China

The fightback
User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:57 pm

Chinese envoy warns of consequences of indiscriminate sanctions over Ukraine conflict
Xinhua | Updated: 2022-03-30 09:42

UNITED NATIONS - A Chinese envoy on Tuesday warned that indiscriminate sanctions over the Ukraine conflict will bring about new humanitarian problems.

"The ever-escalating sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions have hit global energy, food, economics and trade, and financial markets, and will continue to do so, affecting the lives and livelihoods of the general public, and giving rise to new humanitarian problems," Dai Bing, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, told a Security Council meeting on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine.

Developing countries, which make up the majority of the world, are not parties to this conflict, and should not be drawn into the confrontation and forced to suffer the consequences of geopolitical clashes and sparring among major powers, he said.

Right now, global food security is being seriously challenged, which warrants due attention. Sanctions and economic blockades will only artificially exacerbate food shortages and price distortions, further disrupt food production and food supply chain across the world, push up food prices, and put burdens on developing countries, he said.

"We call for enhanced international coordination to stabilize food supply and food prices, refrain from unjustified export restrictions, keep the market working in a stable manner, and ensure global food security."

The United Nations, the World Food Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Trade Organization and other agencies should actively contribute to coordinating food production and trade among countries, and helping developing countries tide over the shocks, said Dai.

As the conflict in Ukraine is persisting, effectively protecting civilian lives and meeting their humanitarian needs is a must. China calls for respect for international humanitarian law to avoid civilian casualties, protect civilian facilities, provide safe passage for evacuation and humanitarian access, and ensure a continuous supply of basic necessities. Protection of vulnerable groups such as women and children must be strengthened, he said.

If the crisis continues and escalates, further damage is on its way, a situation not in the interests of any party. The most conclusive way toward a cease-fire to end hostilities is dialogue and negotiation, he said.

The international community should encourage and support continued direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine until a positive outcome is achieved and peace is restored, he said.

Security is indivisible. Seeking absolute security by pitting one bloc against another is the recipe for insecurity. The United States, NATO and the EU should also engage in dialogue with Russia, accommodate the legitimate security concerns of all parties, and build a balanced, effective and sustainable regional security architecture. China will continue to work toward and play a constructive role in easing the situation and resolving the crisis, he said.

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202203/ ... 5418c.html

Attempt by US NGO to meddle will fail
By Wang Qingyun | China Daily | Updated: 2022-03-30 07:10

The United States has not and will not succeed in using Taiwan to contain China by endorsing "Taiwan independence" forces under the pretext of "democracy", Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said on Tuesday.

Wang made the remark as Damon Wilson, the president of the US National Endowment for Democracy, visits the island.

The true intention of Wilson's visit is to provoke separation, Wang said at a daily news conference. Recalling the "bleak conclusion" of the US' "Summit for Democracy" last year, Wang said the US will face greater failure in its attempts to support "Taiwan independence" using "democracy" as an excuse.

"The NED, claiming to be nongovernmental and nonprofit, has long been funded by the US Congress and the White House and engaged in such disgraceful deeds as the infiltration of values, subversion and destruction of other countries' regimes, and instigation of anti-government movements around the world," Wang said.

The organization is behind "color revolutions", turmoil and violence, such as the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, the "Jasmine Revolution" in Tunisia and disturbances over legislative amendments in Hong Kong, Wang said.

The NED has long been collaborating with anti-government groups in multiple countries, he said. "The organization is in fact a tool to interfere in other countries' domestic affairs and serve the private interests of the US," Wang said.

The NED has long been in touch with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and the forces of "Hong Kong independence" and "Tibet independence", funded and manipulated various anti-China protests, and created and spread multiple lies and rumors about China, Wang said.

The spokesman quoted data on the organization's website, which said it provided more than $10 million to about 70 China-related projects in 2020 alone to help implement various activities, that Wang said jeopardize China's political and social stability.

The NED is also "specialized "in instigating anti-China separatist activities and is a major financial backer of them, Wang said, pointing out that it had provided about $8.76 million to various East Turkestan Islamic Movement organizations from 2004 to 2020.

Wang also warned Taiwan authorities that "democracy" is not an excuse for seeking "Taiwan independence", nor is it a talisman for "Taiwan independence" forces.

True democracy consists of complying with the aspirations for reunification of 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots, Wang said.

The Democratic Progressive Party authority will "push people in Taiwan to the disastrous abyss" by seeking "Taiwan independence" using "democracy" as an excuse, and "will surely be judged by history", the spokesman said.

In another development, Wang said an extended meeting of the China-US-Russia consultation mechanism will be held on the sidelines of the third Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Neighboring Countries of Afghanistan, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday in Tunxi, Anhui province.

Yue Xiaoyong, the Chinese government's special envoy on Afghanistan affairs, will host the extended meeting, which will be attended by representatives of the US, Russia and Pakistan, Wang said. Foreign Minister Wang Yi will meet with the representatives, he added.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 5404a.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:52 pm

Image

Elias Jabbour: Understanding the possibilities the Chinese socialist experience offers for humanity
Below is the video and text of a speech by Elias Jabbour, economics professor and author of Socialist Economic Development in the 21st Century: A Century after the Bolshevik Revolution, at our recent event 21st Century Socialism: China and Latin America on the Frontline. Elias discusses how China’s model of socialism and its engagement with global markets is creating an invaluable space for the countries of Latin America to assert their sovereignty and more forward on the long road towards socialism.


I am immensely grateful for the opportunity to be with friends gathered in this group. In fact, one of the great honors I’ve had in my life has been speaking to comrades who have political clarity about how things work in the real world.

In Brazil and Latin America, we are still a long way from a level of political consciousness on the left to be capable of perceiving the centrality of China and the possibilities that the Chinese socialist experience offers for humanity.

I used to say that China has been noted for building the most advanced social and human engineering of our time. It’s in that country, although still embryonic and taking its first steps, that socialism presents itself as a clearer historical form.

Furthermore, I have said that the current historical form in which socialism presents itself is still far from abstract concepts, among them – for example – the abolition of private property.

Socialism is still an economic-social formation that develops under strong restrictions imposed by a capitalism still dominant throughout the world.

Under current conditions, we can say that capitalism as the dominant mode of production in the world allows the existence of non-capitalist socio-economic formations within it.

For us, China since 1978 has inaugurated the first experience of a new class of social-economic formations: market socialism. Vietnam would be the second experience and Laos the third. Cuba and People’s Korea belong to another typology of socialist-oriented social-economic formation.

In this sense, as the most advanced experience of this new class of economic-social formations, China presents socialism to the world as a historical form that stands out for a fundamental characteristic: the transformation of reason into an instrument of government with the emergence of new and superior forms of economic planning in the country, including the planning of its foreign trade.

It is in this context that we must connect the development of Chinese socialism with the possibilities for national and social freedom in Latin America.

Foreign trade planning is a key point, also for Latin America. The short time I have led me to choose this topic to talk about relations between China and Latin America.

Latin America is the so-called weak link in the imperialist chain in a world still largely dominated by the capitalist mode of production. Therefore, given the historical circumstances, we must have a series of mediations in mind when dealing with the transition to socialism in our region and the role of China in this process.

The law of uneven development proposed by Lenin allows us to take a more strategic and scientific look at this issue. For example, exports of Chinese productive capital to Latin America open up great possibilities, not only for the purpose of improving our countries’ balance of payments. Unfortunately, Latin American elites and much of the Latin American left lack a strategic vision of the relationship between our region and China.

We must understand China’s role as an exporter of public goods and a supplier of credit, overcoming the institutions born under the Bretton Woods framework (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank), which have become arms of imperialist domination around the world. We also have to instrumentalize Chinese investments both to consolidate experiences such as the Cuban and Bolivian, as also to reinforce independent projects.

Socialism in global scope will go through the growing economic gravitation of the world towards China in a similar way to how Marx perceived the capitalism-socialism transition worldwide centered on the possibility of socialist revolution in England, Germany and France. I believe that there is a big conceptual and theoretical gap to be filled in regard to the role of foreign trade planning in the global capitalism-socialism transition.

I return to Lenin to recall that, according to the great Russian revolutionary, the battlefield between capitalism and socialism should be shifted from the military field to the commercial field, and that planned foreign trade would be fundamental to the victory of socialism on a world scale. And our current international scenario, doubtless, has demonstrated that.

Lastly, there is still a long way to go in order to consolidate the transition to socialism in our region. But the path is promising.

China is Latin America’s biggest trading partner, for example. But a type of relationship that isn’t virtuous enough yet, that needs to develop further in order to bring about a qualitative political leap in the region.

Imperialism still has immense strength in the region. Therefore, seeking mediations between the current state in which Latin America finds itself, and the socialist objective, involves the emergence of powerful autonomous national projects, even with a capitalist character.

Imperialism does not tolerate the autonomy of any Latin American country. In this sense, the role of China is fundamental, as well as the left itself in our region.

To conclude, I would like to remind you that this year a great battle for the Brazilian nation will take place next October. In the Brazilian elections, something fundamental will be at stake: the right to continue being Brazilians.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/03/29/e ... -humanity/

Image

Changes since 2012 impact China and beyond
The following China Daily op-ed, written by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez, reflects on the last decade of dramatic change in China, particularly in relation to poverty alleviation, environmental protection, foreign policy, and the pursuit of common prosperity.
In the past decade, the People’s Republic of China has grown enormously in economic strength and global stature.

At the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2012, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, put forward the “two centenary goals”. The goals mean building a moderately well-off society in all respects by 2020, just before the centenary year of the CPC in 2021, and a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful by the middle of this century, while the People’s Republic’s 100th anniversary is 2049.

The Party and the leadership mobilized tens of millions of people to achieve the first goal, the key component of which was the eradication of extreme poverty, which was achieved in 2020.

At the start of the targeted poverty alleviation program in 2013, a little less than 100 million people were identified as living below the poverty line. Seven years later, the figure was zero. As Xi said, “thanks to the sustained efforts of the Chinese people from generation to generation, those who once lived in poverty no longer have to worry about food or clothing or access to education, housing and medical insurance”.

Eradicating extreme poverty in a developing country of over 1.4 billion people, which at the time of the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 was one of the poorest countries in the world-characterised by widespread malnutrition, illiteracy, foreign domination and technological backwardness-is truly an extraordinary achievement.

With the realization of the first centenary goal, the second goal has come into sharp focus. Building a great modern socialist country in all respects implies reducing relative poverty, increasing per capita GDP, narrowing gaps between regions and different income groups, and achieving ecologically sustainable, high-quality development.

At the 19th CPC National Congress in 2017, a set of objectives for 2035 were adopted as staging posts to achieve the longer-term 2049 goal. These include making China a global leader in science and technology, creating a green economy, reducing the urban-rural income gap, and increasing per capita GDP to the level of a moderately developed country.

China has already taken important steps to realize its targets for 2035 and the middle of this century. While investing heavily in education and research, and establishing China as a global leader in several key areas of technology (including telecommunications, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing), the Party leadership has reaffirmed and placed renewed emphasis on the principle of common prosperity.

While common prosperity has always been an important goal of Chinese socialism, extraordinarily rapid economic growth over the last four decades has led to some negative side effects, such as high levels of inequality. That’s why since 2020, the government has put more emphasis on tackling issues such as the disorderly expansion of unscrupulous private companies including some high-tech enterprises, speculation in the housing sector, widening income inequality, and private education providers. This program is already producing important results and helping improve the lot of ordinary people.

China has also stepped up its contribution to the global fight against climate change and to efforts to preserve biodiversity, reduce air pollution and ensure the supply of clean water. Thanks to his love for the environment, President Xi has reiterated the importance of ecological civilization in the past decade and put environmental sustainability at the key position of Chinese policymaking.

Last year, China vowed to peak its carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. Since announcing these goals, the Chinese government has developed systematic programs for achieving them. It has already made extraordinary progress on environmental issues, and is unquestionably the world leader in renewable energy, with the biggest generation capacity of clean energy.

As for China’s forest cover, it has increased from 12 percent in the early 1980s to 23 percent today. It has established national parks covering 230,000 square kilometres, and is the global leader in production and use of electric cars, trains and buses. China is also home to more than 90 percent of the world’s electric buses and 70 percent of high-speed railways.

China’s integration into the global economy, its friendly relations with other countries and its reputation as a responsible and peace-oriented power have all increased significantly since 2012.

Besides, the Belt and Road Initiative, proposed in 2013, has transformed the investment landscape for infrastructure and connectivity, particularly in the developing world. And more than 140 countries that have joined the initiative can now address their infrastructure, telecommunications, transport and energy needs.

Furthermore, addressing the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly last year, Xi proposed the “Global Development Initiative” and called on countries to work closely together in order to revitalize the global economy and “pursue more robust, greener and more balanced global development”. This shows that, while certain countries continue to implement Cold War policies focused on consolidating their hegemony, China’s foreign policy is aligned with the international community’s demand for peace, progress and sustainable development, and for building a community with a shared future for mankind.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/03/30/c ... nd-beyond/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:09 pm

China Rips Pelosi Over Reported Taiwan Trip, Setting Up Showdown
House speaker delays Asia visit after coming down with Covid

U.S. has stepped up support for Taiwan during war in Ukraine

Image
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the U.S. Capitol on March 31.Photographer: Ting Shen/Bloomberg
Bloomberg News

April 7, 2022, 9:55 PM EDTUpdated onApril 8, 2022, 4:06 AM EDT

China lashed out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for reportedly planning a landmark trip to Taiwan that’s been delayed because she has Covid-19, setting up a showdown when her visit to Asia is rescheduled.

“If the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives knowingly commits a sneaky visit to Taiwan, it will be a malicious provocation to China’s sovereignty, gross interference in its internal affairs and an extremely dangerous political signal to the outside world,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said of a reported trip by Pelosi to Taipei, which would be the first by someone in her post in 25 years.


Speaking in a phone call late Thursday with Emmanuel Bonne, an adviser to the French president, Wang added that Beijing would respond “resolutely” in a way that would ensure Washington bears the consequences, without giving details.

Pelosi, an 82-year-old Democrat, postponed a congressional visit to Asia that would have also included Japan after she tested positive for the coronavirus, a diagnosis that came just two days after she met with President Joe Biden. Media reports by outlets in Japan and Taiwan said Pelosi would visit Taiwan, though her office declined to confirm that when contacted by Bloomberg News, citing longstanding security protocols. The last serving U.S. house speaker to visit was Newt Gingrich in 1997.


Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen wished Pelosi a speedy recovery, the spokesman for her office, Chang Tun-han, said in text message, adding that the speaker has been a good friend to Taiwan. Tsai also welcomed the show of U.S. support given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has raised concern that China may follow through on its oft-repeated threat to take control of the democratic island by force.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said Friday at a regular press briefing in Beijing that Pelosi should “not postpone the visit but cancel it.” He also wished her a quick recovery.

A visit by Pelosi would be the most high-profile of Biden’s presidency to date, and comes as Washington steps up its backing for Taipei. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen visited Tsai earlier this year, and the current holder of that office, Mark Milley, said in a Senate hearing Thursday that Taiwan is a defensible island with mountainous terrain. “We just need to help the Taiwanese to defend it a little better, and we can do that,” he said.


Why Taiwan Is the Biggest Risk for a U.S.-China Clash: QuickTake

China has been ramping up military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Taiwan during President Xi Jinping’s decade in power. Last year Beijing more than doubled its military forays into Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone to around 950, according to official data compiled by Bloomberg, and a visit by Pelosi would likely have been answered similarly.

Chinese state media trolled Pelosi on Friday, with an official social media account of state broadcaster China Central Television starting a “Cure your covid sickness first” hashtag that later trended on the Twitter-like Weibo service.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... p-showdown

Poking the Bear with a stick while yanking on the Tiger's tail don't seem too smart, reeks of desperation. I think ruling class management hears the Feet of Doom coming for their Hegemony. These are the ultimate 'authoritarians', who will sacrifice the entire species and planet rather than surrender their planetary pillage. That the Dems, beloved of the so-called Progressives, are on the cutting edge of this insanity is no surprise, in fact it is typical, the history is damning. But confront these phonies with this and all you'll get is "Trump, Trump, Trump!" They are worse than useless and part of the problem.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:56 pm

China condemns US human rights reports
By WANG QINGYUN | China Daily | Updated: 2022-04-14 07:05

Image
Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian. [Photo/fmprc.gov.cn]

The United States' annual human rights reports and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's accusations made against the Chinese government are "full of political lies and ideological bias", Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on Wednesday.

The US attacked China's political system and human rights situation in the "2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" issued on Tuesday. At a news conference on the same day, Blinken attacked the Chinese government over issues related to the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Tibet autonomous region.

China is strongly dissatisfied with and firmly opposed to the reports and Blinken's claims, which "disregard facts and confuse right with wrong", Zhao said.

The Chinese people have their own conclusion about China's human rights situation, and the Chinese government's ability to govern is there for all members of the international community to see, Zhao told a daily news briefing.

"None of this can be slandered by a few words or a report issued by some people in the US," the spokesman said.

The US has shown its "hypocrisy and double standards" by issuing the reports year after year to defame China and trying to label itself as the "human rights judge", Zhao said, adding that the US "owes human rights debts both at home and abroad".

The US has the most advanced medical equipment and technology in the world, but has the largest number of COVID-19 infections and deaths, Zhao said.

"Instead of seeking ways to tackle the pandemic, the US government resorted to political manipulation, claimed that the COVID virus had leaked from laboratories, and allowed the 'virus'of racism to spread, resulting in the frequent occurrence of hate crimes against Asian American people," Zhao said.

He also criticized the US' "discriminatory migration policies "which "seriously squeezed the living space of Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants", as well as the separation of children from their parents, and issues related to torture and forced labor.

The US government has exercised hegemony overseas under the pretext of human rights, Zhao said, adding that it has created waves of refugees and migrants through waging subversive activities and war.

Extending his sympathies to people hurt in a shooting in Brooklyn, New York City, on Tuesday, Zhao said he hopes such tragedies will never happen again.

Gun violence has become a serious human rights issue in the US, and its government should make more concrete efforts to improve the country's human rights situation, instead of "pointing fingers" at other countries, Zhao said.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 56d06.html

Beijing warns against Pelosi visit to Taiwan
By ZHANG YI | China Daily | Updated: 2022-04-14 06:56

Image
Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council. [Photo/Xinhua]

United States House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have canceled her planned visit to Taiwan rather than delayed it, a Chinese official said on Wednesday, warning that resolute countermeasures will be taken against acts that seriously undermine China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, made the remarks at a news conference in Beijing when commenting on the invitation to Pelosi by the island's Democratic Progressive Party authority.

Taiwan media reported earlier last week that Pelosi was scheduled to lead a delegation that was due to arrive in Taiwan on Sunday, which would have made her the first sitting US House speaker to visit the island since 1997.

However, the visit was postponed after she tested positive for COVID-19 last week and protests from Beijing officials.

Pelosi announced on Monday that she has tested negative for COVID-19 and would end isolation on Tuesday, and the DPP authority has been working on the invitation.

Ma called on the US to abide by the one-China policy and the stipulations of the three China-US joint communiques.

He said that the US should fulfill its commitment to China on the Taiwan question, stop playing the Taiwan card and stop using the Taiwan question to contain China.

He also urged the DPP authority to stop provocative attempts to collude with foreign forces on "independence".

In another provocative action, US Senator Josh Hawley introduced last week the Taiwan Weapons Exports Act, which would speed up the delivery of US weapons to Taiwan, following the $95 million arms sale the US approved to Taiwan to boost its "air defense".

In response, Ma said the US' arms sale to Taiwan is no different from "tying a bomb to every Taiwan compatriot".

Taiwan's "defense authority "issued on Tuesday a so-called defense manual, which hypes up the issue of "seeking shelter during wartime", causing anxiety among local residents, the island's media reported.

Ma denounced such measures, saying that "Taiwan independence" means the loss of peace and the advent of disaster, and the DPP's provocations against the mainland are the biggest threat to security across the Taiwan Straits.

"For their own selfish gains, the DPP is binding the Taiwan people to the chariot of 'independence', which will only push the Taiwan people into the abyss of disaster," he said.

The DPP authority has taken advantage of the Ukraine crisis recently, Ma said, adding that it is following the Western anti-China forces in hyping up the "military threat" from the mainland and exacerbating tension between the two sides.

"The DPP authority wants to take the opportunity to internationalize the Taiwan question," he added.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 56cfe.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:54 pm

China warns that it will thwart foreign interference in Taiwan

Image
Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said the US congressmen's visit to Taiwan violates the one-China principle. | Photo: @zhang_heqing
Published 15 April 2022

China also rejected that Washington earlier this month approved the possible sale of military items to Taiwan.

The Chinese Ministry of Defense affirmed this Friday that the nation's Army will adopt the necessary measures in order to thwart external interference and separatist attempts to make Taiwan independent.

According to the spokesman of the Chinese military entity, Wu Qian, the Eastern Theater of the Armed Forces organized this Friday "a joint combat readiness patrol with multiple services" in the East China Sea and in the surroundings of the Taiwan island.

Warships, bombers, fighters, among other means, will be ready for the maneuvers and were enlisted in response to an unannounced visit by six US congressmen who arrived in Taipei on Thursday, the ministry explained.


The Defense Ministry spokesman stressed that the legislators' trip "violates the one-China principle and the three Sino-US joint communiqués", while "seriously undermining the political foundations" of relations between the two countries, further aggravating plus tensions in the Taiwan Strait.

Wu said, despite Washington's promise not to support Taiwan's separatist attempts, the congressmen's trip sent the wrong signal to the island's independence supporters. "This is extremely hypocritical and has no credibility," he asserted.

In addition, he commented that carrying out military exercises is a necessary action to safeguard national sovereignty and maintained that "there is no place for any foreign interference" on Taiwan.


This Thursday a delegation of US congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, arrived in Taipei. One of the lawmakers is the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Menendez, who in February proposed a bill that would require the US to negotiate the name change of the de facto Taipei embassy in Washington as the Representative Office. from Taiwan.

As part of the visit, a meeting with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen is scheduled for this Friday. The spokesman for the Presidential Office, Xavier Chang, specified that the congressmen's trip demonstrates the solid character of Washington-Taipei relations.

https://www.telesurtv.net/news/china-al ... -0006.html

Google Translator

**************************

Image

America COMPETES Act of 2022: A manifesto for a New Cold War
In this article, originally carried by CGTN, Keith Lamb argues that the America COMPETES Act of 2022, in which China is mentioned a staggering 666 times, and which now only awaits presidential approval following its passage in the House and Senate, amounts to a formal declaration of the New Cold War, not only against China but against the entire Global South.
The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act of 2022 has passed in the House and the Senate. It now only needs presidential approval to become law. If it is passed, it will mark the official start of a new Cold War against China and the Global South.

Importantly, the “America COMPETES Act of 2022” is actually the “United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021.” This is because, on March 28, the Senate voted to use the more belligerent text of the 2021 Act for the 2022 Act.

The United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, originally known under the imperial sounding “Endless Frontier Act,” was drawn up by those conditioned by the ideology of neoliberal imperialism, namely Senator Todd Young and Chuck Schumer. Schumer was a supporter of the illegal occupation of Iraq, and Young, an ex-naval officer with an MBA from the University of Chicago, one of the centers of neoliberal ideology, worked at the anti-China think tank “The Heritage Foundation.”

Of course, while it’s important to understand the background of those responsible for drawing up the America COMPETES Act of 2022, it is even more critical to analyze what it entails. Mainstream media has primarily focused on the billions in government funding that will be spent funding U.S. tech to compete with China. This has produced all manner of debates regarding whether it is the best way to compete.

For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies believes U.S. state spending will be unable to compete with China’s spending. It suggests that using the U.S. “traditional advantage” of connecting government grants with academic research and venture capital, within the context of market competition, is better than “China’s statist military-civil fusion national strategy.” However, this advice is redundant because its statist versus market dichotomy misconstrues the nature of both economies when it comes to technological development.

In terms of technological development, the U.S. has always had considerable state input into its market forces. Likewise, China has a vibrant market and growing academic prowess. The difference is that, due to ideology, the U.S. must emphasize the free market, even if monopolies predominate. As a case in point, Noam Chomsky, the left-wing academic, frequently cites how the computer industry was developed through state funding and then sold back to consumers. Furthermore, warfare, which is primarily carried out by state actors, highlights the interconnection of state forces in tech development.

Needless to say, the U.S. could not hope to seek hegemony over the 96 percent of the world’s population, outside its borders, without advanced weaponry, dependent on semiconductors. Thus, the U.S.’ undemocratic obsession with keeping the heights of technological advancement in the hands of the few explains why China’s rise is unacceptable.

The concern over China’s technological and military capacity is evident in the 2022 Act. However, it goes much further than just technological competition. It details how the U.S. plans to counter China’s rise and its cooperation with the rest of the Global South.

If passed into law, it will further step up the propaganda campaign against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and the Tibet Autonomous Region. This interference with China’s sovereignty can only raise already strained tensions.

Then, when it comes to cross-strait unification, the U.S. will seek to raise the Taiwan region’s presence and place U.S. “fellows” in Taiwan’s governing authority positions and civic institutions. For the act to assume Taiwan authorities would “take this order” raises the question of the nature of “capture” regarding those currently de facto governing the Taiwan region. Without a doubt, the insertion of “fellows” would negate any claim that Taiwan’s “democracy” acts for the people and would lead to the inflaming of East Asia.

Outside China, the U.S. seeks to counter the Belt and Road Initiative. However, its plans are about containing global cooperation rather than offering anything of substance in its place. For example, there is no grand developmental plan. How could there be? First, the U.S.’s infrastructure is in disarray. Second, the advancement of the “96 percent” would lead to them eventually having the military and technological capability to resist the U.S., which dominates through possessing superior technological capacities in the theater of war.

Consequently, this is not just a declaration of war against China; it is a declaration of war against all the “upstarts” in the Global South. Take Africa as an example. The act calls for an investigation into how China can exert so much “undue influence” on African governments, and it describes China’s lending measures as “predatory.” This demeans African people’s ability to reason and ignores the history of the chaos the neoliberal Washington Consensus wrought on the continent. In fact, Africans partner with China because they see unprecedented tangible developmental benefits.

The greater problem is that the America COMPETES Act of 2022 extends to countering China in every region of the world. No one is safe, including U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia, which is called into question over its nuclear energy cooperation with China. Terrifyingly, this could easily lead to a hot war, as technologically, the U.S. cannot compete with China when it comes to infrastructural development. However, the U.S. does have the technological capacity to fuel hot wars and destroy development. As such, should this act become law, the entirety of the Global South must raise its vigilance regarding the U.S. using its “traditional technological advantage,” which it seeks to maintain.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/04/05/a ... -cold-war/

Image

Book review: China’s Great Road – Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices
By John Ross, Praxis Press, 2021
Reviewed by Dr Jenny Clegg

Updated 09 April 2022: John Ross contacted us to note that the review incorrectly quoted him as describing Deng Xiaoping as “the greatest Marxist of all time”. This should have been “the world’s greatest economist.”
John Ross has, for some years now, been one of the most forceful advocates of the present Chinese road to socialism on the Western left. His ‘China’s Great Road’ (for which we held an online launch) presents his key arguments. In this detailed review, Dr Jenny Clegg, writer, China specialist, peace campaigner and Friends of Socialist China advisory group member, acknowledges Ross’s useful contribution to the debate, but also draws attention to what she considers its flaws, regarding both the complexities of China’s recent trajectory and the historical record of socialism under Stalin and Mao.
Introduction

Literature on China’s supposed ‘reversion to capitalism’, whether of the neoliberal or state-led kind, abounds. It has been argued over again that China’s success over the last four decades came as a result of its abandoning ideology for pragmatism so as to follow policies of ‘reform and opening up’. Either that or the wholesale embrace of markets unleashing the creativity of its individual capitalist entrepreneurs. John Ross, a Senior Fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Beijing’s Renmin University, swims hard against this tide in his book, China’s Great Road, arguing the exact opposite:that China’s remarkable achievements are the result, not of a reversal of Marxism, but in fact a return to basic Marxist tenets.

The book comprises a collection of recent articles, some originally published in Chinese, others in English, which makes for some repetition, but leaves no doubt as to the arguments. Ross’s aim is to persuade others on the international left to look seriously at China’s socialism and see what can be learnt from its success.

The book presents two key propositions.

The first, that China has achieved far more than any other country in history in improving the well-being of its people, is set out with the help of easy-to-read graphs. The evidence, as Ross shows, is all there in World Bank figures: China has lifted over 900 million people out of poverty, raising livelihoods and life expectancy at unprecedented rates, whilst exceeding every other economy in output, wage growth and household consumption over the last 30 years.

Ross’s second proposition, that these unparalleled achievements have been the result of policies inspired by and entirely in line with Marxism, is couched in theoretical discussion, engaging with the key economic ideas of not only of Marx and the Communist Party of China (CPC) but also of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. It is Ross’s contention that China’s development can be explained using familiar Western economic theories to make its success more accessible to wider audiences.

The target readership comprises two quite different but key constituencies of the left: progressives in Latin America, with whom Ross has had a long-term connection, whose perspectives are often shaped by a radical political economy influenced by Keynesian ideas; and the anti-globalisation left and workers’ movements, which have been sceptical of the apparent Dengist embrace of world capitalism. If he has some sympathy with the former, Ross reserves his most pointed criticism for the latter, whose view of socialism, seemingly based on the closed door national economic model as pursued by Stalin post-1929 and by China under Mao, he dismisses as ultra-leftism.

Marx, Smith and Keynes: state and market

For Ross, China’s support for globalisation is one of the most fundamental features of its Marxist economic policy. The world market, from China’s perspective, promotes interdependence among all countries towards a shared future.

Against the anti-globalisers, Ross explains the correlation between the openness of an economy to trade and its speed of economic development with the international division of labour serving as a key to prosperity for each country.

This involves a rather lengthy discourse on Marx and Smith to drive home the point that breaking down of the work process into smaller tasks increases the productive powers of labour. This division – or socialisation – of labour, intrinsically connected to expansion of the market, brings greater capital intensity and improvements in skills and technological development.

That labour division is the most powerful force of production and of human progress is the fundamental point Ross claims Deng Xiaoping was to grasp, in contrast with the ‘Soviet deviation’, by making support for globalisation a central feature of China’s Marxist economic policy. By joining global markets and entering the international process of the division of labour, Deng’s open door policy created new opportunities for China’s economic and technological development.

However, absent from Ross’s argument is any distinction between Smith and Marx on the matter of the market. As Michael Roberts points out in a recent blog, whilst Smith saw the accumulation of commodities produced for sale and profit as a measure of the wealth of nations, Marx was to contrast the accumulation of commodities in the private hands of the capitalist class with the accumulation of products as use values meeting human needs.

It is surely more with the needs of humanity in mind than the profits of global conglomerates that the CPC argues for the promotion of interdependence between countries through trade as the path to a common future.

Of course, market expansion in China took place on the basis of the state retaining ownership of a large-scale economic sector, as Ross goes on to make clear in the second aspect of his theoretical deliberations, focussing on the state’s ability to regulate the investment level.

Here he provides useful quotes from Xi Jinping, who explains that in China:

“The market plays a decisive role in allocating resources but is not the sole actor…. [the] role of the government is to maintain the stability of the macroeconomy, strengthen and improve public services, ensure fair competition, strengthen market oversight, maintain market order, promote sustainable development and common prosperity, and intervene in situations where market failure occurs.”

Xi goes on: “We must unswervingly consolidate and develop the public economy, persist in the leading role of public ownership, give full play to the leading role of state-owned economy and incessantly increase its vitality, leveraging power and impact.”

Ross highlights the superiority of China’s system over the crisis-ridden, slow-growth economies of the West as resting on its ability to control the level of fixed investment. His discussion at this point is directed to progressives in the developing world, whose economies have suffered from the worst of the West’s neoliberal instability.

His claim is that China’s success can be understood not only through a Marxist but also a Keynesian lens, since as he sees it the fact that China regulates its economy not via administrative means but by general macro-economic control of investments is just as Keynes advocated.

Like Marx, Ross argues, Keynes was concerned with the destabilising consequences of the growing proportion of economy going to investment as an economy develops. Much is made then of Keynes’ view that macro-economic instability in an advanced economy had ultimately to be addressed through “a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment”. This notion, Ross sees as having equivalence with China’s use of its state sector and state-owned banks to invest against business cycle shortfalls.

However, whilst the Chinese government certainly uses state investment counter-cyclically, there is far more to its management of the Chinese economy, not least the formulation of a plan directing investment to shape the course of the country’s future development

For Keynes, of course, the socialisation of investment was at most a short-term measure to kick start an economy falling into recession, not at all a first step towards the ultimate abolition of the law of value altogether. Keynes viewed the market as a neutral tool, a separate entity in which the government intervenes. However, from the Marxist perspective, the nature of the market is determined by the nature of the overall system of production: it is an economic mechanism interconnected with other social relations and institutions. The state-market relationship differs under different social systems: the socialist state puts the market supply and demand mechanism to use to help improve peoples’ livelihoods whereas for Keynes the purpose of state intervention was to fend off any major change to capitalism and to maintain high profits and the monopoly system.

Were Stalin and Mao ultra-Leftists?
Whilst Ross acknowledges China’s achievements post-1949 under Mao as ‘sensational’ – in the 31 years from 1949 to 1976, the year of Mao’s death, China’s life expectancy rose from 35 to 66 years – he reserves the greatest superlatives for Deng: the “world’s greatest economist”: “no one in history has ever combined such deep economic thinking with such successful economic policy”.

The largely nationally self-administered enclosed economies of the USSR post-1929 under Stalin and China under Mao, in their drive to socialise all productive capacity – ‘nationalising everything all at once’ – and then replacing market distribution with material balance planning, are seen by Ross as ultra-leftist deviations from Marxism. In the Communist Manifesto, he points out, Marx and Engels were to say that once the proletariat were in the ruling position they “will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie…”

Deng’s policies, he maintains, were “far more correct in Marxist terms”, noting in particular how his conception of the primary stage of socialism drew closely on Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, with its prescription on bourgeois right – from each according to his ability; to each according to his work.

However, to suggest that Stalin and Mao did not have a proper grasp of Marxism is, to put it mildly, a bit of a stretch.

In a paper delivered at the recent conference of the World Association for Political Economy (WAPE), Pateman shows that both Stalin and Mao were quite clear on Marx’s point that socialism, in its early stages, would inherit the commodity form from capitalism. In Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Stalin states that the law of value not only played a regulatory role in consumer goods markets but also had an influence on Soviet socialist production. Considerations of accounting and profitability, production costs and prices were all evidently important in the Soviet economy.

And Mao indeed was more than familiar with the operation of a market economy: he was to rise to leadership of the party in a struggle against the leftist suppression of private business in the Soviet base areas in the 1930s. Subsequently, between 1937 and1956, the CPC managed a market economy in a united front which included the national capitalists under the framework of New Democracy.

After 1956, Mao was to develop distinctive approaches under the five-year plan system, seeing the Soviet-style economic planning as over-centralised and bureaucratic, in danger of ‘squeezing the peasants too hard’.

But was his emphasis on moral over material incentives itself ultra-leftist? Again, Pateman sheds light here. Throughout his Critique of Soviet Economics, Mao reiterated his view of Stalin’s shortcomings in failing to take sufficient account of politics and ideology.

In his comments on the principle of ‘bourgeois right’, Mao stressed that whilst the second half of the formulation – payment according to work – addressed the question of economic incentives, the first half meant that workers had to contribute as much as they could in production ‘according to their ability’. By focussing only on economic incentives, Mao thought ‘socialist workers would not work as hard as their abilities permitted’.

From the abstract to the concrete
China after 1949 was presented with a completely different set of conditions from that of Stalin’s Soviet Union: even more isolated by the West, it was one of the poorest economies in the world. This left no choice other than self-reliance, particularly after the break with the Soviet Union. What the new government did have, however, was the support of the peasantry, the predominant part of the Chinese population, and Mao’s main concern was to maintain this support so as to transition as quickly as possible from New Democracy to socialism, bringing the national bourgeoisie who were liable to vacillation under control.

Mao was to take the route of ‘cooperation before mechanisation’, emphasising the CPC’s most important task was the education of peasants. Pateman points out Mao’s frustration with the Soviet emphasis on the role of machinery in promoting socialist development in the agricultural sphere. “Again and again”, Mao notes, the Soviet text “emphasises how important machinery is for the transformation. But if the consciousness of the peasantry is not raised, if ideology is not transformed, and you are depending on nothing but machinery — what good will it be?”

For Mao it was essential to imbue the peasants with a communist ideology in order to develop a socialist agriculture: without this, they would lack a positive, socialist, attitude to work and show little interest in making the most effective use of the technologies placed at their disposal.

Mao’s stance on ‘bourgeois right’ under socialism rose to the challenge of the seeming insurmountable difficulties China faced at that time. Self-reliance was made possible through a mass consciousness-raising to inspire the utmost from each individual according to their ability.

Critical to harnessing the energies of the workers and peasants in this way were practical policies to narrow the ‘three great divides’ between town and countryside, agriculture and industry, and mental and manual labour. Here in particular the introduction of industrial skills into the countryside so the peasant could see the benefits helped to counter the alienating effects of the accumulation of resources for rapid industrialisation, alleviating the ‘price scissors squeeze’ by raising the productivity of rural labour.

However, in 1979, the external circumstances changed fundamentally when the US announced its formal recognition of the PRC: it was this that made the open door policy possible. And China too was now ready for reform.

By this time the country was able to feed its population; it had a reasonably comprehensive industrial base in public hands which would benefit from gradual exposure to market competition; and its land system of collective village ownership would permit market expansion without peasant dispossession.

True, Mao made serious mistakes of political judgement in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, particularly through overestimating the class struggle. But had he not succeeded by putting ‘politics in command’ to lay this basis for future growth, Deng would not have been able to continue along the socialist road. China’s post 1979 success cannot be attributed, in Ross’s words, to Deng’s ‘profound theoretical understanding’ and ‘systematic application’ of Marxist principles alone.

Handling the contradictions

Whilst making tremendous progress since 1979, it has to be said that the reform and opening up process was by no means straightforward. Certainly the kind of ‘big bang’ that was so catastrophic for the post-Soviet Russian economy was avoided, but there were a series of ‘mini bangs’. At the end of the 1980s, dissatisfaction following a market deregulation which saw prices of meat and vegetables soar by over 30 percent, undoubtedly helped to fuel the huge demonstrations that occurred in the major cities, culminating in the tragedy of June 4 1989.

Then in the 1990s, the policy of ‘let go the small’, which Ross cites as a particular example of the ‘correct application of Marxism’, actually saw millions thrown out of work as large numbers of smaller state-owned enterprises closed down.

For Ross it seems China’s socialist economy has achieved the absolute standard of balance of public and private: in fact, the CPC has never taken the primary stage of socialism as the ideal and has never abandoned the long-term goal of the socialisation of the productive forces. At the same time, its embrace of globalisation is hardly as ‘unambiguous’ as Ross claims: a closer look shows that the Party has rather recognised economic globalisation as it exists under world capitalism as a ‘double-edged sword’, a route to growing social productivity, but also a mechanism for unequal exchange between the less and the more productive economies of the world.

Whilst Ross’s discussion tends to lack a critical edge, mentioning only in passing China’s continuing problems, the CPC itself has been far more discerning in identifying serious risks and challenges. In 2007, the then premier, Wen Jiabao, called the Chinese economy ‘unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable’; and now Xi Jinping has set about reducing the power of the capitalists so as to address growing inequality. Criticising previous laxity, he has begun to rein in the tech giants, curb real estate speculation, and re-emphasise the role of the state sector in the interests of working towards common prosperity.

Meanwhile a new ‘dual circulation’ policy seeks a better balance between the internal and external markets, stemming the drain of millions of hours of unpaid labour out to the centres of world capitalism.

Ross’s failure to weigh the costs of this progress, balancing the advances in living standards to the growing inequalities, long working hours and exploitative and substandard working conditions, may well fall short in winning over those on the left he sets out to convince.

Conclusion

As Ross shows, China’s reform and opening up was not an NEP-style step back in adverse circumstances, but rather the basis for a new advance towards developed socialism. Expressed in a bold and straightforward fashion, Ross’s arguments make key lessons from China’s socialist experience easily accessible. But here there is also a tendency to oversimplify. By treating market and state as abstractions separate from historical conditions, he cannot grasp at the real contradictory dynamics that have shaped this development.

What explains the Chinese success is the path of its revolution. Materialism demands an understanding of theory in practice, but this is a book engaged in left conceptual debate rather than China’s concrete experience of socialist development. As to how exactly the CPC managed the transition from plan to market, how China integrated into the global economy without losing its own direction, and how it handled the new challenges and contradictions which arose, the reader must look elsewhere.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/04/04/b ... practices/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Apr 16, 2022 2:50 pm

Image

“Chinese Exclusion Act 2.0”
Originally published: Peoples Voice by Cindy Li (March 31, 2022 ) - Posted Apr 15, 2022

Last April, the Toronto Star ran a hit piece on Bill Yee, a retired provincial court judge and a member of BC’s Chinese-Canadian Community Advisory Committee. Yee had stated in an interview on A-1, a Toronto-based Cantonese radio station, that the Canadian response to the Uyghur situation in China is not based on facts.

The polemic–complete with a giant, looming photo of Yee–was alarming in its clear intent to smear an individual for his opinion. Authors Joanna Chiu and Jeremy Nuttall argued that Yee is unqualified to hold his employment position due to his skepticism towards the highly questionable claims of Uyghur genocide. Cherie Wong, one of the individuals interviewed for the piece and the Executive Director of Alliance Canada Hong Kong, directly accused Yee of “repeating the same talking points” as the Communist Party of China. Chiu and Nuttall even pulled out a quote from 1993 in which Yee suggested there may be another “perspective” to the Tiananmen Square protests.

This story was similar to the case of Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian-American computer engineering professor who was indicted in February, 2003 on seventeen counts under the U.S. Patriot Act. Al-Arian worked for decades to promote dialogue between the West and the Middle East, particularly on the plight of the Palestinians, and was interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor under the ruse of discussing Arab-American reactions to the September 11 attacks. Bill O’Reilly confronted Al-Arian about comments against Israel which he had made 13 years prior, accused him of “jihadism” and calling for the CIA to shadow him. The fallout from this included death threats to Al-Arian and his 2003 indictment and subsequent 10 years of house arrest. While the charges were dropped, he was deported to Turkey in 2015.

Within days of Chiu and Nuttall’s hit piece, Bill Yee received so much negative fallout that he announced he would not seek reappointment to the Advisory Committee. A pressure campaign led by 13 prominent Chinese-Canadian activists called to have Yee removed from the board of the Chinese Canadian Museum. The group, which seems intent on Yee’s complete banishment and joblessness, argues that such appointees must have a “track record of allegiance to Canada, upholding Canadian values of human rights and justice, providing independent opinion on community issues rather than becoming a mouth-piece for a foreign regime.”

Appeals to “Canadian values” and pearl-clutching over “foreign influence” are notions that have become increasingly normalized in this new Cold War against China. This is similar to the 1950s McCarthyite era when academics and cultural workers lost their livelihood or were exiled over perceived associations with communism and against “American values.”

The West has always had a complicated relationship with China. Who can forget the exploited Chinese labourers who built the first transcontinental railroads in North America? Or the Chinese Exclusion Act which banned Chinese immigration? The relationship has long been an unequal one in which China is a piece of land to be divided and conquered and its people a perennial source of cheap labour and cheaper goods.

As China grew after the 1949 revolution from an impoverished and colonized country into an economic and political power, Western imperialism determined that something would have to be done to put it back in its place. This manifested in many ways including weaponizing human rights discourse (with respect to Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan) as well as intensifying construction of U.S. and allied military bases around the Chinese mainland (the “Pivot to Asia”). After Huawei did the unspeakable and breached unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran, Canada stepped in and helped Trump illegally arrest its Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. All along there have been explicit and implied allegations and insinuations of China as being inherently untrustworthy, “rogue” and breaching “rules-based” societies.

And then came COVID-19.

Just as 9/11 turbocharged Western Islamophobia, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a tsunami of anti-China propaganda and vitriol which was always quietly simmering beneath the surface of polite Western society. The current torrent of hate and prejudice has not just targeted the Communist Party of China but has had far-reaching effects on random Chinese-passing East and Southeast Asian people in Western countries.

As early as March 2020, members of the Chinese diaspora reported attacks and verbal assaults about “going back to China” in the streets of U.S. and Canadian cities. One woman in New York had acid thrown on her face while taking out the trash. Countless others were accused of causing the virus, being “CCP agents” or “evil” communists. Some were spat or coughed on, and Asian shop owners reported instances of violence and racist comments from customers.

This state-backed hate campaign against everything Chinese swelled to a fever pitch in 2021. In Orange County alone, anti-Asian hate incidents increased by an estimated 1,200 percent. Increasingly, the victims were women and seniors from the working class or living in poverty. In March 2021, a gunman targeted a series of Asian spas in Atlanta and murdered eight people including six Asian women workers. A 61-year-old Chinese man in New York died after being head-stomped while collecting recyclables for money. A 36-year-old Hmong woman was brutally gang-raped and beaten to death in Milwaukee. A 61-year-old Filipino-American man was slashed in the face with a box cutter in Brooklyn. An 89-year-old Chinese woman was set on fire in Brooklyn. A 65-year-old Filipino woman was beaten outside a hotel in Manhattan. An 83-year-old man and a 79-year-old woman were violently assaulted in Oakland, separately, by the same man. Most of these victims were walking to or from work, all were alone, and all were attacked in broad daylight.

In the midst of all this were daily articles in the media that can only be described as the “Xinjiang atrocity exhibition.” Reports from U.S. intelligence, weapons-industry-funded think tanks and CIA cutouts like the NED alleged wildly inconsistent stories that only grew more and more ridiculous. Most of them came from evangelical anti-communist Adrian Zenz, who contrived the infamous “one million Uyghurs in concentration camps” narrative based on approximations from only eight people. Most of the supporting documents consisted of misattributed photographs, satellite images of random buildings and witness testimonies from Langley-based (CIA) and U.S. State Department-funded Uyghur activists.

Alongside these stories are other “China-bad” narratives. These include Nigel Farage’s statements that China needs to pay reparations to the UK for COVID-19, the “China as the perpetual thief of intellectual property from the West” trope, assertions that “China is paying Uyghurs to look happy during Eid in Urumqi” and the absurd “China is ‘colonizing’ Hong Kong.” More recently, this includes revamping and refueling the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 is the result of the Wuhan virology lab leak. A Pew Research survey released in March, 2021 showed that 66 percent of Americans hold unfavourable views of China compared to 47 percent in 2018. The share of Americans who give China the lowest possible rating of zero has nearly tripled from nine percent in 2018 to around 24 percent in 2021. A Nanos Research poll found that nearly seven out of 10 people in Canada oppose deepening business ties with the Chinese government and nearly 87 percent support Canada joining with the United States, Britain and Australia “to contain China’s growing power.”

What further complicates the matter is that hate crimes are incredibly difficult to prove and even harder to link to a particular propaganda narrative. Many of the previously mentioned attacks seem to have been perpetrated by those who are themselves at the margins of society: individuals who are houseless, have a history of prior arrests or struggle with mental health issues. The inaction of the U.S. government during the pandemic to support millions of newly unemployed or evicted Americans who also lost their health insurance has undoubtedly had a massive impact on petty crime, robberies and random acts of assault. While the economic recession is a huge trigger for the rise in crime overall, it could be argued that having a powerful state and corporate propaganda machine which scapegoats a visible minority is what led to Asians becoming the ideal target. How many more instances of hateful attacks have occurred which the media never reported on due to the tendency of diaspora Asians to underreport racism and crime?

Within the Pew study, it is notable that among those with unfavourable views of China, the difference between Democrats (62 percent) and Republicans (72 percent) is only 10 points. Anti-China hate is a bipartisan issue. The only way it differs is how it is manifested. On the right, people like Republican Marsha Blackburn rant that Chinese civilization has a 5,000-year history of “cheating and stealing” and Republican Senator Tom Cotton states that all mainland Chinese students should be banned from the U.S.. Among centrist and liberal Democrats, it is common to find allegations of China being akin to Nazi Germany. They also throw around wild and unverified allegations of forced labour, organ harvesting, forced sterilization and human experimentation. In Canada, the NDP broke from the norm to join Erin O’Toole’s Conservative Party in declaring the Uyghur experience in China a “genocide.” Even the oft-praised independent journalist Glenn Greenwald continues to push the Wuhan virology lab leak conspiracy.

No matter what the accusation from the center is, it is always grounded in the classic bleeding-heart liberal notions of human rights. This is a liberal, imperialist tactic that has been weaponized time and time again including through the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect and “humanitarian intervention.” But what makes this situation different from those of Iraq and Afghanistan is that China is a world power and an economic threat to Western hegemony. As such, Western media presents China as an oppressive colonial power, no different from the British or American empires (“Neither Washington Nor Beijing”) with NATO propagandists often projecting the West’s own imperialist crimes onto China.

Despite the fact that Asians have recently outpaced Black Americans as the group facing the greatest income inequality, Chinese and Asian diaspora continue to be labeled white-adjacent, privileged, wealthy and having little experience with oppression. This is how people convince themselves they are not being racist when they cast all 1.4 billion people in China and all 7 million Chinese diaspora in Canada and the U.S. as foot soldiers of the Communist Party of China when they reject western propaganda.

On social media, it has become increasingly commonplace for people who are skeptical of Western anti-China propaganda to be labeled “wumao,” brainwashed, a spy, a bot or someone who should be deported. Only those who hate the Communist Party of China are telling the “truth,” while everyone else is forced to say nice things with a gun pointed to their heads. On YouTube and Twitter, all Chinese state media is blatantly labeled as such. Western state media like the CBC and BBC–which are literally funded by their respective governments–do not on the other hand bear the same label. It is no wonder that some online commenters have referred to this as the Chinese Exclusion Act 2.0.

https://mronline.org/2022/04/15/chinese ... n-act-2-0/

***********************

Alarmism About China Distracts from Ongoing Western Imperialism
By Chris Kasper de Ploeg - April 15, 2022

Image

West projecting its own image onto China when labeling it imperialist

According to many Western commentators—from the center-left to the far-right—China is the major threat to democracy, climate, peace and sovereignty in the 21st century. It is an issue where Donald Trump and Joe Biden are completely aligned. On the other side of the Atlantic too, Nigel Farage and Keir Starmer are closing ranks behind a sinophobic story-line.

Supposedly “critical” voices add that the Chinese behaviour “is not that different from the European imperialism of the 16th to 19th century.” And so the West projects its own image onto China. In reality, the alarmism surrounding China distracts from the ongoing Western imperialism that still holds the greatest power on the world stage.

Western powers remain dominant

It is true that China, a country of 1.4 billion inhabitants, has become the largest economy in the world. But there is a great deal of nuance to be added to that statement. For instance, foreign multinational corporations dominate 40% of the Chinese domestic market and even capture 53% of the added value within the Chinese export market. In the age of multinationals, GDP is clearly not a good parameter for measuring economic power.

A study looking at the profits of the 2,000 largest corporations in 2013 confirmed that U.S. multinationals continued to dominate 12 corporate sectors (reaping over 40% of total profits); Japan dominated one sector and China zero.

The same pattern holds for the total wealth of countries. In 2020, the Global North still owned 71% of global assets whilst China owned 17.9%, almost exactly the same as its share of the world population. In other words, Western power has not so much declined as it has globalized.

Exploiting the Global South

More important than the size of the economy is its structure. The most significant mechanisms for extracting rents from the Global South are illegal financial flows, profit repatriation by multinationals and unequal trade, totaling about $3 trillion of stolen wealth every year.

By comparison: That is 20 times the annual development aid that rich countries “donate,” but in reality abuse, for political influence at the UN and for deals surrounding fishing rights and deadly border controls. In all three financial flows, China is a victim not an exploiter.[1]

If we look at foreign investments, China is equally irrelevant. In 2018, China suffered a net loss of $63 billion in foreign investment, meaning that China lost more to foreign investors than it gained from its own investments abroad. On all seven continents, the Global North as a whole remains the largest foreign investor.

The military threat of the West

Western countries have an estimated 935 military bases in other countries and colonies. China has eight, even if we include its bases in the South China Sea. Outside of its own region, China has only one military base—in Djibouti, where there are also American, French, Japanese, Italian and Saudi-Arabian military installations.

Yet the West is directly threatening China. The United States and the United Kingdom have 290 military bases encircling China and the U.S. is threatening with a nuclear “first-strike capability.” The military budget of NATO is $1.2 trillion, six times that of China. So who is actually threatening whom here?

Image
U.S. military bases around China, and world. [Source: inf.news]

The West is the biggest claimant of debts

The Western press loves to repeat that China is “the largest bilateral creditor” to developing countries. But that is an utterly meaningless statement. In 2020, according to World Bank data, China had $171 billion in outstanding debts with low and middle income countries. Rich countries and the multilateral banks where they have a majority stake (the IMF, World Bank, ADB and IADB) had a total combined debt claim that was almost ten times bigger—$1,100 billion.

More importantly, the private sector—which demands vastly higher interest rates—was responsible for an even greater sum: $2,825 billion in outstanding loans and bonds. The ten largest private creditors in the Global South are all banks and investment funds located in Western Europe and the United States. So who is really driving the debt crisis?

Debt imperialism

An oft-heard accusation against China is that it abuses its loans to confiscate harbors and other sovereign assets in low-income countries. Yet a comprehensive investigation by Johns Hopkins University of more than a thousand Chinese loan commitments between 2000 and 2019 found the accusation to be patently untrue. China never even went to a judge to demand payment, let alone confiscate sovereign assets.

Compare that with reality: one French billionaire who single-handedly controls 16 harbors in West Africa and 12 African countries that are still using a French-controlled currency. Can the real imperialists please stand up?

Multiple studies have shown that Chinese loans are often used as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank. These Western-dominated banks do actually make harsh demands when they lend out money, mostly surrounding budget cuts in health care, education and social welfare.

In many cases the Chinese loans actually help low and middle-income countries evade Western pressure. Chinese finance and trade, for example, was crucial for the Pink Tide in Latin America, when several left and anti-imperialist governments made major strides in the eradication of poverty. That is the real story behind the so-called “debt-trap diplomacy.”

Image
[Source: devex.com]

Western coups and electoral interference

There is also a perception that China, contrary to the West, does not make any demands on human rights and democracy when it comes to diplomatic and financial support. That is partially true, because China has an official policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The silver lining, of course, is that China also does not bomb or overthrow other governments to bring “freedom and democracy.”

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has attempted to overthrow 71 foreign governments and has interfered in 81 foreign elections, the latter already before the turn of the millenium. And such practices have certainly not ended. CIA agents brag about them openly.

The list of foreign electoral interventions between 1946 and 2000 comes from a comprehensive study by Dov Levin. The list of (attempted) coups since WW2 comes from William Blum based on his book Killing Hope. To that list I added Turkey (1980), Burkina Faso (1987) Azerbaijan (1993), Palestine (2006-7), Bolivia (2008), Ecuador (2010), Paraguay (2012), Brazil (2016), Nicaragua (2018), Bolivia (2019) and Venezuela (ongoing).

Image
[Source: sundial.csun.edu]

Conversely, against China there are only five “accusations”—often with very little evidence—of foreign electoral interference and China has not overthrown any government, with the exception of Tibet. When it comes to respecting the sovereignty of other countries, China is clearly doing a better job.

The United States is the biggest threat to democracy

Furthermore, the idea that the West values human rights and democracy simply does not align with the facts. The United States has military ties to 74% of all dictators around the world. And mind you: That is based on the categorization of Freedom House, a notoriously pro-American think tank that is almost completely funded by the U.S. government.

Image
Joe Biden with Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in October 2011. [Source: cnn.com]

Even the closest allies of the United States—with a mutual defense agreement, such as NATO—have been responsible for a disproportionate decline in democracy over the last ten years, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

It is no wonder that a global survey last year found that the United States is perceived as the biggest threat to democracy.

The Chinese people do not want Western meddling

Various academic studies—from Western universities such as Harvard—have shown that the Chinese government enjoys overwhelming support among the Chinese people, more than 95 percent. That is vastly superior to all Western countries and not actually that surprising.

Image
[Source: scmp.com]

The Chinese government has lifted 620 million people out of poverty since 1981—based on an “ethical poverty line” of 7.40 dollars a day—whilst the number of people in poverty elsewhere has increased by 1.3 billion.

Image
[Source: bbc.com]

The zero-Covid strategy of China—so often dismissed as an authoritarian show of force in the West—also enjoys enormous support. China has the lowest covid death rate in the world. Even in absolute terms, China has one-seventh the number of deaths than Belgium, a country of little more than 11 million people.

Because of its targeted and proactive policies only a little more than one in five Chinese people have endured a lockdown. And this was often for a limited amount of time. The longest lockdown of a major city was in Wuhan, where the pandemic began, and lasted for two months.

Image
[Source: axios.com]

Living standards in China have continued to climb, even during the pandemic. That is why China is one of the few countries with a mortality deficit during the pandemic. A major achievement that is also combined with large-scale exports of vaccines to low and middle-income countries, leaving Western Covid aid completely in the dust.

If you follow the news about China, you might get the idea the the population needs to be saved by the West. But that is complete nonsense. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Chinese people view the West as a threat.

Sanctions are insincere, brutal and counterproductive

Of course, none of this means that China does not abuse human rights, especially against a number of minorities. But the Western condemnation of a (cultural) genocide in Xinjiang—a severe accusation that is questioned by experts—has absolutely nothing to do with the otherwise very real oppression of the Uyghurs.

In Yemen a physical genocide has been unfolding since 2015—fully perpetrated with Western arms—already with 259,000 murdered children under the age of five, primarily starved by a humanitarian blockade and systematic bombardments against civilian targets. That is a genocide that could stop tomorrow, if only there were enough political will in Europe and the United States. The West’s supposed “concern” for human rights is a complete farce.

Image
[Source: melgurtov.com]

Nearly all countries that do not receive military support, training or weapons from the United States are sanctioned. It is a brutal method that has already killed an estimated 100,000 people in Venezuela. Yet sanctions are also counterproductive, because the anger of the population logically turns against a clear external enemy.

According to a comprehensive study of 115 sanction regimes, “external pressure is more likely to enhance the nationalist legitimacy of rulers than to undermine it.” Sanctions are clearly not humanitarian interventions. They are better understood as a collective punishment (a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention) against any country that refuses to submit to Western hegemony.

Colonization of the atmosphere
Just as important as the economic colonization of the Global South, is the colonization of the atmosphere. Because of the enormous greenhouse gas emissions emanating from the Global North, low and middle-income countries have very little space to improve their living standards. A recent study in Nature confirmed that the Global North was responsible for 92% of the climate catastrophe that is engulfing the planet.

The study uses a simple method: Every country has a right to the same amount of emissions in proportion to its average population size since 1850. If you go over your fair share, you have a climate debt. Based on a 1.5 degrees carbon budget—in line with the Paris accords—China will likely never exceed its fair share. Most Western countries, on the other hand, exceeded their fair share decades ago.

In 2018 the IPCC of the UN determined that a maximum of 580 Gton of CO2 could be emitted to stand a decent chance (50%) of not exceeding 1.5 degrees of warming. The Indian scientists Jayaraman and Kanitkar subsequently calculated when the Global North should achieve zero emissions to stay within their fair share of that remaining budget, discarding for the moment all previous emissions.

Based on these calculations Jayaraman and Kanitkar came up with the year 2025 for the United States, 2031 for Japan and 2033 for the European Union. These power blocs—to this day—have much higher per capita emissions than the rest of the world. Regardless, they have all set their carbon neutrality targets at 2050.

Image
[Source: rollingstone.com]

The historic climate debt preceding 2018 can subsequently be paid off through climate finance for the Global South. Based on a $135 carbon price—the minimum for achieving 1.5 degrees of warming, according to the IPCC—the rich G7 countries have a climate debt of $114 trillion, provided they fulfill the ambitious targets of the Indian scientists.

Oxfam research shows that G7 countries provided only $17.5 billion in climate support in 2017-18. At that rate, we will have paid off our debts by the year 6500, when the planet is long cooked. So who is really responsible for the climate catastrophe?

Western imperialism is still the issue

Compared to the Global North, China remains a relatively poor country. Its per capita GDP lies between that of Botswana, Suriname, the Dominican Republic and Thailand. This makes the constant Western finger-pointing at China, seemingly for every problem in the world, all the more perverse.

The facts show: Even in an absolute sense, the West still has the most financial, economic and military power. The West supports most dictatorships, overthrows most governments and interferes in the most foreign elections. The West is complicit in genocide, colonizes the atmosphere and punishes any country that refuses to bow to its dictates.

The International People’s Assembly has issued a comprehensive plan to challenge this global medical, financial and food apartheid. Join them. And do not let the alarmism surrounding China distract you. The fight for a just world begins at home and nowhere else.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/0 ... perialism/

**********************

Image

Ian Goodrum: Shanghai’s situation is grim, but Omicron is not ‘unstoppable’
We are pleased to republish this insightful article by Ian Goodrum in China Daily discussing the recent Covid-19 outbreak in Shanghai and questioning the logic and motives of those in the West claiming that China’s dynamic Zero Covid strategy is unsustainable.
b]

There’s no denying Shanghai is going through hard times.

As a local COVID-19 outbreak has grown there, so have the measures to keep it in check. Residents in some areas have been in lockdown for weeks, and the whole city has been at a standstill since the beginning of the month. Daily case counts there have eclipsed the peaks in Wuhan at the start of the pandemic, and the city has yet to see a drop for several days. At present, tens of thousands of new cases are being reported every 24 hours. We can only hope those figures start to change and the city can overcome this dark moment together.

But along with these troubling numbers come familiar refrains from a chorus we know all too well. Just as they did in previous waves, corporate media outlets are practically foaming at the mouth in their rush to declare the end of China’s zero-COVID policy. We heard this with last year’s Delta variant, we heard it as Omicron began its reign as the dominant strain, we’ve heard it since the enormity of the US and Europe’s epidemic control failure was impossible to ignore. They’ve been singing the same tune for so long the record’s not just broken, it’s fused to the phonograph.

As always, these people are either willfully ignorant or pushing an agenda, and that’s a distinction without a difference these days. Yes, the situation in Shanghai is dire, but China is a big country. There are plenty of cities that have had their own Omicron outbreaks but made it through with minimal consequences. Shenzhen, for example — an international hub in its own right and a massive population center — nipped Omicron in the bud with an early lockdown and a mass mobilization of personnel to handle testing and supply delivery. Qingdao, Tianjin, Dongguan and many other places have been able to tamp down this supposedly unavoidable variant with relative ease.

Meanwhile, virologists and epidemiologists based in the West are on the verge of tearing their hair out. Despite their warnings, an apparent mass delusion is taking hold of populations there, spurred by governments, corporations and media that want a return to business as usual. Now that danger to the wealthy has dropped to practically nil, and those most vulnerable to infection have been pushed back to work in face-to-face service jobs by the expiration of pandemic benefits, it’s been decided oh-so-conveniently that COVID is over.

But as it turns out, viruses don’t care if you want them to stop spreading. The notion Omicron was a pandemic off-ramp, and a “let ‘er rip” strategy —a laissez-faire attitude toward the virus that amounted to holding nationwide chicken pox parties —the best way forward have yet to be vindicated. We don’t have conclusive data yet on the length of immunity Omicron confers, or whether it can reliably prevent reinfection.

Everything we know about this virus tells us vigilance should remain our watchword, so declaring victory against the pandemic feels like a “Mission Accomplished”-style act of desperation to spin the narrative. It’s happened before; remember last July 4, when US President Joe Biden celebrated a “summer of freedom”? That embarrassing incident was consigned to the memory hole not long after, once the country saw its worst-ever infection numbers and a catastrophic daily death toll.

While this latest infection wave seems to be on the ebb, we don’t know what the future holds. New variants and subvariants threaten to shuffle everything back to square one, and the risk of “long COVID” — lasting symptoms which can debilitate even the vaccinated for months — shouldn’t be taken lightly. I for one value having functional lungs, and it would be fair to say the people of China do too.

It may be inconvenient to keeping the money train rolling, but if public health is to be preserved politics must follow the science and not the other way around. To that end, policies should make hewing to best practices as smooth as possible. Testing should be free along with vaccination to make sure cases are caught early and those who do get infected are less likely to develop severe symptoms. And when viral spread makes lockdown essential, those unable to work should not be made to worry over a lack of necessary supplies, nor a loss of income or housing.

It’s that uncertainty and fear that’s led to so many believing what they’re told about this pandemic, including conspiracies about a “lab leak” or “Chinese cover-up”. When people have no choice but to endanger their lives to avoid unemployment or homelessness, they become fertile ground for bad actors sowing doubt and misinformation. Rather than accept the reality their societies have failed them — or worse, treated them as disposable in the interest of jump-starting economic growth — they retreat to comfortable fictions about countries they’ve already been conditioned to despise.

The situation in Shanghai shows us how easily things can get out of hand, but China as a whole shows us Omicron is far from unbeatable. We have a tool kit built over years of experience, and thus far it has proven to work even against variants corporate media have called inevitable. But it is still too early to throw open the proverbial doors by declaring an end to zero-COVID, dynamic or otherwise. Until a critical mass of people — particularly the immunocompromised and the elderly — have received the three doses necessary to reduce risk of hospitalization or death to a manageable percentage, a “live with it” strategy will become a “die with it” strategy in record time.

China will only have one chance to open up, and we’ve seen what happens when countries get it wrong — hundreds of thousands, even millions of preventable deaths. Such grim statistics should be cause for mass outrage, but western mainstream media has managed to normalize this shocking state of affairs to a disturbing degree. The New York Times called 100,000 dead Americans an “incalculable loss” in May 2020, with 1,000 of their names taking up its entire front page. When that number had gone up nine times this February, what did that same newspaper run as its headline? “900,000 Dead, but Many Americans Move On.” The story didn’t even make it above the fold.

It is profoundly immoral to demand human lives be sacrificed at the altar of profit, and that’s precisely what calls for a 180-degree reversal of policy in China amount to. Just because the advanced capitalist economies have priced hundreds or thousands of excess deaths per day into the cost of doing business doesn’t make it right.

So many have sacrificed to prevent the virus’ spread in China, especially the medical workers and volunteers who have joined the front lines of pandemic control time and again. They are in Shanghai now, doing their utmost to stop this new outbreak. We dishonor them with complacency and callous language about an “unstoppable” variant we need to “live with”, which is surrender by another name.

They’re not giving up. Neither should we.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/04/12/i ... stoppable/

**********************************

Genetic resource rules to have wide impact
By ZHANG ZHIHAO | CHINA DAILY | Updated: 2022-04-15 07:42

Image
[Photo/IC]

China's new rules in the pipeline on human genetic resources will clarify jurisdictions of regulatory bodies and enhance supervision related to biopharmaceutical research, and will have a lasting impact on international cooperation regarding the nation's biomaterials, experts said.

Last month, the Ministry of Science and Technology released the draft implementation rules for human genetic resources management. The proposal, now in its public consultation phase, will be a major addition to China's regulation of human genetic resources following the adoption of the Biosecurity Law and the Data Security Law, both of which took effect last year.

Academia has deemed the 21st century as "the century of biology", given the fact that biology plays a key role in tackling global challenges such as pandemic prevention, food security and treatment of cancer. New technologies including artificial intelligence and big data are also being used to drive biological innovations.

Therefore, the new rules may help China mitigate risks and promote the healthy development of its biopharmaceutical sector, making its companies and products more competitive and in tune with international standards, experts said.

Chu Jiayou, former director of the Institute of Medical Biology of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said China's biopharmaceutical research has advanced rapidly in recent years, so there is a massive need for human genetic resources during drug development.

According to a report by McKinsey & Co last year, the combined market value of publicly listed Chinese biopharmaceutical companies on Nasdaq, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the Shanghai Stock Exchange Science and Technology Innovation Board surged from $3 billion in 2016 to over $380 billion in July last year.

However, some entities have used human genetic materials to conduct risky and even illegal research, so protecting human genetic resources will play a key role in safeguarding the rights of individuals and national biosecurity, Chu told a newspaper affiliated with the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

In recent decades, the United States, Brazil, Japan and many European countries have strengthened their management of human genetic resources. "This subject has gradually become a field with global strategic importance," he added.

China's new rules define human genetic resources as genetic materials, including organs, tissues and cells, as well as genetic information, such as the human genome and genes.

The new rules state that foreign organizations and individuals, as well as entities formed or controlled by foreign stakeholders, are prohibited from collecting and preserving Chinese human genetic resources inside China or taking them outside of the country.

The collection, storage and supply of Chinese human genetic resources must be carried out by Chinese scientific research institutions, universities, medical institutions and enterprises, it added.

According to British law firm Simmons & Simmons, the new rules may affect China's international cooperation in biomedical research, since it will grant the country's Ministry of Science and Technology significantly increased capacity and efficiency in processing project applications related to human genetic resources.

The new rules also clarify the definition of a foreign controlled entity as an organization in which foreigners hold more than 50 percent of equity or wield major influence over decision-making, internal management and contractual or other arrangements.

Data security related to human genetic resources is strongly emphasized in the draft rules. The proposal also dedicates a chapter to the procedures for administrative penalties.

The proposed new rules have fleshed out many details of the regulatory framework on human genetic resources that was issued in 2019 by the State Council, China's Cabinet, according to a chief scientist of a Tianjin-based biotech company who requested anonymity.

"It is a very instructive and meticulous piece of regulation that will have a lasting impact on how bio-research will be conducted in China and with global partners," the scientist said.

"Bio-ethics regarding human genetic research has always been a pressing issue for the global biotechnology sector. I believe China's latest effort to optimize its management of human genetic resources will ensure the positive growth of its bio-industry."

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 57129.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:19 pm

China denounces violation of human rights in the US.

Image
According to Wang Wenbin, 93.7 percent of Muslim Americans suffer from Islamophobia. | Photo: @IramsyteleSUR
Published April 18, 2022 (15 hours 29 minutes ago)

"USA. is becoming a country where human rights are systematically violated," the Chinese spokesman said.

The spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, denounced on Monday the constant violations of human rights by the United States (USA) in the world, as well as its lack of morality when referring to International Law.

"USA. is becoming a country where human rights are systematically violated, the US has no right to point fingers at human rights in other countries”, and must “seriously think about how to solve the root problem of the deterioration of the situation of human rights”, insisted the diplomat.

Insisting on Washington's systematic practice against people's rights, Wang Wenbin said that China is concerned about manifestations of racial discrimination, firearms crimes and violence by US police forces, which were classified as "systematic problems".


"The only developed country where mass shootings have occurred every year for the past 20 years is the United States," said the Chinese official, who also added that the country reports the highest rate of gun violence in the world.

According to Wang Wenbin, 93.7 percent of Muslim Americans suffer from Islamophobia, 81 percent of Asian American adults believe that stigma and violence against them continues to increase.


In relation to Hispanics, who make up 19 percent of the US population, China's spokesman warns that they alone have 2 percent of the country's wealth. On racial discrimination, only 22 percent of Americans believe that police forces behave equally towards all people.

https://www.telesurtv.net/news/china-de ... -0026.html

Google Translator

**************************************

China signs security pact with Solomons
By ZHAO JIA | CHINA DAILY | Updated: 2022-04-20 07:03

Agreement is based on normal exchanges, cooperation between two sovereign states

China confirmed on Tuesday the official signing of a security pact with the Solomon Islands, and warned that any attempt to disrupt Beijing's cooperation with Pacific island countries is doomed to fail.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said at a daily news briefing that the foreign ministers of the two countries had officially signed an intergovernmental framework agreement on security cooperation, which is not targeted at any third party and conforms to the shared interests of the Solomon Islands and the South Pacific region.

The nature of the agreement is normal exchanges and cooperation between the two sovereign and independent states, Wang said.

He underlined that security cooperation aims at promoting social stability and long-term peace in the Solomon Islands, it follows the principles of equality and mutual benefit and it is based on respecting the will and actual needs of the Solomon Islands.

The two sides will cooperate in the fields of maintaining social order, protecting people's lives and property, humanitarian assistance and responding to natural disasters, according to Wang.

He added that Beijing is committed to helping the Pacific island nation strengthen its capacity building to safeguard national security.

Noting that security cooperation between China and the Solomon Islands is open, transparent, and inclusive, Wang said it runs parallel to and complements the existing bilateral and multilateral security cooperation mechanisms in the Solomon Islands.

China is willing to work with relevant countries to give full play to their respective advantages and form international synergy, Wang added.

The signing of the agreement comes as the White House is sending a high-level delegation to the Solomon Islands this week to discuss its so-called China security concerns, as well as to consider the reopening of the US embassy in Honiara, which has been closed for 29 years.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Fiji in February, the first such visit by a US secretary of state to the Pacific island nation in 37 years.

Wang called the sudden visits to the Pacific island countries into question. "Are they concerned about the island countries, or do they have other motives?"

"The Pacific island countries are not someone's 'backyard', still less a pawn in a geopolitical confrontation," he said, adding that they have actual needs in terms of diversifying their external cooperation and also have the right to independently choose their cooperative partners.

There is no audience in Pacific island countries for deliberately hyping up tensions and provoking bloc confrontation, he added.

Noting that China is always a builder of peace and a promoter of stability in the South Pacific region, Wang slammed the US and other countries for smearing China, saying that it would be more appropriate to attach the label of damaging regional security to those countries.

Certain countries, including the US, have fostered the development of the so-called "AUKUS", a trilateral security cooperation framework among Washington, London and Canberra, that brings the risk of nuclear proliferation and a Cold War mentality to the South Pacific region, and severely threatens security and stability in the region, Wang added.

The government of the Solomon Islands has paid great attention to its cooperation with China. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare told its Parliament in late March that the backlash against his country's security negotiations with China was "very insulting".

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 57eeb.html

************************************

Image

Solomon Islands: A Risky Move Out From Under Western Control
April 18, 2022
By Brian Berletic – Apr 7, 2022

The Solomon Islands are in the process of cementing into place a security pact with China. According to an alleged leaked draft, this pact includes provisions allowing the Solomon Islands to request the presence of Chinese police and military personnel to “assist in maintaining social order, protecting people’s lives and property, providing humanitarian assistance, carrying out disaster response, or providing assistance on other tasks” agreed upon by the Solomon Islands and China.

There also appear to be provisions for Chinese ships to visit ports among the Solomon Islands to carry out logistical replenishment as well as provisions for Chinese forces to “protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects” in the Solomon Islands – with the consent of the Solomon Islands’ government.

The urgent necessity for the pact is mutual. This urgency was most recently illustrated in late 2021 when riots targeted the Solomon Islands capital of Honiara. Several were killed, hundreds injured, and sections of Chinatown were burnt to the ground according to the Guardian in its 2021 article, “Solomon Islands unrest: three bodies found in burnt-out building.”

The same article would claim the violence was the result of:

…long-standing animosity between residents of the most populous island Malaita and the central government based on the island of Guadalcanal.

The archipelago nation of around 700,000 people has for decades endured ethnic and political tensions.

Malaita residents have long complained that their island is neglected by the central government, and divisions intensified when Sogavare recognised Beijing in 2019.


The article noted that Australian troops played a role in “restoring order,” apparently, however, long after the damage was done.

The fact that the Guardian mentions Honiara’s recognition of Beijing over Taipei last by no means subordinates its significance. In fact, Honiara’s recognition of Beijing in 2019 has triggered a chain reaction of events pushed forward by Washington and regional allies like Australia and the administration of Taiwan to place pressure on the current government and reverse its growing ties with China.

Even the Western media noted this. A 2020 article published in The Diplomat titled, “US Aid Pledge to Pro-Taiwan Solomon Islands Province Raises Eyebrows,” would note:

The United States has pledged $25 million in aid to the Solomon Islands province of Malaita, which has in recent weeks made calls for secession from the national government over its relationship with China.

Malaita, the largest province in the Solomon Islands, announced its plan to hold a referendum on independence last month, citing the central government’s switch in diplomatic relations with Taiwan to China last year. The decision has put Malaita at odds with the rest of the country, as Malaita preferred to continue relations with Taiwan.


The aid appears to have been offered directly to Malaita administrators, bypassing the nation’s central government – at a time when Malaita is pursuing separatism.

Another article by The Diplomat a year later titled, “Taiwan Must Avoid Pouring Fuel on Solomon Islands Fire,” would note the impact of what was essentially bribery money being provided by the West and its allies:

In fact, while the bribery became more sophisticated, it had previously been indiscriminate. In June 2001, a US$25-million loan to the Solomons from Taiwan’s Export Import Bank (EXIM) was announced by Taipei. The suitably vaguely stated purpose was to foster peace by compensating the victims of the ethnic conflict that had ravaged the islands since 1998.

But while some of the money went to legitimate causes – displaced families and unpaid civil servants – the lion’s share ended up lining the pockets of politicians and militia leaders. Armed gangs held up government ministers for “compensation” as Honiara descended into mob rule.


It is no surprise then why a Malaita-led riot late last year specifically targeted Honiara’s Chinatown district amid a wider campaign to oppose closer relations between the Solomon Islands and China.

The United States, Australia, and Taiwan have played an oversized role in the Solomon Islands over the last several decades with little to show for the deeply impoverished society living across this island nation. Despite the oversized influence the West and its allies exercised over the country and more specifically, over certain opposition politicians, China dominates trade representing the Solomon Islands’ best chance at actually receiving serious assistance in terms of development.

According to Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity, the Solomon Islands counts China as its largest and most important trade partner – even despite the advantage in proximity Australia enjoys.

China accounted for over 65% of all Solomon Islands exported goods with its second largest export partner being Italy receiving a little over 8% of the nation’s shipped goods. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand take in less than 3% of the Solomon Islands’ goods, combined.

The Solomon Islands also depends on China primarily for imports, receiving approximately 22% from the East Asian nation while Australia follows at 18% and South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia following at 11%, 10%, and 9% respectively.

Taiwan, despite blatantly bribing Malaita politicians and militias alongside the US to sabotage the Solomon Islands’ ties with its largest trade partner, China – accounts for less than 2% of its exports, and only 3% of its imports.

It is clear that the US, Australia, and Taiwan’s political influence over the Solomon Islands’ political opposition is oversized compared to their collective contributions to the nation’s actual economy. If anything, this “aid” money has been at the root of chronic instability hindering economic and social development.

In addition to trade, Honiara has joined Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in 2019 following its switch in recognition from Taipei to Beijing.

ABC (Australia) in a 2019 article titled, “Solomon Islands joins China’s Belt and Road Initiative, as leaders meet in Beijing,” would note:

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has met Chinese President Xi Jinping, in the Pacific leader’s first official visit to China since his Government controversially cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan last month.

The two leaders signed several agreements, including one about cooperating with Mr Xi’s multi-trillion-dollar Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, and others on economic and education strategies.

One of the deals would see Solomon Islands become a destination country for Chinese tourists, according to a report from Chinese state media agency Xinhua, but specific details on the agreements are yet to be made public.


Thus, instead of “aid” money whose terms are deliberately ambiguous to facilitate political bribery, China is offering aid by directly developing the Solomon Islands’ economy with specific projects and transparent objectives.

Just as the US has done elsewhere it seeks to obstruct, disrupt, or roll back China’s BRI – it and its partners from 2019 onward conspired to back Malaita’s separatism, sponsor militias and gangs, and threaten the archipelago’s national security.

While Honiara already has a security deal with nations like Australia, it could be likened to a fox guarding the henhouse. Australia, whose foreign policy is demonstrably subordinated to Washington’s, has no intention of assisting the Solomon Islands in achieving peace and stability – two conditions required for subsequent prosperity.

This is precisely why the Solomon Islands – by necessity – signed an alternative agreement with Beijing – representing a nation and economic interests tied to the Solomon Islands’ peace and stability, and thus prosperity.

The deal will not only continue to be misrepresented across the Western media with this essential context omitted, but efforts will continue to be made to complicate the Solomon Islands’ security as well as compromise any form of fruitful partnership between Honiara and Beijing.

Only time will tell whether or not China and its security pact with the Solomon Islands can deliver where decades of disingenuous pacts, pledges, and assurances from the West have failed. For the United States or Australia to even remotely place pressure on the Solomon Islands to distance itself from China – after the posturing and preaching surrounding Ukraine and demands that Russia recognize Kiev’s sovereignty and “choice” to pursue NATO membership – is yet another reminder of how little the current “international rules-based order” has to do with being international, being based on rules, or consisting of any sort of actual order.


Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image: China police liaison team officers train local Solomon Islands police officers in drill. Photograph: RSIPF/AFP/Getty Images.


https://orinocotribune.com/solomon-isla ... n-control/

**********************************************

The Battle Against COVID-19 in Shanghai: A Human Rights Disaster?
Danny Haiphong, BAR Contributing Editor 20 Apr 2022

Image
Image: Liu Rui/Global Times

China's "zero covid" strategy prevented the large number of deaths seen in the United States. But the challenges of stopping the Omicron variant in Shanghai, a city of 25 million people, presented immense challenges and created hardships for the people. Still, the United States is in no position to question the human rights record of China or any other country.

The city of Shanghai is currently battling an outbreak of COVID-19’s Omicron variant, tallying upwards of 350,000 new cases in a matter of weeks. Much of the city has been placed under some form of lockdown to contain the spread of the virus. Case numbers continue to rise. In predictable fashion, Western media has used the occasion to condemn China’s dynamic zero-COVID strategy. Videos of frustrated residents went viral across the West as an example of the “evils” of China’s communist party-led government.

Indeed, China’s latest battle with COVID-19 has not been without hardship. Logistical issues with food and medical deliveries have been a source of frustration. Tragedy struck when a grassroots healthcare worker died by an apparent suicide, raising concerns about the mounting levels of stress for grassroots volunteers and cadres battling the virus around the clock. The central government has taken rapid measures to alleviate pressure on the local government. Thousands of doctors and volunteers have traveled from other cities and provinces to improve the delivery of food and medications.

As has been the case throughout the pandemic, Western observers have used the latest outbreak in Shanghai to demonize China’s dynamic zero-COVID strategy. The rapid spread of COVID-19 in Shanghai appears to validate Western media claims that China’s zero-COVID strategy does more harm than good. Western countries, led by the United States, have taken a “live with the virus” approach to justify the roll back of all mitigation measures and social welfare protections. The massive death toll to COVID-19 incurred in the West is viewed as merely the cost of doing business. Fatigue over rampant misinformation and inconsistent COVID-19 policy is almost as high as the mistrust that majorities of people in the West possess in their governments.

What is happening in Shanghai cannot be separated from this vital context. The tradeoffs that are acceptable in the West are vastly different from what is acceptable in China. In China, hardship in the form of logistical issues and errors are more tolerable than the loss of life and long-term economic stability. For the US and its Western counterparts, the daily loss of life and long-term economic stability is widely accepted by government administrations while short-term economic gain and individual freedom is venerated. It is therefore understandable that many in the West would look upon Shanghai as a human rights disaster.

That the Western media has waged a non-stop propaganda war against China has not helped matters, either. Type the word “Shanghai” into Google and one will find dozens of Western media articles painting China as a draconian, “authoritarian” regime. The propaganda is truly staggering. A prime example is the way that the New York Times and other Western media have covered a video-recorded confrontation between residents and police in Shanghai’s Pudong district.

Police in hazmat suits have been accused of removing residents so that their housing could be transformed into quarantine facilities. According to Andy Boreham, a journalist for the Shanghai Daily, Western media failed to inform its readers that the residents were being housed in large, scantly occupied “talent” apartment complexes subsidized by the government. These apartments are more akin to hotel arrangements. Residents were offered alternative living arrangements free of charge and their apartments sealed off while the rest of the complex was used for quarantine. While it’s unclear what caused the confrontation, what is clear is that the situation is more complex than the dystopic picture provided by the Western media.

The same goes for sensationalist coverage of screaming residents and the needs of the elderly. These issues were promptly addressed by the central government. No one is starving in Shanghai. Life is difficult, but China has successfully prevented the loss of a single life up until this point despite the rapid rise in cases of the contagious Omicron variant. While the Western media condemns China’s zero-COVID strategy in Shanghai, it completely ignores the solidarity and sacrifice made by ordinary people. Thousands of doctors, CPC members, and community volunteers have given everything they have to protect the vulnerable. Residents in lockdown are demonstrating solidarity through WeChat groups that facilitate the exchange of goods.

So no, Shanghai is not a human rights disaster despite the challenges that have arisen during its battle with Omicron over the past several weeks. The truth is that the US and the West have no ground to stand upon when it comes to human rights. Nearly half of all COVID-19 deaths have occurred in the US and Europe. Economic “freedom” in the US is a privilege of the rich. The vast majority of people in the US and Europe are either mired in poverty or struggling to avoid it amid rising prices and food shortages. Law enforcement in the U.S. kills an average of 1,000 people per year or over three people per day. Trillions are spent on endless wars that kill massive numbers of civilians and destabilize entire regions.

The concept of human rights has been stripped of all meaning by the US and the West to serve hegemonic ambitions. Criticisms of China’s zero-COVID strategy have nothing to do with the welfare of the Chinese people. The overwhelming majority of people in China support their government. This support has only grown since China launched its people’s war against COVID-19 more than two years ago. It is therefore critical that the propaganda war against China is challenged at every turn and condemned for its role in fueling racism and militarism.

The real human rights disaster is right under the collective noses of Western media pundits. All that’s needed is a mirror. But Western media serves as the arm of misinformation for big capital, making so-called “journalists” and commentators accomplices in a dangerous U.S.-led New Cold War on China.

https://www.blackagendareport.com/battl ... s-disaster
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:55 pm

Image

Why China will stick to decarbonization and sustainable development
In this article, originally published on CGTN and coinciding with the Boao Forum on Asia, Keith Lamb addresses humanity’s looming climate catastrophe and how it is exacerbated by such factors as imperialism’s profit from war. In contrast, through cooperation with the Global South and by promoting global development alongside the sustainable preservation of humanity and the biosphere, China is pointing the way towards an ecological civilization. “China’s people-centred approach means markets and capital must stay subservient to society as a whole,” the author notes.
The annual conference of the Boao Forum for Asia (BFA), which brings together Asia-Pacific businesses and governments to promote economic and social development, is upon us. One of the pressing matters for this year’s forum is the climate catastrophe.

Plenty of discussion and even more action is needed if we are to meet the Sustainable Development Goals to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this goal, as set out by the Paris Climate Agreement, global carbon emissions need to be reduced by 45 percent by 2030, from 2010 levels, and net-zero emissions must be reached by 2050. The agreement also requests each country to outline and communicate their post-2020 climate actions, known as their nationally determined contributions.

Unfortunately, as reported in the UN’s The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021, despite a slight downtrend in carbon emissions, due to COVID-19, by December 2020, emissions fully rebounded. Indeed, carbon emissions were 2 percent higher than in December 2019, leading the report to say “the climate crisis continues largely unabated.”

Even worse is that the crisis in Ukraine risks greater carbon pollution. Despite the push by Europeans towards green energy, the blocking of Russian natural gas will slowdown the phasing out of coal power while pushing for fuels that will drive up carbon emissions.

Shipping liquefied gas from the U.S. and increasing fracking, to make up for Russia being blocked out of the “free market,” clearly isn’t healthy for the environmental economy. Indeed, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres fears that these actions further endanger the goal of meeting global warming limits.

If one was to conclude that because the developed West falls into arrears so should developing China then one would be mistaken. China has strong social, political and economic reasons for remaining committed to achieving carbon neutrality and sustainable development.

When it comes to politics China’s people-centered approach means markets and capital must stay subservient to society as a whole. Previously, profits came at the expense of environmental security which led to the determination to build an “ecological civilization” linking socioeconomic development and the Earth’s future to the well-being of the environment.

This is not a Utopian dream. The preservation of humanity and the biosphere, our inseparable global commons, along with the desire for development is the only way. Thus, constructing an “ecological civilization” is pragmatic to the core. For China, it isn’t empty rhetoric but a reality in construction. China’s afforestation is unprecedented; it leads the world in green energy and transportation, and it has not wavered from its commitment to carbon neutrality.

One may argue that Ukraine has made things tougher for the West. Some have described Europe’s actions as a “frenzied bid to kick its addiction to Russian gas.” However, Europe will now be even more addicted to U.S. interests and Middle Eastern energy which has been shored up by illegal wars.

At any rate, the Ukraine crisis could have been easily averted with rational diplomacy. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the U.S. knew that its interference in Ukraine would eventually lead to conflict. Coincidentally, with the end of Afghanistan, now a new opportunity for arms and fossil fuel profiteering arises while Eurasian cooperation is yet again disrupted, albeit from the Western flank. When one considers that the U.S. military, which has been essential in pushing NATO Eastwards, is the biggest single producer of greenhouse gas emissions, with greater annual emissions than numerous European states, then there is a greater tragedy at play.

With this in mind, what can Europeans learn from China? Firstly, if one wants to achieve carbon neutrality and sustainable development then transatlantic capital that profits from war, disrupts global resources and gains from preventing the rise of Eurasia can’t be in the driving seat of the state.

In contrast, China is in a process, through the Belt and Road Initiative, of cooperating with the entire Global South. Only through this cooperation can a green future be achieved. For example, China is already building green infrastructure such as rail and it has reduced its reliance on polluting coal due to importing Russian gas. Of course, this means China seeks friendly relations even with neighbors that don’t share identical values.

Europe especially could learn from this non-dogmatic attitude for it is they who will suffer the greatest while the U.S. far from Eurasia “sits it out.” However, ultimately, even if European states fall into arrears with their environmental pledges, there is a greater logic at play that demands China leads, not follows, and instead creates a green sustainable future based on global cooperation with all partners.

The Global South is still developing. If they develop based on the Western model of high carbon emissions then humanity is doomed to environmental catastrophe and then poverty again. A dark age could ensue and we would have lost the technological capacity to work our way out of it.

As such, the time to act is now. China has the political will and ideology to push against the polluting interests of capital. It has the socioeconomic motivation embedded within the China Dream to build a global ecological civilization and realize shared development based on infrastructure development rather than war profiteering. Importantly, China has a wealth of scientists and experts to create the methods and technology needed for this sustainable future where net-zero carbon emissions are a vital requisite.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/04/19/w ... velopment/

Image

Foreign friends reflect on the CPC’s success over the past century
We’re pleased to republish this piece about several generations of foreigners that have supported, or contributed to, China’s development. The article, originally published in Xinhua in June 2021 (in the run-up to the CPC’s centenary celebrations), mentions historic friends of China such as Edgar Snow, Isabel Crook, George Hatem, Israel Epstein and Hans Muller, as well as contemporary friends such as British academic Martin Jacques and Sudanese journalist Yahya Mustafa.
b]

“Never leave China,” Dr. Hans Muller repeatedly told his wife before he passed away in 1994.

In 1939, World War II broke out. Muller, a young German with a medical degree from Switzerland, arrived in Yan’an in northwest China and fought side by side with the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and later in the War of Liberation. He devoted himself to China’s socialist construction after the founding of the New China in 1949.

Since its founding in 1921, the CPC has attracted many foreign friends like Muller during different periods of revolution, construction and reform. Their interactions with Chinese Communists over the past century have opened a window through which the world can better understand the CPC.

Today, the CPC is the world’s largest political party with more than 90 million members. The CPC has over the past century led the Chinese people to achieve national independence, bid farewell to a humiliating history of being arbitrarily exploited by foreign powers, and transform China from an impoverished country into the world’s second-largest economy, which enjoys all-round moderate prosperity.

The CPC, which is about to celebrate its centenary, is leading the world’s most populous country toward the goal of great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

What are the Chinese Communists like?

In 1936, American journalist Edgar Snow journeyed to the northern areas of northwest China’s Shaanxi in search of the answer to this question.

In a cave dwelling, Mao Zedong and Snow had many long talks. In a period of approximately four months, Snow also interviewed Peng Dehuai, Xu Haidong and other senior CPC officials and ordinary soldiers, and experienced life in the Red Army.

In his book “Red Star Over China,” Snow mentioned the tenacity with which the Chinese Communists clung to their principles, as well as the invincible, incredible soldiers led by the CPC and the indestructible energy behind them.

George Hatem, a U.S. doctor known in China by his Chinese name Ma Haide, visited northern Shaanxi together with Snow. Moved by the bravery of the Red Army, he decided to stay at the end of his tour. He joined the CPC in 1937 and became the first Westerner to gain CPC membership.

In order to make a contribution, one must have strong spiritual support, Ma Haide said in his late years.

Over the past 100 years, the CPC has stayed true to its founding aspiration and mission, leading the Chinese nation in a tremendous transformation: It has stood up, become better off and grown in strength. The nation has achieved two feats rarely seen around the world: rapid economic growth and long-term social stability.

The CPC has arguably been the world’s most successful political party over the last century, according to British political scholar Martin Jacques.

Corentin Delcroix, a French chef and entrepreneur who has been living in China for 15 years, runs a company in Shanghai.

Delcroix said he thought the Western stereotype of communism has stagnated since the Cold War. “A lot of people think communism itself is just scary, without understanding it at all,” he said.

The judgment of a political party ultimately depends on tangible results. Under the leadership of the CPC, Chinese citizens’ quality of life is improving generation by generation, Delcroix observed.

“The Communist Party of China makes every effort to think and act for the future of the country,” said Shunsuke Nakajima, a Japanese national who has been promoting bilateral exchanges for years and has visited China many times.

Hans Muller joined the CPC in 1957, and made an important contribution to the country’s hepatitis prevention efforts. Speaking of her late husband, Kyoko Nakamura, who joined the CPC-led army after Japan’s surrender in 1945, said that after so many years in China, Muller felt China was a promising country.

Israel Epstein visited Yan’an in 1944 as a reporter for U.S. media. He interviewed Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De and other CPC leaders. Epstein believed he shared a similar — or even the same — world outlook with the CPC, and was convinced that Yan’an represented China’s future. He gained Chinese nationality in 1957 and joined the CPC in 1964.

“He supports China because the Communist Party of China is right,” said Epstein’s widow Huang Huanbi. “What he appreciated most was that the Communist Party is for the poor and helps the people.”

In “Red Star Over China,” Snow detailed how and why the CPC had won strong support and trust from farmers, indicating the close bonds between the CPC and the people.

In an article for U.S. media, Epstein wrote that the Eighth Route Army, which was led by the CPC, maintained close ties with the people and never took a needle or a thread from the masses.

The CPC considers serving the people wholeheartedly to be its purpose. The Party is required to share weal and woe with the people, maintain close ties with them, and safeguard the fundamental interests of the people.

Snow once described northern Shaanxi as one of the poorest places in China. Now, it has shaken off absolute poverty along with other impoverished areas thanks to the CPC’s targeted poverty reduction policy. China has lifted over 700 million people out of poverty since reform and opening-up began in the late 1970s.

David Osborn, an Australian sheep breeding expert, has been participating in China’s anti-poverty drive. Over the past few years, he has visited Huanxian County in northwest China’s Gansu Province several times to promote breeding technologies that can help raise the incomes of villagers, many of whom were in poverty for generations.

“The thought that the CPC has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is just extraordinary. It is one of the world’s great achievements,” he said, praising CPC members’ readiness to help and the Party’s strong executive capability.

By the end of 2020, all remaining poverty-stricken counties had shaken off that label.

“The Communist Party of China leads the people, and its members are at the forefront. Nothing is impossible,” said Hans Muller’s son, Dehua Muller, in Beijing.

Yahia Mustafa from Sudan contributed to the Arabic translation of Xi Jinping’s report to the 19th CPC National Congress in 2017, and noted that the key concepts in the report — from “a moderately prosperous society” to “a community with a shared future for humanity” — were all about putting public interests above all else.

“The distinctive feature of the CPC is that it puts people first and always cares for and serves the people,” said Mustafa, who has lived in China for over 20 years.

The people-oriented philosophy of the CPC is also evidenced by the nationwide mobilization to contain the raging COVID-19 epidemic in 2020. The CPC asked its members to take the lead by assuming the most arduous and dangerous jobs in the battle against the virus.

Jean Christian Nzengue from Gabon last year joined a team screening fever patients and offering consultations in a community in the southern city of Guangzhou, working closely with many CPC members.

“It was dangerous, but the CPC members did not complain because they love their country and want to protect its people,” said the cardiac specialist.

According to a white paper issued in June last year, more than 39 million CPC members and cadres fought against COVID-19 on the frontline, and nearly 400 died in the process.

“China’s anti-epidemic fight has clearly demonstrated the solidarity and trust between the people, the Party and the government to a level rarely seen in other parts of the world,” said Mustafa.

The Party’s dedication to the people has boosted public support for the government. A report from Harvard University, based on its 13-year survey in China, showed that the Chinese people’s overall satisfaction with the central government exceeded 93 percent.

Epstein and Ma Haide later became members of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the country’s top political advisory body, participating in the practice of socialist democracy. They made proposals on health, education and other fields. In 2015, China for the first time solicited opinions from foreign experts during the drafting of the annual government work report.

Mustafa, who had worked at the Sudan News Agency for about 10 years, now has an independent understanding of China and the CPC after working and living in China.

“In the West, the goal of political parties is to gain political power and serve their own interests. For the Communist Party of China, power is a means to serve the people, and all development strategies and plans are centered on serving the people,” he said.

Isabel Crook, a Canadian national, and her British husband David Crook, studied CPC-led land reform in 1947. They later trained a large number of foreign-language speakers for China.

In 2019, the Chinese government awarded Isabel Crook and five other foreign nationals the Friendship Medal for their great contributions to supporting China’s socialist modernization, promoting exchanges and cooperation between China and foreign countries, and safeguarding world peace.

What they felt most deeply was that the CPC was good at mobilizing ordinary people, accepting supervision from the masses, and discussing with them, said Michael Crook, son of Isabel Crook and chairman of the International Committee for the Promotion of Chinese Industrial Cooperatives.

The CPC has pioneered a socialist political system with Chinese characteristics and continued to improve it to ensure that the people partake in democratic elections, consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight in accordance with the law.

Laurence J. Brahm, a senior international fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, said that Chinese democracy, which is different from that in the West, is a system of consensus-building.

Over the past 100 years, the Communist Party of China has worked arduously for the well-being of the Chinese people and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In today’s world, China’s solutions are an important contribution to improving global governance.

Michael Lindsay, a British national, aided the CPC in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression by upgrading radio equipment and building radio stations for the Chinese army in the 1930s and 1940s.

In 1944, he helped with the launch of an English broadcasting service for the Xinhua News Agency in Yan’an, allowing news of the CPC to be heard across the Pacific.

Today, the voices and visions of the CPC are more widely transmitted across the globe, and have won more positive responses and support.

China plays an important role in world affairs. Other big countries must cooperate with China to solve global problems such as climate change, biodiversity conservation and pandemics, according to Jim Lindsay, son of Michael Lindsay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than 3.8 million lives worldwide. While making strategic achievements in its own COVID-19 prevention and control, China has been actively providing aid to other countries. It has exported large quantities of medical supplies and helped other countries fight the pandemic. Its COVID-19 vaccines have become global public goods.

Such efforts fit into the CPC’s vision of “a community with a shared future for humanity,” which has gained wider recognition and support in the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

A total of 138 countries and 31 international organizations have signed cooperation agreements with China on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to achieve policy, infrastructure, trade, financial and people-to-people connectivity along and beyond the ancient Silk Road trade routes. The BRI has become the world’s largest international cooperation platform and a vital public product.

David Ferguson, a British national, came to China in 2006. He is now a senior English editor with the China Foreign Languages Publishing Administration and participated in the English editing of “Xi Jinping: The Governance of China” and several government white papers.

After translating a compilation of President Xi Jinping’s discourses on the BRI, Ferguson said he believes the initiative has provided a major channel for the world to strive for globalization, peace and stability, prosperity and development.

Mustafa noted that “a community with a shared future for humanity” is also rooted in traditional Chinese culture, which stresses the need for humanity to share weal and woe. China not only pursues its own development but also deeply integrates itself into the international community and shares its gains with others, he said.

In 2019, the movie “Red Star Over China” was screened in China. And Snow’s books remain popular in China and worldwide.

China has come a long way from Snow’s depiction in the 1937 book. While leading the people toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the CPC is also writing a new chapter on the joint construction of a community with a shared future for humanity.

https://socialistchina.org/2022/04/18/f ... t-century/

*********************************

Chinese mainland reports 1,566 new local confirmed COVID-19 cases
Xinhua | Updated: 2022-04-24 09:53

Image
A medical worker gives an infusion to patient at the emergency room of Minhang Hospital affiliated to Fudan University in East China's Shanghai, April 20, 2022. [Photo/Xinhua]

BEIJING -- The Chinese mainland Saturday reported 1,566 locally-transmitted confirmed COVID-19 cases, of which 1,401 were in Shanghai, according to the National Health Commission's report Sunday.

Apart from Shanghai, 16 other provincial-level regions on the mainland saw new local COVID-19 cases, including 60 in Jilin, 26 in Heilongjiang, and 22 in Beijing.

Shanghai also reported 19,657 locally transmitted asymptomatic infections of the novel coronavirus Saturday, out of a total of 20,230 local asymptomatic carriers newly identified on the mainland.

Following the recovery of 2,672 COVID-19 patients on Saturday, there were 29,531 confirmed COVID-19 cases undergoing treatment in hospitals across the country.

Saturday saw 39 deaths from COVID-19, all in Shanghai, bringing the mainland's total COVID-19 deaths to 4,725.

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202204/ ... 58e5e.html

The Western press is pointing to Shanghai to "prove" that the Chinese approach to the pandemic is not only'repressive' but ineffective too. This while their total fatalities for a country of 1.4B people is less than that of one large Amerikan city. USA! USA! If that doesn't say 'people over profits' nothing does.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:44 pm

The Role of Modern China in a Changing World
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on APRIL 26, 2022
James ONeill

Image

We are currently witnessing the greatest change in the geopolitical landscape that has ever occurred in the lives of those alive today.

At the end of the Second World War there were two major powers in the world: Russia and the United States. Only one, the United States, then had the atomic bomb, which they had used in July 1945 in a live experiment on the people of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From the United States point of view, the experiment was a success. It killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Japanese.

Importantly from the United States point of view it demonstrated that they alone possessed an awful means of mass destruction. The United States retained its nuclear monopoly for a further three years until August 1948 when the Soviet Union successfully tested its first nuclear bomb at the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan.

They were followed by the United Kingdom in 1952, Israel in 1963, China in 1964, France in 1968, Pakistan in 1972, India in 1974 and North Korea in 2006. To date they are the only known nuclear armed powers. It has contributed to an uneasy peace being maintained between the great powers ever since. An attack by one upon the other would result in immediate retaliation and the probable extinction of life on this planet.

It would be a mistake however, to call the past 77 years a time of peace, notwithstanding the uneasy peace that has existed between the great powers. The United States has bombed and invaded at least 31 countries since the end of World War II, none of them possessing either the means to defend themselves or to retaliate. The number of countries that have experienced United States interference in their internal affairs is at least double that number.

By comparison, China has fought border wars with Tibet, India, the USSR and Vietnam. Tibet is a special case and regarded by China as part of its own territory. China is now allied with India as common members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It similarly now has good relations with Vietnam. Russia is a special case. The two countries are now close allies, not the least because of the unrelenting hostility of the Americans. Interference in the internal affairs of China is waged nonstop, and the American attitude to Taiwan is only one example of blatant interference in China’s internal affairs.

The beginning of the close relationship can be traced back to their formation of the Shanghai Five Mutual Security Agreement formed in 1996. In that year the five founding countries, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan signed a mutual security agreement.

Then later in June 2001 those same countries formed the basis of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It currently has eight member states, having added India and Pakistan in 2009 and Uzbekistan in 2015. There are four observer states, including Afghanistan which joined in 2012 and Iran which joined in 2005. There are six dialogue partners of whom the largest is Turkey with nearly 79,000,000 people in its population.

The existence of this organisation is almost totally invisible in Australia which maintains a remarkably ambivalent attitude towards the Asian nations that are its closest neighbours and include its most important trading partners. The recent hostility manifested by the Prime Minister and largely echoed by the leader of the Opposition toward China is a remarkable example of pursuing policies that are the antithesis of what one would expect toward its neighbours and major trading partners.

In this context it was therefore somewhat surprising that Australia joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a grouping of Asian nations plus New Zealand and including China. It remains to be seen whether Australia actually utilises that relationship or whether its antipathy to China prevents Australia from gaining full benefits from its membership.

The dominant geopolitical feature of recent years has been the growth of the economies of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation countries and their association with the other Asian regional grouping of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAAU) which consists of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Three of those five are also members of the SCO. The pattern is becoming clearer all the time. An association of Asian neighbours with a consistently growing economic relationship. They represent the powerhouse of world economic development at the present time and for the foreseeable future.

The very success of this growing economic relationship and with their social and political ties has prompted attempts to disrupt their growing strength. Last year there was a rather clumsy United States inspired bid to overthrow the government of Kazakhstan. Russia’s rapid reaction to the attempted coup in association with its EAEU Partners nipped the attempted overthrow of the Kazakhstan government in the bud.

All the while the ties between China and Russia grow progressively stronger. The visit of Mr Putin to Beijing in February this year when he met with China’s Mr Xi was clearly a watershed moment in the world’s geopolitical development. The meeting received very little coverage in the Australian media, yet it clearly marked a watershed moment in the history of the two nations and their vision as to the future.

It is clear that Russia has given up on Western Europe, a decision undoubtedly prompted by European reaction to Russia and the events in Ukraine. The western powers have seized approximately $600 billions of Russia’s foreign exchange holdings, an astonishingly brazen example of blatant theft. It undoubtedly had a major influence on not only Russian but also Chinese thinking.

The Chinese government holds $3.25 trillion in foreign exchange reserves as at the end of 2021. The exact composition of China’s foreign exchange reserves is classified information, although China’s foreign exchange administration announced that at the end of 2014 that 58% of China’s foreign exchange reserves were held in United States dollars, down from 79% in 2005. It is believed to have fallen much further over the past seven years.

At their February 2022 meeting, Putin and Xi agreed on a program to accelerate their dealings with Asian, African and Latin American countries. A number of important decisions were made at that meeting, including the highly significant decision to accelerate the use of alternatives to the United States dollar. The control exerted by the world’s use of the United States dollar has been a principal factor in United States global dominance in the post-World War II period. The decision by Russia and China to move out of the dollar is of enormous significance, and its implications are again missing from Australian media discussion.

Ironically, the United States theft of Russia’s financial assets (together with that of the European powers,) has accelerated the trend for other countries, especially among the so-called developing regions, to also move their assets out of the United States dollar. One example of the major shift occurring in world trade is that China has recently agreed a major deal with Saudi Arabia to pay for the purchase of Saudi oil using the Chinese yuan. This decision reflects the deterioration of Saudi – United States relations in recent times. It sent a shockwave through the United States financial system.

The Saudis hold >15% of the world’s known oil reserves and is the largest exporter of crude oil in the world. The Saudis are the world’s second largest producer of oil, exceeded only by Russia. China has only 1.5% of the world’s oil reserves, and is ranked 14th in the world. Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are therefore crucial to China’s economy which in parity purchasing power terms is now the world’s largest economy, with the gap between itself and United States growing wider by the day.

None of this is acceptable to the United States which has used its economic and military power to pretty much do what it wanted to do to the rest of the world. This is now changing, and at an ever-increasing pace. The decision by Russia and China to create a new world financial system is going to celebrate the relative United States decline at an ever-faster rate. Again, there has been minimal discussion of this world shaking event in the Australian media.

The blunt fact is that the world economic and financial centre of gravity has moved away from Europe and the United States from where it had ruled the world for a very long time.

The United States shows no signs of accepting that reality and their reaction poses potentially the greatest threat the world has faced. Australia has willingly accepted an inferior role in this blatant bullying.

China is showing that it can lead the world in a different way, without invasions, bullying and waging war on others. The challenge for Australia is to recognise that the world has changed and to adapt to the new reality. Frankly, the signs are not encouraging.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/04/ ... ing-world/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:51 pm

S won’t rule out military action if China establishes base in Solomon Islands
Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink warns security pact presents ‘potential regional security implications’

Image
A US diplomatic team including assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs Daniel Kritenbrink in the Solomon Islands on 22 April to talk with the prime minister about the new security deal with China. Photograph: Jay Liofasi/AFP/Getty Images

One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies.

Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was part of a high-level US delegation to the Pacific country last week.

He said the US team, which also included the National Security Council coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, had a 90-minute “constructive and candid” meeting with prime minister Manasseh Sogavare in which the US team detailed concerns about its recently signed security deal with China.

Temper tantrums and invasion threats over Solomon Islands deal with China will push Pacific allies away
Read more
“We wanted to outline for our friends in the Solomons, what our concerns are,” said Kritenbrink. “Prime minister Sogavare indicated that in the Solomon Islands’ view, the agreement they’ve concluded has solely domestic implications. But we’ve made clear that there are potential regional security implications of the agreement not just for ourselves, but for allies and partners across the region.”

On Tuesday, Kritenbrink reiterated the US’s willingness to act in the region if a military base were established by China.

“Of course, we have respect for the Solomon Islands sovereignty, but we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power projection capabilities, or a military installation, then we would have significant concerns, and we would very naturally respond to those concerns,” he said.

When asked what that response could involve, he said: “Look, I’m not going to speculate and I’m not in a position to talk about what the United States may or may not do in such a situation.”

Pressed on whether he would rule out the prospect of the US taking military action against Solomon Islands were a naval base to be established, and, if not, whether he was comfortable with Australian prime minister Scott Morrison’s talk of the base being a “red line” for Australia, he said: “I don’t have a lot to add beyond what I’ve already stated.”

In a statement last week, the Biden administration said the US would “respond accordingly” if China was allowed to establish a long-term presence on the islands, while noting assurances from Sogavare that he had no intention of allowing a military base.

The rhetoric escalated in the wake of the statement, with the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, saying Australia had “the same red line” as the US when it came to China’s involvement in Solomon Islands, and defence minister Peter Dutton using his Anzac Day address on Monday to declare: “Australia should prepare for war”, claiming that China was “on a very deliberate course at the moment”.

Kritenbrink also noted China’s military ambitions, saying: “I think it’s important in this context, to keep in mind that we do know that the PRC [People’s Republic of China] is seeking to establish a more robust overseas logistics and basic infrastructure that would allow the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] to project and sustain military power at greater distances. So we wanted to have that candid conversation with our friends in the Solomons. We outlined our concerns … and we’ve indicated that we’ll continue to monitor the situation closely and continue to engage with them going forward.”

The text of the security deal which was signed by China and Solomon Islands is secret, though Solomon Islands MPs have called for the prime minister to release it publicly.

“I think it’s clear that only a handful of people in a very small circle have seen this agreement. And the prime minister himself has been quoted publicly as saying he would only share the details with China’s permission, which I think is a source of concern as well,” said Kritenbrink.

However, a draft of the deal was leaked on social media last month and contained provisions permitting China to “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands”.

Kritenbrink said that “the United States of America is not in the business of asking countries to choose between the United States and China or anyone else”. But that it is interested in promoting “a proactive vision for again the shared interests and principles that we believe are vital to all of our friends across the region”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... on-islands

***********************************

Taking Taiwan
Chinese Style

Godfree Roberts
Apr 23

For most Americans, Taiwan has no past. It is a democratic country that, for some inexplicable reason, the Chinese Communist Party wants to swallow. We Americans are famously amnesiac. We have forgotten how differently we portrayed Taiwan in the 1950s and ‘60s. Back then, we asserted that, despite its defeat on the mainland, the Chinese regime that had retreated to Taiwan was still the lawful government of China, including the mainland and outer Mongolia as well as Taiwan. And we insisted on the right of the defeated Chinese authorities in Taipei to continue to represent China internationally. US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman

The completion of the Nordstream Two pipeline between Russia and Germany was a ‘now or never’ moment for the Pentagon. It triggered the Ukraine war. China’s planned roads, bridges, and railways to Taiwan could trigger a war there, too, though America’s odds of success are worse than they were in Ukraine: almost zero.

Image

Today, within two thousand miles of its borders, China’s weapons are more numerous, accurate, and longer-ranged than America’s – while its military enjoys internal supply routes. Taiwan, visible from the mainland, has neither sympathetic neighbors nor defensible supply routes.

China outguns any combination of forces in the area, and Russia remains eager to help. China’s Type-55 cruisers, the most powerful surface combatants afloat, are armed with 1,000-mile, anti-ship ballistic YJ-21 missiles along with AA, AM, AS, and ASW missiles, neatly arranged in 112 vertical launch cells. Twenty Arleigh Burke-class Type-52 destroyers back them up.

The Announcement

As of midnight tonight, all goods and personnel moving into and out of Chinese Taipei must clear China Customs and Immigration. Under the terms of UNCLOS, the Taiwan Straits are now domestic waters. The PLAN and PLAAF will assist in the orderly observance of the combined ADIZ. No further changes are currently contemplated.

A picket line of eighty Type 22 missile patrol boats ensure the domesticity of the Straits and inviolability of the combined ADIZ, while layered surveillance–from outer space to ocean floor–provides targeting information.

Aftermath

Internally, business and life will go on as usual but, externally, China’s control of the production of high end integrated circuits, and its dominance of international trade and finance, will mark the end of US dominance.

https://godfree.substack.com/p/taking-taiwan?s=r
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply