and indeed has now surpassed that of the United States. China has achieved near-universal literacy. Everybody has access to education and healthcare. The social and economic position of women has improved beyond recognition. In purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, China is the world’s largest economy.

In late 2020, the Chinese government announced that its goal of eliminating extreme poverty by 2021 (the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China) had been met. To eradicate extreme poverty in a developing country of 1.4 billion people – which at the time of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 was one of the poorest countries in the world, characterised by widespread malnutrition, illiteracy, foreign domination and technological backwardness – is without doubt “the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history”, in the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

As a result of the extraordinary efforts of the Chinese government and people, the long-held dream of eliminating extreme poverty has been achieved. In addition to having a guaranteed income level, every single person enjoys sufficient access to food, clothing, housing, clean water, modern energy, education and healthcare. No other developing country, and no other enormous country, has achieved this feat.

With the extensive infrastructure construction programs of the last two decades, China’s development has become more balanced. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping introduced a policy of “letting some people and some regions get rich first, in order to drive and help the backward regions.” The Eastern and Southern regions, benefitting from their coastal location, ports and access to investment, did indeed “get rich first”. But Deng also specified that “it is an obligation for the advanced regions to help the backward regions”, and recent years have witnessed the massive expansion of modern infrastructure to the Western and Central regions, following the example and benefitting from the experience of the advanced regions.

With absolute poverty eliminated, China is taking important steps towards reducing inequality and tackling relative poverty, improving per capita GDP, revitalising rural areas, and reducing inequality between regions and groups. It is time for “making the cake bigger and better and sharing it fairly”, as Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has said.

This progress stands in stark contrast to the advanced capitalist countries, where neoliberal economic theory has dominated for the last four decades, and where people are experiencing an alarming rise in poverty and inequality. Rather than pursuing common prosperity, the US and its allies are drifting towards mass destitution.

China is transitioning away from high-speed growth to high-quality development based on innovation. Already China has become a global leader in telecommunications, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and more. And in spite of the US’s attempts to suppress its development, China is on the cusp of being a major power in semiconductor technology.

Education is another important component of modernisation, and China has made significant strides forward in this area. Every single child receives nine years of compulsory, free education. The high school (15-18) enrolment rate now exceeds 90 percent, and the higher education enrolment rate stands at 60 percent (in Britain it is 35 percent).

The secret ingredient: socialism
How can we explain China’s successes? Above all, they are a function of China’s political system, its revolutionary history, and the leadership of the CPC.

At a meeting of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2016, Xi Jinping made this point very succinctly: “Our greatest strength lies in our socialist system, which enables us to pool resources in a major mission. This is the key to our success.”

Or as Deng Xiaoping famously commented in 1984: “the superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of the productive forces than under the capitalist system.”

It’s instructive to look at the example of India – the only other country with a population size similar to that of China. There are some important historical similarities between the two. India won its independence in 1947, and China won its liberation in 1949. At that time, both countries were in a parlous state, their populations enduring pervasive poverty and backwardness, ground down by centuries of feudal oppression and colonial occupation and interference.

India has made commendable progress, and yet its record of development falls way behind China’s. Its life expectancy is several years below the global average, whereas China’s is several years above the global average. Millions of children in India still don’t go to school, and its adult literacy rate is 76 percent. Hundreds of millions don’t have access to clean water or electricity. Tens of millions live in slums.

Not having had a revolution, political power in India continues to be monopolised by landlords and big capitalists. China’s political system, in which power is exercised by and on behalf of the masses, allows enormous resources to be consolidated for projects that serve the interests of the people. As such, China is able to effectively solve the problems that face all countries, particularly developing countries.

The overall trajectory of China’s economy and the top-level allocation of resources is determined by the government – led by the CPC – rather than being in the hands of a small group of people who own and deploy capital. The interests of the people always come first. This is the ‘secret ingredient’ that allows China to blaze a trail towards modernisation in a country with a huge population.

A major contribution to the world
Chinese economist Justin Yifu Lin has pointed out that, with China’s successful modernisation, “the global population of high-income nations will double, rising from 15.8 percent to 33.8 percent.” Modernisation has thus far been dominated by a small group of imperialist countries, with a combined population of 1.2 billion. China’s successful modernisation, in the words of President Xi Jinping, “will completely change the international landscape and have a far-reaching impact on humanity.”

China’s development will set an example for other countries of the Global South, and will finally put an end to the myth that there’s an equals sign between modernisation and westernisation. China will continue to share the fruits of its modernisation, via mechanisms such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative, and as such it will provide development impetus for the whole world. China’s modernisation will be a major, historic contribution to global development.

https://socialistchina.org/2024/04/22/c ... challenge/

********

China Anti-Espionage Laws Threaten Pharma Supply Chains and Multinational Manufacture in China
Posted on April 22, 2024 by Yves Smith

As the US has been seeking to check China in the chip and related tech arena by restricting restricting exports of our purportedly security/defense related products, the Chinese have not been idle. The Western press has not reported much on a series of Chinese new restrictions, under the umbrella of anti-espionage laws.

Needless to say, espionage is a show-stopper as far as threats go, as the treatment of Julian Assange, Gonzalo Lira, and detailed Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich illustrate. No one with an operating brain cell wants to fall into the hall of mirrors of its notions of abuses and due process.

Yet despite the severity of potential punishments, and the worry among the many affected parties, there has been perilous little reporting. Reader Dr. Kevin sent a couple of links but a search on Twitter came up empty. This is particularly surprising, as we’ll discuss soon, due to the existing and soon to get worse situation for drug exports, where the US is heavily dependent on China. We long though this was a prime leverage point for China against the US, and it looks like China is staring to make use of it.


It is not clear whether the near silence by non-Chinese media on this topic is due to press reluctance to report on what sure looks like retaliation, and pretty bloody-minded at that, and potentially also some self-censorship among affected companies. Remember that during Brexit, businesses were stunningly silent about the many negative consequences of Brexit, particularly the super-hard version the Tories increasingly favored.

The limited recognition of these new Chinese policies, which have the potential to limit trade, not just various forms of regulatory and contractual compliance, is striking given that the US is continuing to escalate against China. As Politico.eu reported yesterday:

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will head to Beijing this week, with a warning for China to curb its technical support for Russia’s military — or else…

“We’re prepared to take steps when we believe necessary against firms that … severely undermine security in both Ukraine and Europe,” a State Department official told reporters ahead of Blinken’s trip. “We’ve demonstrated our willingness to do so regarding firms from a number of countries, not just China.”

An account below reports that China is expected to further tighten its anti-espionage laws this week. That may be a coincidence of timing, but it could be a warning to the US about what might happen were the US to try to deliver on Anthony Blinken’s threat mongering. But the Anglosphere media has barely registered that this is happening. Is the State Department so clueless as to be missing a potentially pretty serious message?

Due to the spotty English-language reporting, yours truly is very much in blind man and the elephant mode. So any reader corrections and fillings-in of gaps are very much welcome.

Par for the course, one of the best short-form versions of what is happening came in the comments section of one of these new stories, Pharma groups warn of supply crunch over China spying law in the Financial Times:

Martin Berg

The new data protection laws in China effectively declare company data to be of national interest, if not national property. By doing so, it has effectively taken a further step in weaponising the economy, and turning economic competition into a battle between states, rather than private enterprises.

This might answer the question that many of you likely had: what could outsourced drug manufacture have that would even rise to the level of being protectable intellectual property, let alone a state secret? As we will see soon, these compounds are either patented (nearly always in the US or EU) or off patent. Perhaps the Chinese companies have developed some better mousetraps in the form of better or faster manufacturing processes. But again, abuses in that arena would seem to fall in the realm of intellectual property theft, and not a threat to the Chinese state.

Wellie, as we are now seeing, it can be if the government takes an expansive view of what state interest amounts to.

A story today in Nikkei warns that China is tightening its espionage laws. Key sections:

China is preparing to restrict transfers of any information related to national security under an updated counterespionage law, raising fears of a stepped-up crackdown on foreign individuals and companies here.

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress began deliberating the changes Monday. The legislation, which will broaden the definition of espionage, is expected to pass Wednesday.

This will mark the first time since 2014 that the law has been amended.

The measure will expand the scope of the law — now limited to state secrets — to cover all documents, data, materials or items related to national security and interests. It does not provide further details on what constitutes national security and interests.

A greater focus will also be put on cybersecurity. Discussions of a system’s vulnerabilities to cyberattacks could run afoul of the new rules.

Security authorities will be granted more power, including in inspecting baggage and electronic devices of those suspected of espionage.

Notice that this plan sounds much less than what pink paper reader Martin Berg reported. Perhaps practice is already more aggressive than current law? It would seem so. Nikkei says later:

In March, a Japanese employee of drugmaker Astellas Pharma was detained for allegedly violating the existing counterespionage law. The man is believed to have had interactions with Chinese government and industry officials as part of his job.

Relevant authorities have solid evidence that the man engaged in espionage and will handle the matter in accordance with Chinese law, said Wu Jianghao, the Chinese ambassador to Japan, on April 7…

Foreign workers in China are on edge, given ambiguities about what would be considered illegal under the updated law. Activities that are part of regular business operations are seen potentially becoming an issue, and some Japanese companies have warned expatriate workers in China to be especially cautious when entering into new business deals in the technology sector, which Beijing considers a national security priority….

The proposed changes are seen giving Chinese authorities justification to monitor foreign companies involved in artificial intelligence, semiconductors and other key fields in the name of national security. This could extend to their communications with their headquarters back home.

The Nikkei story does not give a clear idea of when and how the the crackdown began, although it does say that President Xi increased his “focus” on security in recent months.

In fact, the pink paper pointed out last July that China was putting informational screws on foreign companies operating there:

Global companies are accelerating their push to decouple China data in response to the country’s increasingly stringent data and anti-espionage laws, as relations between Washington and Beijing deteriorate.

The drive for full localisation of data in China and separation of information technology systems from the rest of the world has accelerated over recent months as Beijing strengthens its control and regulation of data….

On July 1, Beijing put into effect an expanded anti-espionage law to strengthen national security. A series of raids and sanctions on US consultancies such as Bain & Company and Mintz Group, along with semiconductor giant Micron Technology, have put more pressure on companies operating in China.

Roberts said the wording in the updated anti-espionage law unveiled in April introduced the possibility of criminal sanctions and being policed by the country’s state security agency for sharing information deemed sensitive.

The revised law and the raids “have businesses scrambling to understand their current compliance footing”, he said.

In the past, western companies were concerned about taking electronic devices into the country over fears that China could access their data. Now they are equally concerned about sensitive data leaving China for fear of violating Beijing’s rules.

Now let us circle back to the new account at the Financial Times, Pharma groups warn of supply crunch over China spying law:

Western pharmaceutical groups are warning of worsening disruption to supply chains because of problems certifying manufacturing sites in China, with some factory inspectors refusing to visit the country over fears of arrest for spying and others denied entry to facilities.

China is one of the world’s largest makers of active pharmaceutical ingredients and antibiotics and a major supplier of drugs to the EU and US. However, a tightening of anti-espionage laws by Beijing has led to concerns that foreign citizens gathering data on Chinese sites could be deemed spies.

Let’s pause here. “One of the world’s largest makers of active pharmaceutical ingredients and antibiotics and a major supplier of drugs to the EU and US” understates the stranglehold China has as a meds supplier to the US. Even though the particular percentages may have shifted in the intervening years, the general picture from these archival pieces remains the same: the US is massively dependent on China for finished drugs and pharma components. The first, a 2018 post, also shows China has long been playing hide and seek with the FDA:

A recent book, China RX: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine by Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh, appears not to have gotten the attention it warrants…

The big message of Gibon’s and Singh’s book is that the US relies on China for the production of active ingredients in drugs and in many cases, of the medications themselves, to the degree that we would have a public health crisis if supplies were interrupted. As Gibson said on C-SPAN:

Many people that we spoke to, both former government officials and some in industry said that if China shut the door on exports, within months, pharmacy shelves in the United States to be empty, and hospitals would cease to function.

And don’t assume generics king India would step into the breach. India gets many of the active ingredients for its pharmaceuticals from China. Gibson forecasts that China will overtake India in generics manufacture within a decade.

As Gibson explains, the US no longer makes its own penicillin, in part because China dumped penicillin in 2004, driving the last US plant out of business.

The medications where the US relies on China include heparin, a blood thinner that among other things is used for IV drips. No heparin, no IV treatments. Due to the difficulty in tracing the source of drug company ingredients, the authors could make only case by case investigations, but they China production to be critical for treatments for Alzheimer’s HIV, depression, schizophrenia, cancer, epilepsy, and high blood pressure.

Dependency is not the only risk. US drug companies shifted production to China not just to save cost but to escape regulation. The FDA has only limited access to Chinese factories, with the Chinese having well over 700, yet the FDA able to inspect only 15 a year on average. As Gibson said on C-SPAN:

The FDA is trying to get inspection on site in China. The Chinese have severely restricted the number of inspections that they will allow and the whole program has become completely ineffective.

And the Chinese are often less than cooperative. Gibson describes even then how the agency has been directed to a Potemkin facility, as in the goods were made somewhere else…and the FDA was not able to figure out where. Similarly, reports presented by the health authorities to the FDA is understood to be as reliable as Chinese economic data….Gibson again:

In 2015, the FDA inspected a plant in China. It did that because it was getting a lot of customer complaints, presumably industry complaints, about the active ingredients that they were getting from this plant. There was bacterial contamination, some of the products. They did not have full therapeutic value. If that’s an antibiotic or chemotherapy, that could be devastating.

So the FDA went in and they found what they called systemic data manipulation. This is a plant that had passed muster by the FDA, the Chinese FDA and other inspections over many years. So the FDA banned 29 different products from coming into the United States. But because the United States is so dependent, the FDA had to exempt 14 of those products from its own ban. Some of those included antibiotics or ingredients for antibiotics and ingredients for chemotherapies, because the FDA was concerned about drug shortages in the United States. That is how dependent we are as a country.

And from a 2019 post from SafeHaven that we republished:

Just like the rare earths dilemma, the U.S. healthcare industry is finding itself in a Catch 22 situation since it cannot easily cut off all drug supplies from China.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 requires the Defense Health Agency and other federal agencies to only use pre-approved drugs that are made in the U.S. or from a compliant country.

As you might imagine, China is not on the approved list; however, the agency has waivers for nearly 150 drugs from the country because it would not be able to procure them from anywhere else. Moreover, the TAA only covers finished products and not their components–though that’s more of a legislative issue that can probably be fixed.

Yet, quality is just one of the concerns here. China can potentially cut off actual drug supplies to the U.S. thus crippling the industry.

The article concluded by saying it would take a long time to solve this problem, as in reshore.

Now back to the Financial Times report:

…official data seen by the Financial Times shows some US Food and Drug Administration inspectors have been refused entry to Chinese production sites since the pandemic.

This has led to western pharmaceutical regulators struggling to enforce oversight of Chinese manufacturers. Drugs made in third countries and imported into the EU or US require certification by government inspectors and audits of production sites…

During the pandemic, some audits of Chinese sites were carried out online or certification was prolonged without inspection — meaning there is a large inspection backlog with many certifications due “to expire by the end of this year”, according to Fatima Bicane, manager of pharmaceutical technology at BAH.

Disruption to inspections increases the risk of Chinese production sites losing their certification for western markets, exacerbating an already strained supply chain for generic pharmaceuticals…

“Adrian van den Hoven, director-general of Medicines for Europe, an industry body representing European pharmaceutical companies, said that ambiguity around the new anti-espionage law had led to concerns that “an inspector . . . in China could be accused of espionage”….

“When you talk about antibiotics, the Chinese are in a very critical position as most of the starting materials for antibiotics are made in China,” said Jim Miller, an industry consultant who advises on pharma manufacturing in the US. “The world is very dependent on China for antibiotic ingredients and active ingredients.”

Now admittedly, the number of FDA inspections in China was more than two times higher in 2023 than 2022. But the new espionage crackdown and the detention and espionage accusation against the Japanese drug company employee has had a chilling effect on the willingness of drug industry foreign inspectors and business partners to visit China. And it’s easy to see if the final law is vague that it will allow Chinese officials to greatly toughen enforcement at any time. And that could translated into a crippling reduction of essential medicine supplies.

But the US lets its multinationals sell out our own interests and did nothing to stop them. So if worst case scenarios come to pass, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/04 ... china.html

[blindpig]

Are You Ready to Dive Deep into China’s Intellectual Odyssey?
Posted on April 26, 2024 by Yves Smith

Yves here. Given how the Western officials and the press make a fetish of overt and coded China bashing and baiting, a counterpoint seemed in order. The Institute for New Economic Thinking interviewed one of China’s best-known intellectuals, Wang Hui, the author of The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought. I suspect some readers know Wang Hui and his work and can comment on how good INET’s Cliff Notes version is, and perhaps also discuss whether Wang Hui is seen as authoritative in China, and whether there are other respected intellectuals who differ with his interpretations.

By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

The need to understand China is obvious, but how to go about it? The lack of Chinese philosophy education in the U.S. presents a serious challenge, compounded by daunting barriers of language, stark cultural contrasts, and disparities in worldview. Concepts may not align neatly with Western philosophical frameworks, requiring a subtle understanding to grasp fully or even perceive the differences.

Anyone who sets out to comprehend China’s complexity confronts an intricate tapestry woven with threads of continuity, bursts of disruption, and variegated patterns. China’s history is filled with paradoxes, merging timeless traditions with the dynamism of transformation. From ancient cultural legacies to the ebb and flow of centralized governance over two millennia, China embodies a profound reverence for its heritage. Yet invasions, dynastic shifts, and revolutions have continually reshaped China’s socio-political and intellectual landscape, showcasing its adaptability. This invites exploration of the interplay between tradition and innovation, enriching our understanding of Western and Chinese thought.

If you’re ready to set forth, the contributions of Wang Hui, one of China’s most prominent intellectuals, are indispensable. After twenty years, English speakers can finally access his magisterial The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought, which provides a comprehensive exploration of China’s intellectual traditions, emphasizing their diversity and interconnectedness. Avoiding teleological narratives, he traces developments in Chinese thinking from antiquity to the present, highlighting key philosophical movements and their impact on Chinese society and governance. Wang argues for a contextual understanding of Chinese thought, viewing it as a dynamic dialogue between tradition and innovation, shaping China’s cultural identity and its interactions with the world.

In exploring China’s intellectual development, it’s essential to pause and delve deeply into the Song Dynasty (960 to 1279 C.E.), a transformative period that continues to shape modern ideology and governance. Wang illustrates how this era witnessed the shift from barter to a currency-based economy, the consolidation of centralized state power, the decline of the aristocracy, and the rise of the gentry-bureaucratic class. Additionally, it saw the emergence of egalitarianism, urbanization, and a Renaissance-like dissemination of knowledge, alongside a philosophical shift towards Neo-Confucianism from Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. This significant social and economic development profoundly influenced China’s intellectual and political landscape, extending its impact well into the twentieth century.

Neo-Confucian scholars of this period saw public service as paramount, drawing inspiration from China’s revered Sage Kings, who provided guiding principles for conduct, governance, and social harmony, the foundation of what is known as the “rites and music” tradition. This tradition, extending beyond rituals, encompassed broader social and political dimensions. Wang explains how the School of Principle, a dominant Neo-Confucian movement in the Song Dynasty, influenced governance, education, and social beliefs. Emphasizing moral cultivation and self-reflection, this school advocated for a “Heavenly Principle” worldview, aligning morality and governance with universal harmony. Wang emphasizes the role of Song Confucians in shaping the domain of intellectual discourse, advocating for a return to tradition while simultaneously critiquing contemporary practices.

In the following conversation, Wang unpacks why he emphasizes specific conceptual frameworks in his historical analyses. He argues that Chinese concepts like principle (li), things (wu), and the propensity of times (shi) are vital for understanding the development of Chinese thought. Wang explores how these concepts reveal a tension between established theoretical paradigms and the complex nature of historical phenomena. He illustrates how Song Confucianism’s focus on concepts like li signifies a critical engagement with contemporary social, political, and moral systems, rather than a blind adherence to tradition. This critical perspective allows for a reevaluation of historical narratives and the development of alternative frameworks for understanding Chinese intellectual history.

Wang’s approach challenges contemporary and historical interpretations and promotes a more nuanced understanding of historical change.

Lynn Parramore: Your book traces the development of three concepts: “principle” (li), “things” (wu), and the “propensity of the times” (shi). What makes these crucial to understanding the progress of Chinese thought?

Wang Hui: Why these very specific concepts? I employed these concepts as clues to describe historical change, rather than employing social history, cultural history, economic history, or military history. I wanted to use these concepts to link different things together. Basically, I think that in all of Chinese studies — and not only Chinese studies, but historical studies, generally, especially in non-Western cultures — two prevalent misgivings have often left scholars feeling frustrated.

First, they struggle with whether or not they can effectively use existing theoretical categories or social scientific paradigms to describe and interpret historical phenomena. For example, if we talk about the traditional Chinese wellfield system [an agrarian plot division for equitable land distribution], people will often describe it as an economic system. But the wellfield system is not only an economic system, but also a social, political, and military system, and, after all, a racial system. So in that sense, once you reduce that phenomenon into the category of the economy, you’ve lost a lot of things. That’s one issue.

The second, of course, is that we are all studying Western social science — it’s a universal phenomenon – so the concepts and paradigms we deploy usually come from studies of Western history. Can they be usefully applied to non-Western historical phenomena? I have found that you always need to construct a dialogue between the different concepts.

In my book, I discuss principle (li), things (wu), and the propensity of times (shi) as philosophical ideas. These are three key categories, but at the same time, I use another set of three antithetical concepts in the more historical analysis. The first is the ancient rites and music culture and institutions. The second concerns political systems, enfeoffment [the feudal land grant system], and centralized administration. The last one was more of a response to what contemporary Western scholars are working on, and also something we’re working on in Chinese studies: the empire and the nation-state. I question these binaries and their application to Chinese studies.

LP: In Song Confucianism, “li” is seen as vital for both social harmony and moral growth, encompassing both adherence to traditional norms governing behavior as well as broader philosophical and ethical principles. Why did scholars prioritize this concept?

WH: Li was a very early, very traditional idea, and it was only in the Song dynasty, especially the Southern Song and afterward, that it occupied the highest position in Neo-Confucian thought. Some describe Song Confucianism as an archaism, a nostalgia for tradition, because before the Song dynasty, there was a Buddhist dominance, and the Neo-Confucians drew inspiration from a time before that shift.

Various early Confucians viewed rites and music and the [current] institutions as overlapping – seeing little difference between them. For them, the rites and music system, the family system, the wellfield system, and the political system are all the same, together forming the fundamental framework of behavior and encompassing moral doctrine. However, Song Confucians actually sharply divided these systems from each other. They thought that when you talk about rites and music, you’ve lost the essence. We can imagine something similar when people talk about democracy. Democracy is a framework, but a lot of people will criticize that idea and say, no, it’s not democracy — it’s lost its spirit or essence. So though the framework was still there, the Song Confucians’ division between rites and music and institutions actually came from a critical stance. It’s a paradigm shift. This is the first point.

Secondly, Song Confucians strove to reincorporate substantive elements from the time of the early Sage Kings, the Three Dynasties, back into daily life. They talk about the patriarchal clan system, which was part of the rites and music system. They tried to argue that we needed to return to the early Sage Kings’ time in considering the education system, the wellfield system (later described as an economic system), and the system of enfeoffment. However, this perspective can’t be viewed as mere archaism. It can only be comprehended in light of the Song scholars’ critical understanding of the current system, the civil service examination system, which was very different from the traditional education system. They also criticized the centralized bureaucracy in contrast to enfeoffment (the feudal system). The Song Confucians were also very critical of commercialization and social mobility because, in the rites and music culture, morality was based on a certain kind of community. They’re talking about returning to the early days, but they’re also actually trying to have a critical stance on the contemporary world.

Why do they put li at the top of the whole system? Why were they so dedicated to developing a category of li, the Heavenly Principle, and to talking about the Way of Heaven and so on? Confucius himself never paid so much attention to the abstract idea of li— what he talked about is everyday ritual practice. When the Song Confucians talk about li, they are talking about something like immanence. You still have the rites and music — the performance, the ceremony, and so on and so forth — but you can’t take these things for granted as representing the essence of the rites and the music. Now the rites and music exist in a way as the immanence. The Song Confucians went back to the rites and music, but not simply to reconstruct the rites and music. They are developing the idea of li.

LP: How does this fit into the overarching narrative of Chinese intellectual history?

WH: Is this an ontological or epistemological breakthrough? Traditional philosophers, those in the early days in America like Feng Youlan, who wrote a very famous textbook [in English], The History of Chinese Philosophy, treated this Song idea as a philosophical breakthrough. China finally had philosophy!

But really, the idea of philosophy only emerged in China in the early 20th century. The first translation of Youlan’s book was in the 1870s, mainly in Minju, Japan. They translated the Western ideas into Chinese characters. They translated the term zhexue [the study of wisdom] as philosophy. Later, overseas students who studied here had to reconsider Chinese thought. They had to use the frameworks and categories of philosophy, ontology, epistemology, realism, and so on, as well as the social sciences categories, to describe Chinese intellectual history. We need to think about this kind of relationship.

The fact that Song Confucians prioritized relatively abstract philosophical and ethical categories indicates the political thinking embedded in Neo-Confucianism because they are very critical of the current political, economic, educational, and even moral systems. They thought these systems were lost.

They are critical on the one hand, but they also recognize historical transformation. We can imagine a contemporary like John Rawls, who talked about justice, but obviously thought that the reality was unjust, and a lot of problems emerged from that. He tried to construct an abstract system to talk about the problems of redistribution and justice while still recognizing the legitimacy of democracy as a basic framework. In that sense, the Song Confucians, too, recognized historical change. They took the form of archaism, but they recognized the inevitability of historical change. We cannot simply go back to earlier years. We need to study phenomena to grasp the essence – that’s the li. The li can help us to imagine our ideas, systems, and behavior.

The inherent historical dynamics for the establishment and the deployment of the Heavenly Principle worldview were clearly set forth in the exploration of the differentiation of [ancient] rites and music culture from [current] institutions. Basically, Song Confucians saw that while moral values are not immanent in systems, they could find moral values by studying the systems. They set forth to explore the differentiation of the rites and music culture, which was the system of the Sage King, from the institutions, or current systems. They found that even the current systems exist on behalf of or within the Sage Kings’ rites and music culture.

I’ll just give an example. If you have a critical mindset, and you hear people defend the current system as a democracy, then the critical mindset will say, no, this is not a democracy. But to criticize in this way also legitimizes the value of democracy. The mindset of critical thinking that came from the Song Confucians was sort of conservative but actually very critical. They argue for this differentiation and also the comparison among the Three Dynasties (the Sage Kings’ time), and the eras that followed. The Sage Kings’ time became the ideal used to criticize contemporary reality. It’s similar to how people resort to Plato, Aristotle, the 18th-century Enlightenment, and so on to criticize current practices and reality. So you have a discussion of the dialectic binaries of centralized administration and enfeoffment; the wellfield system and the equal field system [a system to distribute land fairly among households based on their needs]; and the schooling system and the civil service examination system. In the Song Dynasty, these systems were attached to the centralized administration system and more like a proto-nation-state than what the Kyoto School [a Japanese philosophical movement blending Western and Eastern thought] argued for.

Using ideas or propositions like principle (li) to investigate things and extend knowledge was popular among Song Confucians and later Confucianism. If we simply deploy categories like li for economic, social, political, or historical narratives, we will not only reduce these complex conceptual problems to the components of these later narratives, but once we have encapsulated them as such, we will also have neglected their significance in the intellectual world of antiquity. Therefore, we need to examine these concepts within the framework of the particular worldview of that period, and then explain the phenomena that modern scholars have categorized as economic, political, military, or social in the context of their relationships with Confucian categories such as li (Heavenly Principle), and so on. We can then provide an internal perspective through this narration.

LP: How might an understanding of li aid us today?

WH: This internal perspective is a way to observe our own system. For example, when we talk about human rights, the classical idea of rights is not only a legal concept. It means doing things that are just. But this meaning was lost in modern times because you can weaponize or abuse the idea of human rights. Some people were trying to understand the classical idea of human rights, how to define them, and enrich the category of human rights. In that sense, the classical idea is not simply observing objects, but having an internal perspective for self-reflection. Historical study works in this way: we master observation, but also we are objects for reflection.

That reflection needs certain kinds of categories that construct the internal perspective to understand us. If we think about current crises, political crises, a lot of this links together. We need some perspective to understand it. We can’t understand it if we are simply stuck within it. If we are stuck within a perspective, we may find a solution that is actually the origin of the current crisis. It often happens like that. That’s why the idea of li becomes so important.

When we talk about the concept of things (wu), traditionally in Confucius’ time, wu was part of the rites and music culture. It overlaps. When you think about anything, it’s always within the system of rites and music. In that sense, wualways contains moral implications. It comprises the dynamic structure of our behavior. But if you live in a society that, from a Confucian perspective, is already in differentiation, then rites and music, even the form, have lost their substance. So wu becomes the object. You still do the rites, the ritual practice, but that ritual practice only concerns things or objects, not real moral implications. That’s why traditionally speaking, morality existed in people doing things. That’s the ritual order. But the Song Confucians emphasize that you need to start investigating things to achieve knowledge. Li is invisible within things (wu), so you need to investigate things. The idea of things themselves, when we talk about objectivity or the object, actually came out of what was not only a scientific discovery but also a historical transformation, the result of that differentiation from that perspective.

LP: And what about the propensity of times, this concept of the prevailing trends associated with a particular era, and that shapes its norms and behavior? What makes it important to Chinese thought?

WH: The concept of the propensity of times was also a very traditional idea. Mencius once asked, why is Confucius a sage? The answer: Because he knows the propensity of times. This concept is very different from the idea or the concept of time in the modern world — the linear, teleological, homogeneous, and empty concept of time. This is our time.

The propensity of the times is something else, and I try to use it as the conceptualization of history in Neo-Confucianism. I can understand why the Neo-Confucians re-employed this term to describe history. They said that there was a time before the Sage Kings’ time, the early Three Dynasties, and after. This is a periodization [a division of history into distinct periods based on significant events, developments, etc]. This is not based on the linear, teleological time. It’s based on their understanding of the propensity of times. The propensity of times in Song Confucianism became an inner matter or matter of interiority. So the li is linked together in the interior.

In that sense, the propensity of times is closely linked to what they talk about in terms of the differentiation of rites and music from institutions — in terms of historical changes. The most important thing is that when we talk about time, we actually construct the objective framework. But the propensity of times means that we are all within that propensity. We are the forces that change the propensity of times, and we are the products of the propensity of times, but we are also the active players that force the change of the propensity of times. So it’s a very dynamic term and helps to get rid of an overly teleological narrative of history. That’s why I try to compare this very specific concept of time with the modern concept of time — basically to get rid of the so-called teleological narration of history.

An example is the inquiry into Chinese modernity. The Japanese Kyoto School (1920s to 1940s) argued for the importance of Song Confucianism. One of the leading figures in the Kyoto School raised the issue of the transition from the Song Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty, and later, another figure, Miyazaki Ichisada (and some others), argued that the Song Dynasty already had a certain kind of capitalism. To define the early modern in Chinese history, they used a standard narration, such as the decline of the aristocracy leading to the maturity of a central administration that was labeled as a proto-nation-state, and the growth of long-distance trade, which means a more sophisticated division of labor. And the productivity, urbanization, and the standardization of the civil service examination system, which meant that, because of the collapse of the aristocratic system, now everybody could pass the examination system to be employed.

And that was true — before the Song dynasty, all the high-ranking officials came from the aristocratic system. However, after the Song dynasty, all the prime ministers came from the national service examination system rather than an aristocratic background. A kind of civilian society emerged from then on. So for the Kyoto School, Song Confucianism is a kind of ideology of nationalism, a proof of nationalism. They would argue for these as the starting point of the early modern era.

However, at that time and later, some Marxists argued that the later Ming Dynasty was the starting point of Chinese modernity. They raised the question, what is modern? And also, what is China? The Song, Ming, the Yuan Dynasty, and the Manchu Qing Dynasty were very different in terms of territory and ethnic composition. The systems were very different. So how to define China? And of course, how to define Chinese thought or philosophy? And then how to define the rise of Chinese thought? My book is about the rise of modern Chinese thought – and you can actually question each term itself.

If you talk about the rise in the teleological way, then when was the rise? Was it in the Song or Ming dynasty? Or was it the modern 1911 revolution? Or, like Francis Fukuyama said, did the early modern political system, and its structure, really start 2000 years ago in China in the Qin dynasty? He said that the Qin dynasty was almost like a proto-nation state. Whether or not it can be defined as early modern, that’s very strange to some extent if you really think about it in a teleological way.

So, my question: does the concept of li (Heavenly Principle) embody an antagonism, a tension between its ideas and the Song transition? First of all, I disagree with the Kyoto School when they say that Song Confucianism is proto-nationalist, expressing the ideology of nationalism. Rather, they took the form of archaism, but you cannot reduce it to an ideology. You can only legitimize the transition. They recognize it, they criticize it. There’s a contradictory or paradoxical decision there.

So why did the Kyoto School say that the Song dynasty, or even more, Song Confucianism, was nationalistic? Because they thought the Song dynasty, compared to the early dynasties, was an even more Chinese China. Confucianism was thought of as China, whereas Buddhism was a foreign idea that came from India. How, then, can we represent the Song transition from a Confucian perspective? And how should one portray the social structure in the Mongolian Yuan dynasty after the Song? Or even more to the point, the social system of the Qin dynasty, the last dynasty, the Manchu dynasty? If you argue that the Song dynasty is the more Chinese China, how to define the Mongolian China or the Manchu China?

If you start from the teleological or linear way of thinking about the modern, does that go back to ancient times or something else? It’s contradictory, because if you do that, then you’ve lost the whole narrative thread. That’s why I think that the idea of the propensity of times gives us another way of imagining history, another way to think about these kinds of things. In that sense, we can also rethink contemporary China, and go beyond the binary of empire and nation.

For example, we can talk about modern China, the Republic of China after the 1911 Revolution, as emerging based on the last dynasty, the Qing dynasty. It overlaps with the territory, the populations, and a lot of the systems. Then we need to ask the question, how did Confucianism, as well as other sources, legitimize the Qing as a Chinese dynasty though it was very different from the Ming dynasty? It had the Manchu as the ruling class, but it’s still broadly recognized as a Chinese dynasty. How is that legitimized?

Understanding historical change is very important for Confucianism as a political philosophy. It’s not only the history of ideas. It’s full of the political dynamics within the ideas. People say, well, now we are modern. Then why are you talking about Plato, Aristotle, all the ancient ideas? Because you are still trying to retrieve those ideas for the contemporary world.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/04 ... yssey.html

******

China to host 'Palestinian unity talks' between Hamas, Fatah

A senior official from Hamas says the group is willing to join a unified government for Gaza and the West Bank with Fatah on the condition of a 'fully sovereign Palestinian state'

News Desk

APR 27, 2024


(Photo Credit: Getty Images)

Delegations from Palestinian resistance faction Hamas and the West Bank-ruling Fatah have traveled to China for “unity talks” hosted by Beijing as the country looks to expand its newfound role as a mediator in West Asia.

According to a Fatah official who spoke with Reuters, the delegation from the party that controls the Palestinian Authority (PA) is led by Azzam al-Ahmad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. For its part, the Hamas delegation is reportedly led by senior official Moussa Abu Marzook.

“We support strengthening the authority of the Palestinian National Authority and support all Palestinian factions in achieving reconciliation and increasing solidarity through dialogue and consultation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a press briefing on 26 April.

The visit will mark the first time Hamas officials have visited China since Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October and the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

A Chinese diplomat, Wang Kejian, met Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh in Qatar last month, according to the Chinese foreign ministry. Beijing says the talks sought to open a pathway to reconcile the two Palestinian parties.

Last year, China brokered a historic rapprochement deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, ending years of hostility. Beijing's diplomatic success also opened the door for talks to end the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

The highly unpopular Fatah has been the de facto ruler of the occupied West Bank since 2006, when Hamas won the last legislative elections to be held in Palestine.

Hamas' victory at the polls was not welcomed by then-US President George Bush, who put in motion a covert initiative to ignite a Palestinian civil war and prevent Hamas from taking power. The meddling from Washington, Israel, and allied Arab states led to a Fatah-Hamas war in 2007 that saw the two parties split control of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, respectively.

In 2016, a leaked audio revealed that, 10 years earlier, Hillary Clinton suggested the Palestinian elections be rigged, calling them “a big mistake.”

"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win," Clinton said.

China's diplomatic efforts come on the heels of a statement by senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya, who earlier this week suggested that the armed wing of Hamas could be folded into a “Palestinian national army” if Palestinian statehood is achieved.

He also said that Hamas would be willing to join the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and form a unified government for Gaza and the West Bank with Fatah on the condition of a “fully sovereign Palestinian state” on pre-1967 borders and “the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with the international resolutions.”

In January, Russia hosted a round of “unity talks” between several Palestinian factions, including Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), PFLP General Command, and the Al-Saiqa organization.

https://thecradle.co/articles/china-to- ... amas-fatah