China

The fightback
User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Nov 04, 2023 2:16 pm

Image

China hands over new parliament building to Zimbabwe
On Thursday October 26, the Chinese government handed over to Zimbabwe a new parliament building that was constructed and funded by China. The building, which photographs show to have been built in a distinct Zimbabwean national style, was handed over to President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ceremony attended by government officials, diplomats, Chinese embassy officials, and others.

Speaking at the ceremony, President Mnangagwa said that the building is a pivot point around which a new administrative capital will be built.

“The new parliament building, which stands as one of the most magnificent and modern buildings in our country, signifies the excellent relations that exist between Zimbabwe and the People’s Republic of China,” he added.

These excellent relations date back to the Zimbabwean people’s armed struggle to overthrow the racist and colonial regime and win national independence. China fully supported that struggle. President Mnangagwa himself was one of those who were trained in guerilla warfare in China.

The timing of the handover of the parliament building was very apposite as it came the day after Anti-Sanctions Day. October 25 was designated as Anti-Sanctions Day by the 16-member Southern African Development Community (SADC) in response to the sanctions placed on Zimbabwe, and other anti-imperialist, independent countries, by leading imperialist powers such as the United States and Britain. According to Zimbabwean Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga, addressing an Anti-Sanctions Day rally in the capital, Harare:

“Since 2001, we estimate that Zimbabwe has lost or missed over 150 billion US dollars through frozen assets, trade embargoes, export and investment restrictions from potential bilateral donor support, development loans, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank balance of payment support, and commercial loans.”

A meeting was also held in New York to express solidarity with the Zimbabwean people on this occasion. It was organised by the December 12 Movement (D12), a revolutionary nationalist organisation that has maintained close ties with Zimbabwe and its ruling ZANU-PF party for many years. While three members of D12 were in Zimbabwe to take part in the anti-sanctions activities there, veteran member Colette Pean told the New York gathering that settlers had stolen 86% of Zimbabwe’s land. Despite the sanctions, Zimbabwe has built hydroelectric dams and shared development projects equally among its 10 provinces.

US and other capitalists now want to grab Zimbabwe’s large lithium reserves, vital to making batteries for electric cars. But December 12th Movement member Vinson Verdree said Zimbabwe won’t let its lithium be stolen. The country will build a battery plant and other facilities to process the raw material.

The timing of China’s handover of the new parliament to Zimbabwe therefore underlines its utter rejection of universal sanctions.

This was also made clear in the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s regular press conference on October 25. The Global Times newspaper asked spokesperson Mao Ning:

“During the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly this year, leaders of many African countries condemned Western countries for abusing sanctions and interfering in internal affairs of African countries. Today, October 25, is the Anti-Sanctions Day declared by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). African countries have called on the West to lift illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe as soon as possible. What’s China’s comment?”

She replied: “The 39th SADC Summit held in 2019 named October 25 as the Anti-Sanctions Day and called on the US and some other Western countries and organisations to remove sanctions on Zimbabwe. Today, on the occasion of the fifth Anti-Sanctions Day, we noted that multiple African countries have once again strongly called for lifting the sanctions. China supports that.

“The unlawful sanctions of the US and some Western countries on Zimbabwe, which have lasted for over two decades, have seriously violated the country’s sovereignty, infringed upon the development right of the Zimbabwean people, and disrupted the international political and economic order and the global governance system. 

“China, as always, firmly supports Zimbabwe in opposing external interference and keeping to its own development path. We once again urge the few countries and organisations to listen to the international call for justice, lift the unlawful sanctions on Zimbabwe as soon as possible, take responsible and concrete steps to help the country develop its economy and improve people’s wellbeing, and play a constructive role in promoting world peace and development.”

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and the US publication Struggle/La Lucha.

China hands over Zimbabwe’s new parliament building

HARARE, Oct. 26 (Xinhua) — The Chinese government on Thursday handed over to Zimbabwe a new parliament building that was constructed and funded by China through a grant.

Tang Wenhong, vice chairman of China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) and head of a visiting Chinese delegation, officially handed over the majestic building to Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ceremony attended by government officials, diplomats, and Chinese embassy officials, among others.

The new parliament building, with a combined floor area of 33,000 square meters, is a pivot point around which a new administrative capital will be built, said Mnangagwa in his address at the ceremony.

“The new parliament building, which stands as one of the most magnificent and modern buildings in our country, signifies the excellent relations that exist between Zimbabwe and the People’s Republic of China. The attention to detail and high standards of workmanship exhibited in this project are indeed commendable,” Mnangagwa said.

Mnangagwa said Zimbabwe recognizes the development milestones achieved by China and its quest for global peace and a shared future for mankind.

Tang, in his address at the ceremony, said the project is a vivid manifestation of the cooperation between Zimbabwe and China.

Both sides have achieved fruitful results in practical cooperation in infrastructure, agriculture, health, education and other fields, setting a model for South-South cooperation, Tang said.

Zimbabweans rally against decades-long sanctions by Western countries
HARARE, Oct. 25 (Xinhua) — Zimbabweans took to streets on Wednesday to protest against the sanctions imposed on their country by the United States and other Western nations more than two decades ago.

During a campaign in the country’s capital Harare marking Anti-Sanctions Day, which falls on Oct. 25, Zimbabwe’s Vice President Constantino Chiwenga said that sanctions have significantly hindered Zimbabwe’s economic development.

“The sanctions include financial restrictions and illegal economic measures that alienate Zimbabwe from global supply chains and the global financial system as well as bar capital inflows mainly from the West,” he said.

According to Chiwenga, these illegal sanctions have caused the Zimbabwean economy to contract drastically over the two decades since their imposition.

“Since 2001, we estimate that Zimbabwe has lost or missed over 150 billion U.S. dollars through frozen assets, trade embargoes, export and investment restrictions from potential bilateral donor support, development loans, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank balance of payment support, and commercial loans,” he said.

The United States has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe since 2001, as a response to the government’s decision to address colonial injustices by redistributing land to indigenous Zimbabweans. These sanctions have severely impacted the country, resulting in prompting widespread calls for their removal, both within Zimbabwe and from international voices.

The Southern African Development Community, a regional bloc comprising 16 countries, designated Oct. 25 as Anti-Sanctions Day in 2019 to show solidarity with Zimbabwe in its opposition to the sanctions.

During the anti-sanctions march, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Frederick Shava told Xinhua that the sanctions have caused significant hardship for businesses. “These sanctions are a real albatross on our neck. They are affecting every aspect of our economy. They are affecting business in the sense that our business here cannot interact internationally because they are being denied transactions in banks when they do business.”

“Our industry and commerce would have been flying by now, but it’s being drawn back by these sanctions,” he added.

Ruvarashe Hapaguti, a young online content creator, pointed out how sanctions affect the daily lives of ordinary citizens. She said that financial restrictions imposed on Zimbabwe limit the participation of young people in the digital world, affecting artists who promote their work on social media platforms.

“As an artist that promotes their stuff on social media platforms, I get less money than I am meant to actually get because of the sanctions that have been imposed on us. Some of the transactions that we partake in daily at the banks and remittances are limited because of these sanctions,” Hapaguti said.

Martin Zharare, executive director of the anti-sanctions group Citizens Against Economic Sanctions, said that the embargo has been employed as part of a regime change agenda by the West. He urged that sanctions should not be used as a political tool to bring disaster or anarchy to Zimbabwe.

In her report published in September 2022, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Alena Douhan, highlighted the significant impact of sanctions, including secondary sanctions and over-compliance by foreign banks and companies, on both the people and the government of Zimbabwe, saying these sanctions have exacerbated preexisting economic and humanitarian challenges in the country.

Africa says no to sanctions: Stop strangling Zimbabwe
Oct. 27 (Struggle La Lucha) — Over 3,000 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza by U.S.-made bombs and missiles launched by the U.S.-financed Zionist regime. Gaza and all of Palestine have been under siege for decades, not only by bullets but also by economic sanctions.

Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, People’s Korea, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe have had their economies targeted by U.S. and European banksters for destruction.

In response, the 16-nation Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) designated Oct. 25 as Anti-Sanctions Day. This year, thousands of people marched in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, on Oct. 25 to say No! to this economic warfare.

Zimbabwe Vice President Constantino Chiwenga described the damage inflicted on the African country by these sanctions:

“Since 2001, we estimate that Zimbabwe has lost or missed over 150 billion U.S. dollars through frozen assets, trade embargoes, export and investment restrictions from potential bilateral donor support, development loans, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank balance of payment support, and commercial loans.”

Since 15 million people live in Zimbabwe, these sanctions have cost every person living in the African country $10,000. Zimbabwe’s “crime” was for Africans to reclaim their land from the colonial settlers who stole it.

That should have happened in the United States in 1865 following the Civil War. Justice demanded that the plantations be taken over by the Africans who tilled the land and the Indigenous nations that it was stolen from.

Capitalists stopped this from happening because they wanted to exploit Black labor instead. Their descendants are now putting the screws on Zimbabwe and other sanctioned countries.

Solidarity in Brooklyn

In solidarity with Anti-Sanctions Day, the December 12th Movement held a meeting at Sistas’ Place in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. Three members of D12 were in Zimbabwe attending the Anti-Sanctions march and other activities.

Lateefah Carter of D12 chaired the meeting. A BreakThrough News video was shown featuring Rutendo Matinyarare, chairperson of the Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Movement (ZASM). Eugene Puryear and Rania Khalek interviewed him.

Matinyarare described how, in its first decade, independent Zimbabwe built 5,700 schools. Zimbabwe was attacked after war veterans who liberated the country started to take over the settler-owned farms.

President George W. Bush — who let Black and poor people drown and starve in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina — issued “targeted sanctions” against Zimbabwe. Bush was joined by what Rutendo Matinyarare called the “Berlin Conference Cabal,” meaning those European countries that divided up Africa in that infamous 1884-1885 meeting.

Colette Pean pointed out that settlers had stolen 86% of Zimbabwe’s land. Despite the sanctions, Zimbabwe has built hydroelectric dams and shared development projects equally among its 10 provinces.

Pean, a December 12th member, said that Zimbabwe has had bumper harvests the last three years. Good news about Africa like this doesn’t find its way into the corporate media.

Roger Wareham of D-12 pointed out how the United States supports Britain, Zimbabwe’s former colonial overlord that called the country “Rhodesia.” The people of Zimbabwe waged a nearly 20-year-long “Chimurenga” liberation war to win their freedom.

The U.S. Senate voted in 1971 to allow imports of chrome from “Rhodesia” in violation of United Nations sanctions against the settler regime. The Senate now helps to impose sanctions on independent Zimbabwe.

Roger Wareham said Zimbabwe is hurt by the “brain drain” of health workers and other skilled people, many of whom work in Britain.

U.S. and other capitalists now want to grab Zimbabwe’s large lithium reserves, vital to making batteries for electric cars. December 12th Movement member Vinson Verdree said Zimbabwe won’t let its lithium be stolen. The country will build a battery plant and other facilities to process the raw material.

Despite the sanctions and the lies in the media, Zimbabwe is moving forward.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/03/c ... -zimbabwe/

Looks as tho the Western baked coup in Zimbabwe didn't pan out....

Image

Western powers hypocritical in smearing China on Xinjiang but neglecting Palestinians’ suffering
On 18 October 2023, the UK ambassador to the UN, James Kariuki, read a joint statement about putative human rights violations in Xinjiang at the Third Committee of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

The statement – which was signed by Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Eswatini, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, North Macedonia, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Marshall Islands, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuvalu, Ukraine, the US and UK – repeated the various now-familiar tropes about the treatment of Xinjiang’s Uyghur population: “arbitrary detention and systematic use of invasive surveillance on the basis of religion and ethnicity”, forced labour, forced sterilisation and more.

At the same session, Pakistan, on behalf of 72 countries, made a statement explicitly supporting China’s position on Xinjiang-, Hong Kong- and Tibet-related issues, strongly opposing the politicisation of human rights, double standards, and interference in other countries’ internal affairs under the pretext of human rights.

Meanwhile Venezuela, on behalf of 19 members of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, made a joint statement to support China’s position and to fiercely criticise the Western powers’ outrageous double standards in the field of human rights, racial discrimination and unilateral coercive measures.

The following article, originally carried in Global Times on 19 October, summarises ambassador Zhang Jun’s contribution to the session, in which he resolutely rebuffs the slanders thrown by the imperialist countries and their hangers-on. Observing that the whole narrative around Xinjiang is aimed entirely at weakening and maligning China, Zhang noted the astounding irony of accusing China of anti-Muslim discrimination at a time when Gaza is facing a ferocious assault and the same countries throwing accusations at China are at the same time impeding a ceasefire in the Middle East.

Zhang further addressed the rise in racism and Islamophobia in the Western world:

It is the UK that has seen a rise in racism in recent years. It is the US that is known for committing genocide against Native Americans. Its hypocrisy and double standards on the Israeli-Palestinian issue have also aroused anger among Muslims worldwide. It is some European countries that, under the guise of freedom of speech, condone the desecration of Koran and fuel Islamophobia. The list goes on and on! Your hypocrisy, darkness, and evil are the biggest obstacles to the progress of the international human rights cause.

With the countries of the Global South, including the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries, showing their support for China, it’s abundantly clear that “the political plot to destabilize Xinjiang and contain China has long been seen through by the world and has already completely failed”.
China strongly opposed the US, UK, and a small number of other nations’ attempts to misuse the UN platform to incite conflict and baselessly defame China after they groundlessly blamed China on topics related to the country’s Xinjiang region at a session of the UN General Assembly. Analysts said that the world has once again witnessed the hypocrisy and political motivations of the US and some other Western nations as they claim to “care about” Muslims in China’s Xinjiang area, who live peacefually, while turning a blind eye to the pain of the people in Gaza.

On Wednesday, James Kariuki, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, represented some countries and delivered a joint statement at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, in which they alleged China has “violated” human rights of Muslims minorities in the country’s Xinjiang region.

Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, strongly refuted these accusations and stated that the bad habits of a few countries like the UK and the US remain unchanged, as they once again abused the Third Committee of the General Assembly to provoke confrontation and groundlessly accuse China, which China firmly opposes and strongly rejects.

“I want to seriously tell a few countries like the UK and the US that the various lies and deceptions about Xinjiang cannot deceive the world. Currently, Xinjiang enjoys social stability and harmony, economic prosperity and development, and religious harmony. These are basic facts that any unbiased person can see clearly,” Zhang said.

No matter what political performance the US, UK and some countries put on or how desperately they try to rally other countries, their political plot to destabilize Xinjiang and contain China has long been seen through by the world and has already completely failed, said Zhang.

While refuting lies about China’s Xinjiang region, Ambassador Zhang also warned that a few countries like the UK and the US that using human rights issues as an excuse to accuse and attack China cannot cover up their own blemishes.

“It is the UK that has seen a rise in racism in recent years… It is the US that is known for committing genocide against Native Americans… Its hypocrisy and double standards on the Israeli-Palestinian issue have also aroused anger among Muslims worldwide. It is some European countries that, under the guise of freedom of speech, condone the desecration of Koran and fuel Islamophobia… This list can go on and on! Your hypocrisy, darkness, and evil are the biggest obstacles to the progress of the international human rights cause,” Zhang added.

It is not uncommon to see the US and other Western nations take advantage of international forums, particularly the UN Assembly, to “siege” China by spotlighting “human rights” issues in China’s Xinjiang. Their goal is to keep these topics the focus in the international media and to continue stigmatizing China, analysts said.

“China has invited foreign diplomats, reporters, professors, and individuals from a variety of fields to see what actually happened in the Xinjiang region with their own eyes for the past few years. These individuals have then come out to debunk lies propagated by anti-China forces in the US and other nations,” Jia Chunyang, an expert at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.

“Do the US and other Western countries sincerely care about the welfare of Muslims across the world? The response is ‘no,'” Jia brought out the worsening discrimination toward Muslims living in the US.

Additionally, the US and some Western nations ignore the suffering of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip while voicing their “concerns” for Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region – this amply demonstrates that their true priorities are to use the Xinjiang topic to contain China rather than to genuinely care about the lives of the people living there, analysts said.

Also on Wednesday, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza, according to media reports.

The US’ biased stance on the current situation in the Middle East fully exposed its hypocrisies and its practices of politicizing and instrumentalizing human rights, Wang Jiang, an expert at the Institute of China’s Borderland Studies at Zhejiang Normal University, told the Global Times.

The West and the US have historically contributed to the human rights cause, but what they are doing now completely contradicts the ideas and perspectives that were first introduced about human rights. The US and certain other Western nations have various standards on human rights for other nations, as well as for adversaries and allies, and which standard they employ depends on their own political requirements, Wang said.

Ambassador Zhang on Wednesday also criticized the US and some Western countries’ politicization of human rights, noting that such actions are “completely unpopular.”

On Wednesday, the representative of Oman, on behalf of the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, made a joint statement in support of China. In the meeting held the previous day, developing countries and friendly nations actively spoke in support of China.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/03/w ... suffering/

Image

Zhang Jun: Without a comprehensive ceasefire, humanitarian assistance will only be a drop in the ocean
After four attempts to pass a resolution in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the conflict in Gaza had already failed, due to the imperialist powers, led by the United States, aiding and abetting Israeli genocide, China, joined by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), currently a non-permanent member, called for an emergency UNSC meeting on October 30.

In his remarks to the meeting, Ambassador Zhang Jun noted that on Friday October 27, an emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) had, by an overwhelming majority, adopted a resolution calling for an immediate and durable humanitarian truce leading to the cessation of hostilities.

“Regrettably and unacceptably however, Israel, turning a deaf ear to the common concerns of the international community, has chosen to further escalate its military operations in Gaza and formally declared the launch of a ground assault.”

Noting the warning made by UN Secretary-General Guterres that the people of Gaza are facing an “avalanche of human suffering”, the Chinese Ambassador went on:

“Having one of the highest population density in the world, Gaza is a land that has been under siege for 16 years. The 2.3 million innocent people are living in utter fear amidst the indiscriminate bombardment and have been cut off from water, electricity, food, and fuel for 21 days. Just this past weekend, they experienced a communication blackout that lasted for nearly 36 hours. If left unchecked, the situation will spiral further out of control and an even greater humanitarian catastrophe will be inevitable.”

After expressing, “our deep sympathy to the people in Gaza who are struggling on the brink of life and death,” Zhang Jun said:

“China solemnly calls on Israel as the occupying power to fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law, lift its full siege on Gaza, immediately rescind its emergency evacuation order, and expeditiously restore the supply of basic necessities so as to prevent an even larger humanitarian disaster.”

And clearly addressing himself to the United States, he added:

“China solemnly calls on a certain major country with special influence on the parties concerned to put aside its self-interests and geopolitical considerations and make every effort to stop the war and restore peace.”

He warned of the real dangers of escalation: “There will be no firewall in Gaza… The situation in the West Bank and along the Lebanese-Israeli border has already sounded the alarm.”

Although humanitarian assistance is vital: “Without a comprehensive ceasefire, humanitarian assistance, no matter how much there is, will only be a drop in the ocean. What the people in Gaza need now is more than just the reiteration by the Council of the importance of international humanitarian law and unfulfilled promises of protection. What they need is concrete actions to restore peace, uphold the rule of law, and save lives.”

In solemn words that match the gravity of the situation, and which all countries would do well to heed, Ambassador Zhang Jun concluded:

“At this juncture. silence means acquiescence, and inaction is tantamount to a green light. The eyes of the world are upon us, and history will record our choice.”

The next day, October 31, at the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s regular press conference, in response to a question from Chinese television, Spokesperson Wang Wenbin stated:

“For too long, Palestinian territories have been under illegal occupation. For too long, the Palestinian people’s right to independent statehood has been overlooked. And for too long, their basic rights have received no fundamental guarantee. This is the root cause of the cycle of conflict between Palestine and Israel. Such historical injustice must not continue.”

The following article was originally published on the website of the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations.
Mr. President.

First of all, I would like to thank Brazil for organizing today’s meeting upon the request of the UAE and China. I thank Executive Director Catherine Russell, Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini, and Ms. Lisa Doughten for the briefings. Their briefings underscored once again the gravity of the situation in Gaza and the urgency for the Council to act.

Last Friday, the 10th emergency special session of the General Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority a resolution calling for an immediate and durable humanitarian truce leading to the cessation of hostilities. This reflected the widespread call on the part of the international community. Regrettably and unacceptably however, Israel, turning a deaf ear to the common concerns of the international community, has chosen to further escalate its military operations in Gaza and formally declared the launch of a ground assault.

Secretary-General Guterres has warned that the population in Gaza is facing an “avalanche of human suffering”. Having one of the highest population density in the world, Gaza is a land that has been under siege for 16 years. The 2.3 million innocent people are living in utter fear amidst the indiscriminate bombardment and have been cut off from water, electricity, food, and fuel for 21 days. Just this past weekend, they experienced a communication blackout that lasted for nearly 36 hours. If left unchecked, the situation will spiral further out of control and an even greater humanitarian catastrophe will be inevitable.

We express our deep sympathy to the people in Gaza who are struggling on the brink of life and death. And we are also deeply worried about the Middle East peace process which is on the brink of collapse.

China solemnly calls on the parties to the conflict to cease all hostilities, disengage immediately, put in place a humanitarian truce, and make every effort to prevent the situation from escalating further.

China solemnly calls on Israel as the occupying power to fulfill its obligations under international humanitarian law, lift its full siege on Gaza, immediately rescind its emergency evacuation order, and expeditiously restore the supply of basic necessities so as to prevent an even larger humanitarian disaster.

China solemnly calls for greater diplomatic efforts to facilitate the release of hostages without delay and to work on this basis to open up space for dialogue, so as to return to the track of a political settlement.

China solemnly calls on a certain major country with special influence on the parties concerned to put aside its self interests and geopolitical considerations and make every effort to stop the war and restore peace.

Mr. President,

The decades-long history of the Palestinian-Israeli issue has taught us that military means is not the solution. Absolute security cannot be achieved by imposing collective punishment on civilians, and violence for violence will only exacerbate hatred and confrontation. We call on the parties to the conflict to abandon their blind faith in the use of force and to commit themselves to breaking the cycle of violence and achieving common security.

There will be no firewall in Gaza. It is a dangerous myth to think that a contained war is possible there. Allowing the fighting in Gaza to continue could very well turn it into a military catastrophe that will engulf the entire region. The situation in the West Bank and along the Lebanese-Israeli border has already sounded the alarm. We call on all parties who are concerned about the spillover of the conflict to devote their efforts towards promoting a ceasefire in Gaza.

As long as the war rages on, more violations of international humanitarian law are bound to happen. Without a comprehensive ceasefire, humanitarian assistance, no matter how much there is, will only be a drop in the ocean. What the people in Gaza need now is more than just the reiteration by the Council of the importance of international humanitarian law and unfulfilled promises of protection. What they need is concrete actions to restore peace, uphold the rule of law, and save lives.

The Council has so far held several meetings on the Palestinian-Israeli Situation. It cannot be said that there was no consensus at all. The resolution just adopted by the General Assembly has also pointed the Council in the right direction. In the face of the current critical situation, China once again solemnly calls on the Council to strengthen unity, build consensus, and take responsible and meaningful actions as soon as possible. We believe that so long as we focus on the most pressing issues such as a ceasefire and an end to the fighting, the protection of civilians, and the prevention of a larger humanitarian disaster, it is possible for members of this Council to reach consensus, and indeed this is what we should do. At this juncture. silence means acquiescence, and inaction is tantamount to a green light. The eyes of the world are upon us, and history will record our choice.

Thank you, Mr. President.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/01/z ... the-ocean/

Image

Clare Daly: ‘derisking’ from China would be suicidal for European industry
In this episode of the CGTN program Dialogue, Xu Qinduo interviews Clare Daly, the outspoken, anti-imperialist member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Ireland on the EU’s attitude towards the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as on China.

Clare notes that the recent resolution on Gaza adopted by the European parliament, which she and her colleague Mick Wallace voted against, did not address the root causes of the conflict or the crimes, including ethnic cleansing and genocide, perpetrated by the Israeli apartheid state. The EU and the United States, she notes, are complicit in Israeli genocide and that makes them equally culpable in international law.

On Ukraine, she is not presently hopeful of prospects for peace. Rather she fears that working class Ukrainian men will continue to be killed in the interests of western arms companies who seek to perpetuate the conflict.

Asked about the moves to expand NATO to Asia, possibly starting with the establishment of an office in Tokyo, Clare responds that she has said before that the last bite of a dying snake is the most dangerous. US hegemony is in decline and there is no going back on this. But in its lashing out in desperation it is very dangerous. In this regard, she cites President Biden’s recent demand for US$100 bn for not only Israel and Ukraine but Taiwan as well. She feels that the US managed to provoke Russia and now seeks to do the same to China over Taiwan. However, she believes that Chinese diplomacy is more measured and the country will not walk into a similar trap.

Asked what impressed her most on her recent visit to China, she says there is not enough time to recount all the amazing things she saw. China, she notes, has built whole cities, but in Dublin it has not been possible to build even one metro station in 30 years. Ireland does not have a single high-speed train and neither does the US. Unfortunately, the EU has been following the US in seeking to restrict relations with China under the guise of ‘derisking’ and similar terms. Such a policy, she notes, if followed through, would be suicidal for European industry. In the face of these provocations, Clare advises China to continue with its diplomatic overtures and says she can think of nothing that China should be doing differently.

Within this situation, Clare asserts that Ireland has a special role to play. The EU is largely made up of former colonising powers or former socialist countries. Ireland, however, was colonised. It knows what it is like to be oppressed. Therefore, Ireland can be a voice for neutrality, non-alignment, multilateral cooperation and international solidarity.

The full interview with Clare Daly MEP is embedded below.


https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/01/c ... -industry/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Nov 11, 2023 3:38 pm

10 demands for Xi Jinping
colonelcassad
November 10, 10:33

Image

10 demands for Xi Jinping

The US House Committee on China put forward 10 demands, which were submitted to Biden in a letter.
Joe should voice them at a meeting with Xi Jinping in San Francisco.
If Xi Jinping fails to meet these demands, the US should take a tougher stance against Beijing.

Here are the main American demands:

1. Stop PLA activities in Taiwan's air defense zone east of the median line of the Taiwan Strait.
2. Stop “unsafe interceptions” of US Navy and Air Force ships and aircraft.
3. Release all US citizens illegally detained in China.
4. Allow all US citizens who are prohibited from leaving China to leave China.
5. Establish “know your customer” requirements for the supply of fentanyl to the PRC.
6. Beijing should stop harassing Philippine ships around the Second Thomas Shoal.
7. China should drop charges against Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai and the Hong Kong 47 pro-democracy activists.
8. Release Gulshan Abbas, Ekpar Asat, Kamile Vaita.
9. Lift the travel ban on Aishem Mamut, mother of Nura Turkel, chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.
10. Suspend programs in Xinjiang.

https://t.me/China3army/25654 - zinc

Of course, this “document” represents a gross interference in the internal affairs of China and, of course, China will send the United States to hell with such demands. The initiators of the adoption of the document understand this. This is just another step in escalating the Cold War against China, with the possibility of escalating into a hot war in Taiwan.
Of course, this will push China towards even closer relations with Russia, which is objectively beneficial for us.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8757012.html

Google Translator

Brillant! That's how not to drive a wedge between China and Russia. China can clearly see what lying arrogant bastards the west is, they play for time, as they have for decades. Allowing some Western capital into China has paid off in dividends not readily apparent. Us investment there acts as a drag anchor on the warmongers, and while that cannot last much longer it has served China very well, perhaps decisively.

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

Image

The US has its own BRI: the Bomb and Ruin Initiative
The following article by Carlos Martinez, originally published in Global Times, compares the records of China and the US in terms of their engagement with the Global South. Specifically, Carlos summarises the impact of the China-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) over the course of its first decade, and contrasts this with the effect of the US’s equivalent projects.

While several US-led global infrastructure projects have been announced (such as the Build Back Better World and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor), none of these have made any meaningful progress as yet. However, “if we look at the actual history and reality of US foreign policy, it becomes clear that the US does actually have its own BRI: the Bomb and Ruin Initiative.”

From Iraq to Palestine to Venezuela to Syria to Ukraine to Zimbabwe and beyond, the US uses war, proxy war, destabilisation, sanctions and coercion, “spreading death and destruction in pursuit of its own selfish economic and political interests,” while China cooperates with the countries of the world on the basis of respect, equality and common interest in pursuit of a global community of shared future.

The article is based on a speech given at a webinar themed Third Belt and Road Forum: Together for Common Development and Shared Prosperity, organised by the Pakistan-based Friends of the Belt and Road Forum, the Institute of Peace and Diplomatic Studies and the Centre for BRI and China Studies, which took place on Tuesday 7 November.
The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has attracted a great deal of attention recently, particularly with the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation having taken place in Beijing last month.

Since it was announced a decade ago, the BRI has already become the world’s largest platform for international cooperation, with more than 150 countries and 30 international organizations participating across five continents. A trillion dollars have been spent or committed on projects that are increasingly transforming the development prospects for dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the Pacific.

A number of these projects have already been delivered. The Chinese-built Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway, for example, is the largest infrastructure project carried out in Kenya since its independence. The China-Laos Railway, completed in 2021, has turned Laos from a land-locked country into a land-linked country, thereby stimulating trade, employment, economic opportunities and living standards. The Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway – the first high-speed rail system in Indonesia – has reduced the journey time from 3.5 hours to 45 minutes.

The BRI is becoming green. The prominent Norwegian environmentalist Erik Solheim, former minister of the environment, stated at a webinar hosted by Friends of Socialist China on November 4 that the BRI has become the most important global project in terms of green, sustainable development.

Does the US – the world’s largest economy in nominal GDP terms – have an equivalent to the China-proposed BRI? A few such projects have been announced, to much fanfare. The Build Back Better World (B3W) was unveiled in 2021. The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) was announced in September this year. But these initiatives are yet to experience any manifestation in reality – and it’s tempting to wonder if they ever will.

But if we look at the actual history and reality of US foreign policy, it becomes clear that the US does actually have its own BRI: the Bomb and Ruin Initiative.

The Bomb and Ruin Initiative started in earnest in 1950 with the launch of the Korean War, in which an estimated four million people were killed. The initiative continued with the Vietnam War, the brutal 1965 coup in Indonesia, the coups and proxy wars in Guatemala, Angola, Brazil, Chile, Mozambique, Argentina, Nicaragua, Grenada, just to name a few.

The flagship Bomb and Ruin Initiative project this century so far has been the illegal war on Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. The country was flattened and its development set back by decades.

China has taken a significantly different approach with respect to Iraq. Indeed Iraq is one of the major recipients of infrastructure investment under the BRI, with a vast array of bridges, roads and railways being constructed, alongside energy and telecommunications infrastructure. China is committed to building some 7,000 schools in Iraq.

Iraq of course is best known for its abundance of oil – certainly that has been a central motivating factor for a century of British and American interference – but these days China is leading the investment in Iraq’s growing solar energy industry. The world can look forward to the day when Iraq is an advanced, prosperous country, and a green energy superpower.

In Iraq, the contrast between the BRI and the Bomb and Ruin Initiative is quite stark. So much so that there’s a popular saying: “America bombs, China builds.”

This contrast is emblematic of the US’ and China’s role in the world in general.

The US has brought misery and destruction to Afghanistan, that long-suffering country, with a 20-year war and occupation, and now cruel sanctions put in place to prevent the country from getting back on its feet.

The US and its allies bombed Libya into the Stone Age, turning it from a relatively prosperous country – with the highest Human Development Index in Africa – into a failed state.

The US has been a key player in fomenting and perpetuating the devastating war in Syria, supporting the emergence of terrorist groups in a strategy of regime change, and then using the presence of those same groups as a justification for its own uninvited and unwanted military presence in the country.

About two weeks ago, the US responded to attacks on its illegal Syrian facilities not by dismantling the facilities but by carrying out air strikes against Syrian government sites.

It’s no secret that the US is the driving force behind the war in Ukraine. The essential character of this conflict is a proxy war to weaken Russia.

With the sponsorship and total support of the US, Israel is showing no regard at all for the people of Gaza. Already more than 10,000 people have been killed. The UN has called it a “children’s graveyard.” The people of the world want a ceasefire; China, Russia, Brazil and many others have called for a ceasefire. But the US – along with its most dependable ally, Britain – is standing in the way.

The US gets criticized for not building enough infrastructure. However, the US is building plenty of infrastructure of war and aggression: 800 overseas military bases; the stationing of nuclear-enabled missiles and warplanes in Japan, Guam and South Korea, along with tens of thousands of US troops; the placement of the THAAD so-called missile defence system in Guam and South Korea; the AUKUS trilateral nuclear pact between the US, UK and Australia. When it comes to the project of containing and encircling China, the US has no problem with building infrastructure.

The stark difference between China’s BRI and the US’ BRI is clear for all to see.

The US is pursuing a hegemonic, imperialist project; a Project for a New American Century. It is spreading death and destruction in pursuit of its own selfish economic and political interests.

Meanwhile, China is pursuing what it calls a global community of shared future – described by President Xi Jinping as “an open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security and common prosperity, charting a bright future for human development.”

This is an inspiring, democratic and inclusive vision that is rapidly gaining broad support around the globe.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/10/t ... nitiative/

Image

Zhang Weiwei: the BRI is built on socialist concepts of discussing together, building together and benefiting together
The following is the text of a speech given by Professor Zhang Weiwei (Director of the China Institute at Fudan University, and author of several important books about China, including The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State) at the webinar Building a multipolar world – Ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative, held on Saturday 4 November.

Professor Zhang outlines the founding principles and broad historic significance of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). He notes that the foundations for the BRI were laid during the two stages of China’s rise – the first three decades of socialist construction from 1949 to 1978, followed by the accelerated industrialisation and modernisation of the Reform and Opening Up period – and that both these stages were indispensable in allowing China to break from the US-dominated peripheral-central world order and emerge as an economic leader in its own right.

The BRI is a manifestation of this leadership. It is a “hard power” project, with China providing goods, experience and technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to developing countries, and a “soft power” project, with the socialist principles of “discussing together, building together, and benefiting together” guiding the BRI’s development. Zhang observes that these principles are rooted in China’s consultative democracy and can-do spirit, and have been tested and proven in China’s own modernisation process.

A short report of the webinar can be found on China Daily.

The event stream can be viewed on YouTube.
Hello, comrades and friends,

It’s a great pleasure to speak at this webinar on Building a multipolar world – Ten years of the BRI. I will make three observations:

First, on the rise of socialist China. Indeed, it’s remarkable than with 7 decades of unremitting effort, China has become the world’s largest economy by PPP, and the largest trading nation, with the largest middle income group, and largest consumer market.

This historic transformation can be divided into roughly two stages, the first stage, in the first three decades, under the leadership of Chairman Mao, China laid political, economic and social foundations for its rise.

Then the second stage, from 1978, economic take-off, roughly, “one decade, one Industrial Revolution”. China achieved a miracle of the “Four Industrial Revolutions in One” within four decades or so, and now it is in the premier frontier of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (big data, AI and quantum technologies, etc).

Second, on the Chinese break from the peripheral-central world order and becoming the first super-large socialist country that has meaningfully broken the yoke of dependency on the West.

Internally, China has completely eradicated extreme poverty, achieved medical insurance for all, pension for all, and China now has a higher literacy rate than the US, and higher life expectancy than the US (2 years longer, 2021).

Externally, China has become simultaneously the largest partner for the peripheral countries and center countries in terms of trade, investment, financial resources and technologies. That’s why we rightly predicted in 2018 that US will lose its trade war and tech war against China.

Third, all this has paved the way for the launch of the BRI by President Xi Jinping ten years ago and for its stunning success so far. Its success has to do with what may be called the BRI’s hard power and soft power.

Hard power: China is the only country capable of providing goods, experience and technologies of the Four Industrial Revolutions to the developing countries, and China has helped Africa build 6,000 kilometers of railways and 6,000 kilometers of highways. Many landlocked countries are no longer landlocked, many countries without railways are now with railways. Many people who could not afford smart phones now have smart phones and their countries have 4G or even 5G networks.

China is often capable of providing total solutions to industrialization in developing countries. For instance, China completed a comprehensive petro-chemical production package from scratch for countries like Chad, Sudan and Turkmenistan. Being the world’s largest consumer market, China can accommodate a large number of goods from developing countries. For instance, with the completion of the China-Laotian railway, China has become the largest market for the famous Thai fruit durian, a jump of 65% since the railway was built. Now the durian trade alone created 3 billion dollar business for Thailand and the Chinese consumers benefited from this trade.

Soft power: the motto of the BRI is gòngshāng gòngjiàn gòngxiǎng (共商共建共享) or “discussing together, building together and benefiting together”. These ideas are very socialist and have been tested repeatedly within China’s successful process of modernization.

Discussing together originates from China’s consultative democracy (in both high politics and low politics).

Building together originates from the Chinese can-do spirit. Many Africans described the Western projects in Africa as NATO (No Action, Talk Only) whereas Chinese projects are action-oriented, and once consensus is reached by the parties concerned, actions immediately follow suit.

Benefiting together means, China-aid projects aside, the BRI is not a charity, and most BRI projects are commercially viable ones and win-win for all the parties concerned.

In short, these well tested ideas and practices are guided by a deep-rooted Chinese philosophical belief. If the Western belief can be described as “divide and rule”, then the Chinese one is “unite and prosper”. We practice it at home with stunning success and now we promote it in the BRI, and it’s also working well.

In conclusion, the hard power and the soft power are still gaining momentum as shown in China’s rise and the BRI’s success, and this will surely encourage more and more countries in the Global South to work together in a meaningful way to change the unipolar global order to a multipolar one.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/08/z ... -together/

Image

Prachanda: China’s successes building socialism provide great encouragement to the peoples of the world
In this episode of the CGTN series Leaders Talk, recorded on September 25, two days after the opening of the Asian Games in Hangzhou, Li Tongtong interviews Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the Prime Minister of Nepal, known as Prachanda.

Noting that Prachanda is now serving his third term as Prime Minister, Li notes that the first of his many visits to China was to attend the closing ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics during his first term. Now, 15 years later, he is in China for the opening of the Asian Games, having moved up his speaking slot at the United Nations General Assembly session in New York to be present. Nepal set a record with more than 250 of its athletes competing in the games this time and Prachanda observes that the 2008 Olympics showcased China’s progress to the world. And now the Asian Games show that China has taken another leap forward.

Prachanda says that he has met President Xi Jinping five times and finds him a very sincere and visionary leader. Topics he had discussed with him this time included the common interests of the two countries, how to better facilitate China’s support and help to Nepal, for example in aviation, railway, road and transmission line connectivity, as well as climate change, poverty reduction and friendly relations between the two peoples.

The Nepalese Prime Minister, who is also the leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), says that the glorious history of the Communist Party of China (CPC), since its founding in 1921, has seen it amass a wealth of experience. As a result, it has achieved a great success in building a new model of socialism, namely socialism with Chinese characteristics. This has provided great encouragement to and made a positive impact on communist parties and people who want development and social justice around the world. They all want to learn from China’s experience.

The friendship between Nepal and China, Prachanda observes, has deep roots and one example of their special relations is that Nepal is the only country to have diplomatic representation in Xizang (Tibet), which Prachanda went on to visit as the last stop of his visit. Its consulate in Lhasa is one of five Nepali consulates in China, more than it has in any other country.

Whilst the number of people engaged in agricultural production in Nepal is gradually decreasing, Prachanda explains that his country is still primarily an agricultural one. So China’s experience and assistance in the agricultural field is very meaningful and important for Nepal. He always aim to study agricultural matters each time he visits China and this time he is focusing on how Nepal can enhance its agricultural production through the adoption of modern technologies.

Turning Nepal from a landlocked to a land-linked country is another key priority and in this respect Chinese experts are now engaged in active feasibility studies for the construction of a China/Nepal railway. Prachanda dismisses allegations of a ‘debt trap’ or the idea that a rail link could somehow pose a a security threat to other countries as baseless.

Irrespective of international, regional or domestic changes, he insists, his country’s position on relations with China will not change or be allowed to change. Nepal has always pursued a foreign policy of independence and non-alignment. It is resolute in defending its national sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. Nepal has never wavered or capitulated under pressure and it never will.

Guided by the United Nations Charter and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, Nepal firmly believes that all countries are equal, that no country should be allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of others, and that all countries have the right to decide on their own affairs.

Asked finally about his use of the name Prachanda, he said he adopted it when he was leading the revolutionary struggle. But he also used it during the peace process. He is more recognised by this name than by his original name and he will continue to use it as it symbolises both revolution and peace.

The full interview is embedded below. (See link.)
https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/10/p ... the-world/

Image

Humor in the headlines over China in Latin America
The following article by Roger D. Harris, originally published in Orinoco Tribune presents a biting, satirical critique of the Washington Post’s portrayal of China’s growing influence in Latin America, particularly highlighting Honduras’s diplomatic pivot towards Beijing.

The piece contrasts US indignation at Honduras’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China with the US’s own longstanding adherence to the One China policy. The author also observes that China’s engagement with the countries of the region – offering trade, aid and investment, whilst maintaining a strict policy of non-interference and mutual benefit – is a breath of fresh air, certainly compared to the US’s record (which, in the case of Honduras, includes engineering a coup to depose the elected leftist government of Manuel Zelaya in 2009).

Western media and politicians have been warning about the threat of China’s growing influence in Latin America for some time now, and the author cites a Financial Times article warning that a proposed deepwater port in Peru is “large enough to be used by Beijing’s navy to resupply warships.”

Harris responds sarcastically: “If a few hundred more deals like this were transacted and subsequently somehow weaponized, the Chinese could remotely in the distant future be on their way to create the equivalent of what BBC calls the complete arc of US military bases that presently surround China… China may soon export fortune cookies with subversive messages or, more threatening yet, launch another weather balloon over the Pacific.”

In truth, China’s growing engagement with Latin America is a welcome development, and the US’s hostility to it is not based on any concern for the wellbeing of the region’s population, but rather forms part of a systematic campaign of anti-China propaganda.
In a break from its hysterical coverage of the existential threat posed by Donald Trump, the Washington Post – house organ of the Democratic National Committee – cautions us of the other menace, China. “When the leader of this impoverished Central American country visited Beijing in June,” we are warned, “China laid out the warmest of welcomes.”

Apparently in a grave threat to US national security, the president of Honduras attended a state banquet and actually ate Chinese food. What next for the country the Post affectionately describes as “long among the most docile of US regional partners?”

Honduras changes its China policy
In a classic example of do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do diplomacy, the US was miffed when Honduras recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China in March. Curiously, the US implemented its one-China policy 44 years ago.

Today, a mere baker’s dozen of the world’s countries still recognize Taiwan as sovereign. Among them, Guatemala will switch Chinas if president-elect Bernardo Arévalo is allowed to assume office in January. Another holdout, Haiti, literally does not have an elected government of its own but may soon be receiving a US-sponsored occupying army.

China has emerged as South America’s leading and the wider Latin American region’s second largest trading partner, with over twenty states joining Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. This provides a substitute to monopolar dependence on commerce with Uncle Sam. Russia, too, has been pushing under the greenback curtain. The BRICS+ alliance with China and Russia also includes Brazil and Argentina among others.

“US aid and investments throughout the region are historically seen as slow in coming,” the Post explains as the cause for the trade and diplomatic shifts seen in the region and reflected in Honduras.

The Post hastens to add with a straight face that US investments come with “significant stipulations on human rights and democracy.” Supporting this ridiculous claim, the Post notes: “Honduras, long known for violence and corruption, has been subject to particular US scrutiny.”

The Post, it should be noted, proudly runs the tagline “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” So they should know what form the “particular” US scrutiny took.

Tellingly omitted from the Post’s story is mention of the 2009 US-backed coup that deposed the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manual Zelaya. In her memoirs, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took credit for preventing Zelaya’s return to his elected post. That was in the original hardcover version of the vanity book. The subsequent paperback expunged the boast.

Xiomara Castro, who first rose to prominence after the coup that overthrew her husband Manual Zelaya, became the first female president of Honduras in January 2022.

Her predecessor, Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH), was immediately extradited to the US for drug trafficking proving beyond doubt that hers was a victory over a nacro-dictatorship. JOH was the last of a line of corrupt golpistas (coup mongers) that the US had propped up for the last dozen years. So much for the Post’s vaunting of US support for human rights and democracy.

And then, almost as an afterthought, the Post acknowledges that indeed US aid and investments have other strings attached to them; namely, “a preference for the private sector and nongovernmental organizations.” Concluding: “In contrast, China’s offers of trade and investment, with few strings attached, have increasingly outweighed traditional ties or ideology in the region.”

Peru – Chinese on the 20-yard line in our homeland
There’s cause for concern down in Peru too. Pedro Castillo, the elected president from a leftwing party, was imprisoned last December in a parliamentary coup backed by the military and the US. The de facto government imposed a state of emergency when demonstrations were mounted. Castillo was seen by the poor and indigenous as one of their own in a society with deep fissures of class and race

Disproportionate use of force against the protests, including firing live ammunition, has resulted in some 80 people killed. The US immediately voiced support for the coup regime and later deployed troops to Peru to bolster the unpopular government. (In neighboring Ecuador, the US recently struck a deal to send troops there in support of another faltering rightwing regime.) Peru’s economy is in recession and local communities are resisting major foreign mining projects.

So what’s the problem? According to an article in the Financial Times, based on the word of an “anonymous” US official and bolstered by the testimony of a nameless “source” close to the Peruvian government, there is a weighty peril. But it is not any of the above.

Apparently the Peruvian government is “not sufficiently focused” on the threats to their country posed by Chinese investment in infrastructure.

A possible reason for the insufficient focus by Peru’s president is she is being charged with committing crimes of genocide, aggravated homicide, and abuse of authority by Peru’s attorney general’s office.

Had she been paying attention, she would have noted that in April the Italian energy firm Enel announced it would sell its Peruvian electricity business to a Chinese company. Previously, another Chinese firm invested in Lima’s electricity supply and some hydroelectric dams.

The danger doesn’t stop there. Cosco, a Chinese state-owned company, has a 60% stake in a proposed deepwater port in Peru with construction slated for late next year. As the Financial Times warns, while the port is designed for cargo ships, it is “large enough to be used by Beijing’s navy to resupply warships.”

If a few hundred more deals like this were transacted and subsequently somehow weaponized, the Chinese could remotely in the distant future be on their way to create the equivalent of what BCC calls the complete arc of US military bases that presently surround China.

With such infrastructure projects and their 5G mobile networks, according to the head of the US Southern Command, the Chinese are already “on the 20-yard line to our homeland.”

What’s next for America’s backyard – upgraded to “front yard” by Mr. Biden – in this the 200th year of the Monroe Doctrine? China may soon export fortune cookies with subversive messages or, more threatening yet, launch another weather balloon over the Pacific. It is reassuring that the US seventh fleet, including its “ghost” drone warships, still patrols the coast of China with its message of peace.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/08/h ... n-america/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:17 pm

China Brands Biden ‘Irresponsible’ for Calling President Xi Jinping ‘Dictator’
NOVEMBER 17, 2023

Image

US President Joe Biden (left) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) before their meeting on the sidelines of the APEC Summit, San Francisco, USA, November 15, 2023. Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning called US President Joe Biden “irresponsible” after he referred to his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping as a “dictator.”

During a press briefing, Mao specified that Biden’s statement is “absolutely wrong” and an “irresponsible political manipulation.”

“This statement is absolutely wrong and constitutes an irresponsible political manipulation. China firmly opposes it,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman emphasized.

The official’s statement came after Biden reiterated that he has not changed his opinion that Xi Jinping is a dictator. Biden made this statement to the press after the two leaders had held direct talks within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum Leaders Summit, held in San Francisco.

“Look, he is. He’s a dictator in the sense that he’s a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours,” Biden said in response to a question by a journalist.

In this regard, Mao pointed out that there are always people with ulterior motives who try to instigate and undermine China-US relations.

However, she added that “they will not succeed.”

This is not the first time that Joe Biden has called Xi a “dictator.” The US president made a similar remark in June, which also drew a response from China.

Biden-Xi meeting
The two presidents met on Wednesday, November 15, in Silicon Valley, just outside San Francisco, USA, making it the first face-to-face meeting between the two this year.

The last time Biden and Xi spoke face to face was exactly one year and two days ago, at the G-20 summit in Bali, Indonesia.

Biden said that the meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping was constructive and productive.

“We have not always agreed… but the conversations with Xi are always direct,” he added.

https://orinocotribune.com/china-brands ... -dictator/

********

U.S.-China Reset? Biden Offers Hand of Friendship to Xi While Holding Enmity in the Other

November 17, 2023

Aspiring to have normal relations with the U.S. as a global hegemonic power is like trying to have normal relations with a psychotic predator.

Despite the hype in the U.S. media about their much-anticipated summit in California this week marking a putative return to normal bilateral relations, the Biden administration continues pushing unprecedented aggression towards China.

Just like San Francisco’s notorious Third World-like homelessness and squalor being hurriedly cleaned up (swept under the rug, more like it) for the media spectacle, all the signs point to no return to decent U.S.-China relations in the longer term. It’s all a duplicitous facade for a passing moment on a path of enmity.

Biden held a four-hour summit with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Wednesday in San Francisco ahead of the annual conference for the 21-nation Association of Pacific and Economic Cooperation (APEC).

It was highly notable that Biden and Xi did not hold a joint press conference following their lengthy discussions. Nor did the two leaders issue a joint statement. So much for a new beginning!

Almost comically, the supposed positive meeting was later thrown into disarray when Biden at the end of his solo press conference made a hallmark embarrassing gaffe by repeating an earlier epithet for Xi. Asked by a reporter if he still considered the Chinese president “a dictator”, Biden responded, “Yes”.

Antony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, was visibly perplexed by his tone-deaf boss’s remarks, sensing that all the effort to create an apparent amiable reset in relations was in danger of collapsing in farce.

Chinese media tended to overlook Biden’s undiplomatic gaucheness. Surprisingly, China’s foreign ministry and media appeared to talk up the presidential summit as bearing prospects of more friendly bilateral relations. Global Times reported in an upbeat mood on a “strategic summit” for “greater stability in the world”.

The American and Chinese media spinning or wishful thinking about a seeming turnaround in positive relations is misplaced.

As Biden’s foolish and gratuitous remark about Xi being a “dictator” shows, the U.S. rulers have nothing but contempt for China. Biden may have held out a friendly hand to Xi, but the American president and the U.S. establishment are harbouring endemic and growing hostility towards Beijing.

The two presidents last met a year ago during the G20 gathering in Bali, Indonesia. Since that encounter there has been a worrying downturn in U.S.-China relations with many commentators in the U.S. and China, as well as around the world, fearing a possible outbreak of war between the two global nuclear powers.

Frankly, the belligerence stems from one side: the United States. It’s not just the administration of President Joe Biden that espouses aggression by deploying contrived economic sanctions against China. There is a preponderance of irrational hostility in Congress towards Beijing as well as among the U.S. military. Only a month ago, the Pentagon once again labelled China as a growing military threat to American global interests. The alleged threats that Washington traduces are baseless or, ironically, a projection of its own intimidatory actions, such as sending countless naval and aviation patrols near China’s borders on the cynical pretext of “freedom of navigation”.

The Biden White House has continually provoked China with false claims of Chinese expansionism in the Asia-Pacific while the U.S. relentlessly builds up its own military power in the region. Washington is also assiduously recruiting regional allies to gang up on China in the event of war. The AUKUS coalition with Australia and Britain armed with nuclear submarines is a particularly tendentious development. So too is the Quad group involving the U.S., Japan, South Korea and India which arrogantly denigrates China as a hemispheric threat, thereby turning reality completely on its head.

Biden is merely continuing an escalation in hostility that began ramping up under the Obama administration (2008-16) more than a decade ago. Trump maintained the belligerence during his four years (2016-20), which Biden has redoubled. The latter was vice president when Obama launched the so-called Pivot to Asia in 2011.

The trajectory unmistakably shows a systematic policy of U.S. power to confront China, and that policy prevails regardless of who sits in the White House, and no matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. So much for democratic choice!

As American hegemonic dominance goes into rapid decline owing to inherent economic and societal failure under sclerotic late U.S. capitalism, it has become all the more imperative for Washington to try to scale up military aggression towards perceived geopolitical rivals. It’s a desperate gambit to offset a historic decline.

China, being the world’s ascendant second largest economy after the U.S., is logically seen as the Number One threat. So too are Russia and other nations that advocate a multipolar world order free from arbitrary U.S. and Western privileges. This is the geopolitical context for why the NATO axis is waging a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, and why the United States seems hellbent on fomenting chaos and conflict in the Middle East. The would-be hegemon needs violence, chaos and tension like a drug addict craving a narcotic fix.

The deterioration in U.S.-China relations has caused many observers to be apprehensive of a looming war. Pentagon commanders remark openly about an anticipated armed conflict breaking out between the two nuclear powers, especially in relation to tensions over Taiwan.

One reason why Biden seems to be seeking a belated easing of tensions with China is precisely because Washington has stoked the war tendency too much and therefore needs to dampen it, albeit for short-term practical reasons.

Another reason for seemingly engaging with President Xi this week is Biden’s electioneering. He faces a tight presidential race next year and no doubt is looking for something positive to show American voters. Significantly, Biden chose to prioritize his top achievement from discussions with Xi as “counter-narcotics policy”. Over 70,000 Americans die every year from opioid overdosing, more than from gun violence or road accidents. It is a major national scandal in the U.S. China is blamed as a source of fentanyl precursor chemicals. Biden boasted this week that the U.S. and China would cooperate more on controlling illicit drug trade. It seems that Biden was looking more at scoring favour with the U.S. electorate than to genuinely restoring normal bilateral relations with China based on principles of ensuring global peace.

Under Biden, the U.S. has recklessly intensified military and political interference in Taiwan, an island province of China. The Biden administration has proliferated weapons sales to Taiwan in flagrant defiance of China’s warnings to desist.

High-level political delegations from the U.S. to Taiwan have gone hand-in-hand with the increasing American militarization of the island, which is only some 130 kilometres from China’s southeast mainland. The provocation is similar to how the U.S. and NATO weaponized Ukraine to antagonize Russia.

The breakdown in military communications between the U.S. and China was instigated by the visit to Taiwan in August 2022 by Nancy Pelosi, the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, which is the third most senior political office in the U.S. after the president.

This week’s summit between Biden and Xi declared a resumption in military communications between the U.S. and China.

We’ll see how long the supposed detente lasts. Not for long, one suspects going by past form.

After Biden met with Xi in Bali at the end of last year, there were similar professions from the U.S. side of tamping down tensions and resuming normalcy. A couple of months after that supposed “reset”, the Biden administration sparked a crisis when it shot down a Chinese weather balloon that had been blown off course.

The notion that the U.S. can easily repair relations with China is naive. All the signals indicate that Washington is on a collision course with China. Provocative name-calling of China as a threat, the relentless arming of Taiwan and the pursuit of aggressive trade war policies all spell out confrontation.

That dire direction is, unfortunately, unavoidable because the U.S. sees itself as the indispensable sole superpower that will not tolerate any global arrangement other than its hegemonic dominance. That zero-sum mindset of the United States is intrinsic to its imperialist power. That is why the U.S. as it is currently formulated as a state is destined to be a warmonger. World peace is anathema to U.S. imperial power.

China, Russia and other nations aiming for a new multipolar world must be cognizant of that nefarious reality. Aspiring to have normal relations with the U.S. as a global hegemonic power is like trying to have normal relations with a psychotic predator.

President Teddy Roosevelt (1900-10) once jocularly described the practice of U.S. foreign policy as speaking softly while carrying a big club. That’s the essence of a global bully. U.S. power always relies on wielding a military club. The only difference now under Biden is that instead of speaking softly, the U.S. stutters over its lies and deceptions.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2023/ ... -in-other/

*******

Image

Liu Jianchao: Working together to build a modern Global South
The following is an important article by Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee (IDCPC), concerning the current state and prospects of the Global South.

Minister Liu begins by noting that the world today is confronted with unprecedented and accelerated changes. An important feature of the changes is that the collective rise of developing countries is gaining momentum. The rise of developing countries, as a whole, is based on and reinforced by their collective modernization.

Thus, he argues, an in-depth discussion on the modernization of the Global South is urgently needed, not only in response to the call of developing countries for peace, development, and progress, but also to meet the aspirations of the people of all countries for modernization and human advancement.

According to Liu, the Global South is where the hope lies today. The term “Global South”, he goes on, has first and foremost a “south” dimension.

“However, the ‘South’ in the Global South is not a geographical term but a byword for emerging markets and developing countries. It is an identity and representative of a community of countries with similar historical experiences, political pursuits, and development goals.

“The term also has a ‘global’ dimension. It symbolizes a prominent worldwide trend of the collective rise of developing countries and reflects their strong wish for solidarity and self-reliance. The countries of the Global South once suffered from aggression, colonization, suppression, and plunder. It is through years of struggle and hard work, along with the evolving changes in this century, that the Global South has gradually become an important force driving the reforms in the world order and seeking political independence, national rejuvenation and international justice.”


Arguing that the Global South is a “a leading champion of a new type of globalization”, Liu writes that, “unilateralism, protectionism and populism are rearing their ugly heads today. Attempts to build ‘small yards with high fences’ to ‘decouple’ from other economies, sever industry and supply chains and stoke bloc confrontation are rampant… At this crucial moment, the countries of the Global South have chosen to confront difficulties head on.”

“In particular,” he continues, “countries of the Global South, upholding the principle of ‘planning together, building together, and benefiting together’, have pressed ahead the Belt and Road cooperation to a new stage of high-quality development, thus injecting new impetus into global growth, creating new opportunities for global development, and building a new platform for international cooperation.”

According to Liu, the Global South is “the source of strength for global multipolarity.” And it is, “a key force promoting greater democracy in international relations. Over the years, the voice of the Global South has been muted on the world stage and the reasonable concerns of developing countries have not been addressed.

“The few traditional powers that have dominated the right to set the international agenda and rules have always put their own interests first. Their hegemonic, domineering, and bullying practices have disturbed the normal international order and undermined international justice and fairness. Under the new circumstances, more and more Global South countries have realized the [reality of the] ideological and institutional yoke of imperialism and colonialism. And they are more determined than ever to seek strategic autonomy, practice true multilateralism, and promote greater democracy in international relations.”

On the question of modernization, he notes that:

“The Global South must take measures to break the myth that modernization equals westernization. For a long time, people believed westernization is modernization. In fact, modernization is not a single answer question. Different historical conditions lead to different choices of paths to modernization. The modernization of the West started with the expansion of capitalism and reached its peak with the help of colonialism, large-scale exploitation of other countries and the use of power politics. It is an unjust path and by no means a viable choice for the Global South.

“To realize modernization, the countries of the Global South must find a path that best suits their respective national condition and is in line with the trend of the times.

“Besides, they should share their useful experiences, rise up to challenges together, and support each other’s exploration of paths in the pursuit of modernization, so that the Global South and the wider world have more options to achieve modernization.”


He adds:

“China is ready to contribute the country’s strength to advancing modernization for the Global South. While addressing the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August, President Xi Jinping asserted that China is a member of the Global South. China and most countries of the Global South share similar historical experiences and journeys of struggle. And all of them emerged from the fight against colonialism, hegemony, and power politics… China is rooted in the Global South; it cares about the Global South. It has always stood in solidarity with other countries of the Global South through thick and thin, and has been an advocate for and an important player in South-South cooperation…

“China will never forget its roots and will remain a member of the big family of developing countries and the Global South. No matter how the international situation evolves, China will always be committed to the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness to develop relations with its neighbors, follow the principles of sincerity, real results, affinity, and good faith to develop relations with African countries, and adhere to the principles of equality, mutual benefit and common development to develop relations with Latin American countries.”


In conclusion the IDCPC minister writes: “We believe the modernization of the Global South will become an unstoppable trend in the near future. A stable, united, strong and prosperous Global South will no longer be a forlorn dream, and humanity will eventually enjoy progress, lasting peace and sustained development.”

Minister Liu Jianchao’s article was originally published in China Daily.
The world today is confronted with unprecedented and accelerated changes. An important feature of the changes is that the collective rise of developing countries is gaining momentum. The rise of developing countries as a whole is based on and reinforced by their collective modernization.

Thus an in-depth discussion on the modernization of the Global South is urgently needed, not only in response to the call of developing countries for peace, development and progress, but also to meet the aspirations of the people of all countries for modernization and human advancement.

The Global South is where the hope lies
First, the Global South is where the hope lies today. The term “Global South” has first and foremost a “south” dimension. However, the “South” in the Global South is not a geographical term but a byword for emerging markets and developing countries. It is an identity and representative of a community of countries with similar historical experiences, political pursuits and development goals.

The term also has a “global” dimension. It symbolizes a prominent worldwide trend of the collective rise of developing countries, and reflects their strong wish for solidarity and self-reliance. The countries of the Global South once suffered from aggression, colonization, suppression and plunder. It is through years of struggle and hard work, along with the evolving changes in this century, that the Global South has gradually become an important force driving the reforms in the world order and seeking political independence, national rejuvenation and international justice.

The Global South is a leading champion of a new type of globalization. Unilateralism, protectionism and populism are rearing their ugly heads today. Attempts to build “small yards with high fences” to “decouple” from other economies, sever industry and supply chains and stoke bloc confrontation are rampant. Globalization has suffered major setbacks, and we have to make critical choices to avoid being pushed back and forced to sail upstream.

At this crucial moment, the countries of the Global South have chosen to confront difficulties head on. They have embraced globalization in an unprecedented manner, and launched mechanisms to improve globalization by enriching its content and extending its outreach, and endeavored to make the rules of globalization more reasonable and conditions more favorable. In particular, countries of the Global South, upholding the principle of “planning together, building together, and benefiting together”, have pressed ahead the Belt and Road cooperation to a new stage of high-quality development, thus injecting new impetus into global growth, creating new opportunities for global development, and building a new platform for international cooperation. Thanks to these efforts, a new type of globalization that involves more diversified players and is more open, inclusive and beneficial for all is taking shape. Globalization has indeed been tinted with the Global South hues.

The Global South is the source of strength for global multi-polarity. Since the end of the Cold War, the trend of global multi-polarity has evolved amid twists and turns. Along with the unfolding of profound changes across the global economic and political landscape and the collective rise of developing countries, the Global South has got an important opportunity to play a greater role on the world stage.

According to statistics, the land area of the Global South countries accounts for more than 70 percent of the world’s total, and its combined population and contribution to global economic growth over the past 20 years account for 80 percent of the world’s total. Hence, it is fair to say that the Global South has already become the most dynamic force promoting multi-polarity in terms of its size, vitality, growth potential and contribution. In fact, the collective rise of the Global South is reshaping the global political landscape.

The Global South is a key force promoting greater democracy in international relations. Over the years, the voice of the Global South has been muted on the world stage and the reasonable concerns of developing countries have not been addressed.

The few traditional powers that have dominated the right to set the international agenda and rules have always put their own interests first. Their hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices have disturbed the normal international order and undermined international justice and fairness. Under the new circumstances, more and more Global South countries have realized the ideological and institutional yoke of imperialism and colonialism. And they are more determined than ever to seek strategic autonomy, practice true multilateralism, and promote greater democracy in international relations.

By doing so, the countries of the Global South have gained a greater say on the international stage and added new impetus to the reform of the global governance system.

Global South needs to achieve greater collective strength
Second, working together to advance modernization is what the Global South must do to achieve greater collective strength through unity. Realizing modernization is a shared pursuit of all countries of the Global South. To build a better world, the Global South must work together to pursue and realize modernization. Their aim should be to build a strong and modern Global South, so as to propel the progress of civilization and develop a human community with a shared future.

The Global South must work together to prove wrong the saying, “the weak get weaker”.

The modernization process of different countries is different. As the countries of the Global South were once exploited, plundered and suppressed by imperialists and colonizers, and started to develop their economy relatively late with a weak foundation, they are the latecomers to the global modernization process.

In an international system that is neither fair nor reasonable, the North-South divide continues to widen, which proves true more than ever the Matthew Effect that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The countries of the Global South find it more complicated and difficult to achieve modernization. The Global South’s goals cannot be achieved if each country acts on its own. Working together is the right way forward.

United under the banner of the Global South, we should strengthen strategic communication and policy alignment, remove barriers, and share resources, technology and experiences to build a modern Global South market. More important, we should leave no one behind and help all the countries of the Global South catch up with the process of world modernization.

The Global South must take measures to break the myth that modernization equals westernization. For a long time, people believed westernization is modernization. In fact, modernization is not a single answer question. Different historical conditions lead to different choices of paths to modernization. The modernization of the West started with the expansion of capitalism and reached its peak with the help of colonialism, large-scale exploitation of other countries and the use of power politics. It is an unjust path and by no means a viable choice for the Global South.

To realize modernization, the countries of the Global South must find a path that best suits their respective national condition and is line with the trend of the times.

Besides, they should share their useful experiences, rise up to challenges together, and support each other’s exploration of paths in the pursuit of modernization, so that the Global South and the wider world have more options to achieve modernization.

The Global South should also undertake the responsibility of championing the just cause. The Global South wants to realize modernization not to oppose, exclude and/or replace any country from the modernization process but to advance the well-being of the entire human community.

On the one hand, we should strengthen the Global South’s synergy to defend our legitimate rights and interests by tightening the important mechanisms such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the G77+China. On the other hand, we must stay away from zero-sum games and Cold War mentality and, instead, strengthen the North-South dialogue and cooperation with a cool mind.

There is also a need to build an open world economy and create an enabling environment for inclusive development that benefits all. Only by doing so, can we find the path to a new type of modernization that rises above the differences in cultures, social systems and ideologies, and create a new eco-system featuring harmonious coexistence and joint governance in order to realize win-win results.

China contributes strength to modernization of Global South
Third, China is ready to contribute the country’s strength to advancing modernization for the Global South. While addressing the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August, President Xi Jinping asserted that China is a member of the Global South. China and most countries of the Global South share similar historical experiences and journeys of struggle. And all of them emerged from the fight against colonialism, hegemony and power politics.

China has always supported the reasonable concerns of Global South countries, defended their legitimate rights and interests, shared with them development opportunities and outcomes, and helped them to achieve independent growth. China is rooted in the Global South; it cares about the Global South. It has always stood in solidarity with other countries of the Global South through thick and thin, and has been an advocate for and an important player in South-South cooperation.

At the same time, China is an explorer and practitioner on the journey toward modernization. The past 100 years traversed by the CPC to seek national rejuvenation is also an exploration of a path to modernization. Thanks to the unremitting efforts of previous generations, we have found that path and attest that the countries of the Global South also have the right and the ability to achieve modernization.

China will never forget its roots and will remain a member of the big family of developing countries and the Global South. No matter how the international situation evolves, China will always be committed to the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness to develop relations with its neighbors, follow the principles of sincerity, real results, affinity, and good faith to develop relations with African countries, and adhere to the principles of equality, mutual benefit and common development to develop relations with Latin American countries.

We will stand shoulder to shoulder with developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America and explore the paths to modernization which best suit the national conditions of the countries of the Global South.

Going forward, China wishes to work with the other countries of the Global South to press ahead with high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, implement the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative to build a modern Global South and a community of the Global South with a shared future, so as to lay a solid foundation for the modernization of the world and build a human community with a shared future.

We believe the modernization of the Global South will become an unstoppable trend in the near future. A stable, united, strong and prosperous Global South will no longer be a forlorn dream, and humanity will eventually enjoy progress, lasting peace and sustained development.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/16/l ... bal-south/

Image

China’s impassioned plea for a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict
China, which this month holds the rotating chair of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), has made a further impassioned plea for a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict.

Addressing an emergency UNSC meeting on November 10, China’s permanent representative to the UN, Zhang Jun said that the call for a ceasefire was by no means a diplomatic statement, “It is the only hope for the people of Gaza to survive.”

Referring to the United States, in particular, which has repeatedly vetoed calls for a ceasefire, he added that China calls on “all parties, especially the major power that has a unique influence on the parties, to put aside all geopolitical considerations and double standards and focus all efforts on the goal of a ceasefire and an end to the fighting. We urge Israel to curb the intensifying settler violence in the West Bank so as to avoid… the spread of conflict.”

Zhang Jun added that: “When tens of thousands of people, including more than 4,000 children, have lost their lives; when more than 1.6 million people have been forced to flee their homes; when 2.3 million people continue to be cut off from water, electricity, fuel, food and medicine; and when hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and UN facilities have been frequently targeted, this is not only a humanitarian crisis, but, as described by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a crisis of humanity.”

He went in to say that earlier in the day he had met with representatives of Palestine and other Arab countries as well as from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

“From our conversation, I was deeply struck by the pain they have deep in their hearts, by their hope for the resumption of peace, and by their expectation for the Council to take effective actions.”

“In the face of all this, the world must speak out together: Enough is enough,” Zhang said, adding that “the Security Council must do away with the obstruction and interference of some members and take immediate, responsible, and meaningful action to uphold justice and maintain peace.”

Zhang also expressed grave concern over and strong opposition to the clear violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.

“We urge an end to the collective punishment of civilians… We call on Israel to immediately lift the siege and completely remove restrictions on livelihood supplies, especially fuel delivery to humanitarian and medical institutions and livelihood facilities.”

Noting that over the past two weeks, just over 500 trucks had entered Gaza, Zhang described this as “but a drop in the bucket for the people of Gaza who are struggling on the brink of death.”

Turning to the post-conflict scenario, with Israel threatening to reoccupy Gaza, Zhang said: “These days, we also hear frequent discussions about the day after for Gaza. Regarding this, it must be pointed out that no arrangement for Gaza can be imposed on the Palestinian people… The future of Palestine must be and can only be decided by the Palestinian people themselves.”

The following article was originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 (Xinhua) — Chinese permanent representative to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, on Friday called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Palestine.

“A ceasefire and an end to the fighting cannot be delayed. A ceasefire is by no means a diplomatic statement. It is the only hope for the people of Gaza to survive,” Zhang told the UN Security Council emergency meeting on the Palestinian-Israeli situation.

Noting that the current round of conflict has been going on for 35 days and the situation continues to deteriorate, he said: “We call on all parties, especially the major power that has a unique influence on the parties, to put aside all geopolitical considerations and double standards and focus all efforts on the goal of a ceasefire and an end to the fight. We urge Israel to curb the intensifying settler violence in the West Bank so as to avoid the concurring hotspot and the spread of conflict.”

“When tens of thousands of people, including more than 4,000 children, have lost their lives; when more than 1.6 million people have been forced to flee their homes; when 2.3 million people continue to be cut off from water, electricity, fuel, food and medicine; and when hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and UN facilities have been frequently targeted, this is not only a humanitarian crisis, but, as described by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a crisis of humanity,” he added.

Zhang said he met with representatives of Palestine and other Arab countries and those from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation earlier in the day.

“From our conversation, I was deeply struck by the pain they have deep in their hearts, by their hope for the resumption of peace, and by their expectation for the Council to take effective actions,” he said.

“In the face of all this, the world must speak out together: Enough is enough,” Zhang said, adding that “the Security Council must do away with the obstruction and interference of some members and take immediate, responsible, and meaningful action to uphold justice and maintain peace.”

Stressing the importance of protecting civilians, the envoy said, “We condemn all violence and attacks against civilians. We express our grave concern over and strong opposition to the clear violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”

“We urge an end to the collective punishment of civilians. We demand the safety and humanitarian needs of hostages be guaranteed and call for diplomatic efforts to facilitate their early release,” he added.

More than 1,300 children and their families are trapped in the rubble with their lives at stake, Zhang said, adding, “We support the Council to take emergency actions in this regard to facilitate a sustained truce of multiple days and an immediate opening of a green corridor for specialized agencies and equipment to enter Gaza to carry out search and rescue operations, so as to do our utmost to save children.”

The Council should also respond to the joint appeal made by the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and Marwan Jilani, Director General of the Palestine Red Crescent Society, to establish a medical evacuation mechanism so that pregnant women and the seriously injured and sick in Gaza can be transferred and treated promptly, he continued.

Zhang also called for the delivery of supplies to resume, noting it “cannot be delayed.”

“We call on Israel to immediately lift the siege and completely remove restrictions on livelihood supplies, especially fuel delivery to humanitarian and medical institutions and livelihood facilities,” he said.

Over the past two weeks, just over 500 trucks have entered Gaza through the Rafah crossing, a drop in the bucket for the people of Gaza who are struggling on the brink of death, Zhang said. “All crossings into Gaza should be utilized, and the Kerem Shalom crossing should be opened as soon as possible.”

“These days, we also hear frequent discussions about the day after for Gaza. Regarding this, it must be pointed out that no arrangement for Gaza can be imposed on the Palestinian people,” said the ambassador, adding that “No solution to the current situation can deviate from the two-state solution. The future of Palestine must be and can only be decided by the Palestinian people themselves.”

The ambassador pledged that China, as president of the Security Council for November, would continue to work with the international community to bring an early end to the fighting and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

China supports a peaceful coexistence between the Palestinians and the Israelis and long-term peace and security in the Middle East, he said.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/12/c ... -conflict/

Image

The US steps up its ‘chip war’ against socialist China
In this article, which was originally published in Fighting Words, journal of the US Communist Workers League, Chris Fry notes the new anti-China sanctions introduced by US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo on October 17, focused on advanced computer chips manufactured by the Nividia company.

Fry notes that Raimondo claimed that this was directed solely at the Chinese military, yet she also stated that the goal was to limit China’s “access to advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers.”

Previously, at an October 15 Senate hearing she had described recent technological breakthroughs by the Chinese telecom giant Huawei as “incredibly disturbing”.

The article notes: “Up until these imperialist sanctions, socialist China had obtained its semiconductor and other tech designs from a complex global network. Facing this US blockade, the Chinese government began a robust campaign to develop its own semiconductor design capabilities. With this new Huawei success, it appears that socialist China has made a massive breakthrough.”

Turning to the question of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Fry notes that it presents opportunities for greater profits in a capitalist society, but the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production also leads to “the ‘bust’ part of the capitalist cycle – recessions and depressions.”

Moreover, the capitalist class fears that artificial intelligence could be used under socialism to greatly enhance the coordination and accuracy of scientific planning.

The article concludes: “The imperialist ruling class is keenly aware of the danger of this, not only in its economic competition with socialist China, but also with the example of a powerful and prosperous socialist China lighting a revolutionary beacon to the global working class as to the possibilities with a new social system.”
On October 17th, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced new bans on the giant tech company Nvidia from sales of its advanced computer chips, particularly its advanced H800 and A800 products.

Raimondo claimed that this move was directed solely against the Chinese military. According to an October 18 CNN report, she said in August on her visit to China: “the administration was “laser-focused” on slowing the advancement of China’s military. She emphasized that Washington had opted not to go further in restricting chips for other applications.”

But on October 17 Raimondo made clear that the target of these sanctions against socialist China is much wider:

“… the goal was to limit China’s ‘access to advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers’.”

China’s Foreign Ministry quickly responded:

“The US needs to stop politicizing and weaponizing trade and tech issues and stop destabilizing global industrial and supply chains,” spokesperson Mao Ning told a press briefing. “We will closely follow the developments and firmly safeguard our rights and interests.”

China has decided to cut off the U.S. from supplies of germanium and gallium, essential for manufacturing semiconductors.

Commerce secretary calls Huawei’s computer chip breakthrough “incredibly disturbing”
At a Senate hearing on October 5, Commerce Secretary Raimondo called the Chinese firm Huawei’s new cellphone and its 7nm computer chip “incredibly disturbing”. Why? It’s because that chip was produced by the Chinese state-owned Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC).

Both companies, Huawei and SMIC, have been “blacklisted” by both the Trump and Biden administrations to prevent them from developing advanced semiconductors and other computer technologies.

In 2018, Trump had gone so far as to have a top Huawei executive placed under house arrest in Canada for three years for supposedly violating U.S. sanctions against Iran.

The Biden administration has escalated its economic war with China, prohibiting not only U.S. companies from selling advanced computer technologies to Chinese companies, but also other countries from doing so, such as South Korea, the Netherlands and the computer companies based in Taiwan. U.S. “experts” had predicted that this move would take decades for China to overcome if it ever did.

An October 4 opinion piece in the New York Times details how the U.S. establishment uses international digital financial tools to bend their “junior partners” to their will over the sentiments of the populace in their own countries. The article discusses a recently published book: “Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the Global Economy,” by Henry Farrell of Johns Hopkins and Abraham Newman of Georgetown:

“These institutions include the dollar and the bank-messaging system known as Swift (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which is based in Belgium and run by an international board but vulnerable to American pressure. It helps that the rise of the internet has made the United States home to much of the wired world’s circuitry and infrastructure, including, in our time, some of the major cloud computing centers of Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google.

”The United States now has the ability to survey and influence the world’s communications and supply chains, should it choose to. After the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks, it chose to. It bent the institutions to which it had access into a defensive (as it then saw things) weapon in the war on terror. ‘To protect America,’ Mr. Farrell and Mr. Newman write, ‘Washington has slowly but surely turned thriving economic networks into tools of domination.’

“A study this past summer by the European Council on Foreign Relations found large majorities, 62 percent continent wide, would wish for Europe to remain neutral should the United States and China ever enter into conflict over Taiwan. Yet last April, when President Emmanuel Macron of France urged his fellow Europeans to preserve their ‘strategic autonomy’ in Sino-American matters and avoid getting swept up in ‘a logic of bloc against bloc,’ he was rebuffed, not just by American politicians but also by certain of his European allies.“


Up until these imperialist sanctions, socialist China had obtained its semiconductor and other tech designs from a complex global network. Facing this U.S. blockade, the Chinese government began a robust campaign to develop its own semiconductor design capabilities. With this new Huawei success, it appears that socialist China has made a massive breakthrough.

Of course, in an example of extraordinary arrogance, the U.S. accused China’s SMIC, a company that it had already sanctioned, of violating those sanctions by not asking the U.S. Commerce Department for “permission” to develop its own new computer chip and sell it to another Chinese company, Huawei.

Not only is the U.S. placing stricter requirements on computer chip sales by its own companies and its Western subordinates, but it has demanded that Taiwan rulers stop its companies from engaging with tech companies on the mainland.

An October 5 Benzinga article stated that a probe by the Bloomberg business website revealed that four companies based in Taiwan were helping to build semiconductor plants in the mainland. The linchpin of the entire U.S. strategy to counter China is Taiwan and the Trump/Biden threat to wage war to defend the island’s “independence,” breaking with the “One China” policy that the U.S. had agreed to in 1979.

Biden’s much touted anti-China “Chips and Science Act” program has hit a snag with the most important of Taiwan’s tech companies – the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). An August 28 article from the Guardian indicates that the company is eager to get the U.S. government money, but is in no hurry to actually build the plant in Arizona or hire union workers:

Eight months on, the Phoenix microchip plant – the centerpiece of Biden’s $52.7bn US hi-tech manufacturing agenda – is struggling to get online.

The plant’s owner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the largest chip maker in the world, has pushed back plans to start manufacturing to 2025, blaming a lack of skilled labor. It is trying to fast-track visas for 500 Taiwanese workers. Unions, meanwhile, are accusing TSMC of inventing the skills shortage as an excuse to hire cheaper, foreign labor. Others point to safety issues at the plant.


A “presidential” election is slated in Taiwan in January 2024. Polls indicate that the pro-independence ruling party’s candidate has only 33 percent popular support, while the three opposition candidates who oppose independence garner more than 50 percent support. They have yet to come up with a way to unify their opposition, but it still indicates that Taiwan’s residents reject the Ukraine-style proxy war scenario that the Pentagon and the Biden White House are pushing.

Artificial Intelligence – the next front
Now the U.S. is scrambling to prevent China from developing even more powerful semiconductors and other advanced technologies that would power Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems.

Of course, AI presents opportunities for greater profits in a capitalist society. Each worker becomes more “productive”, that is, she or he can produce more goods or services in less time. But since the value of each commodity or service is measured by the amount of “average” labor time to produce it, this same technical development drives down that value, forcing companies to “overproduce” to try to maintain their level of profits. This leads to the “bust” part of the capitalist cycle – recessions and depressions.

But this is not a problem in a socialist system, where production is socially owned and is driven by scientific planning, not profit. China has virtually eliminated poverty. President Johnson declared his “War on Poverty” in 1964, but just like his war against socialist Vietnam, poverty won and is still widespread here among the workers and oppressed communities.

And the capitalist class fears that artificial intelligence could be used under socialism to greatly enhance the coordination and accuracy of that scientific planning. The workers through their Communist Party could use it to far more capably direct their economy to meet the people’s needs rather than fill the coffers of the banks and corporations.

The imperialist ruling class is keenly aware of the danger of this, not only in its economic competition with socialist China, but also with the example of a powerful and prosperous socialist China lighting a revolutionary beacon to the global working class as to the possibilities with a new social system.

https://socialistchina.us6.list-manage. ... e26e88604a

*********

Chinese banker sentenced to death for bribes
colonelcassad
November 15, 20:27

Image

Death penalty news.

Former China CITIC Bank President Sun Deshun was sentenced to death on Friday, suspended for two years, on bribery charges.

The sentence was handed down by the Second Level People's Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province (Eastern China).

The court found that from 2003 to 2019, Sun Deshun, using his official position in various financial institutions, provided “assistance” to enterprises in obtaining loans, and in return he received bribes in the form of cash and material assets totaling more than 979.5 million yuan /about 136.5 million US dollars/.

According to the court decision, Sun Deshun is deprived of political rights for life, and all his personal property is subject to confiscation.

The court noted that after a two-year reprieve, the sentence, in accordance with the law, can be commuted to life imprisonment without the right to a reduced sentence or parole.


This practice would be relevant in Russia as well.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8768157.html

And here as well. I gotta list....
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Nov 25, 2023 3:50 pm

Image

Michael Roberts: debt trap accusation “does not hold much water”
In the following article, which was originally published on the author’s blog, the renowned Marxist economist Michael Roberts dissects the oft repeated claim that China is ensnaring countries, in this case specifically Sri Lanka, in a debt trap and then taking over the country’s assets.

This widespread charge, he notes, “does not hold much water. It leaks badly… China is not a particularly large lender to poor countries like Sri Lanka compared to Western creditors and the multi-national agencies.” Whilst China holds 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt, commercial lenders, from the imperialist countries, account for nearly 50%.

Moreover, he argues, the rise in the country’s debt burden did not result from any trap set by China, but rather from the desperate needs of the previous Sri Lankan government. After the 2008 global financial crisis, Roberts explains, interest rates fell globally, and Sri Lanka’s government looked to international sovereign bonds to further finance spending. But the country was then hit by the Covid pandemic, which ravaged the tourism sector, on which Sri Lanka was heavily reliant.

As for the port project at Hambantota, which is the most frequently cited example of China’s supposed debt trap, “China did not propose the port; the project was overwhelmingly driven by the Sri Lankan government with the aim of reducing trade costs.”

Noting a recent US district court case, Roberts explains that “it is the obscure Hamilton Bank that is opposed to any agreement [on the restructuring of Sri Lanka’s debt] and instead is demanding full repayment [of US$250 million plus interest] on its holding of Sri Lankan bonds. Hamilton is what is called a ‘vulture’ fund’, buying up the ‘distressed debt’ of poor country governments at rock bottom prices and then pushing for full repayment at par (the original bond issue price), using the blackmail of refusing to agree to any ‘restructuring’.”

He adds that in a presentation, the bank, whose directors include former British Conservative MP, government minister and personal assistant to Margaret Thatcher, Sir Tony Baldry, says that “suing a sovereign for non-debt payment can be a justified and lucrative business.”
Last week a US district court granted Sri Lanka’s request for a six-month pause on a creditor lawsuit against the country. Hamilton Reserve Bank holds a big chunk of one of Sri Lanka’s now-defaulted bonds and had been suing it for immediate repayment.

The court decided that there should be a pause in Hamilton’s demand for immediate repayment so that Sri Lanka could arrange a deal with other private sector creditors and bilateral lenders, as well as obtaining new funds from the IMF. The IMF has been unwilling to cough up money as long as it considered Sri Lanka unable to pay back its debt obligations. It is insisting that all creditors agree to a ‘restructuring’ of existing debt before agreeing to new IMF funding (which would also be accompanied by strong ‘conditionalities’ ie fiscal austerity, privatisations etc).

The IMF, World Bank and other Western creditors have claimed that what is holding up a rescheduling is China. In turn, China is refusing to agree to a deal unless all other parties are agreed on the terms, and it does not like the terms currently proposed.

In the case of Sri Lanka and many other poor peripheral countries in serious debt distress, it is regularly argued that they are in a ‘debt trap’ caused by taking loans from China to such an extent that they cannot repay them and then China insists on taking over the country’s assets to meet the bill. Indeed, US President Biden reiterated this charge only this week in a speech claiming that the West was ready to help poor countries expand their infrastructure.

This widespread charge does not hold much water. It leaks badly. First, China is not a particularly large lender to poor countries like Sri Lanka compared to Western creditors and the multi-national agencies.

Image

In the case of Sri Lanka, Japan and the World Bank remained significant lenders at 9-10% share, China has 10% too and the IMF’s proportion has shrunk to just 4%, with the UK and Germany accounting for around 1% each. All these official lenders have been replaced mainly by commercial lenders at nearly 50%.

Image

Second, the rise in Sri Lanka’s debt burden was not the result of China’s ‘imperialist’ debt trap, but was caused by the desperate need of the corrupt and autocratic Sri Lankan government. After the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, interest rates fell globally, and Sri Lanka’s government looked to international sovereign bonds to further finance spending. But then COVID-19 hit, ravaging the tourism sector, a major source of income. COVID-19 required increased spending and increased imports of health and other products, exacerbating the trade deficit. Foreign currency reserves dropped by 70 percent, meaning less dollars to purchase essential yet increasingly expensive imports including fuel and commodities. To solve this, the government started to ‘print money’ to cover its deficits. . Inflation rocketed to 60 percent by June 2022. As the right-wing Chatham House study shows, “Sri Lanka’s debt crisis was made, not in China, but in Colombo, and in the international (i.e. Western-dominated) financial markets.”

By 2016, 61 per cent of the government’s sustained budget deficit was financed by foreign borrowing, with total government debt increasing by 52 per cent between 2009 and 2016. Three-quarters of external government debt was owed to private financial institutions, not to foreign governments. Despite ample warnings about the Sri Lankan economy, foreign creditors kept lending, while the government refused to change course for political reasons. This was the real nature of the ‘debt trap’.

That brings us to the Sri Lankan port project, the usual issue raised about China’s supposed ‘debt trap’. China did not propose the port; the project was overwhelmingly driven by the Sri Lankan government with the aim of reducing trade costs. To quote Chatham House, “Sri Lanka’s debt trap was thus primarily created as a result of domestic policy decisions and was facilitated by Western lending and monetary policy, and not by the policies of the Chinese government. China’s aid to Sri Lanka involved facilitating investment, not a debt-for-asset swap. The story of Hambantota Port is, in reality, a narrative of political and economic incompetence, facilitated by lax governance and inadequate risk management on both sides.”

In 2022, Rajapaksa was forced out of office after major popular protests but was only replaced by his close supporter, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who despite agreeing to fiscal measures with the IMF, has failed to get its approval to release funds while the debt rescheduling agreement has not been achieved.

And it is the obscure Hamilton Bank that is opposed to any agreement and instead is demanding full repayment on its holding of Sri Lankan bonds. Hamilton is not waiting patiently for a broader restructuring to take place, but holding out for full repayment once a country has secured debt relief from other creditors.

The most infamous and successful example of this strategy was by Paul Singer’s Elliott Management which managed to extract $2.4bn out of Argentina in 2016 from the right-wing Macri government. In paying Elliott off, Macri was then able to get the biggest ever IMF fund deal in history, designed to ensure that government’s position in office for a long time – although that payout was squandered and the Macri government fell. The debt crisis goes on in Argentina.

Hamilton wants to follow in Elliott’s footsteps. In a bank presentation, the bank says “suing a sovereign for non-debt payment can be a justified and lucrative business”. The shareholder is a company called Fintech Holdings based, guess where, Puerto Rico. And behind Fintech is a Benjamin Wey, a Chinese-American, who describes himself as a “philanthropist and global financier”. In 2015, he was arrested for fraud, but charges were eventually dropped in 2017 after a federal judge threw out evidence that prosecutors had obtained in a search of his apartment and office. The New York Post dubbed Wey the “Horndog CEO” after he had to pay $18mn to an intern he had sexually harassed (later reduced to $5.65mn).

Hamilton Bank’s directors are not Wey, but Sir Tony Baldry, a former MP and aide to Margaret Thatcher, who is now chair. (For my sins I was at university with Baldry!). The CEO is Prabhakar Kaza, who is a British Conservative councillor. Hamilton is now registered in the tiny Caribbean island of St Kitts and Nevis. And Hamilton is demanding $250m in bond repayment and interest from the Sri Lankan government. The US court has intervened on behalf of the US government and other creditors to stop Hamilton getting its pound of flesh, at least until there is a general restructuring deal that Hamilton will be forced to go along with.

Even if Hamilton is thwarted and a deal with creditors is reached, Sri Lanka will still be burdened by a huge debt liability that can only be ‘serviced’ by cuts in the already low living standards of 22m Sri Lankans. The IMF has already indicated it will encourage austerity in Sri Lanka – reducing spending and increasing taxes. Sri Lanka did not seek IMF debt relief in the 1990s or early 2000s for that reason. But now it is either Hamilton or the IMF.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/24/m ... uch-water/

Image

Nicaraguan Ambassador: China helping to build 5G network in Nicaragua[/img]
In the following short interview, given to CGTN in the margins of the Sixth China International Import Expo, recently held in Shanghai, Michael Campbell, Nicaragua’s Ambassador to China, explains how his country is benefiting from its economic cooperation with China and the immense opportunities of the Chinese market.

Nicaragua and China resumed their diplomatic relations in 2021, shortly thereafter Nicaragua signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative, and more recently the two countries concluded a free trade agreement.

Ambassador Campbell points out that in this context it is important to understand that the relations between the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) “go way back”. Nicaragua wants, he continues, to strengthen the relations between the two countries, parties, and peoples, and to be China’s strategic partner for the Central American region.

Asked for his interpretation of the pledge made by Chinese Premier Li Qiang, in his opening speech to the Expo, that China would engage in higher level opening up, Campbell describes it as another example of China’s willingness to construct a shared future of greater prosperity for the entire world. The expo was giving Nicaragua the opportunity to present its products to the enormous Chinese market, showing how far China’s solidarity and willingness to cooperate with the world goes.

He contrasts China’s cooperation under the auspices of the BRI, characterised by mutual respect, trust and win-win cooperation, with the conditionalities and political interference that Nicaragua had experienced from the imperialist countries. The BRI is giving Nicaragua opportunities that it did not have before. For example, during the recent Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, an agreement was signed to build a new airport in Nicaragua, which will enable the country to welcome wide-bodied aircraft, thereby improving connectivity and ease of transportation.

Meanwhile, on November 7, Li Mingxiang, Vice-Minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee (IDCPC), met with a Nicaraguan delegation led by Laureano Ortega, advisor on investment, trade and international cooperation at the Nicaraguan president’s office, and coordinator for cooperation with China.

Li said the CPC is willing to strengthen exchanges and cooperation with the FSLN, so as to push China-Nicaragua relations to new highs. Laureano said the FSLN is willing to strengthen exchanges of experience in party building and state governance and to deepen traditional friendship with the CPC.

We embed the interview with Ambassador Campbell below and also reproduce a short news article from the IDCPC website.




Li Mingxiang Meets with a Nicaraguan Delegation

Beijing, November 7th—Li Mingxiang, Vice-minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, met here today on the afternoon with a Nicaraguan delegation led by Laureano Ortega, advisor on investment, trade and international cooperation at the Nicaraguan president’s office, and coordinator for cooperation with China.

Li said, under the strategic guidance of the top leaders of the two Parties and two countries, China-Nicaragua cooperation in various fields has achieved fruitful results. The CPC is willing to strengthen exchanges and cooperation with the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, to push China-Nicaragua relations to new highs.

Laureano said, Nicaragua sees China as an important strategic partner, firmly adheres to the one-China principle, and is willing to continuously strengthen practical cooperation with the Chinese side in economy, trade, investment, and infrastructure under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. The FSLN is willing to strengthen experience exchanges in party building and state governance and deepen traditional friendship with the CPC.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/22/n ... nicaragua/

Image

The West’s accusations against the Belt and Road are a form of projection and deflection

In the run-up to the Third Belt and Road Forum, which took place in Beijing on 17-18 October, the Beijing Daily subsidiary Capital News – in collaboration with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies (RDCY) – carried out an interview with Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez, addressing various questions related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), particularly the reasons for the BRI’s success and the absurd nature of the West’s assorted accusations against it – that it constitutes a “debt trap”, or that it is part of a Chinese hegemonic project.

The interview also covers the US-led New Cold War on China, and the West’s attempts to consolidate an anti-China alliance; the significance of the Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilisation Initiative; the difference between China and the West’s responses to the Ukraine crisis; the significance of BRICS; and the possibilities for getting Britain-China relations back on track.

We published an excerpt and short video clip from the interview several weeks ago. The full transcript has now been published on the Beijing Daily website, and is reproduced below.


Capital News: As of June this year, China has signed over 200 cooperation agreements on jointly building the BRI with 152 countries and 32 international organization. Why are more and more countries and regions getting on board with the BRI?

Carlos Martinez: The BRI is playing a hugely significant role in global development. Its historical importance lies in providing primarily the countries of the Global South with the opportunity to modernize and break free from the chains of underdevelopment. These are the same chains that were originally imposed during the colonial era, affecting regions such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and the Pacific.

In many instances, these chains have persisted beyond the colonial era, extending into what are now considered northern neo-colonial areas or the imperialist era. The relationship between the US, Canada, Europe, and the Global South, particularly developing countries, remains fundamentally predatory. Here, the Global South often provides cheap labor, land, and natural resources, driving a relentless pursuit of profit in the advanced capitalist nations.

China’s approach with the BRI stands in stark contrast to that. It represents a profoundly important shift, characterized by the construction of an extensive network of roads, railways, bridges, factories, ports, telecommunications, green energy infrastructure, and more. These projects leverage China’s exceptional expertise in high-quality construction, honed through decades of infrastructure development within China itself.

This initiative is now opening up some of the world’s most challenging terrains for the construction of roads and railways. For the countries involved, what they are seeking and indeed gaining from the BRI on a historically unprecedented scale is nothing short of development, modernization, and industrialization.

And that means transforming people’s lives. It means creating jobs. It means lifting people out of poverty. It means breaking dependence on the West. Many of the times, when these countries have needed assistance, when they needed help, when they needed loans, they had to go to the IMF or they had to go to the Western lending institutions. And where they got any assistance, it’s been in the form of conditional loans.

You want to loan, that means you have to privatize your water supply, you have to privatize your education system, you have to liberalize your economy. You have to open up your domestic market to western multinationals and so on. Conversely, the BRI, and I would say China’s investment policy in general, works in a fundamentally different way. There are no loan conditions, no traps and none of the punishing, punitive measures often associated with vital infrastructure projects. Recently, CGTN carried an interesting interview with Senegalese president Macky Sall. He underscored precisely this point, emphasizing that China’s financial support in Africa is based on requests made by African nations, with the priorities being set by Africa itself. Furthermore, China’s loans typically come with roughly half the interest rate of Western loans. The repayment period is as much longer, and the terms are far more flexible.

And the results of this type of dynamic is that now Ethiopia has the first metro train in Africa. Lao has a high-speed railway, and it’s now possible to travel from Jakarta to Bandung in 30 minutes, rather than 3 hours. It’s this topic dynamic. That means that Africa has been able to join the renewable energy revolution. So, China is bringing development where the West for so many centuries brought under-development and exploitation. And for China, of course, it’s benefiting economically. These are win-win relationships. But I think more importantly, China’s got the opportunity to share its expertise, its resources, its experiences, which contributes to human progress. Overall, I think it’s part of China’s vision of a community with a shared future for humanity.

Capital News:What do you think are the challenges that the BRI is currently facing on the international stage? And what are the underlying reasons for these challenges?

Carlos Martinez: The BRI has already demonstrated significant successes, especially in the developing regions of Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.

Now, it’s making inroads into Latin America and the Caribbean. I believe this positive momentum will persist. Notably, Syria, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, and Zambia have recently joined the BRI. If one pays close attention, many other nations are deepening their involvement with this initiative.

However, the complexity arises from the fact that the United States, which holds the top spot in nominal GDP and wields immense influence, especially in the Western world, harbors discontent with the BRI. The U.S. strategy is essentially rooted in extending its 20th-century dominance into the 21st century, a vision encapsulated in what they term the “Project for a New American Century.” This objective is at odds with the BRI’s transformative direction.

The BRI is pivotal in enabling the Global South to reduce its reliance on the West. It’s paving the way for a shift towards a multipolar and post-imperialist world order. In this emerging landscape, the U.S. will continue to be significant, but it won’t retain its status as the sole superpower or the policeman of the world. It must adapt to this evolving reality of a democratic, multipolar, and multilateral world. It’s evident that the U.S. leadership is grappling with this paradigm shift.

The U.S. maintains a notably negative stance towards the BRI. It exerts its influence to dissuade its allies, like India, from engaging with the BRI, despite the substantial benefits such engagement could bring. Anyone visiting India can readily observe the need for improvements in its energy, transport, and telecommunications infrastructure. Moreover, India’s strategic geographical location between West Asia and Southeast Asia positions it to play a pivotal role in enhancing connectivity across the Eurasian supercontinent.

However, the U.S. is leveraging its influence over India to steer it away from the BRI, using it as part of a broader anti-China strategy. A similar approach is being taken with the Philippines. Europe, too, could and should be a significant player in the BRI. European nations stand to gain from connecting with the emerging markets and industrial powerhouses in Asia and Africa—a region characterized by a growing economy, market, and population. Europe boasts extensive expertise in advanced engineering, and European companies could actively participate in bidding for BRI. Nevertheless, they often feel pressured to maintain a certain distance from China due to their longstanding ideological and economic alignment with the U.S..

This challenge is likely to persist in the coming years. The question remains: can Europe, India, the Philippines, Australia, and other nations assert their strategic autonomy to integrate themselves into the BRI, which is undeniably the most significant global infrastructure initiative in history? There are a few other challenges to consider. The U.S. may attempt to propose various alternatives to the Belt and Road, as it has with initiatives like “Build Back Better World.” However, it’s becoming increasingly evident that these projects lack the necessary resources and expertise to truly compete. If the U.S. truly excels in infrastructure development, it should probably consider fixing its own crumbling infrastructure at home.

Another complex challenge confronting the BRI lies in the Western strategy of destabilization, aimed at weakening China and sabotaging the BRI. It’s widely acknowledged that the U.S. supports separatist elements in Xinjiang and actively stirs up tensions in various regions of Central Asia. Notably, these areas constitute vital east-west land routes crucial to the success of the BRI.

The international community has witnessed the profound and lasting impacts of U.S. involvement in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. So, there are these complex and unpredictable military and geopolitical factors that could emerge, potentially posing challenges and obstacles to the BRI. Vigilance in this regard will be essential.

Capital News: In recent years, Western countries led by the United States have been vigorously promoting the idea of “Chinese economic coercion.” They exaggerate the “risks” of investing in China, suggesting that many businesses face “coercion” in the country. They also claim that the BRI is a means for China to economically coerce other nations, with the aim of disrupting China’s international cooperation and pulling more countries into their “anti-China encirclement.” What is your take on this so-called “economic coercion” narrative? Is China a perpetrator of economic coercion?

Carlos Martinez: It’s incredibly ironic and indicative of a certain lack of introspection and self-understanding for the U.S. and the Western world to accuse China or anyone else of economic coercion when the U.S. is the undisputed king of economic coercion.

This sentiment has been echoed by analysts within the U.S. itself, including prominent economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs. He asserts that the U.S. currently wields economic coercion on a global scale. The U.S. unilaterally imposes sanctions on various nations including China, the DPRK, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and several others. This establishes the U.S. as the preeminent global enforcer of economic coercion and unilateral coercive measures. Additionally, both the U.S. and Western lending institutions employ loan conditionality, which constitutes yet another form of economic coercion.

When a developing or financially strapped nation seeks a loan from the U.S., IMF, or Western lending institutions, it often comes with conditions. This may compel the borrowing nation to deregulate its local industries or privatize critical services like water supplies and education systems. This kind of coercion coerces a country into adopting policies it may not otherwise choose, purely due to the urgent need for resources and loans.

In stark contrast, China refrains from employing unilateral sanctions and adheres to the principles of international law in imposing sanctions. China also abstains from implementing loan conditionality. Its loans are agreed upon through bilateral agreements between states or companies and are utilized for projects requested by the borrowing country. As Senegalese President Macky Sall has noted, these projects are conceived and designed with the input of African states to meet the needs of their people. This has been the case across Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific. The notion that China engages in coercive tactics or creates debt traps has been thoroughly debunked. It’s worth noting that none of the countries accusing China of such tactics are actually recipients of these loans.

Countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Senegal, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua—direct recipients of China’s assistance—aren’t leveling accusations of debt traps. Instead, it’s primarily the U.S., Britain, the EU, and Canada making these allegations. This creates a peculiar situation where those who are supposedly affected aren’t raising concerns, while others who aren’t directly involved are leading the charge in a propaganda war against China.

A parallel scenario unfolds with the allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Muslim-majority nations in the Middle East and North Africa, including Pakistan, Palestine, and Iran, notably do not make these accusations. Instead, it’s countries like the U.S., Britain, and France, ironically, which have all been going to war against Muslim-majority countries over the past two decades and face their own challenges with Islamophobia and religious discrimination. They’re the ones advancing these unusual claims.

So, this squander that’s being hurled at China about economic coercion. There are no facts to back it up. And, in fact, it seems like a form of reflection, what it’s about is describing something that the West is actually engaged in and accusing China of that thing.

Capital News: Following the BRI, China has successively put forwards Global Development initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative, offering Chinese solutions to address changes in the world, the era, and history. In the current complex and ever-changing international landscape, with humanity facing unprecedented common challenges, what positive significance do these Chinese initiatives hold?

Carlos Martinez: These three initiatives represent a significant and crucial contribution. Their importance is underscored by the overwhelmingly positive reception they’ve garnered worldwide, especially within the global South and among developing nations. They address the pressing needs of humanity at this juncture.

Consider the Global Development Initiative: There’s no doubt that countries require development, modernization, and industrialization. Yet, what they need most is a contemporary form of development that is green and ecologically sustainable. They need access to a trajectory akin to the one China has followed over several decades—a path characterized by non-exploitative, non-environmentally destructive, and non-aggressive development. This stands in stark contrast to the outdated systems and models of development that were pursued by the West, encompassing North America, Western Europe, and Japan. These models, rooted in aggression, expansionism, colonialism, and imperialism, are no longer viable options.

Moreover, the historical paths taken by Europe and North America, which involved practices like the slave trade and the ruthless exploitation of Africa, are ethically unacceptable. Furthermore, if space is been based on a kind of brutal destruction of the environment, the United States, which has got 4 % of the world’s population, is responsible for 25 % of existing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Even if such development approaches were still available, they wouldn’t be desirable for the rest of the world to emulate. China, with its distinctive resources and a socialist political system, has forged an alternative development path—one free from war, aggression, and colonialization. Notable, it has the potential to be green and ecologically sustainable and is consistent with humanity’s goal of averting climate breakdown.

The Global Development Initiative, alongside the BRI, offers an invaluable opportunity for other developing nations to embark on a journey of modernization, development, and industrialization—a path marked by peace and sustainability. This bears immense significance. Subsequently, the Global Security Initiative naturally complements the Global Development Initiative. It acknowledges that for nations to thrive, they must first attain stability and security. They need assurance that they won’t be plagued by conflicts that impede progress and prosperity.

The Civilization Initiative follows logically from the Security Initiative. To foster collaboration and avoid conflict or aggression, it’s imperative that we comprehend and appreciate one another. We must create an environment that celebrates our shared humanity, recognizing and respecting the diverse ways in which people across the globe live, think, and act. Our cultures, traditions, and ideologies all contribute to the rich tapestry of human civilization, paving the way for collective advancement.

So, I think Global Development Initiative really represents the overall kind of goal of prosperity and the eradication of poverty worldwide. It finds steadfast support in the Security and Civilization Initiatives. Together, they are geared toward cultivating a sense of shared community for all of humanity.

Capital News: In international multilateral diplomacy, it seems like there’s an increasing divide between Western countries, led by the United States, and many developing nations. James Cleverly, the UK’s Foreign Minister mentioned in New York at the United Nations General Assembly, that leaders from Global South countries have told him that G7 nations only seem concerned with discussing Ukraine. Similar situations occurred at the current G20 summit, where China is advocating for shared development, while other developing nations are focused on implementing the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. But Western countries tend to concentrate more on condemning Russia. How do you view this phenomenon, where G7 nations consistently press other countries to prioritize the Russia-Ukraine conflict regardless of the occasion or context? What does this reflect about the mindset of the U.S. and Western countries?

Carlos Martinez: The Western, particularly the U.S.’s response to the crisis in Ukraine, speaks volumes. There have been other wars, other complexities in the last 20 or 30 years that have received much less attention in U.S. news reporting and political discourse.

For example, in 1999, the U.S. and Europe waged war against Yugoslavia subjecting the country to 78 days of devastating attacks, dropping thousands of bombs and causing the loss of thousands of lives. The way it was portrayed in Western media painted it as a minor conflict, framed as a necessary humanitarian intervention. There was no concerted effort to mobilize the public against war, no widespread international outcry.

No repeated United Nations resolutions condemning the bombing of a sovereign nation, a clear violation of international law without the endorsement of the United Nations. The same pattern emerged in Iraq in 2003. While the situation in Ukraine is undoubtedly tragic, it pales in comparison to the level of devastation witnessed in Iraq, where over a million people, including civilians, lost their lives. The country was essentially bombed into the Stone Age, and it still hasn’t properly recovered from that.

In 2023, Iraq is in an even more dire developmental state than it was in 2003. Yet, this wasn’t a focal point on the agenda. There wasn’t a massive international condemnation, especially not from Western nations who were carrying out this illegal act of aggression. The same narrative holds for Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Ukraine has taken center stage, and politicians from the West, some of whom were previously had a reputation of being war hawks—individuals like Joe Biden, who supported nearly every U.S.-involved war—now present themselves as peace activists and staunch opponents of war.

All of these actions are part of an overarching agenda for a ‘New American Century,’ aimed at extending American hegemony and dominance into the 21st century. There’s a significant geopolitical aspect at play here, with the U.S. essentially waging a proxy war against Russia through its actions in Ukraine. The U.S. has been provocatively temping Russia into this conflict with Ukraine for quite some time. Therefore, it’s fair to assert that the U.S. is the ultimate source and cause of this crisis. Their intention now is to leverage the crisis to undermine Russia, possibly to such an extent as to precipitate a regime change in the country. This would align Russia with the broader Western agenda, aligning it with the U.S. and Western Europe. Consequently, as far as the U.S. and the West is concerned, the situation between Russia and Ukraine is the only important situation in the world.

As you pointed out, matters like global poverty have lost their significance in the eyes of the West. They are actively working to take off such concerns from the agendas of international institutions. While these issues continue to be pressing for nations in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, the Pacific, and Africa, they’re largely dismissed by the West. Because they don’t think it is significant. It’s quite striking to observe this dismissal, especially considering the global consensus on the gravity of climate change. Over the past decade, China has clearly emerged as a leading force in renewable energy, electric vehicles, public transportation, biodiversity preservation, and reforestation. They’ve also demonstrated an increasing awareness of the needs of the global South, focusing on how to revolutionize their energy systems and provide more widespread access to modern energy for their populations.

The urgency of addressing environmental concerns, particularly in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding environmentally destructive practices like fossil fuel consumption, should be a top priority, if not the foremost concern, on the international stage. However, as you’ve pointed out, the Western world appears to have largely shifted its focus away from this critical issue. It is imperative that the West take a leading role in this matter, given its substantial historical responsibility, as acknowledged by international law and the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities.’ The developed nations achieved their current level of prosperity, in large part, through the release of greenhouse gases and the utilization of fossil fuels. Collectively, Western nations bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for existing emissions in the atmosphere. So, they should be using their position and wealth to assist the rest of the world in tackling this challenge. Regrettably, they’ve stopped caring about it. The only thing they want to talk about now is the situation in Ukraine.

However, the way taken in dealing with this conflict also carries its own environmental toll. By preventing European nations from using Russian natural gas, there is a shift towards alternatives such as fracked shale gas from the United States. This entails shipping large quantities across the Atlantic on container ships,its economic cost is double, and the environmental cost is increased many times.

It becomes clear that the U.S. and its Western allies are not actually interested in the broader global interests. The rest of the world is primarily concerned with progress, it’s interested in modernization, safeguarding the environment, ensuring food security, and addressing critical issues such as pandemics, nuclear proliferation and antimicrobial resistance. These are the problems that humanity faces, and the rest of the world wants to face up to those questions. In contrast, the West just puts forward this agenda, which doesn’t prioritize global well-being, prosperity, or the health of our planet. Instead, it seems more focused on asserting hegemony, seeking dominance, and imperialism. It’s about continuing a 20th-century status quo where the U.S. remains the sole superpower.

Capital News: We’ve got some new members joining the BRICS club this year, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Argentina, Iran, and Ethiopia. Also, thanks to China’s push, the African Union hopped on board with the G20 this year. What’s your take on this trend of international organizations expanding? Why do you think developing countries are increasingly standing together?

Carlos Martinez: BRICS is rapidly emerging as the linchpin of the arising multipolar world order, enjoying substantial backing from the entire developing world. In January, six new countries are set to be admitted, with an additional 20 nations vying for membership and another 20 to 30 expressing keen interest. This underscores its dynamic and paramount role on the global stage, commanding immense priority for the international community.

It’s hugely significant that both Iran and Saudi Arabia are joining. These two countries have long stood as adversaries, marked by 4 decades of mutual animosity and conflict. A recent reconciliation between these two countries has been facilitated and moderated by China. The fact that both nations now recognize the importance of BRICS and embrace the concept of a multipolar world is quite significant. They share an understanding that the developing world, particularly the global south, represents the most vibrant and emerging aspect of our planet.

Historically, this development holds great significance. The inclusion of Ethiopia, a highly populated country experiencing rapid growth, is noteworthy. Until fairly recently, well into the 90s, Ethiopia was known as one of the poorest countries in the world, especially in Africa. In the Western world, ‘Ethiopia’ was often synonymous with famine and extreme poverty.

Ethiopia’s development journey, bolstered by collaborations with friendly nations like China, has positioned it on the verge of attaining middle-income status. It stands as one of the most dynamic economies globally. The most exciting economic progress is occurring within the sphere of the developing world and the Global South. BRICS is increasingly emerging as the primary driving force behind this transformation.

This surge of interest in BRICS is well-founded. It signifies a historic, albeit gradual, shift in the world’s economic center of gravity. We are witnessing a transition from the West towards the East and South. So, the importance of the Eastern regions and Global South is on the rise. In this context, BRICS epitomizes this transformative process.

Capital News: So, just before this year’s BRICS summit, South Africa, the chairing country, let slip that there are over 30 countries that have made it clear they want in on BRICS, and that includes some of the buddies from the US and Europe. It was reported that during a chat with South African President, French President Macron put in a request to get in on the BRICS summit. Why are European countries keen on jumping into the BRICS club?

Carlos Martinez: European countries expressing interest in joining or collaborating with BRICS is a positive sign. It indicates their acknowledgment of the shifting global economic landscape, with a growing recognition that power dynamics are moving towards the East and South. This marks the conclusion of a nearly 500-year era dominated by Europe and North America.

While not everyone in Europe shares this perspective, some understand the necessity of adapting to this evolving reality. However, this transition won’t be an easy process. European countries, in particular, under great deal of pressure from the U.S. to join in with a new Cold War stance, opposing multipolarity. The U.S. was outraged when French President Macron went to Beijing a few months ago and had a very high-level bilateral talks with China’s president. He made a perfectly sensible comment to the press that Europe must make its own decisions and maintain its strategic autonomy to develop its own independent policy in relation to China. It’s pretty clear that’s not what the U.S. wants. Strategic autonomy for Europe is not what the US favors. At present, the U.S. still wields substantial economic, ideological, and political influence over Europe. This is evident in Europe’s involvement in the proxy conflict against Russia in Ukraine, in spite of the fact that it’s like directly harmful to the living standards of the European citizens, who grapple with crises such as inflation and the rising cost of living directly linked to the situation in Ukraine.

While it is positive that Europe is showing interest in BRICS, the pursuit of strategic autonomy will undoubtedly be a complex and arduous journey.

Capital News: Lately, there has been a peculiar surge of attention in the UK towards “Chinese espionage activities”. Previously, British media claimed that two British individuals were arrested on suspicion of providing intelligence to China. However, one of them, a British parliamentary researcher accused of being a ‘Chinese spy,’ responded by stating that he is ‘completely innocent’. On October 23rd, several British media outlets hyped up the so-called “Chinese laundry workers suspected of engaging in espionage activities in the UK”. The British Royal Navy has begun to cease employing laundry workers from China, citing “espionage risk” as the rationale, with the majority of these workers originating from Hong Kong. Earlier, Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, the UK’s intelligence agency, also claimed that China is conducting an “epic scale” of espionage activities against the UK, aiming to steal sensitive information such as British scientific research achievements. How do you view the British media and politicians sensationalizing the alleged “Chinese espionage activities against the UK”?

Carlos Martinez: There has been a notable surge in reports of alleged Chinese spy activities in the UK, mirroring similar reports in the US. I think the recent narrative surrounding the spy balloon incident in the US is indicative of a broader trend across the Western world.

Initially, the Chinese side maintained that the object in question was a meteorological device, specifically a weather balloon that had gone astray. However, the U.S. refused to accept that and made a big fuss, turning it into headline news for several days. Subsequently, the U.S. took the unilateral and, some argue, reckless and stupid decision to shoot down the supposed spy balloon.

Months later, when actual evidence was released, it turned out that the object was, indeed, a weather balloon and not equipped for espionage. This scenario appears to parallel the current story in the UK involving an alleged parliamentary researcher who is said to have lobbied for or provided information to China. Such incidents seem to fit into a broader strategy, characterized by elements reminiscent of the Cold War era and McCarthyism.

These narratives serve as a form of propaganda, aimed at painting China as a hostile, dangerous, expansionist force—portraying it as a threat to Britain’s national security. This narrative, in turn, provides justification for what is perceived as a new Cold War initiated by the West against China, encompassing policies of encirclement and containment.

This narrative aims to garner support from the British public for various measures, such as supplying military aid to Taiwan province. It also serves as a rationale for initiatives like the AUKUS trilateral military pact involving Britain, the US, and Australia, which is quite clearly related to the project of China and circumvent. Additionally, it provides justification for the imposition of sanctions on China, along with aggressive economic measures against the country. These include restricting Chinese involvement in British telecommunications infrastructure, such as excluding Huawei from our 5G network and imposing barriers on the import of solar panels, electric vehicles, batteries, and other related products.

It’s important to recognize that these actions may have economic repercussions for the British population. For instance, without Huawei in the 5G infrastructure, Britain may end up paying more for an inferior product, potentially compromising the efficiency of network connectivity. This narrative is therefore employed in the broader context of a propaganda campaign to justify these policies in the eyes of the British public. The spy stories are just one part of this broader strategy.

There’s a concerning, McCarthyism-inspired element to this dynamic, prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic. These narratives, often referred to as the “yellow peril” stereotypes, are gaining traction and are becoming increasingly pervasive in the media. The intention seems to be to heighten the physical and psychological costs associated with aligning with China, representing a remarkable transformation from just 8 or 9 years ago.

Back then, China and the UK were enjoying what was dubbed the “golden era” of their friendship. In 2015, China’s President Xi visited Britain and held productive discussions with then-Prime Minister David Cameron. They forged numerous agreements, including Britain’s participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, despite significant pressure from the United States. It was seen as crucial for the economic development of Britain to maintain a friendly, mutually beneficial relationship with China. At that time, the cost of such an affiliation was not as high, nor was there such a severe penalty for expressing positivity towards China or discussing its accomplishments.

Fast forward a few years, and today, even stating objectively true and evident facts can mark one out as a dissenting voice. For example, celebrating China’s success in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty or acknowledging its progress as a global leader in renewable energy production can label you as a dangerous person of someone who’s going against the dominant narrative.

This surge in McCarthyism has unfortunately been linked to a notable rise in anti-Chinese and anti-Asian racism. This disturbing trend is increasingly manifesting on the streets of major cities, such as London and New York. The espionage narratives appear to be tailored to exacerbate this anti-China sentiment, particularly in the context of this new Cold War environment.

Capital News: Over the past several years, it seems like the British political scene has been in a state of confusion regarding how to handle UK-China relations. On one hand, you have figures like Prime Minister Sunak and Foreign Secretary Cleverly who believe that there should be continued engagement between the UK and China. On the other hand, you have figures like former Conservative Party leader Duncan Smith, who thinks that China should now be labeled as a “threat.” It’s understandable why the U.S. government, politicians, and media would vilify and criticize China – they’re essentially trying to maintain American hegemony. But what’s the underlying motive behind Britain doing the same thing?

Carlos Martinez: It’s an important question that people in Britain should be asking themselves. One thing is that the relationship between the US and China has deteriorated. Obviously, 10 years ago, we witnessed the beginnings of what could be termed a new Cold War, with President Obama’s announcement of the “pivot to Asia” in 2011. Since then, the U.S., along with the rest of the Western world, has to some degree increasingly identified China as its primary challenge. This entailed a substantial military reorientation, involving the redeployment of troops and resources from the Middle East to the Pacific, marking a significant strategic focus on China.

Despite this, there still existed a level of reasonable cooperation. U.S.-China trade continued to grow, and the bilateral discussions between the two countries’ president played a pivotal role in the success of the Paris climate summit in 2015, culminating in international agreements and significant commitments.

However, the relationship has witnessed a marked deterioration since then. When former U.S. president Trump came to power, he did so on a platform largely characterized by anti-China rhetoric. He vowed to rescue the American economy by taking a tough stance against China. During his election campaign, he famously claimed that China was economically exploiting the US, framing it as one of the worst economic crimes in history, among other ridiculous sensationalist statements. This signaled his intention to launch a more aggressive anti-China campaign, which subsequently materialized with the initiation of a trade war and the ensuing diplomatic strain.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration has continued with that trajectory and to the point where now there’s really a bipartisan consensus in the U.S. now, the democrats and the republicans, they don’t agree on much, but they agree on being anti-China. And it’s difficult to see that changing anytime soon, I hope I’m wrong.

So, dynamics has been changed. And Britain has tended to, historically over the last 70 years, be very much influenced by the United States. And that’s been exacerbated since Britain voted to leave the EU and to leave the European single market, then that leaves Britain in economically very difficult situation, because Britain did the bulk of its trade via the EU.

All of a sudden, working towards a Free Trade Agreement with the United States became of utmost importance for Britain. The country is still in the process of negotiating this agreement, which has made it much more sensitive to how Britain is thought of in the US. As a result, there’s been a tendency to essentially align British foreign policy with Washington’s objectives. This has been a longstanding trend for Britain, exemplified by its strong partnership with the United States in key foreign policy decisions.

In 2003, for instance, while France and Germany voiced reservations about going to war in Iraq, Britain played a leading role in that conflict, showcasing a very strong partnership between the Blair government and the Bush administration in the United States. Similarly, in 2011, Britain was one of the leading instigators of this brutal destruction of Libya of bombing Libya into the stone age. This historical connection is deeply ingrained.

Westminster is now deeply concerned that if they go against the U.S. wishes in relation to China now, then they’ll have no hope of getting a Free trade agreement and find themselves very isolated. This concern is particularly pronounced since Britain’s departure from the EU.

Capital News: But we now see that many citizens stay in London, they want to come back to the European Union. So, do you think they will success?

Carlos Martinez: My personal view is that leaving the European Union was an act of self-harm, marked by an unpleasant campaign that was largely driven by racist and xenophobic sentiments, as well as an anti-immigration stance. The result of this decision is now evident for all to see: Britain’s economy is enduring significant challenges.

And the one thing that could mitigate the situation and improve Britain’s economy really and truly would be excellent relationship with China. Currently, there is a headline-grabbing crisis in Britain regarding the anticipated announcement by the Prime Minister regarding the future of the HS2 rail infrastructure project. This project was intended to symbolize a “leveling up” agenda, aiming to boost prosperity in the North and address the economic stagnation and decline that has persisted for over half a century. HS2 was envisioned as a cornerstone of this endeavor.

It’s highly likely that the HS2 development will essentially halt, not extending any further north than Birmingham and not even reaching as far south as Euston in central London.

And what’s interesting is that 3 years ago, China had offered to undertake this project, promising timely delivery at a significantly lower cost. Looking at the current state of the project, one can’t help but think how beneficial it would have been if the British government had accepted the offer from the Chinese state-owned enterprise to construct this railway. We would be reaping the benefits now. Unfortunately, the project is probably going to collapse entirely.

The reason we didn’t accept that offer everyone in the world knows that if you want to build infrastructure quickly into a high quality, and for a relatively low cost, turning to the Chinese is a sound choice. They possess incredible resources and experience in doing that.

Everyone in the world knows that, but Britain couldn’t accept that offer, largely due to its commitment to the broader agenda of the new Cold War. There appears to be a segment within the British ruling class and circles that recognize the significance of UK-China relations. This is evidenced by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly’s recent visit to Beijing and his relatively sensible remarks on the matter.

It should be uncontroversial, but in today’s climate, even stating such a perspective is noteworthy. Cleverly emphasized that whatever we think of China, it remains a very important country and will not stop being a very important country. We must actively engage with China and work towards establishing diplomatic and economic relationship. We may not agree with it on everyone, on everything, but we can have our differences. That’s okay. But we should be trading with China and we should be working with China on the major problems of the day. It’s significant that Cleverly made this statement, because it’s kind of a response to the more hawkish and aggressive forces within the British Parliament. These elements, which likely constitute a majority at present, advocate for a more hostile and antagonistic positioning towards China. So that’s the situation we’re in.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/11/22/t ... lection-2/

*******

HS2: they should have gone to ChinaSavers!

Image
(High speed rail development.....instead the US pisses the money away at the Pentagon.)

https://thecommunists.org/2023/11/24/ne ... inasavers/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Dec 09, 2023 3:35 pm

Image

Wang Yi: The tree of China-Vietnam friendship will surely flourish
Chinese President Xi Jinping is to pay a state visit to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, December 12-13, at the invitation of his Vietnamese counterparts, Communist Party of Vietnam General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong and President Vo Van Thuong. This will be Xi’s third state visit to China’s socialist neighbour, his previous trips being in 2015 and 2017.

Preparatory to the state visit, China’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited the Vietnamese capital Hanoi at the beginning of December, where he co-chaired the 15th meeting of the China-Vietnam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation together with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Tran Luu Quang on December 1.

Wang Yi said, this year is of special significance to both China and Vietnam. The socialist causes of both countries have entered a crucial stage and the two sides have reached important common understandings on upgrading the positioning of bilateral relations, which will usher in a new stage of bilateral relations.

Facing a world with changes and turmoil and the complicated situation, China and Vietnam should stay true to their original aspirations, remain united, firmly follow the path of peace, cooperation and development, and view the relations between the two parties and between the two countries from the strategic perspective of promoting human progress and boosting the strength of socialism.

Wang Yi further said that the two countries should manage differences through friendly consultation, actively advance maritime cooperation, and safeguard the hard-won peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Tran Luu Quang said as a “comrade and brother”, Vietnam supports China’s development and strength and supports China in playing an increasingly important role in safeguarding regional and world peace and stability.

Also, on December 1, Wang Yi met with General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) Central Committee Nguyen Phu Trong.

The Chinese Foreign Minister first conveyed General Secretary Xi Jinping’s most sincere greetings to General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong. Wang Yi said that under the strong leadership of the CPV Central Committee headed by General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, Vietnam has achieved political and social harmony and stability, vigorous economic development and the continuous improvement of its international status, expressing confidence in Vietnam to achieve its set strategic goals. The top leaders of the two parties of China and Vietnam have established solid political mutual trust and profound comradeship, steering the course of bilateral relations and providing important strategic guidance. He added that sharing the same ideals and a shared future are the most salient features of China-Vietnam relations.

Nguyen Phu Trong asked Wang Yi to convey his warmest greetings to General Secretary Xi Jinping. He said that Vietnam and China are linked by mountains and rivers. The “comradely and brotherly” friendship between Vietnam and China is particularly unique in the world. The Vietnamese leader said that after he took office as General Secretary of the CPV Central Committee for the third time, the first country he paid a visit to was China, and he had very good exchanges with General Secretary Xi Jinping, of which he has a fresh memory. Nguyen Phu Trong said that not long ago, he travelled to the Youyi Pass, or Friendship Pass, on the Vietnam-China border to plant a friendship tree. The border port between Vietnam and China, which is the only one named after friendship among neighbours, fully highlighted the traditional friendship between the two countries cherished by Vietnam.

Wang Yi responded that General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong’s deep feelings toward China are very touching, and expressed the belief that the tree of China-Vietnam friendship will surely flourish and be fruitful.

On the same day, Wang Yi also met with President of Vietnam Vo Van Thuong. He said that Comrade President attended the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in October upon invitation, making important contributions to the success of the Forum. General Secretary Xi Jinping and President Vo Van Thuong reached important common understandings on consolidating China-Vietnam friendship and advancing high-quality cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative and the “Two Corridors and One Economic Circle” plan, charting the course for deepening China-Vietnam comprehensive strategic cooperation.

Vo Van Thuong said that both Vietnam and China are at a critical stage of development, and strengthening cooperation is conducive to their respective revitalisation. Vietnam is ready to make joint efforts with China to continuously consolidate and deepen the Vietnam-China comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership. The two sides should make thoughtful preparations for the important political agenda in the next stage and put into real action the common understandings reached by the top leaders of the two parties.

Meeting with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son, also on December 1,Wang Yi said that sharing the same ideals and a shared future are the salient features of China-Vietnam relations. The two parties and two countries have seen close high-level exchanges and frequent contacts like visiting relatives, which fully demonstrates the high level and special nature of China-Vietnam relations. China and Vietnam have the same social system and shared ideals and beliefs, and bilateral relations should be at the forefront compared to other countries. Defining a new positioning and setting new goals for bilateral relations will not only open up new prospects for the development of the relations between the two parties and the two countries, but also make new contributions of China and Viet Nam to the cause of peace and progress of humanity.

Bui Thanh Son said the party, state and people of Vietnam have special feelings for China, and the friendship between Vietnam and China is deeply rooted in people’s hearts. Vietnam regards the development of relations with China as a strategic choice and top priority, and hopes to promote the sound, stable and lasting development of relations between the two parties and between the two countries, and elevate bilateral relations to new heights.

Finally, on December 2, Wang Yi met with Member of the CPV Central Committee Secretariat and Head of the CPV Central Committee’s Commission for External Relations Le Hoai Trung.

Wang Yi said that sharing the same ideals and a shared future are the most salient features of China-Vietnam relations, and the “comradely and brotherly” friendship between China and Vietnam is the most vivid illustration of their relations. The top leaders of the two parties have established solid mutual trust and deep friendship, which is the most important political safeguard for the steady development of relations between the two countries. China regards Vietnam as a priority in its neighbourhood diplomacy, and stands ready to work with Vietnam to follow through on the high-level common understandings, make good preparations for the important political agenda between the two countries, and join hands in advancing the building of a China-Vietnam community with a shared future.

Le Hoai Trung said that Vietnam, the CPV and the Vietnamese people have deep feelings toward China, and developing Vietnam-China relations is a strategic choice and top priority of Vietnam’s foreign policy. The Vietnamese side is satisfied with the sound and positive development momentum of bilateral relations. Vietnam and China are both socialist countries at the crucial stage of national development. Facing the complex and changing world situation, the Vietnamese side looks forward to closer high-level exchanges between the two sides to bring bilateral relations to a new stage of more in-depth, more solid, more comprehensive and more effective development, so as to lay a more sound and solid foundation for the future of Vietnam-China relations.

The following reports were first published on the websites of the Xinhua News Agency and the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
Xi to pay state visit to Vietnam

BEIJING, Dec. 7 (Xinhua) — Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Chinese president, will pay a state visit to Vietnam from Dec. 12 to 13, foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying announced on Thursday.

Xi’s visit is at the invitation of General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee Nguyen Phu Trong and State President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Vo Van Thuong, Hua said.

The China-Viet Nam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation Held the 15th Meeting
On December 1, 2023 local time, the 15th meeting of the China-Viet Nam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation was held in Hanoi, Viet Nam. The meeting was co-chaired by Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Tran Luu Quang and attended online and offline by responsible officials of multiple ministries and sub-national departments from both sides as members of the mechanism.

Wang Yi said, this year is of special significance to both China and Viet Nam. China has made a smooth start in implementing the guiding principles of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and Viet Nam has stepped up the implementation of the resolutions of the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of Viet Nam. The socialist causes of both countries have entered a crucial stage. This year marks the 15th anniversary of the establishment of the China-Viet Nam comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership, and under the strategic guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping and General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, bilateral relations have been running at a high level and strategic cooperation has been deepened across the board. The two sides have reached important common understandings on upgrading the positioning of bilateral relations, which will usher in a new stage of bilateral relations. China is ready to work with Viet Nam to make good use of the steering committee for bilateral cooperation, a general management mechanism for overall coordination of bilateral cooperation, make overall planning for cooperation in the next stage, and make positive contributions to advancing China-Viet Nam relations in the new era.

Noting that China-Viet Nam relations have achieved great development since the last meeting, Wang Yi said effective high-level guidance, breakthroughs in practical cooperation, progress in maritime cooperation and strong multilateral support have laid a solid foundation for bilateral relations to enter a new stage. Facing a world with changes and turmoils and the complicated situation, China and Viet Nam should stay true to their original aspirations, remain united, firmly follow the path of peace, cooperation and development, and view the relations between the two parties and between the two countries from the strategic perspective of promoting human progress and boosting the strength of socialism. The two sides should maintain high-level strategic communication, continue to build consensus and enhance mutual trust, strengthen cooperation mechanisms in national defense, public security, and security, among others, and deepen non-traditional security cooperation in counter-terrorism and cracking down on telecommunications fraud, among others. The two sides should leverage geographical proximity and industrial complementarity to deepen cooperation in economy and trade, connectivity, key minerals and other fields, and jointly build a mutually beneficial, stable and unimpeded industrial and supply chain system. The two sides should strengthen exchanges between the publicity departments of the two parties, central media and publishing institutions, culture and tourism, youth and sub-national counterparts to facilitate personnel exchanges and enhance mutual understanding between the two peoples. Both sides should work together to safeguard international equity and justice, act on true multilateralism, and support each other on issues concerning their respective major interests. Both sides should abide by the high-level consensus, manage differences through friendly consultation, actively advance maritime cooperation, and safeguard the hard-won peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Tran Luu Quang said the Vietnamese side expressed sincere congratulations on the historic achievements made by the CPC, China and the Chinese people since entering the new era, especially since the 20th CPC National Congress, and firmly believes that China will successfully realize the second centenary goal. As a “comrade and brother”, Viet Nam supports China’s development and strength and supports China in playing an increasingly important role in safeguarding regional and world peace and stability. This year marks the 15th anniversary of the Viet Nam-China comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership, and the relations between the two parties and between the two countries have developed vigorously and achieved fruitful results. The two sides have maintained close high-level exchanges, constantly consolidated political mutual trust, made positive progress in exchanges at various levels and at various localities, and witnessed the rapid development of cooperation in such fields as economy and trade, investment, transportation, science and technology. Viet Nam agreed with China on the overall vision of the development of bilateral relations in the next stage. Viet Nam is ready to strengthen the momentum of high-level mutual visits and actively carry out inter-party and parliamentary exchanges. Both sides should give good play to the coordinating role of the steering committee, security closer cooperation in diplomacy, national defense and security, work for greater development in economy and trade, investment and financial cooperation, strengthen cooperation in transportation, agriculture, environmental protection, science and technology, tourism and education as well as sub-national exchanges, and expand cooperation in artificial intelligence and green energy. The two sides should properly and effectively manage differences in accordance with the consensus reached by the high-level leaders of the two countries, jointly promote the consultations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, and make the South China Sea a sea of peace and cooperation.

Both sides agreed to give good play to the coordinating role of the steering committee, step up synergy between various departments and form more specific cooperation ideas with a focus on the new positioning of China-Viet Nam relations, promote in-depth and substantive China-Viet Nam comprehensive strategic cooperation and lay a solid foundation for the new stage of bilateral relations.

General Secretary of the CPV Central Committee Nguyen Phu Trong Meets with Wang Yi
On December 1, 2023 local time, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Viet Nam (CPV) Central Committee Nguyen Phu Trong met with Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Hanoi.

Wang Yi first conveyed General Secretary Xi Jinping’s most sincere greetings to General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong. Wang Yi said that under the strong leadership of the CPV Central Committee headed by General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, Viet Nam has achieved political and social harmony and stability, vigorous economic development and the continuous improvement of its international status, expressing confidence in Viet Nam to achieve its set strategic goals. The top leaders of the two parties of China and Viet Nam have established solid political mutual trust and profound comradeship, steering the course of bilateral relations and providing important strategic guidance. Wang Yi said that to follow through on the strategic common understandings reached by the top leaders of the two parties, he and Deputy Prime Minister Tran Luu Quang co-chaired the 15th Meeting of the China-Viet Nam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation this morning and reached a series of common understandings on promoting cooperation in various fields in the next stage.

Wang Yi said that sharing the same ideals and a shared future are the most salient features of China-Viet Nam relations. China appreciates that Viet Nam has always taken its relations with China as its strategic choice and top priority in its diplomacy, and China also takes its relations with Viet Nam as a priority in its neighborhood diplomacy. On the basis of 15 years of the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership between the two countries, it came about naturally that the two sides reached a common understanding on upgrading bilateral relations. This is in line with the common aspirations and interests of the two countries, conducive to regional and world peace and development, and will open up brighter prospects for relations between the two countries.

Nguyen Phu Trong asked Wang Yi to convey his warmest greetings to General Secretary Xi Jinping. Nguyen Phu Trong said that Viet Nam and China are linked by mountains and rivers. The “comradely and brotherly” friendship between Viet Nam and China is particularly unique in the world. Nguyen Phu Trong said that after he took office as General Secretary of the CPV Central Committee for the third time, the first country he paid a visit to was China, and he had very good exchanges with General Secretary Xi Jinping, of which he has had fresh memory. Nguyen Phu Trong said that not long ago, he traveled to the Youyi Pass, or Friendship Pass, on the Viet Nam-China border recently to plant a friendship tree. The border port between Viet Nam and China, which is the only one named after friendship among neighbors, fully highlighted the traditional friendship between the two countries cherished by Viet Nam. The constant development of Viet Nam-China relations fully accords with the aspiration of the Vietnamese people, and Viet Nam believes that through joint efforts of the two sides, the “comradely and brotherly” friendship between the two countries will be increasingly cemented.

Wang Yi said that General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong’s deep feelings toward China are very touching, and expressed the belief that the tree of China-Viet Nam friendship will surely flourish and be fruitful.

On the same day, Wang Yi also met respectively with President of Viet Nam Vo Van Thuong, and Foreign Minister of Viet Nam Bui Thanh Son.

President of Viet Nam Vo Van Thuong Meets with Wang Yi
On December 1, 2023 local time, President of Viet Nam Vo Van Thuong met with Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Hanoi.

Wang Yi first conveyed cordial greetings and best wishes from General Secretary and President Xi Jinping to President Vo Van Thuong. Wang Yi said, under the strategic guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping and General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, China-Viet Nam relations have been running at a high level, which not only benefits the two peoples, but also promotes peace and development of the region and the world. Comrade President Vo Van Thuong attended the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in October upon invitation, making important contributions to the success of the Forum. General Secretary Xi Jinping and Vo Van Thuong reached important common understandings on consolidating China-Viet Nam friendship and advancing high-quality cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative and the “Two Corridors and One Economic Circle” plan, charting the course for deepening China-Viet Nam comprehensive strategic cooperation. Wang Yi said, his travel to Viet Nam to co-chair the 15th Meeting of the China-Viet Nam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation with Deputy Prime Minister Tran Luu Quang is to jointly follow through on the important common understandings reached by leaders of the two parties and two countries. The two sides reviewed the progress in cooperation in various fields, defined work directions for the next stage, and reached new common understandings on deepening cooperation and promoting the sound and steady development of China-Viet Nam relations in all fields.

Wang Yi said, China and Viet Nam enjoy a profound traditional friendship and this year marks the 15th anniversary of the establishment of the China-Viet Nam comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership. Comrade President Vo Van Thuong said on many occasions that the Vietnamese side regards consolidating and deepening China-Viet Nam relations as its strategic choice and top priority in its foreign policy. China also regards Viet Nam as a priority in its neighborhood diplomacy. China is ready to make coordinated efforts with Viet Nam to advance next-stage cooperation in various fields, to ensure steady and sustained progress in the building of a China-Viet Nam community with a shared future.

Vo Van Thuong asked Wang Yi to convey his sincere greetings to General Secretary and President Xi Jinping, and expressed his belief that under the leadership of the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, China will follow through on the guiding principles of the 20th CPC National Congress and continue to make greater achievements in development. Both Viet Nam and China are at a critical stage of development, and strengthening cooperation is conducive to their respective revitalization. Viet Nam is ready to make joint efforts with China to continuously consolidate and deepen the Viet Nam-China comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership. The two sides should make thoughtful preparations for the important political agenda in the next stage and put into real action the common understandings reached by the top leaders of the two parties. Noting that China’s investment in Viet Nam grew rapidly in the first 10 months of this year and bilateral trade maintained a sound momentum, he expressed hope that both sides will further strengthen cooperation in trade and investment, inter-party, legislative institutions, sub-national, youth, national defense and security areas. The two countries can reinforce complementary strengths in seeking strategic synergy between the Belt and Road Initiative and the “Two Corridors and One Economic Circle” plan, and carry out more cooperation in energy transition, key infrastructure and other aspects. Viet Nam is willing to work with China to support each other in international and regional affairs, and is glad to see China grow stronger and play a more important role in international affairs.

Wang Yi Meets with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son
On December 1, 2023 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son in Hanoi.

Wang Yi said that sharing the same ideals and a shared future are the salient features of China-Viet Nam relations. The two parties and two countries have seen close high-level exchanges and frequent contacts like visiting relatives, which fully demonstrates the high level and special nature of China-Viet Nam relations. China and Viet Nam have the same social system and shared ideals and beliefs, and bilateral relations should be at the forefront compared to other countries. Defining a new positioning and setting new goals for bilateral relations will not only open up new prospects for the development of the relations between the two parties and the two countries, but also make new contributions of China and Viet Nam to the cause of peace and progress of mankind.

Wang Yi emphasized that the foreign affairs departments of the two countries should encourage, support and coordinate with various departments and sub-national governments to follow through on the strategic common understandings reached by the top leaders of the two parties, strengthen inter-party interactions and exchanges of experience in governance, and help reach a new climax in practical cooperation in various fields. China and Viet Nam should actively promote mutually beneficial cooperation related to the sea, prevent the interference of external forces, accelerate consultations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, and make the South China Sea a sea of peace and cooperation. In the international and multilateral fields, China and Viet Nam should closely coordinate and support each other to jointly uphold international fairness and justice.

Bui Thanh Son said the party, state and people of Viet Nam have special feelings for China, and the friendship between Viet Nam and China is deeply rooted in people’s hearts. Viet Nam regards the development of relations with China as a strategic choice and top priority, and hopes to promote the sound, stable and lasting development of relations between the two parties and between the two countries, and elevate bilateral relations to new heights. The foreign affairs departments of the two countries can work closely together, give good play to the role of coordinating and promoting cooperation in various fields, strengthen high-level exchanges and exchanges at various levels, and deepen practical cooperation in agricultural products, connectivity, high technology, tourism, and other fields. The Vietnamese side is willing to strengthen coordination and cooperation with the Chinese side in international and regional affairs, and support the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. China’s ideals and initiatives are in line with the spirit of the United Nations Charter and the aspirations of all countries to build a better world, and are conducive to the cause of peace and progress of mankind. The Vietnamese side is willing to work with the Chinese side to jointly maintain maritime peace and stability in accordance with the high-level common understandings between the two countries.

The two sides also had an exchange of views on international and regional hotspot issues of mutual interest and concern.

Wang Yi Meets with Member of the CPV Central Committee Secretariat and Head of the CPV Central Committee’s Commission for External Relations Le Hoai Trung
On December 2, 2023 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with Member of the Communist Party of Viet Nam (CPV) Central Committee Secretariat and Head of the CPV Central Committee’s Commission for External Relations Le Hoai Trung in Hanoi.

Wang Yi congratulated Le Hoai Trung on assuming his post as Member of the CPV Central Committee Secretariat. Wang Yi said that sharing the same ideals and a shared future are the most salient features of China-Viet Nam relations, and the “comradely and brotherly” friendship between China and Viet Nam is the most vivid illustration of China-Viet Nam relations. The top leaders of the two parties have established solid mutual trust and deep friendship, which is the most important political safeguard for the steady development of relations between the two countries. China regards Viet Nam as a priority in its neighborhood diplomacy, and stands ready to work with Viet Nam to follow through on the high-level common understandings, make good preparations for the important political agenda between the two countries, and join hands in advancing the building of a China-Viet Nam community with a shared future. He expressed the belief that under the strategic guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping and General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, the relations between the two parties and the two countries will continuously move ahead and open up brighter prospects, and cooperation in various fields will usher in a new climax, which will boost respective efforts to accelerate development and revitalization and will make new contributions to the vitality of the socialist cause.

Le Hoai Trung said that Viet Nam, the CPV and the Vietnamese people have deep feelings toward China, and developing Viet Nam-China relations is a strategic choice and top priority of Viet Nam’s foreign policy. The Vietnamese side is satisfied with the sound and positive development momentum of bilateral relations. Viet Nam and China are both socialist countries at the crucial stage of national development. Facing the complex and changing world situations, the Vietnamese side looks forward to closer high-level exchanges between the two sides to bring bilateral relations to a new stage of more in-depth, more solid, more comprehensive and more effective development, so as to lay a more sound and solid foundation for the future of Viet Nam-China relations.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/08/w ... -flourish/

Image

George Galloway: The West sucks the blood of Africans, while China transfuses hope
In this short, three-minute film for Chinese broadcaster CGTN, George Galloway, former Member of Parliament, and leader of the Workers’ Party of Britain, refutes western propaganda regarding China’s role in Africa and makes a stark contrast between the western record with regard to the African continent and that of China. The West, George insists, sucks the blood of Africans, while China transfuses hope.

The United States has 29 military bases in Africa. China has one – in Djibouti, where the US also has a base. Yet it is China that is accused of interference. China is building the infrastructure that the colonial powers never did and promoting the post-independence economic development that the West did everything to try to strangle at birth.

Unlike the West, George notes, China did not enslave anybody in Africa. It occupied nowhere – unlike the imperialist scramble for every last square inch of the continent. Again, unlike the west, China murdered no African leaders, carried out no coups, did not “buy” uranium from Niger at grotesquely undervalued prices and nor did it support apartheid in South Africa or the former Rhodesia – rather it supported the freedom struggle.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative, George notes, China is building road, rail and air transportation networks across the continent, along with schools, hospitals, universities and kindergartens.

This succinct and poweful video is embedded below.


https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/06/g ... uses-hope/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:34 pm

Image

A tale of two Chinas: Rhetoric on foreign domination and domestic instability
The following original article, submitted to Friends of Socialist China by Nolan Long (a Canadian undergraduate student studying politics at the University of Saskatchewan), shines a light on the absurdly contradictory Western media coverage of China. “First, China is described as a global superpower in terms of its supposedly dominating and exploitative foreign policy; on the other hand, China is represented as an unstable, backward, underdeveloped country, bound to inevitably collapse due to the failures of socialism.”

This portrayal and the various popular narratives associated with it – that China is engaged in “debt trap diplomacy”, or that the Belt and Road Initiative is a form of colonialism, or that the Chinese economy is on the verge of collapse – are promoted as part of an ongoing propaganda war, itself a crucial component of an escalating effort to contain and encircle the People’s Republic. These various claims “exist at the heart of the West’s insecurity about its decreasing relevancy and power in the twenty-first century.”

The falsity of this anti-China hysteria is amply exposed by its contradictory nature; and yet it is unlikely to go away any time soon. As Nolan concludes: “The tale of two Chinas presents a picture of Western insecurity and modern Chinese power, a theme that will increasingly come to the fore as China continues to develop on its own and on the world stage.”
Contemporary rhetoric on the People’s Republic of China, as disseminated by Western corporate media, is made up of contradictory claims about Chinese domination and Chinese instability. It is simple enough to find intentionally missing information or context, exaggerations, and even outright lies in the muniments of most corporate media. But a deeper analysis reveals two competing narratives, both of which have become increasingly (and paradoxically) common over the last few years.

First, China is described as a global superpower in terms of its supposedly dominating and exploitative foreign policy; on the other hand, China is represented as an unstable, backward, underdeveloped country, bound to inevitably collapse due to the failures of socialism.

Notably, the first typified China is used in Western capitalist media to generate fears about China’s development efforts in the Global South, which have largely been at the expense of Western hegemony and financial interests. Despite the positive results of the Belt and Road Initiative, capitalist media portrays China as a rapacious villain running rampant across the globe.

Here, China is described as an economic powerhouse. But when discussing Chinese domestic affairs, Western journalists suddenly think China is a poor, underdeveloped state, sometimes on the brink of complete collapse. These two conceptions of China cannot coexist, and go a long way in demonstrating the irrationality and lack of scholarship among anti-communists and defenders of American hegemony.

The portrayal of China as an exploitative global superpower has been ramped up since the Belt and Road Initiative propelled China onto the world stage. China had been globalizing its economy since the Reform and Opening Up under Deng Xiaoping, but it was with the launch of the BRI in 2013 that criticism of so-called Chinese imperialism and debt trap diplomacy became mainstream. The British government has raised “concerns over China’s growing role in international development, while promising that the UK will resist the risks China ‘poses to open societies and good governments.’”

Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners analyzes a “genre” of anti-communist thought on Chinese socialism which Boer calls the “ghost story” genre. This genre suggests that the Communist Party of China “has a long-term plan to undermine global institutions and take over the world.”[1] These “ghost stories” are often published in “less than reputable press.” The portrayal of China as an exploitative global superpower falls into this category. It portrays the CPC and China altogether as starkly anti-West in everything they do, set only on world domination and the destruction of capitalism.

“Debt trap diplomacy” has become an oft-repeated criticism of China’s foreign affairs, particularly in the Belt and Road Initiative. Amanda Yee writes:

U.S. politicians and corporate media often promote the narrative that China lures developing countries into predatory, high-interest loans to build infrastructure projects as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. As the story goes, China anticipates that the borrowing country will default on the loan, so that it can then seize that asset in order to extend its military or geostrategic influence – evidence of China’s so-called colonizing of the Global South.

These claims are in spite of the fact that China has never seized foreign assets because a country has defaulted on a loan. On the contrary, China’s BRI loan structure often provides the world’s most favourable interest rates to developing countries. Moreover, China has been known to restructure loan agreements when countries struggle with repaying them, or in other cases has even forgiven debt entirely. In Africa alone, China has cancelled 3.4 billion USD worth of debt.[2] With Zambia, China “called on Zambia’s other creditors to shoulder a ‘fair burden’ in the country’s debt restructuring.” This was part of a wider effort led by China to get itself and other creditor nations to ease interest rates during the COVID-19 Pandemic (called the Debt Service Suspension Initiative), given the increased economic hardships it placed upon already indebted countries.

It is also noteworthy that, as Michael Roberts writes, “China is not a particularly large lender to poor countries like Sri Lanka compared to Western creditors and the multi-national agencies” (such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank). It becomes clear that China’s BRI efforts are not predatory, nor are they debt traps. Whereas China is willing to restructure or forgive debt, the same cannot be said for the United States or capitalist IFIs, whose exploitative Structural Adjustment Programs and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers led to enforced inequality within indebted nations and between developed and devoping countries.

With the Belt and Road Initiative having produced nearly three-thousand completed or in-development projects already, there is, of course, reason for American politicians and corporate media to be concerned. American hegemony is being challenged with each new port, bridge, and road that China helps build across the Global South. But the accusations pushed by Western politicians and media are rarely more than outright lies. Michael Schuman wrote an article for the Atlantic, in which he made several claims about China’s foreign relations, whose baseless nature lends itself to the validity of Roland Boer’s “ghost story” typology.

Schuman claims that, despite Chinese commitments to peaceful development, “China will not be a pacifist power.” Many American politicians claimed that Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, built by the Belt and Road Initiative, would be used as a naval base for the Chinese military. However, the Sri Lankan ambassador to China stated much to the contrary: “we have very clearly indicated to the Chinese side, it’s only an economic venture… China never asked us [for use of the port as a naval base]. We never offered it.” Despite fearmongering in the American capitalist press, China’s global efforts remain peaceful.

The next ghost story speculation from Schuman’s article claims, “history suggests that China will use force or coercion against other countries when they contest Chinese power.” Where is the evidence for this? To claim that modern Chinese diplomacy is informed by ancient Chinese history is to be both contemporarily and historically illiterate. While modern Chinese political theory has taken much from its dynastic past, modern Chinese governance is the practice of socialism in power. There is nothing to suggest China intends to use military aggression or threats of violence against countries that do not repay their debt, nor on countries that refuse to join the BRI.

Lastly, Schuman states, “seething at what they consider humiliations inflicted by Western powers…China is on a mission to regain the upper hand.” He goes on, “China only tolerates relationships it can dominate.” If this is true, then why has the PRC expressed interest in forming a “Polar Silk Road” branch of the BRI, which would bring China into economic partnership with Russia (already a member of the BRI) and Canada (an important capitalist power, not a member of the BRI)? Relationships with these two countries are surely ones that China could not dominate. As it stands, the Polar Silk Road effort “is still modest, research-based and focused on maritime navigation.” Canada, however, has joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, perhaps indicating a potential willingness to join the BRI in the future. Chinese interest in the Arctic, specifically through Canadian and Russian partnerships, demonstrates its commitment to working with powerful capitalist states in the Belt and Road Initiative, debunking Schuman’s claim that the BRI is a vessel for China to enact domineering foreign policy relations. Moreover, American interest (against the expressed sovereignty of Canada[3]) in the Arctic sets the US and China at odds, further exemplifying that the BRI is also about protecting weaker states from American aggression.

It is plain to see that the reality of China’s foreign affairs does not line up with the spectacle propagated by the American capitalist media and politicians. These lies, exaggerations, and omissions are part of a conscious initiative to falsely portray China as an out-of-control state set on dominating and exploiting all weaker nations in its foreign policy efforts. But this is just one portrayal of China pushed by Western interests; on the other hand, Westerners are told to see China as a weak and crumbling country itself.

The genre that depicts China as approaching a complete economic and political collapse is referred to by Roland Boer as the “secular apocalypse” typology; “this type is also known as the ‘China doomer’ approach, in which someone seeks to predict yet again the apocalyptic crash of China’s economic and political system…it is quite easy to get such a work published in one or another less than reputable press.”[4] Boer places Gordon Chang’s book, The Coming Collapse of China in this category. While this book was released in 2001, the People’s Republic of China has curiously not yet collapsed.

Forbes has published numerous articles claiming to forecast the collapse of the Chinese economy. Lauren Thompson claimed that the Chinese economy was moving into decay, thus dooming the country’s efforts to “become a superpower.” Also in Forbes, Milton Ezrati wrote that the largest problem facing Beijing is “the country’s planned and centralized approach to economics.” His article takes the ridiculous position that central planning is a problem everywhere, including in the West with nationalized industries, because “no one can see the future.” Even if one ignores the huge successes of socialist economic planning in the Soviet Union, this is still fundamentally incorrect. He argues that “market-based economies [neoliberal economies] try to capture future needs through the separate plans of tens of thousands of firms and individuals.” This is simply untrue, as Western industries constantly repeat a cycle of overproduction, proving that they are far worse at “seeing the future” than Chinese central planners. The only reason the capitalist model continues working (and the reasons it has worked throughout history) is because of its periodic economic booms, being bailed out by austerity governments, and imperialism and (neo)colonialism.

Nathan Sperber addressed the capitalist impulse to forecast the “downfall of China.” He writes that from 2013-2023, China’s economy

has expanded by 70 per cent in real terms, compared to 21 per cent for the United States. China has not had a recession this century – by convention, two consecutive quarters of negative growth – let alone a ‘crash.’ Yet every few years, the Anglophone financial media and its trail of investors, analysts and think-tankers are gripped by the belief that the Chinese economy is about to crater.

How does one reconcile the fact that China has been on an upward economic trajectory for the entire history of the People’s Republic with the consistent murmurings about the incoming Chinese economic crash among Western ‘experts’? Sperber offers one explanation, saying “the essential thing to bear in mind about Western coverage of the Chinese economy is that the bulk of it responds to the needs of the ‘investor community.’”

American claims about Chinese instability and decline exist at the heart of the West’s insecurity about its decreasing relevancy and power in the twenty-first century. Now being far surpassed by China in terms of industrial and manufacturing output, Europeans and Americans have become increasingly concerned about China’s rise in the global financial and information sectors. In order to tolerate China’s meteoric rise in these industries, Western capitalists have resorted to two tactics: portraying this rise as cataclysmic and detrimental to the developing world; and claiming this rise is all a mask for an unstable, decaying Chinese economy. The American and European media have pushed these claims largely for hegemonic reasons. But the problem lies not in the fact that their claims are false (large media companies can spread false narratives and get away with it most of the time), but in that these two claims are contradictory, thus exposing that falsehood. The tale of two Chinas presents a picture of Western insecurity and modern Chinese power, a theme that will increasingly come to the fore as China continues to develop on its own and on the world stage.

[1] Roland Boer, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners (Singapore: Springer, 2021), 11.

[2] Kevin Acker, et al., Debt Relief with Chinese Characteristics (Washington: John Hopkins University, 2020), 3.

[3] Government of Canada, Statement on Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy: Exercising Sovereignty and Promoting Canada’s Northern Strategy Abroad (Ottawa: Government of Canada), 5.

[4] Boer, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 10-11.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/09/a ... stability/

Image

Dee Knight: Eyewitness Xinjiang
We are pleased to republish below the second of Dee Knight’s reports from his recent visit to China (we posted the first instalment last week).

This article focuses specifically on the trips to Xinjiang’s two largest cities – Urumqi and Kashgar – where the group aimed to deepen their understanding of the region, particularly in light of the slanderous accusations routinely hurled by the Western media about putative human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslim population.

Describing the group’s trip to Urumqi’s main bazaar, Dee observes that Uyghurs and Han Chinese can be seen “mixing, mingling and melding nonchalantly while shopping and doing business.” Meanwhile, contrary to the claims of cultural genocide, “street signs and advertisements typically appeared in both Chinese characters and Uyghur script.”

Dee addresses the claim that the Chinese government uses ‘concentration camps’ to indoctrinate Uyghurs and to destroy their cultural identity. He explains: “Such facilities were set up by the government to provide under-employed Uyghurs with vocational skills, recreational activities, medical services and other benefits. Most have included dormitories, where people who lived far from the center could stay during the week, and return home on weekends.” He describes meeting a 21-year-old Uyghur woman “who spoke near-perfect English” which she had learned precisely in one of these supposed ‘concentration camps’. “The training gave her the skill she needs to earn a living in the bazaar, where other members of her family also work.”

The author further discusses China’s policy in relation to minorities and religion, and notes that none of the accusations levelled at China about suppression of religious freedoms in Xinjiang are borne out by either statistics or observation. The Uyghur birth rate has been steadily rising at a far faster rate than that of Han Chinese; Uyghur life expectancy has increased from 31 years in 1949 to 72 currently; Xinjiang, like the rest of China, enjoys near-100 percent literacy; and there are a huge number of mosques in Xinjiang, which are very well maintained.

Dee concludes:

More westerners need to come and see for themselves. That may be the best way to disprove the official government and media slanders. It could also help to build people-to-people friendship. We found nothing but friendliness everywhere we visited. People were pleased when we tried to communicate in Chinese, and also pleasant and patient to communicate with us however possible. The Chinese people are definitely not our enemy, and their government is doing a very good job serving and protecting them. It really is time for the US government to try harder to make friends with China, and help forge common prosperity and a shared future.

Dee Knight is a veteran of the US peace and socialist movements, and is a member of the International Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and of the Friends of Socialist China advisory group.

This article was first published in LA Progressive on 19 November 2023.
As US President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping prepare to meet this week at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in San Francisco, the question arises whether Biden will pull back from spurious claims of “genocide” and “forced labor” against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, China’s economically dynamic far western province.

Xinjiang, China’s far western province, has borders with Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. It is China’s Belt and Road portal to all these countries.

On a ten-day visit to China in early November with the theme that “China Is Not Our Enemy,” I had an opportunity to visit Xinjiang’s two major cities – Urumqi and Kashgar – hoping to see the situation up close. There have been horrific claims by US officials and the mainstream media of severe repression of Xinjiang’s Muslim Uyghur population. While these claims have recently been “walked back,” or reduced to claims of “cultural genocide” according to a YouTube report by Cyrus Janssen, our delegation wanted to see for ourselves. (The “cultural genocide” claim relates to the fact that Mandarin Chinese is a required subject in Xinjiang’s schools, while the Uyghur language is an elective.)

Xinjiang’s Surprises
No matter what you might expect from Xinjiang, it’s full of surprises – mostly very pleasant. After a five-hour flight from Beijing, Urumqi, the capital, appears like a valley oasis emerging as the rugged and craggy (and very high) Tianshan mountains loom nearby. This city of 4 million (of whom over half are Uyghurs and smaller percentages are Hui and Khazak), is a market center serving as a portal to Central Asia on the western edge of China’s famous Belt and Road. It buzzes with activity, especially near the wholesale markets where traders come to order all kinds of consumer products from everywhere, but mainly either from local artisans or from China’s manufacturing centers in the east and southeast of the country. We took advantage of wholesale prices to get a coat and hat suitable for the chilly autumn weather, and an extra piece of luggage to manage our tourist acquisitions.

China’s State Council on October 31 announced a plan to build a Xinjiang Free Trade Zone, including the regional capital of Urumqi, Kashgar prefecture and Horgos. It is the first such zone in China’s northwest border region and the 22nd pilot Free Trade Zone in China.

While shopping for beautiful silk scarves in the main bazaar, we were served by a 21-year-old Uyghur woman who spoke near-perfect English. She told us she learned it in a 10-month course in a government-sponsored training center. The training gave her the skill she needs to earn a living in the bazaar, where other members of her family also work.

The bazaar serves everyone, but more Uyghurs than Han Chinese, and very few European or north American tourists. The bad news media coverage of repression or even so-called “genocide” has definitely had an impact, even though floods of Han Chinese tourists come every day. We noticed Uyghurs and Han Chinese mixing, mingling and melding nonchalantly while shopping and doing business. Street signs and advertisements typically appeared in both Chinese characters and Arabic script. On the street, we noticed there are small police stations at many major intersections, and we even saw deployments of military guards at two locations. Our guide said this level of security has been in place since the outbreaks of violence in 2009. Our sense was that the sentinels had very little to do.

After shopping we were treated to a brilliant dance performance by a group of young Uyghur women and men, who invited us to join with them. We now have a video of my Dominican wife, Consuelo, dancing with the Uyghurs. We then wandered through the bazaar to choose among a dozen tempting options for a typical Uyghur cuisine of shishkabob, nang bread and a delicious, spicy stew of chicken, potatoes and other vegetables. Following dinner we wandered along the line of restaurants till we found the public washroom – apparently a staple in most large Chinese cities, as we noticed the same in Shanghai and Beijing. Very clean and well attended by uniformed staff, the washroom has women’s and men’s sides with a line of about eight discreet stalls each, and a unisex handwashing section in the front.

We took the metro subway just to enjoy the experience. About 20 years old, it has escalators at both ends, and sports ultra-clean marble floors. The train cars are the same as in Shanghai and Beijing – very clean and remarkably quiet. Moving barriers made of heavy glass shield passengers as trains enter and leave the station. A soft voice announces each stop, which is also shown on a lighted map inside the car. Our guide checked and advised us that 31 major Chinese cities now have metro subway systems – about as many as the rest of the world combined.

Emerging from the metro took us to the buzz of the city’s downtown streets, a welter of lights of many colors among the hotels, restaurants, bars and business centers. This predominantly Muslim city is not totally abstemious, but don’t expect to be offered beer or wine with dinner.

About the outbreaks of violence mentioned earlier, and related government response, the following slightly edited excerpt from my book, A Realistic Path to Peace, provides some important and fully documented findings.

There has been a barrage of scandal stories in western media broadcasting the plight of the Uyghurs. Many of them echoed US government claims that China was committing genocide. This claim is unfounded, based on flimsy “evidence” that has been repeatedly debunked. The use of the term concentration camps to describe detention facilities has also been dubious (the 21-year-old woman we met in the bazaar told us of learning English in a training center). Such facilities were set up by the government to provide unemployed Uyghurs with vocational skills, recreational activities, medical services and other benefits. Most have included dormitories, where people who lived far from the center could stay during the week, and return home on weekends.

The US media coverage has not addressed the strategic importance of Xinjiang. Canadian reporter Daniel Dumbrill reported that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), which has claimed responsibility for attacks in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China, has been identified as a terrorist organization by the governments of China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Turkey and the United States. The US government removed ETIM from its list of terrorist organizations in October 2020 and has since provided funds to it through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Following explosive incidents of terrorist violence by ETIM, the Chinese government responded with repression. How much repression, and for how long, are matters of controversy.

When Noam Chomsky was asked in an April 2021 New York Times podcast interview whether the situation of the Uyghurs was worse than the people of Gaza, he said “No. The Uyghurs were not having their power plants destroyed, their sewage plants destroyed,” and were “not subjected to regular bombing.” (Recent official US denials of genocide in Palestine where many thousands have been killed by Israeli bombs with US support, absolve the Israeli leaders who have called Palestinians “human animals” and promised to drive them out of this historic land. In contrast, they scream of “genocide” and “slave labor” in Xinjiang, but fail to provide evidence. That’s why we wanted to see for ourselves.)

The exact number of Uyghurs placed in education camps is not known in the West. China has called the camps a large-scale job training program, as part of its national anti-poverty crusade. On a personal visit to Xinjiang, Daniel Dumbrill found that a very small minority of Uyghurs were repressed, and a large portion benefited from job training.

Professor Zhun Xu of John Jay College in New York, says “if [China] has engaged in forced assimilation and eventual erasure of a vulnerable ethnic and religious minority group,” there should be a decrease in the Uyghur population and increase in the Han. But Xinjiang’s Uyghur population increased by 24.9 percent from 2010 to 2018, while the Han population in Xinjiang grew by only 2.2 percent. (Cited by Reese Ehrlich, from Zhun Xu’s upcoming book, Sanctions as War)

Right-wing religious extremist Adrian Zenz, who states he is “led by God” on a “mission against China,” is the main source for US government and media criticism of Xinjiang conditions. He is also funded by The Jamestown Foundation, an arch-conservative defense policy think tank in Washington, DC, which was co-founded by William Casey, Reagan’s CIA director. Other important sources are the World Uyghur Congress, the International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation, and the Uyghur American Association – all of which receive substantial NED funding.

Other sources include the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – both militaristic think tanks funded by US and Western governments and weapons manufacturers. ASPI and CSIS successfully spearheaded a campaign against “forced labor” in Xinjiang, stimulating moves in Congress to ban US imports from Xinjiang.

Professor Kenneth Hammond of New Mexico State University recently explained the two main aspects of Chinese government policy toward ethnic and religious minorities: first, preservation and respect for their language and culture and, second, inclusion and opportunity through education, health care and job training. Improved health care programs in Xinjiang have contributed to life expectancy increasing there from 31 years in 1949 to 72 currently.

In 1949 there were 54 medical centers in Xinjiang; in 2017 there were more than 7,300 health care facilities and more than 1,600 hospitals. Literacy increased from ten percent to more than 90 percent in the same period. Average income in Xinjiang has increased more than ten percent since 2017.

Tens of millions of Chinese people practice the Islamic faith. Of China’s 55 officially recognized minority peoples, ten are Sunni Muslim. There are more Islamic mosques in China than the United States. Uyghurs are the second largest group, after the Hui.

Most Uyghurs practice a moderate form of Islam called Sufism, which promotes an ascetic lifestyle and shuns material wants. Sufism is incompatible with radical Islamic fundamentalism and Wahhabism, extremist beliefs which have been associated with terrorism in recent decades. The overwhelming majority of Uyghurs are not militant or extremist in outlook.

Before leaving Urumqi we visited the nearby countryside, nestled at the foot of the mountains. We were astonished to find a pair of ski resorts and an artist colony, as well as a little town with a string of stores offering delicacies – some made locally and others from nearby Kazakhstan and Russia. We stepped into a very chic coffee shop that looked out on the mountains. My cappuchino was at least as good as what we get at Caffe Reggio in Greenwich Village, not counting the spectacular mountain view. Our guide mentioned that the Han Chinese tourists and businesspeople who have settled in this area live at a somewhat higher standard than most of the residents in Xinjiang. And they tend not to meld and mingle in the way we had observed in Urumqi. But we should bear in mind that the increase of Han residents in the past decade has been just over two percent, while the Uyghurs have grown by about 25 percent. China’s mixed economy is much in evidence in Xinjiang, with small businesses everywhere.

Ancient, enchanting Kashgar
We flew from Urumqi to Kashgar, the second largest city in Xinjiang, with about 700,000 residents, a mix of numerous ethnic groups including Uyghur, Han, Tajik and Kyrgiz. The Uyghurs are the majority. Our driver spoke Mandarin Chinese with our guide, but communicated with everyone else in the Uyghur language. The place buzzes with activity, but at a less frenetic pace than Urumqi or the “mainland” cities back in China’s east.

We visited the imposing Id Kah Mosque – one of the biggest in China – which faces the ancient Kashgar Old Town. There is a plaque near the mosque’s entrance, in Arabic, Chinese and English, saying it was designated in 2001 as “a key relics preservation site” by the national State Council. Large amounts of state funding have been allocated since then for major maintenance projects. The plaque says “this demonstrates that our country implements the policy of freedom of religion.” People come and go in the mosque, but five times a day it fills nearly to its capacity of between two and three thousand worshipers for prayers.

The Uyghurs are Sufi Muslims – distinct and less strict than the Sunni Islam practiced in most of central and western Asia. Kashgar, as the center of Uyghur culture, is famous as “the home of songs and dances.” We enjoyed watching nearly spontaneous dance performances in both Kashgar and Urumqi. When dancing the Uyghur women wore bright colored dresses, head scarves and earrings, bracelets and necklaces. It seems clear that this “merrier” expression clashes with the conservative, strict discipline of the jihadi-Wahhabi sect which formed the East Turkistan Islamic Movement that waged a violent campaign to convert the Uyghurs and use them for their separatist plans. That effort didn’t work, but has motivated the continued increased security presence, especially in Urumqi, to prevent any renewed upsurge of violence.

Slavery in the cotton fields? No!
The countryside north and west of Kashgar is an agricultural wonderland. Apple orchards, vineyards, cotton and wheat fields stretch for miles. We were especially interested in the cotton fields, due to hysterical US and European claims of “slave labor,” leading to a widespread boycott of Chinese cotton products. We observed long lines of flatbed semi-trailers loaded with huge three-ton bales of cotton from the current ongoing cotton harvest. And we watched a big mechanical harvester moving through a multi-acre cotton field “chewing up” the cotton and “spitting out” the bales. We arrived just before lunchtime, and noticed the harvester had completed half the field, producing 20 bails, for 60 tons, and expected to complete that field by the end of the day, for a total of 40 bales. The same process had already cleared the cotton from dozens of similar fields in the area.

We also saw several gangs of hand laborers cleaning out the cotton on the edges of these fields, working in groups of ten or twelve, with their scooters parked along the sides of the fields. We determined that these people are day laborers contracted through a local temporary labor cooperative. They’re paid on a “piece work” basis by the bags of cotton they pick. Our guide said they earn between $20 and $40 (US) for a day’s work. Not much, of course, but it’s definitely not slavery, and it merely cleans up the parts of the cotton fields the big harvester machines can’t reach. We could also see the cotton bales and hand-picked stacks of raw cotton outside the processing plants not far from the fields. The bales were vastly more of the stock than the hand-picked stacks.

This finding is important. It shows that western accusations of “slave labor” serve to create a scandal that’s used to try and isolate China and strangle its economy. Some US fashion companies have taken the initiative to investigate for themselves, in order to prove they are not participating in or benefiting from a “slave trade.” Ironically, the “slavery” slander can be considered a projection of the West’s own centuries of reliance on slavery to enrich itself and generate the Industrial Revolution. This in turn made possible Great Britain’s demolition of India’s cotton and textile industries, followed by its invasion of China in the Opium War of the mid-19th century. The resulting century of humiliation of China by the western powers was just fine with the invaders. Now they pretend to be concerned about “human rights” in China, when their real problem is that China has been successful and is now able to prosper from its own agriculture and industry.

Xinjiang, especially its two key cities of Urumqi and Kashgar, is an enchanting place, loaded with exotic culture and history dating back centuries. It is also a very special and dynamic hub for China’s burgeoning Belt and Road. Kashgar itself is exactly halfway between Shanghai and Paris – 5,000 kilometers from each. It sits on the border with Pakistan, and serves as the starting point for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which serves to increase prosperity for both countries, and also to provide China with access to Karachi, Pakistan’s port on the Arabian Sea.

Both Urumqi and Kashgar teem with tourism, but we were the only “gringos” present, as a Chinese police officer advised our guide. That’s a tragedy. More westerners need to come and see for themselves. That may be the best way to disprove the official government and media slanders. It could also help to build people-to-people friendship. We found nothing but friendliness everywhere we visited. People were pleased when we tried to communicate in Chinese, and also pleasant and patient to communicate with us however possible. The Chinese people are definitely not our enemy, and their government is doing a very good job serving and protecting them. It really is time for the US government to try harder to make friends with China, and help forge common prosperity and a shared future.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/10/d ... -xinjiang/

Image

Wang Yi: Any arrangement concerning the future of Palestine must be Palestinian-owned and Palestinian-administered
China has recently intensified its diplomatic engagement with Iran, not least in the context of Israel’s genocidal war of aggression against the people of Gaza.

As part of that process, China’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Wang Yi exchanged views on the situation in Gaza, as well as on bilateral relations, in a December 11 phone conversation with his Iranian counterpart Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian.

Wang said that China’s position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be summarised as realising a ceasefire and ending the conflict as soon as possible, ensuring humanitarian relief, and returning to the two-state solution.

Amir-Abdollahian highly appreciated China’s efforts to achieve a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza during its rotating presidency of the UN Security Council last month. He said the Iranian side opposes the killing of women and children and advocates an immediate ceasefire and cessation of fighting in Gaza and opening humanitarian relief corridors.

Iran, he added, supports the Global Security Initiative proposed by China and expects China to be more actively committed to easing the situation in Gaza, resolving the Palestinian question, and safeguarding regional peace and stability.

Wang said China’s position is consistent with that of Arab countries and is highly congruous with that of Islamic countries and the international community. Countries should raise a stronger voice and form a more unified position on the conflict.

China, the foreign minister underlined, believes that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of Palestine should fully reflect the will of the Palestinian people, fully respect their right to statehood and self-determination, and embody the principle of “Palestinian-owned, Palestinian-led and Palestinian-administered.”

He also said that China supports Iran and Saudi Arabia in continuously improving relations, promoting the unity and cooperation of countries in the region and taking regional peace and security in their own hands.

Amir-Abdollahian thanked China for its contribution to mediating the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, saying that Iran is willing to strengthen cooperation with China in various fields and promote the continuous development of Iran-China relations.

The following article was originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.
BEIJING, Dec. 12 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian exchanged views on the situation in the Gaza Strip and bilateral relations during a phone conversation on Monday.

Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, said China’s position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be summarized as realizing a cease-fire and ending the conflict as soon as possible, ensuring humanitarian relief, and returning to the two-state solution.

Amir-Abdollahian highly appreciated China’s efforts to achieve a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza during its rotating presidency of the UN Security Council.

He said the Iranian side opposes the killing of women and children and advocates an immediate cease-fire and cessation of fighting in Gaza and opening humanitarian relief corridors.

The United Nations should play an important role in the future settlement of the Palestinian question, he said, adding that Iran is willing to maintain close communication with regional countries to safeguard regional security and stability.

The Iranian side supports the Global Security Initiative proposed by China and expects China to be more actively committed to easing the situation in Gaza, resolving the Palestinian question, and safeguarding regional peace and stability, the top Iranian diplomat said.

Wang said China’s position is consistent with that of Arab countries and is highly congruous with that of Islamic countries and the international community.

Countries should make a stronger voice and form a more unified position on the conflict, Wang said.

China believes that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of Palestine should fully reflect the will of the Palestinian people, fully respect their right to statehood and self-determination, and embody the principle of “Palestinian-owned, Palestinian-led and Palestinian-administered,” he said.

China is ready to strengthen communication and coordination with Arab and Islamic countries to gradually create conditions for returning to the two-state solution and continue to play a role in truly resolving the Palestinian question, he said.

On bilateral ties, Wang said China stands ready to work with Iran to implement the important consensus reached by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi during their two meetings this year.

He said China will strengthen communication, consolidate mutual trust, expand cooperation, coordinate and cooperate with Iran on international and multilateral occasions, practice genuine multilateralism, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the two countries and developing countries as well as international equity and justice, and push forward the stable and long-term development of China-Iran relations.

China supports Iran and Saudi Arabia in continuously improving relations, promoting the unity and cooperation of countries in the region and taking regional peace and security in their own hands, Wang said.

Amir-Abdollahian thanked China for its contribution to mediating the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, saying that Iran is willing to strengthen cooperation with China in various fields and promote the continuous development of Iran-China relations.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/15/w ... inistered/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Dec 23, 2023 12:20 pm

Image

The international China and Marxism symposium in Istanbul
The Turkish journal Teori ve Politika (Theory and Politics) organised an international symposium on China and Marxism in Istanbul on November 18. Aiming to understand and discuss Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the Communist Party of China (CPC’s) approach to Marxism, the conference featured a total of 16 papers in four languages.

The opening speeches were delivered by 90-year-old Korkut Boratav, one of Turkey’s most prominent Marxist economists, and Qian Xinyi from the Chinese Embassy in Ankara.

In the first session, Marxism’s Conception of Socialism and China, speakers included Professor Tang Ming from the Central China Normal University and Carlos Martinez from Friends of Socialist China.

Carlos compared China’s reform and opening-up with perestroika and glasnost in the former Soviet Union, highlighting the significant differences between the USSR and China in economic (dramatic and continual improvement in the living standards of the Chinese people), political (not allowing the capitalists to organise as a class) and geostrategic (long period of peace and security) aspects.

Another session featured Azad Barış from HEDEP (the People’s Equality and Democracy Party of Turkey), Yu Weihai, Director of the Central China Normal University, Ben Chacko, Editor of the Morning Star, and Maher Al-Taher from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

Yu Weihai highlighted the dramatic change in the international communist and workers movement after the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to a more pluralistic, independent, diverse, and egalitarian reality. Ben Chacko stated that challenging the narrative that China poses a threat to the global order requires demolishing lies about China posing a military or security threat to the West and examining whether China’s rise is that of a new aspiring hegemon wanting to replace the US.

Comrade Maher Al-Taher, who was welcomed with strong feelings and expressions of solidarity, argued that the perception of Marxism as a dogmatic and unchangeable whole is wrong, emphasising the need to deepen Marxism in the specificity of each country and adding that the Chinese experience is a creative example of this.

The following report was originally published in the Morning Star.
On a stormy and rainy weekend in Istanbul last month, an international symposium entitled China and Marxism was organised by the Teori ve Politika (Theory and Politics) magazine. The symposium aimed to understand and discuss Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the Communist Party of China (CPC’s) approach to Marxism, featuring a total of 16 papers in four languages.

The opening speeches were delivered by 90-year-old Korkut Boratav, one of Turkey’s most prominent Marxist economists, and Qian Xinyi, the Undersecretary of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China. Boratav expressed that the most prevalent form of the relations of production in Chinese society is capitalist, but questioned whether these are dominant relations due to the established forms of public ownership surrounding them.

He stated that the future cannot be guaranteed but emphasised that the bourgeoisie does not hold power in China and their attempts to seize power have been thwarted by the CPC. Qian Xinyi highlighted that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is a natural outcome of China’s particular conditions.

In the first session, Marxism’s Conception of Socialism and China, speakers including Professor Tang Ming from the Central China Normal University, Carlos Martinez from Friends of Socialist China, Sungur Savran from Revolutionary Marxism, and Metin Kayaoğlu from the Teori ve Politika magazine presented their papers.

Tang Ming divided China’s socialist transformation into two periods: Mao, and Deng and post-Deng periods. Savran emphasised that the biggest challenge that led to the collapse of really existing socialisms in the 20th century was the corruption that developed around the swelling bureaucratic class and that the same challenge is being faced today in China.

Martinez compared China’s reform and opening-up with perestroika and glasnost, highlighting the significant differences between the USSR and China in economic (dramatic and continual improvement in the living standards of the Chinese people), political (not allowing the capitalists to organise as a class) and geostrategic (long period of peace and security) aspects.

Kayaoğlu pointed out different approaches within Marxist literature regarding the relationship between productive forces and relations of production referencing Lenin and Kautsky and made precise that despite the autonomy of political forces, the laws of the production maintain themselves.

In the second session, Economy, Politics, and Society in China, speakers including Fatih Oktay from Özyeğin University, Chen Feng from Shandong University — School of Marxism, Jülide Yazıcı from the Teori ve Politika magazine, and Hu Zongshan from Central China Normal University presented their papers.

Oktay provided a brief and clear presentation on the history of China’s reform, emphasising the need for stronger steps toward a socialist formation to ensure the country’s socialist future. Dr Chen Feng stated that the development of rural areas is one of the most important tasks for China as a modern socialist country. Yazıcı argued that CPC is leading an experiment of transition from capitalism to advanced socialism, that it is inevitable in a transition period that certain capitalistic mechanisms maintain themselves, and that what is important is the CPC’s ideological and political insistence on Marxism. Hu Zongshan diagnosed three challenges ahead of China’s modernisation: the Two Huangs Trap related to national governance, yhe Middle Income Trap, and the Thucydides Trap.

In the third session, China in the World, speakers including Çağdaş Üngör from Marmara University, historian Kamuran Kızlak, historian Vijay Prashad from TriContinental, and Mehmet Yılmazer from the Yol magazine delivered their speeches.

Üngör discussed whether the China model could be exported to the world, attributing the interest in China to the quest that emerged in the world following the 2008 crisis. Kızlak provided an informative presentation on China, the US and Soviet relations during the reform era, concluding with a focus on the CPC’s conception of Confucianism. Prashad, questioning Biden’s rhetoric of “Chinese aggression,” highlighted that Nato forces in the Asia-Pacific are more aggressive in foreign policy, and that China, unlike the United States, has adopted a no-first-use nuclear policy which means that China will not fire a nuclear weapon before anybody else.

Yılmazer emphasised that the US strategy focuses on preventing the strengthening of Russia-Europe relations, hindering the development of Russia-China relations, and limiting China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific.

In the continued session with the same title, speakers including Azad Barış from HEDEP (People’s Equality and Democracy Party), Yu Weihai, Director of the Central China Normal University, Ben Chacko from the Morning Star newspaper and Maher Al-Taher from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, presented their talks.

Azad Barış stated that in the new world order, there are no clear boundaries between ideologies, and China’s success against imperialism strengthens the struggles of oppressed peoples.

Yu Weihai highlighted the dramatic change in the internationalist movement after the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to a more pluralistic, independent, diverse, and egalitarian organisation of international movements. Chacko stated that challenging the narrative that China poses a threat to the global order requires demolishing lies about China posing a military or security threat to the West and examining whether China’s rise is that of a new aspiring hegemon wanting to replace the US.

Maher Al-Taher, welcomed with strong solidarity feelings, argued that the perception of Marxism as a dogmatic and unchangeable whole is wrong, emphasising the need to deepen Marxism in the specificity of each country and that Chinese experience is a creative example of this.

In the closing speech, Elif Nur Aybaş from the Teori ve Politika magazine reminded us that the critique of Eurocentrism in the 20th century provided an opportunity to recognise the political agency of oppressed peoples.

She expressed a preference for considering the Chinese experience as a critique of Eurocentrism from within Marxism, and emphasized that Marxists in other parts of the world have the duty of learning from this experience. Teori ve Poltika announced that the video recordings of the symposium will be made available for viewing in the near future, and the speeches will also be published as a book.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/19/t ... -istanbul/

Image

How China is working for justice for Palestine
Republished below is a useful analysis by Jenny Clegg (retired academic and an activist in the anti-nuclear, peace and friendship movements, and member of the Friends of Socialist China advisory group) about China’s efforts towards a ceasefire in Gaza and towards a lasting, just solution to the Palestinian question.

Jenny summarises China’s recent five-point peace proposal – which calls for a comprehensive ceasefire; the effective protection of civilians; the ensuring of humanitarian assistance; diplomatic mediation; and a political settlement with the implementation of a two-state solution – and notes that China has long seen the root cause of the problem lying in “the long delay in realising the dream of an independent state of Palestine and the failure to redress the historical injustice suffered by the Palestinian people.”

The article discusses the shifting geopolitical balance and how this impacts the prospects for peace in the region. While the US continues to provide unstinting support for Israel and to incorporate it into broader plans for countering China (via the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, for example), China is becoming more active in promoting a lasting peace. It played a key role in the recent Iran-Saudi rapprochement; it has good relations with the other countries of the region; and it has a decades-long history of support for Palestinian national rights.

The global balance of power is shifting, and “the locus of decision-making over world affairs is starting to slip out of the hands of the US superpower.” Jenny opines that, as such, China’s proposal is “the one viable route towards inclusive negotiations to secure justice for Palestine.”

Addressing the criticism made by some on the left regarding China’s vocal support for the two-state solution, Jenny notes that “the two-state solution is the position of the UN: it stands for Palestinian sovereignty and equality and has to be the starting point of negotiations, not just bargained away.”

This article first appeared in the Morning Star.
China’s five-point peace proposal on Israel-Palestine was launched at the UN security council to coincide with the UN International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people on November 30.

It covers a comprehensive ceasefire; the effective protection of civilians; the ensuring of humanitarian assistance; diplomatic mediation; and a political settlement with the implementation of a two-state solution.

The initiative has been entirely passed over in the West; China on the other hand underlined its significance by sending Foreign Minister Wang Yi to chair the session and deliver the proposal.

China sees the root cause of the problem lying in “the long delay in realising the dream of an independent state of Palestine and the failure to redress the historical injustice suffered by the Palestinian people.”

At the same time, it has called for an international peace conference to be held as soon as possible to draw up a timetabled road map for a two-state solution.

Given that the UN, EU, US, Britain, China and Russia all claim to support a two-state solution, how hard can it be to get an agreement?

Geopolitics at work
Since taking office, Biden has sought to further secure Israel’s position as its proxy in the Middle East so as to shift US focus to the Indo-Pacific. Along with the Abraham Accords, normalising relations between Israel and regional states, he set up the I2U2 — the Middle Eastern Quad — comprising the US, Israel, India and the UAE, hyping up the Iran “threat” as part of his New cold war “democracy versus autocracy” agenda against Russia and China.

The Saudi Arabia-Iran agreement brokered by China with the UAE in March 2023 turned everything upside down. Biden then launched yet another initiative, IMEC — the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor — taking Israel as the key link between India and Europe to counter China’s growing reach into the Middle East through the Belt and Road Initiative.

China’s relations with the region have grown steadily over the past two decades, replacing the EU as its main trading partner, or in Israel’s case, the second largest trading partner.

Many on the left criticise China’s purchases of military technology in particular but, for China, Israel provides a vital source of access to critical tech sectors increasingly restricted by the US and EU. These economic relations however are not stopping China’s sharp criticisms of Israel’s “collective punishment.”

Regional powers have also been looking east to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation: Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia became dialogue partners in 2021, followed by UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait in 2022.

With the Saudi Arabia-Iran deal in place, Iran joined the SCO as a full member in July; and Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Egypt were accepted into the Brics in August. In haste, Biden pressed for Saudi Arabia to sign up to the Abraham Accords, pushing Palestinian concerns to the sidelines.

With the Middle East in flux and Biden overreaching, Hamas struck.

China, Palestine and the UN
Not so much a power struggle between China and the US, what is taking place is the rise of the Middle East itself: China has not picked sides, developing all-round relations rather than interfering, aiming to de-escalate tensions and so creating some space for regional states to exercise choices as to their own futures.

China has been consistent in supporting UN commitments to an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. Questioning the viability of a two-state arrangement, some on the left have favoured a single state.

The point however is that the two-state solution is the position of the UN: it stands for Palestinian sovereignty and equality and has to be the starting point of negotiations, not just bargained away.

At the same time, China also stipulates that arrangements must “respect the will and independent choice of the Palestinian people,” and must not be imposed. Similarly, China has not condemned Hamas, seeing this as for the Palestinian people to decide.

Palestine’s future is integrally intertwined with that of the UN — the organisation’s responsibility for international peace and security has been constantly undermined by the US’s use of the veto — around half of these occasions to protect Israel.

However, with the global balance of power shifting, the locus of decision-making over world affairs is starting to slip out of the hands of the US superpower. China’s peace proposal calls instead for the US to play an “active and constructive role” in Israel-Palestine.

This, it is recognised, requires patient consensus-building, regional and international, using momentum from the rise of the global South to bridge divisions and bring political pressure to bear on the US.

Consensus-building for peace
A struggle is underway now for Gaza’s future: for weeks Biden has urged Israel to focus on Plan B — to have any credibility this needs to involve some Arab states, perhaps some rehash of the Oslo Accords.

Continuing to use its veto to cover Netanyahu’s murderous rampage, the US angles not least to foment chaos and division in the region by provoking Iran into action in support of Hamas — and in this way to maintain US leverage over the situation.

The Saudi-Iranian link on the other hand has helped in bringing the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic States (OIC) together, amidst UN delays, to pursue the call for a ceasefire; the Brics, with key Middle East powers now members, also has a significant role to play.

Both groups are important to the changing world balance: the Arab-Islamic summit represents 79 countries, over half the global South; the Brics as large developing countries make up 40 per cent of the world’s population and one-third of the world GDP.

In the case of the Brics, despite India’s pro-Israel leanings, Al Jazeera reported that splits were “not glaring” at a special summit which called on “all parties to exercise maximum restraint,” and affirmed that “a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be achieved by peaceful means.”

The Arab League-OIC summit also called for a credible peace process based on the two-state solution with a specific time frame. These at least are shifts in the right direction. Acting in concert with China, these groups can give weight to the international conference proposal against US manoeuvrings.

While recognising the importance of regional powers, China’s initiative also looks to “countries with influence on parties to the conflict” to jointly “play a constructive role in de-escalating the crisis.”

This then is not about expelling the US from the Middle East but restricting its options: ending the region’s subjection to US power is not so much about severing links but rather looking both West and East towards China to steer towards a green, digitised transition.

In contrast with 2003, when the US, unable to get support from the UN, took unilateral action against Iraq, there is now no “coalition of the willing” — the US was alone in backing Israel at the security council.

With the region on the brink of wider war, an international peace agreement is all the more urgent.

It is time now for the new “ceasefire” coalitions in the West to join the call for a genuine political settlement and guard against another US-initiated “colonial” solution. Ideological canards should be set aside to support China’s proposal as the one viable route towards inclusive negotiations to secure justice for Palestine.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/21/h ... palestine/

******

Cut in holdings of US Treasurys seen 'necessary'
By SHI JING in Shanghai | CHINA DAILY | Updated: 2023-12-21 07:37

Image
The numerals '2024' arrive for the Times Square New Year's Eve 2024 celebrations in Times Square in New York City, US, December 20, 2023. [Photo/Agencies]

Experts clarify it's not dumping but recast of China's overseas assets

China's continued paring of its US Treasury holdings is necessary given both the deteriorating quality of US debt held by foreign governments and institutions, and China's need to optimize the structure of its overseas assets, experts said.

According to Treasury International Capital or TIC data released by the US Department of the Treasury on Tuesday, China held a net $769.60 billion of US government bonds in October, down $8.5 billion from a month earlier and the lowest since 2009. It was also the seventh consecutive month of such decline.

The TIC reporting system represents the US government's source of data on capital flows into and out of the US. Direct investment and the resulting levels of cross-border claims and liabilities are excluded from such data. China is the second-largest foreign holder of US government bonds, next only to Japan. China's holdings of US Treasurys have contracted by nearly $100 billion so far this year.

Yu Yongding, a member of the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said at a forum on Sunday that China's reduced holdings should not be misunderstood as the country is dumping US debt. It is just that China has not bought new bonds when previously invested bonds matured.

Yu, who served as an advisor to the People's Bank of China, the country's central bank, in the past, stressed it is "necessary" for China to reduce its US Treasury holdings in an orderly manner, given the deteriorating quality of US debt held by others, the lower coupon rates on US Treasurys and the likelihood of an economic downturn in the US.

In 2006, the ratio of net debt to GDP in the US had exceeded 10 percent, unsettling the capital market. That ratio has surged to 60-70 percent now. This indicates that net US debt held by foreign entities will continue to worsen, which may be aggravated by the Fed's continued interest rate spikes. Therefore, China's orderly trimming of US Treasurys is quite necessary, he said.

In August, Fitch Ratings lowered its US credit rating to AA+from AAA. Moody's Investors Service lowered its outlook on US government debt in October to "negative" from "stable" due to large fiscal deficits and a decline in debt affordability.

Yu said China should step up its efforts to adjust the structure of its overseas assets and liabilities, increase its income from overseas net assets, and try its best to reduce its foreign exchange reserve to an adequate level that is internationally recognized.

To maintain the safety of China's foreign reserves and overseas assets, the country should try to maintain a balanced foreign trade and make the domestic market its economic mainstay over a period of time, Yu said.

Wang Qing, chief macroeconomy analyst at Golden Credit Rating, said China's reduced holdings of US bonds have been a long-term trend since its peak toward the end of 2013. Over a decade, the holdings have declined nearly 34 percent. During the same period, China's gold reserves have continued to rise, reaching 70.46 million ounces at the end of September, more than doubling from the level at the end of 2013.

This can be seen as part of China's long-term moves to optimize the structure of its foreign exchange reserves assets, he said.

TIC data showed overall foreign holdings of US Treasurys fell for the second consecutive month to around $7.57 trillion in October, down from more than $7.60 trillion in September.

Luo Zhiheng, chief economist of Yuekai Securities, said demand for US Treasurys has been insufficient mainly because of the Fed's shrinking of balance sheet and emerging markets selling US Treasurys since July to stabilize their exchange rates against the rising US dollar.

Following the Silicon Valley Bank collapse in March, US commercial banks' ability to absorb US Treasurys has declined. US domestic institutions have become especially cautious about buying long-term bonds, Luo said.

shijing@chinadaily.com.cn

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20231 ... a8c0f.html

No, it's not 'dumping'.....Best to get while the gettings good, when the bottom falls out those bonds will be history.

******

China Bans Exports of Rare Earth Tech as Critical Minerals Race Heats Up
Posted on December 21, 2023 by Yves Smith

Yves here. I must confess to being ignorant of the fact that there was protectable technology involved in the processing of rare earths. My understanding had been that despite the name, rare earths are not all that rare, and that the US had been willing to cede mining to other countries, particularly China due to the high environmental cost, particularly water use/contamination.

In a new round of tit for tat, China has added to its restrictions on exports of key materials, including rare earths, by also halting exports of processing technology. And as the article below makes clear, China’s real choke point is not in mining but in processing.

By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews. Originally published at OilPrice


China is prohibiting the export of some technologies to process rare earth elements to protect its national security as the race for critical minerals supply intensifies.

China’s Commerce Ministry banned on Thursday the export of technology to extract and separate rare earth elements (REEs), a group of 17 critical metals used in the manufacturing of permanent magnets that are used in electronics, EV technologies, and wind turbines.

The move follows last month’s directive from the Chinese authorities to exporters of rare earth minerals to report transactions and is the latest escalation of the trade spat between China and the West.

Earlier this year, China, the world’s largest producer and supplier of graphite, said it would require export permits for some graphite products as of December 1 as it seeks to protect its national security. Graphite and graphite products are critical for the manufacturing of any electric vehicle battery, and China is the dominant player in the market.

The restriction on exports of graphite products was the latest Chinese attempt to exert its market influence to control the supply of critical minerals.

Now China bans the export of production technology for rare earth metals and alloy materials, and technology to produce some rare earth magnets.

In rare earths, China controls 60% of global supply and a massive 90% of the global refining of rare earth elements, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report on the vulnerabilities of the clean energy supply chains earlier this year. China is also the only large-scale producer of heavy rare earth ores.

Limited diversification of supply could present a challenge to the global critical minerals industry, the IEA warned in a report earlier this year. China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Indonesia continue to dominate a large part of the critical raw material supply, while China is a dominant player in refining operations, the IEA noted.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/12 ... ts-up.html

******

Ajamu Baraka Report Back from the US Peace Council’s Peace Delegation to the People's Republic of China
​​​​​​​ Ajamu Baraka, BAR editor and columnist 20 Dec 2023

Image
US Peace Council’s Peace Delegation to the People's Republic of China

I participated in a four-person delegation from the US Peace Council, where I serve on the Executive Committee, to Beijing and Shanghai, China hosted by the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament between November 21 and November 26, 2023.

One of my roles was to engage our hosts in a conversation on the interconnected issues of diplomacy and the Global Security Initiative proposed by the Chinese President, Xi Jingping.

Below are the salient points raised during those discussions:

On the issue of Chinese diplomacy, it is important to note that the Chinese approach is a significant departure from the crisis oriented, zero-sum diplomacy that is characteristic of diplomacy emanating from the West.

This was a particularly important element that we addressed in our discussions with members of Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, various specialists on China and in a meeting with representatives from the Chinese Communist Party.

What is clear is that on the issue of diplomacy there is a fundamental divergence in core values. The principles articulated by President Xi Jinping reflected an approach to diplomacy. Those principles included a commitment to:

“Building a community with a shared future for mankind with a view to defending world peace and promoting common development”

“Pursuing peaceful development on the basis of mutual respect and win-win cooperation”

“Steering the reform of the global governance system under the principle of fairness and justice”

In contrast, U.S. diplomacy has at its core a value system that is informed by the doctrine of “full spectrum dominance,” a military/political doctrine produced by the U.S. Department of Defense that had its genesis in the worldview and principles of the Neocon “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) that has now become an essential feature of the U.S. National Security Strategy.

Dominance was seen as encompassing elements beyond just the ability to project U.S. military power globally but to also include economic, political, and even cultural dominance through the use of information, media and entertainment and all aspects of knowledge production.

It is a doctrine that explicitly sees the rise of any regional power as a threat, despite its political and ideological orientation. So while it will identify Venezuela as a threat for U.S. regional hegemony in the Americas because of its socialistic orientation and capacity to galvanize resistance to U.S. hegemony, U.S. policy also will and did see Ethiopia in the Africa continent, a government largely committed to economic policies that could only be characterized as neoliberal with a political orientation that could not be characterized as radical at all – still, nevertheless, found itself on the receiving end of U.S. subversion because of its size and growing friendliness toward China.

We have witnessed concretely the results of the Chinese approach with the historic agreement brokered by the Chinese between Saudi Arabia and Iran that effectively ended the Obama war in Yemen.

The other fascinating initiative that we discussed was the Global Security Initiative (GSI).

Introduced by President Xi Jingping, the GSI is seen as a basis for structuring a new global security architecture that corresponds to the challenges of this historical moment.

President Xi advanced six principles that are defined as commitments that if adhered to would theoretically provide security for states and peoples.

It is necessary to stay committed to the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, and work together to maintain world peace and security.
It is necessary to stay committed to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all counties, uphold non-interference in internal affairs, and respect the independent choices of development paths and social systems made by people in different countries
Stay committed to abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, reject cold war mentality, oppose unilateralism, and say no to group politics and bloc confrontations
It is necessary to stay committed to taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously, uphold the principle of indivisible security, build a balanced, effective, and sustainable security architecture, and oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security.
Stay committed to peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation, support all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crisis, reject double standards, and oppose the wanton use of unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction
It is necessary to stay committed to maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains and work together on regional disputes and global challenges such as terrorism, climate change, cyber-security and bio-security.
What we discussed was that for the issue of diplomacy and any global initiative for security, it is necessary to correctly contextualize, without any sentimentality or idealism, the objective realities of this historical moment.

What informs and shapes contemporary reality of this conjuncture is the ongoing crisis of global capitalism and the transition from Western colonial/capitalist domination of the last five hundred years to new power configurations and social systems that have not yet taken a permanent form but, nevertheless, are in dialectical emergence.

The rulers of international capital primarily based in the U.S. are no longer fit any longer to rule and impose their conditions of existence upon the societies and nations of the planet.

The last four decades of neoliberal policies favoring capital have seen neoliberal financialized capitalism turn to unproductive plunder as a result of losing its productive dynamism.

Therefore, unilateralism, hegemonism and power politics, including the attempts to impose a so-called rule-based international order, where the U.S. and its Western allies make the rules and enforce the order, their order - cannot be understood outside the context of ongoing and deepening crisis of the international capitalist order and the increasingly desperate and dangerous attempts by Western imperialism under the leadership of the United States to prevent this inevitable historical transition.

It is this context of national and class struggle that contextualizes any discussion of the security of states, international law, the role of the United Nations.

The dialectics of the global class national struggles makes it exceedingly difficult to establish a permanent security architecture unless it is grounded in a firm commitment on the part of a majority of global humanity to enforce adherence to progressive global values and end impunity.

The genocide taking place in Palestine right before the eyes of the world with the non-Western world seemingly unable to come to the aid of the Palestinians and to bring the perpetrators of the war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to justice, is a graphic example of the disparity between the commitment to new global principles and the concrete material force needed to protect the security of states and peoples.

Is the plight of Palestinian people a domestic internal affair for the state of Israel or a threat to international peace and security? What about the security of the people of Haiti as the United Nations have given a green light to the U.S. and the oppressive core group members to engage in a violent intervention into that nation in order to prop-up an illegitimate government and deny the agency of the Haitian people to govern themselves.

Peace, security, international development, and human rights were the four interlinked pillars of the United Nations system. Yet, the naked exposure of the power politics that reflect the unequal relationship between the West and the rest of the world, has shaken faith in the UN system and the utility of discussions on human rights and peace.

Peace and human rights are still laudable goals but what I shared with our Chinese counterparts was that without global structures of non-state, popular accountability - grounded in the principles that we discussed in China, global humanity will be unable to manage the momentous changes that we are currently facing and it will be impossible to manage those changes in a way that would reflect a commitment to peace.

I shared the definition of peace from the black radical peace tradition:

“Peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather the achievement by popular struggle and self-defense of a world liberated from the interlocking issues of global conflict …through the defeat of global systems of oppression that include colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.”

This approach to peace is a call to action. A call for strengthening the ties among the peoples of the world, but its implications regarding the enemies of peace are absolutely clear and will not be wished away with the magical incantation of words, no matter how advance and correct those words might be. Peace and imperialism are the antithesis of each other representing an irreconcilable contradiction. Peace that is sustainable will only emerge out of the crucible of the global anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle that sees the victory of the organized peoples of the world. That is the task, the mission, and the responsibility of the international peace movement.

https://blackagendareport.com/ajamu-bar ... blic-china
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Dec 30, 2023 3:39 pm

Image

In Xi Jinping’s China, is Chairman Mao back?
Marking the 130th anniversary of Comrade Mao Zedong’s birth, Morning Star editor Ben Chacko published this thoughtful response to the Western media scare stories about President Xi Jinping leading a “reversion to Maoism.” Ben points out that this theme “is inseparable from a wider narrative in which China is becoming more adversarial and threatening” – a narrative which is being used to justify an escalating New Cold War on China.

Ben observes that there has been significant continuity from one leadership generation to the next in terms of China’s overall political trajectory and goals, and “the idea post-Mao China decisively broke with Mao is not one which has ever been accepted by Chinese leaders.” The pursuit of an advanced socialism is core to the whole history of the CPC. “Though most Western observers assumed China’s theory of the ‘primary stage of socialism’ was merely an excuse for continued Communist Party rule over a capitalist country, Xi’s policies conform precisely to what the party said it was intending to do all along.”

Nonetheless, Ben recognises that with a renewed emphasis on common prosperity, with the crackdown on corruption and excessive wealth, and with China’s growing voice and influence on the world stage, there are certain parallels between Xi Jinping’s leadership and that of Mao Zedong. “If Xi echoes Mao, it is perhaps because the questions which absorbed the Chairman, from wealth differentials to China’s role as a leader of the decolonisation movement, are as acute today as they were 50 years ago: with the rise of the global South possibly a greater challenge to imperialism even than the Soviet Union was.”

Ben concludes:

When the histories of how the historically brief supremacy of the West came to an end are written, it seems a fair bet that both Mao and Xi will have starring roles.
BOXING Day marks 130 years since the birth of Chairman Mao — a revolutionary whose significance seems all the greater now given the rise of China.

China’s alleged reversion to Maoism under President Xi Jinping is a recurring theme in Western media. A year ago the Guardian was quoting the US-based academic Hu Ping on how Xi was “increasingly reverting to Mao” on domestic policy; outlets from the New York Times to Al Jazeera have referred to Xi as “the new Mao.”

China is certainly celebrating Mao this winter. A new film, When We Were Young, will depict his student years; a TV series, Kunpeng Strikes the Waves, will tell the story of his early activism and discovery of Marxism. The “kun” and “peng” are mythological creatures, or one creature, since the kun, a huge fish, transforms into the peng, a huge bird, whose flight, in the Taoist classic the Zhuangzi, causes storms lasting months and churns up the sea for hundreds of miles around: an indication of how great an impact Mao is deemed to have had on China’s history.

Xi himself has promoted the “back to Mao” narrative. Shortly after his election to a third term leading China’s Communist Party last year, he took the politburo on a high-profile visit to Yan’an, the communist base area after the Long March of the 1930s, from which Mao directed much of the civil war, received Western admirers such as Edgar Snow, and which became a sort of prototype Red China before victory on a national scale in 1949.

In Western depictions, this is inseparable from a wider narrative in which China is becoming more adversarial and threatening.

Where a generation ago it was portrayed as having embraced capitalism, now the leading capitalist countries see it as an enemy its communist character is hyped up.

How real is the shift? Ofcom in 2021 revoked its state broadcaster CGTN’s right to broadcast in Britain, saying it was “ultimately controlled by the Communist Party.” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin noted drily that Britain “knew clearly the nature of our media from CGTN’s first day of reporting in the UK over 10 years ago” and that “China is a communist country led by the Chinese Communist Party” — it was Britain, not China, that had changed its attitude.

A lot of the mainstream narrative about China is frankly nonsense. A politically motivated growth in US sanctions, obediently copied by London and Brussels, is used to claim Xi’s China has turned in on itself and is economically isolated.

But it is under Xi that China has become the biggest trading partner of two-thirds of countries and under Xi that the Belt & Road Initiative has replaced the World Bank as the largest lender of development finance worldwide.

The significant expansion of the Brics, particularly in a region — the Middle East — traditionally dominated by US imperialism, reflects an increase in Chinese international influence: as does the Chinese role in brokering renewed relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the linked ceasefire in Yemen. Western talk of China’s isolation is as misleading as our politicians’ use of the term “the international community,” which always means “the United States and its allies.”

Indeed, at the same time as deriding an isolationist China, Western critics attack it for being more active internationally.

Xi’s Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative and Global Civilisation Initiative are presented, when mentioned at all, as threats.

In a way they are challenges to the Western world order, as China expert Jenny Clegg has outlined, the first pushing an economic development model that would end subordinate status for the global South, the second calling for an international security architecture that prevents “might is right” geopolitics on the Nato model, and the third promoting the equal value of different civilisational traditions, when our current international architecture and law are derived exclusively from the European tradition.

This challenge to the West takes its place in the “back to Mao” narrative, because Chinese leaders since Mao have adopted a lower profile on international questions. Xi said in 2017 that it was “time for China to take centre-stage in the world… standing tall and firm in the east.”

The Financial Times went to Christopher Johnson of Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies, one of those think tanks, bankrolled by the US state and armaments giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which provides neutral experts for our TV screens and newspaper pundits.

Johnson said Xi was turning his back on the “reform and opening up” era that began with Deng Xiaoping in 1978: “Deng would never have said anything like that.” Xi was said to have betrayed Deng’s famous dictum that China should “hide our strength and bide our time.”

The phrase “bide our time” does come with an in-built time limit though. Is Xi abandoning Deng’s strategy, or simply taking the next step?

China portrays the rise of the Brics as a means of ending the domination of the old imperialist powers, and in this sense Xi is adopting a decolonising mantle inherited from Mao. Mao’s China was a key organiser of the 1955 Bandung conference, an attempt by formerly colonised countries to promote an alternative blueprint for international politics.

Ahead of the 60th anniversary of Bandung in 2015, China published transcripts of three meetings between Mao and Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru that paved the way for the conference, an attempt to revive the notion of co-operation between the two largest Third World countries against the West in the cause of global decolonisation.

Authors like Carlos Martinez in The East is Still Red point out that the idea post-Mao China decisively broke with Mao is not one which has ever been accepted by Chinese leaders.

When the newly elected President Xi said in 2013 that “the 30 years of reform and opening up cannot negate the previous 30 years” (of revolution led by Mao) it was reported here as signalling a policy shift, but plenty of quotes from Deng or his successors make the same point.

In 2003, then president Hu Jintao praised Mao for delivering “the most profound and greatest social changes in Chinese history.” It was under Deng that the party issued the famous verdict that Mao was 70 per cent right and 30 per cent wrong.

Nor did China’s shift left begin with Xi. The negative impact of marketisation on workers’ rights was recognised by the Hu government, and these were significantly strengthened by the Labour Contract Law of 2007. Hu’s 10 years as leader saw social security and healthcare spending expand roughly fivefold.

Nonetheless, Xi has genuinely moved Communist Party policy leftwards. His “new development concept” subordinates economic growth to fairness and environmental and ecological considerations. A dramatic example was 2021’s 10-year moratorium on all fishing in China’s biggest river, the Yangtze: something accompanied by billions of pounds’ support for the fishing communities affected.

The market is treated with more suspicion than previously. Two years ago almost all private education and tutoring was banned, a move justified as a means to advance equal access to education for all students — and of better regulating children’s study-life balance to improve mental health.

China’s sweeping restrictions on online gaming, including age-graduated limits to the time people may spend online, are derided as nanny-state authoritarianism in the West — but do represent a serious effort to address the alienating impact dependence on virtual social interaction can have on a generation “raised online.”

Even more than the policy aims, the methods deployed under Xi have echoes of Mao’s “mass line” politics, depending on popular mobilisation to achieve them.

The biggest achievement of Xi’s government to date — the complete elimination of absolute poverty — relied on such tactics, with millions of party members tasked with spending set periods each year deployed to deprived regions, working with the locals but also ensuring they were properly informed about benefits, funding and grants that could be made available, both in terms of investment in the area generally and for individual or family needs like housing repairs.

Along with a focus on raising incomes at the bottom, Xi has sought to foster a more egalitarian ethos, cracking down on billionaires and calling for the government to regulate “excessive incomes” at the top. He contrasts China’s pursuit of “common prosperity” to “some developed countries [which] due to their social systems, have not solved the problem… [where] the disparity between rich and poor has become ever more serious.” However, new property taxes he has called for have encountered resistance, and China’s top income tax rate is the same as Britain’s (45 per cent), hardly Mao-style equality.

Xi has promoted a volunteering culture, exhorting students to spend their holidays in poorer rural regions working on development projects, and twinned rich areas with poor ones with legal obligations for the former to invest in the latter.

Rusticated himself in the “down to the countryside” movement under Mao, Xi has written about its psychological impact on him: while his accounts don’t pull punches on the pain of his denunciation by Red Guards during the cultural revolution (during which his sister committed suicide), he also argues that his years in the countryside gave him a sense of purpose and a determination to improve the lives of China’s poorest people.

Last year he called for a “rural revitalisation” movement, encouraging urban graduates and businesspeople to relocate to their ancestral home towns. It’s a shift, but again, the extent to which it departs from the long-term plan of figures like Deng is questionable.

In the 1980s Deng explicitly defended focusing on certain provinces’ development first — Guangdong and Fujian being pioneers of “reform and opening up” — on the grounds that “some will get rich first,” but those who did would then be required to give a leg-up to those who didn’t.

The whole concept of China utilising market forces and foreign capital during the “primary stage of socialism” was justified, from the start, as a means to build up the productive forces for socialist distribution on a richer material basis. Though most Western observers assumed this was merely an excuse for continued Communist Party rule over a capitalist country, Xi’s policies conform precisely to what the party said it was intending to do all along.

If Xi echoes Mao, it is perhaps because the questions which absorbed the Chairman, from wealth differentials to China’s role as a leader of the decolonisation movement, are as acute today as they were 50 years ago: with the rise of the global South possibly a greater challenge to imperialism even than the Soviet Union was.

When the histories of how the historically brief supremacy of the West came to an end are written, it seems a fair bet that both Mao and Xi will have starring roles.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/29/i ... -mao-back/

Image

The contributions of Mao Zedong to Marxism-Leninism
The following article by J Sykes, originally published in Fight Back! to coincide with the 130th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s birth, discusses Mao’s profound contributions to Marxism-Leninism.

The author notes in particular Mao’s writings on philosophy, which explore and develop Marx’s dialectical and historical materialism. “On Practice teaches us that theory must be grounded in practice, in our experience in production, class struggle, and scientific experiment… On Contradiction is a manual on the practical application of dialectical materialism.” Mao’s works on revolutionary strategy, and particularly the theory of protracted people’s war, are “applicable broadly to large, semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries fighting for national liberation and socialism.” Mao’s theory of the mass line remains “the key to the fusion of Marxism with the working class movement.”

Sykes observes that Mao developed his ideas together with his contemporaries, and that we still “have a lot to gain from studying the works of Zhu De, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Chen Yun, and Deng Xiaoping.” Sykes also makes the crucial point that the CPC today carries forward the legacy of Mao Zedong and that “today, Xi Jinping continues to lead the Chinese people in applying Marxism-Leninism to Chinese conditions.”

Many of these themes are explored in Sykes’ valuable book, The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism.
December 26, 2023 marks the 130th anniversary of the birth of the great leader and teacher of the Chinese revolution, Mao Zedong. This is an excellent occasion to review Mao’s contributions as one of the principal theorists of the science of revolution, Marxism-Leninism.

Mao Zedong always stressed that it is the masses who make history, but like all Marxists he recognized the importance of leadership in revolutionary change. As the leader of the revolution in China, Mao made innumerable practical contributions both to the Chinese Revolution and to the international communist movement as a whole.

Mao led the Chinese Revolution to victory in establishing new democracy and socialism, thus liberating the Chinese people from feudalism and imperialism. Under Mao’s leadership, the Chinese people carried out land reform, industrialized and modernized their productive forces, and went from a backward, semi-colonial and semi-feudal country dominated by domestic warlords and plundered by foreign imperialists, to a powerful, independent country, where the working class wields state power for the betterment of the people.

After the death of Stalin in 1953 and the rise to power of Khrushchev in the Soviet Union in 1956, Mao led the struggle against modern revisionism in the international communist movement, upholding and defending the revolutionary essence of Marxism-Leninism.

“The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as a dogma, but as a guide to action,” wrote Mao. “Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution.” Indeed, Mao Zedong’s leadership united practical struggle with revolutionary theory, and Mao always emphasized the importance of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice. For Mao, Marxism was always a science, driven by the practical demands of the Chinese revolution, and a weapon of class struggle, to be used to overthrow the old society and build a new world.

The theory of Mao Zedong is likewise universally applicable, and we should study it closely. As Lenin said, Marxism has three main components: philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. Mao wrote important texts contributing to our understanding of each of the aspects of Marxism-Leninism, as well as important works on revolutionary strategy.

On philosophy, Mao wrote On Practice and On Contradiction. These works form the firm foundation of Mao’s thought on revolutionary theory, and deserve particular attention. On Practice teaches us that theory must be grounded in practice, in our experience in production, class struggle, and scientific experiment. Here he gives us a clear and concise explanation of the Marxist theory of knowledge, explaining how theory comes from practice, and is then tested by being applied to practice, and then corrected through the summation of that practice. In this way, theory and practice develop together in spiral fashion, each developing and enriching the other. The theory in On Practice immunizes Marxist science against dogmatism, firmly emphasizing that there is no theory for theory’s sake, but rather that the source and aim of Marxism-Leninism is practical work.

In On Contradiction, Mao explains how dialectical materialism, the philosophical heart of Marxism, analyzes social processes according to their internal contradictions. In other words, things change as a result of struggles inherent to those things, such as the struggle between the working class and the capitalists inherent to capitalism. Mao explains how we can analyze which contradictions are driving things forward and determining the overall motion of things, so that we can focus our energy and organization towards those things in the most strategic and effective way. On Contradiction is a manual on the practical application of dialectical materialism.

On political economy, Mao wrote many important works, applying Marxism to the analysis of Chinese conditions such as his Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society. Mao demonstrated with his works on political economy how we can determine who the friends and enemies of the working class are, who we can unite with, and who will oppose us tooth and nail. Marxist political economy lays bare the laws of motion of capitalist society. By aligning our strategic orientation with these laws of motion, and by fusing Marxism with the masses, Mao showed that we can move mountains.

Based on this, Mao also developed theoretical works on revolutionary strategy. On this topic, Mao wrote a number of important articles and pamphlets, such as his important works on the necessity of armed struggle. In Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War and On Protracted War, Mao developed the theory of protracted people’s war, applicable broadly to large, semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries fighting for national liberation and socialism. Mao also developed the theory of the United Front in his essay On the Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party. This essay sums up how we can form a strategic alliance of revolutionary classes in order to unite against a common enemy. Mao also developed the pivotal theory of the mass line in his essay Some Questions on Methods of Leadership, explaining how to lead broad mass movements by uniting with the felt needs and demands of the advanced activists in struggle around immediate demands in order to move the masses towards a class-conscious understanding of the necessity for fighting against capitalism and for socialism. The mass line is the key to the fusion of Marxism with the working class movement.

On scientific socialism, Mao wrote On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, On the Ten Major Relationships, and his important study of Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. These works and others demonstrate how Mao looked to the experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and attempted to apply the lessons of that experience scientifically to the particulars of Chinese conditions. In his important work On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Mao emphasized the importance of continuing the class struggle under socialism in order to consolidate socialism and combat revisionist trends towards capitalist restoration.

In the mid-1960s and 70s, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, also known as “The Little Red Book,” became a handbook of revolution, taken up by young revolutionaries all over the world, from the Black Panther Party and the New Communist Movement here in the U.S. to national liberation movements from Palestine to the Philippines.

In China, Mao’s contributions to Marxism-Leninism are referred to as “Mao Zedong Thought,” and the writings of many of Mao’s contemporaries are also studied alongside the works of Mao. Indeed, Mao certainly never worked alone. We too have a lot to gain from studying the works of Zhu De, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Chen Yun, and Deng Xiaoping. Today, Xi Jinping continues to lead the Chinese people in applying Marxism-Leninism to Chinese conditions.

As revolutionaries in the United States, working to advance the peoples struggles, raise the consciousness of the working and oppressed people through struggle, and build a new Communist Party, we should strive to be like Mao.

Like any human being, Mao made his share of mistakes, but, like Mao, we should likewise analyze and sum up those mistakes in a scientific and practical way, rather than dogmatically repeat them. Like Mao, we should unite theory with practice. We should be practically minded, and we should apply dialectical materialism to our practice so as to better orient and guide our work in a strategic and effective way.

Like Mao did with the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, we should apply Mao’s theory to building revolution and socialism in a creative way, based firmly on the concrete analysis of concrete conditions when and where we find ourselves. We must subject theory to the crucible of practical work. In other words, we should study and apply the science of revolution, Marxism-Leninism, “not as a dogma, but as a guide to action.” If we can do this, then we will surely win.

https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/29/t ... -leninism/

Image

Prime Minister Manuel Marrero: Cuba has much to learn from the Chinese experience
In this episode of the CGTN interview series Leaders Talk, Zou Yun speaks with Cuban Prime Minister Manuel Marrero, who was primarily in China to attend the sixth China International Import Expo, which was held in Shanghai between November 5-10, 2023. It was his first China visit since his assumption of office and he also visited Beijing and Zhejiang province. Marrero previously served as Cuba’s Minister of Tourism for 16 years.

Marrero welcomed the open and inclusive spirit of the expo, the only one of its kind in the world, providing both the developed countries and those of the Global South with opportunities to promote their products and services. Cuba had particularly displayed its rum, coffee and seafood this time.

He also acclaimed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), describing it as the pinnacle of China’s global initiatives. President Xi Jinping’s considerations, the Cuban Prime Minister observed, go well beyond China. They are for prosperity and development worldwide.

Thanks to China, and the Communist Party of China, many forgotten and exploited countries now have opportunities to acquire technology and development experiences.

He was particularly moved by his meeting with President Xi Jinping. Cuba and China, Marrero said, share years of a traditional friendship and they face many similar situations. Cuba has much to learn from the Chinese experience, aligning it to their national realities, particularly, for example in terms of attracting foreign investment despite the US blockade.

Speaking of the impact of the 60 plus years US blockade of the socialist island, he notes Raúl Castro’s constant reminder that those responsible are the US government, not the US people, towards whom the Cuban people always maintain a positive and friendly standpoint.

The full video of the interview is embedded below.


https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/28/p ... xperience/

*******

No 'blind eye' to Philippine provocations
By Jiang Chenglong | China Daily | Updated: 2023-12-29 08:05

Image
Ren'ai Reef [File photo/chinanews.com.cn]

Ministry rejects Manila's claims on Ren'ai Reef, calls its actions dangerous

China "will not turn a blind eye" to the Philippines' repeated provocations and harassment in the South China Sea, although the nation is always committed to resolving differences through dialogue and consultation, a spokesman for the Ministry of National Defense said.

Wu Qian, the spokesman, made the remarks on Thursday at a news conference in Beijing, rejecting the groundless accusations made by the Philippines regarding China's Ren'ai Reef.

Several Philippine officials have recently claimed that China Coast Guard vessels used water cannons to attack Philippine ships near the reef and rammed at least one of them, triggering regional tensions.

In addition, the Philippine side has accused China of using a "long-range acoustic device" and a laser weapon to attack crew members on Philippine ships.

Calling these allegations completely false, Wu said the Philippine side, in disregard of repeated warnings from the Chinese side, insisted on sending vessels to intrude into the adjacent waters of China's Ren'ai Reef and provocatively rammed a China Coast Guard vessel.

"Such behavior is very dangerous and extremely unprofessional," Wu said, emphasizing that China Coast Guard took necessary law enforcement measures, which were totally justified and legitimate.

He said that although the Philippines claimed it was transporting humanitarian supplies to its grounded warship near the reef, those Philippine resupply vessels actually carried journalists, who propagated plenty of disinformation. "In my view, it was not a humanitarian mission at all, but playacting in the name of humanitarian aid."

Wu said the Philippines' allegation that China used so-called sonic and laser weapons is entirely groundless, adding that China has no intention or need of using such devices.

"China is always committed to resolving differences through dialogue and consultation and making joint efforts to maintain maritime stability, but we will not turn a blind eye to the Philippines' repeated provocations and harassment," he said.

The spokesman also rejected as unfounded the accusations made by the United States regarding China's actions in the South China Sea, and demanded that the US immediately cease meddling in South China Sea affairs.

Recently, the US Department of Defense said the US and Philippine military are maintaining close consultation, reaffirming the US' "ironclad" commitment to upholding its obligations under its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines.

Wu said that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, including Ren'ai Reef, and their adjacent waters. He pointed out that the US, to serve its own interests, encourages and provokes the Philippines to infringe upon China's rights and interests, while attempting to coerce China by using the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.

"The issue of Ren'ai Reef is a matter between China and the Philippines, with no involvement of any third party," he said. "We urge the US to stop inciting and supporting the Philippines' provocative actions, and to take practical actions to uphold regional peace and stability."

Responding to a question on the recent video call between the chiefs of staff of China and US militaries, the spokesman said it has yielded "positive and constructive outcomes".

Last week, General Liu Zhenli, chief of the Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission, held a video call with General Charles Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military.

"The two sides exchanged candid and in-depth views on implementing the important military-related consensus reached between the two heads of state in San Francisco, and on other issues of common interest," Wu said. "Going forward, we expect the US side to work with us in the same direction and take concrete actions on the basis of equality and respect, in order to promote the sound and steady development of China-US military ties."

Wu also slammed the comments made by the defense authorities of the Taiwan region, who recently claimed that during the Taiwan regional leader election next year, the Taiwan military will remain on high alert, and closely observe the dynamics of the People's Liberation Army.

Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party authorities have deliberately hyped up the so-called mainland military threat and played up tensions for the sake of seeking electoral benefits, Wu said, noting that "the PLA is in control of all dynamics of the Taiwan military".

"We will, as always, take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity," he added.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20231 ... aa076.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:01 pm

Why I Believe What I Believe About the Chinese Revolution: The Second Newsletter (2024)
JANUARY 11, 2024

Image
Liu Hongjie (China), Skyline, 2021.

Dear friends,

Greetings from Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

Late last year, a colleague sent me a letter decrying some of my writings about China, notably the last newsletter of 2023. This newsletter is my response to him.

**

The situation in China is the cause of a great deal of consternation amongst the left. I am glad you have raised the issue of Chinese socialism with me directly.

We are living in very dangerous times, as you know. The United States’ accelerating tension with other powerful nations threatens the planet more now than perhaps any period since 1991. The war in Ukraine and genocide in Gaza are illustrative of the dangers before us. In the interim, I worry about the US trying to draw Iran into the conflict, with Israel threatening to escalate tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon and then draw Tehran into making a step that would allow the US to bomb Iran. The New Cold War against China will take these conflicts to another level. Taiwan is already the lever. I hope that sober minds will prevail.

All socialist projects, as you well know, are formed in the process of the class struggle and through the development of the productive forces. Not the least China. You recall Bill Hinton’s book The Great Reversal: The Privatisation of China, 1978–1989, published in 1990. I was with Bill in Concord, Massachusetts a year or so before he died in 2004 and had several discussions with him about China. No one in the US knew China as well as Bill, his entire family (including his sister Joan and her husband Sid Engst, who modernised dairy farming in China), and of course their friends Isabel Crook, Edgar Snow, Helen Foster Snow, and, later, the translator Joan Pinkham, the daughter of Harry Dexter White.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, there was great trepidation about China. When I visited the country decades earlier, I was confounded by the poverty in rural areas. But at the same time, I was taken by the dignity of a people inspired by the great history of the struggles that created the Chinese Revolution of 1949 who knew that they were building a socialist project. Bill held fast to Maoism, clear about the contradictions of the socialist project, as he wrote in Through a Glass Darkly: U.S. Views of the Chinese Revolution.

Inequality had risen to high levels during the Jiang Zemin (1993–2003) and Hu Jintao (2003–2013) years. In Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (2013), I wrote about the Chinese Revolution with some of that pessimism, despite understanding the difficulties of building socialism in a poor country (the only place, after Russia, to try and do so since revolutions failed in the West). A few years after that, I read Ezra Vogel’s terrific assessment of Deng, Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China (2011), which placed Deng’s decisions in 1978 in the context of the entire revolutionary process. That book gave me a better understanding of the Deng reforms. One of the key lessons I took away was that Deng had to confront the stagnation of the economy, allowing the market to advance the productive forces. Without that, it was clear that China – a poor, backward country – would slip into a socialism of despair. It had to pioneer a new approach. Of course, the Deng reforms turned toward market forces and opened the door to a very dangerous situation. Bill’s pessimism was a response to that reality.

Image
Sheyang Farmers Painting Institute (Jiangsu, China), part of the ‘farmers painting’ project, 2017.

By the late 1990s, discussions began – including in the journals of the Communist Party of China (CPC) – to tackle rising rates of inequality and poverty through mass action. At the fifth plenum of the 16th CPC congress in October 2005, the party announced a ‘great historic mission’ to ‘construc[t] a new socialist countryside’, using the new phrase the ‘three rurals’ to refer to agriculture, farmers, and rural areas. This mission sought to improve rural infrastructure through state investment, provide free and compulsory education, and develop cooperative medical services while retreating from the market reforms in the medical sector, the latter of which became a nationwide policy across China from 2009. It interested me that the campaign was run with a mass character and not bureaucratically, with thousands of CPC cadre involved in carrying out this mission. This was a forerunner of the poverty eradication campaign that would come a decade later.

As this mission unfolded, I was very interested in the fact that places with ‘red resources’ were highlighted for action (such as Hailufeng in Guangdong Province, which was the heart of China’s first rural Soviet). It is telling that scholars in the West did not focus on these new shifts, fixated as they were on the country’s Pacific coastline rather than studying the conditions in China’s rural interior. Among the few exceptions are sincere people such as Professor Elizabeth Perry and Professor Minzi Su (the author of China’s Rural Development Policy: Exploring the ‘New Socialist Countryside’, 2009), who are ignored by most commentators on China.

This push for a new socialist countryside enlivened the CPC and a tacit movement to counter pure free-market forces, which created the dynamic that led to Xi Jinping’s election as party leader in late 2012. Xi’s concern for the country’s rural areas comes from spending part of his youth in China’s underdeveloped northwest and from his time as the party secretary of the Ningde Prefecture in the late 1980s, which was then one of the poorest regions in Fujian Province. A widely acknowledged element of Xi’s leadership during this period is that he helped decrease poverty in that area and improve social indicators, making youth less prone to migrate to cities.

Did China’s growth need to come at the expense of nature? In 2005, while in Huzhou (Zhejiang Province), Xi laid out the ‘Two Mountains’ theory, which suggested that economic and ecological development must go hand in hand. This is evidenced by the fact that, from 2013 to 2020, particulate pollution in China decreased by 39.6%, increasing average life expectancy by two years. In 2023, Xi announced a new ecological strategy to build a ‘beautiful China’, which includes an environmental plan for rural areas.

I was struck by some of your claims, in particular that ‘forcible return to the countryside is now state policy’, which I think bears special reflection due to it being part of the broader ‘new socialist countryside’ policy. It is true that President Xi has been talking about the need for rural revitalisation since 2017, and it is also true that various provinces (for instance, Guangdong) have action plans for college graduates to go to the countryside and participate in making the rural as attractive as the urban. However, this is not done by force, but by innovative programmes.

Image
Zhang Hailong (China), Horses and Herdsmen Series 3, 2022.

At the frontlines of these programmes are youth, many of whom were among the three million cadres who went to villages as part of the policy to abolish extreme poverty (it is worth noting that 1,800 cadres died while carrying out this task). Xi is very sensitive, as Mao Zedong was, to the importance of party members experiencing the reality in rural China, given China’s vast rural landscape, and was himself sent to China’s rural northwest during the Cultural Revolution. Reflecting on this experience, Xi wrote in 2002: ‘At the age of 15, I came to Liangjiahe village perplexed and lost. At the age of 22, I left with a clear life goal and was filled with confidence’. There is something of this attitude in China’s policy. Is it bad for party members, many of whom might have jobs in the state apparatus, to spend time in the countryside? Not if you want them to better understand China’s reality.

I have been to China many times over the past ten years and have travelled extensively in both rural and urban areas. The dual circulation strategy that Xi has pursued (driven by this ‘new socialist countryside’ policy) is of interest, and I have been working with a range of scholars to build up a detailed, empirical understanding of the Chinese project from within and through their own categories. That is the basis of the work we have been doing, some of it published in Wenhua Zongheng and some of it in the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research’s study on the eradication of extreme poverty in China. Is it propaganda? I hope not. I hope that we are getting closer and closer to being able to offer a theoretical assessment of the Chinese Revolution as it proceeds forward. Is the revolution perfect? Not at all. But it requires understanding rather than clichés, which abound in the West when it comes to China.

Image
Abdurkerim Nasirdin (China), Young Painter, 1995.

Take, for instance, the allegations of the oppression of Chinese Muslims (25 million or 1.8% of the total population). I remember being in Central Asia in the 2000s when al-Qaeda and the Taliban had a serious impact on the region, including through the offices of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). The IMU formulated a policy to take over the entire Xinjiang region, which is why some Uygurs moved to the leadership of Juma Namangani.

The Turkistan Islamic Party, led by people close to al-Qaeda (such as Abdul Haq al-Turkistani, who was a member of al-Qaeda’s shura), was born out of those sorts of contacts. Bombings of public places became commonplace, including in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Abdul Shakoor al-Turkistani, who in 2010 took over leadership from Abdul Haq (the engineer of the 2008 bombings in Beijing during the Olympics), was responsible for the Kashgar attacks in 2008 and 2011 and the Hotan attack in 2011. In 2013, this group moved to Syria, where I met a few of them on the Turkish-Syrian border. They are now based in Idlib and are a key part of the al-Qaeda formation there. This is their characteristic feature: not mere Turkic nationalism, but Islamic fundamentalism of the al-Qaeda variety.

At the time, several approaches could have been taken to the insurgency. The one that the US and its allies in the region favoured was to use violence, including by attacking areas suspected of being run by these insurgents and arresting them en masse, with some of them ending up in US-run black sites. Many of the members of this group, including Abdul Haq and Abdul Shakoor, were killed by US drone strikes on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Interestingly, China did not follow this approach. Some years ago, I interviewed former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who had turned away from violence and the ideology of al-Qaeda. Their group, the controversial Quilliam Foundation (based in London), was led by people such as Noman Benotman who followed the approach of the Egyptian ‘repentance’ and the Algerian ‘reconciliation’ projects. These programmes essentially tried to adopt both cognitive and behavioural approaches to deradicalisation (changing the ideology and stopping the violence, respectively). The former Libyan jihadis were eager to bring this approach to play both in Libya (which failed) and in the West (where many of them resettled), rather than the alternative of targeted violence and mass arrests. They were rebuffed (except in Germany, where the Hayat Programme was established in 2012). The problem with the violent approach that the West opted for instead was that it demonised all Muslims rather than merely trying to deradicalise those drawn into a toxic politics.

In the case of China, rather than waging a frontal war against the radical groups in Xinjiang and then the society in which they lived and demonising all Muslims, the government sought to conduct forms of deradicalisation. It is useful to recall the meeting between the Chinese Islamic Association and the CPC in Beijing in 2019 that built on the Five-Year Planning Outline for Persisting in the Sinification of Islam and sought to make Islam compatible with socialism. This is an interesting project, although it suffers from a lack of clarity. Making Islam Chinese is one part of the project; the other is to make the practice of Islam consonant with the socialist project. The latter is a sensible sociological approach for the modern world: to make religion – in a broader sense – compatible with modern values, and, in the case of China, with ‘core socialist values’ (such as combatting gender discrimination).

Image
Liu Xiaodong (China), Belief, 2012.

The former is harder to understand, and I have not truly grasped it. When it comes to the idea that religion must be aligned with modern values, especially socialist values, I am fully on board. How should this happen? Does one, say, ban certain practices (such as headscarves in France), or should one begin a process of debate and discussion with the leaders of religious communities (who are often the most conservative)? What does one do when confronted by an insurgency that has its roots outside the country, such as in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and even Syria, rather than inside the country, such as the contradictions in Xinjiang? These are all pressing dilemmas, but the ludicrous statements about genocide and so on pushed by US State Department and its cronies – including by dodgy people who work for dodgier ‘think tanks’ near the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia – cannot be allowed to define our discussion within the left. We need a greater understanding of the matters at hand so as not to fall into the Biden-Netanyahu line of questioning, which boils down to the ‘do you condemn Hamas’ sort of debate.

Image
Tang Xiaohe and Cheng Li (China), Mother on the Construction Site, 1984.

In your email, you write that ‘there is no question that the living standards of ordinary Chinese people, especially city-dwellers, have improved dramatically over the last decades’. In fact, all the data – and my own travels – shows that this is not only the case ‘especially’ for city-dwellers but across the country and increasingly in the areas of the far west and far north. International Labour Organisation data, for instance, shows that China’s annual real wage growth was 4.7%, far and away above that of other countries in the Global South, and certainly higher than in India (1.3%) and the US (0.3%) In just eight years, from 2013 to 2021, the disposable per capita income of China’s 498 million rural residents increased by more than 72.6% while that of the 914 million residents of urban areas increased by 53.5%. Meanwhile, the gap of disposable income between rural and urban areas declined by 5% during this period, and the growth rate of disposable income of rural residents has outpaced that of urban residents for twelve consecutive years (2009–2021).

Between 2012 and 2020, targeted poverty alleviation lifted 98.99 million people in rural areas out of extreme poverty and enabled every single family suffering from extreme poverty to receive assistance. As part of this innovative process, the CPC combined the training and development of grassroots cadres with digital technology, thus enhancing modern governance capabilities at the local level and enabling party members and cadres to serve the people more accurately and efficiently.

For comparison, using the Gini index, which does not cover public services (ignoring items like subsidised rentals for rural homes), income inequality in India is 24% higher than in China.

Those who look at the data on inequality in China often focus on China’s billionaires. That was clear in your email, which noted that China ‘is awash with state-subsidised millionaires and even billionaires. Indeed, a mounting class of super-bourgeoise, many of whom “invest abroad”’. Certainly, the reform era produced the social conditions for some people to get rich. However, that number is in decline: in 2023, of the 2,640 billionaires in the world, about 562 were in China, down from 607 in the previous year, and the last few CPC congresses have made it a priority to reverse the engine of this billionaire-production process. Of the 2,296 delegates to the 20th National Congress, only 18 were private sector executives, most of whom are from small and medium-sized enterprises, down from 34 who participated in 18th National Congress in 2012.

As you might know, in 2021 Xi called for a policy of ‘common prosperity’ (a term first used by the CPC in 1953), which alarmed many of these billionaires. They have since sought to run for the hills (‘invest abroad’, as you say). However, China has very strong capital controls, allowing only $50,000 to be remitted overseas. A range of illegal operations have opened up in the past few years to assist the rich in exiting their cash, including through the more porous region of Hong Kong. But the state has been cracking down on this, as it has cracked down on corruption. In August 2023, the police arrested the leaders of an immigration firm in Shanghai that facilitated illegal foreign exchange transfers. The pressure on Jack Ma (fintech company Ant Group), Hui Ka Yan (property developer Evergrande), and Bao Fan (investment bank Renaissance Holdings) is indicative of the CPC’s current position regarding billionaires.

You write that while living standards have improved in China, ‘socialism is not on the agenda in that country’. If not for the socialist agenda pursued by the CPC, how has China been able to abolish extreme poverty and bring down inequality rates, especially in times of rising global inequality when the social democratic agenda in the capitalist Global North and in large parts of the Global South has failed to come anywhere close to these achievements? It helps that large banks in China are under the control of the state so that large-scale capital can be managed efficiently to solve social problems, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic. The class struggle continues in China, of course, and that class struggle impacts the CPC (with its extraordinary membership of 98 million).

Image
Wang Zihua (China), When the Wind Blows Through the Summer, 2022.

I have tried not only to provide some facts to guide our discussion but also to thread them into the theory of socialism that I believe is most attractive. According to that theory, socialism is not an event but a process, and this process – rooted in the class struggle – goes in zigs and zags, a back-and-forth tension that is often accentuated by the urgent need to increase the productive forces in poor countries. It is important to accompany such processes rather than taking an omniscient standpoint.

Warmly,

Vijay

https://thetricontinental.org/newslette ... socialism/

******

Year of the Dragon: Silk Roads, BRICS Roads, Sino-Roads

Pepe Escobar

January 12, 2024

China, Russia and Iran will take the fight towards a more equal and just system to the next level, Pepe Escobar writes.

As we enter incandescent 2024, four major trends will define the progress of interconnected Eurasia.

1.Financial/trade integration will be the norm. Russia and Iran already integrated their financial message transfer systems, bypassing SWIFT and trading in rials and rubles. Russia-China already settle their accounts in rubles and yuan, coupling immense Chinese industrial capacity with immense Russian resources.

2.The economic integration of the post-Soviet space, tilting towards Eurasia, will predominantly flow not so much via the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) but interlinked with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

3.There will be no significant pro-Western inroads in the Heartland: the Central Asian “stans” will be progressively integrated into a single Eurasia economy organized via the SCO.

4.The clash will become even more acute, pitting the Hegemon and its satellites (Europe and Japan/South Korea/Australia) against Eurasia integration, represented by the three top BRICS (Russia, China, Iran) plus the DPRK and the Arab world incorporated to BRICS 10.

On the Russian front, the inimitable Sergey Karaganov has laid down the law: “We should not deny our European roots; we should treat them with care. After all, Europe has given us a lot. But Russia must move forward. And forward does not mean to the West, but to the East and the South. That is where the future of humanity lies.”

And that leads us to the Dragon – in the Year of the Dragon.

The Mao and Deng road maps

There were a whopping 3.68 billion Chinese trips by rail in 2023 – an all-time record.

China is fast on the way to become an AI global leader by 2030. Tech giant Baidu, for instance, recently released Ernie Bot to rival ChatGPT. AI in China is expanding fast on healthcare, education, and entertainment.

Efficiency is the key. Chinese scientists have developed the ACCEL chip – capable of performing 4.6 quadrillion operations per second, in comparison to NVIDIA’s A100, which delivers 0.312 quadrillion operations per second of deep learning performance.

China graduates no less than one million more STEM students than the U.S., year after year. This goes way beyond AI. Asian nations always reach the top 20% in science and mathematics competitions.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) may be lousy on geopolitics. But at least they did a public service showing nations that lead the planet in 44 critical technology sectors.

China is number one, leading on 37 sectors. The U.S. leads on 7. Everyone else leads zero sectors. These include Defense, space, robotics, energy, the environment, biotechnology, advanced materials, key quantum technology and of course AI.

How did China get here? It’s quite enlightening today to revisit a 1996 tome by Maurice Mesner: The Deng Xiaoping Era: An Inquiry into the Fate of Chinese Socialism, 1978-1994.

First of all, one needs to know what happened under Mao:

“From 1952 to the mid-1970s, net agricultural output in China increased at an average per annum rate of 2.5 percent, whereas the figure for the most intensive period of Japan’s industrialization (from 1868 to 1912) was 1.7 percent.”

Across the industrial sphere, all indicators went up: steel production; coal; cement; timber; electric power; crude oil; chemical fertilizers. “By the mid-1970s, China was also producing substantial numbers of jet airplanes, heavy tractors, railway locomotives, and modern oceangoing vessels. The People’s Republic also became a significant nuclear power, complete with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its first successful atomic bomb test was held in 1964, the first hydrogen bomb was produced in 1967, and a satellite was launched into orbit in 1970.”

Blame it on Mao: he transformed China “from one of the world’s most backward agrarian countries into the sixth-largest industrial power by the mid-1970s.” On most key social and demographic indicators, China compared favorably not only with India and Pakistan in South Asia but also with “’middle-income’ countries whose per capita GNP was five times that of China.”

All these breakthroughs laid down the path for Deng: “The higher yields obtained on individual family farms during the early Deng era would not have been possible had it not been for the vast irrigation and flood-control projects – dams, irrigation works, and river dikes – constructed by collectivized peasants in the 1950s and 1960s.”

Of course there were distortions – as the Deng drive produced a de facto capitalist economy presided by a bureaucratic bourgeoisie: “As has been true of the histories of all capitalist economies, the power of the state was very much involved in establishing China’s labor market. Indeed, in China a highly repressive state apparatus played a particularly direct and coercive role in the commodification of labor, a process that has proceeded with a rapidity and on a scale that is historically unprecedented.”

It remains an inextinguishable source of debate to what extent this fabulous economic Great Leap Forward under Deng generated calamitous social consequences.

The Empire of kakistocracy

As the Xi era definitely tackles – and tries to solve – the drama, what makes it even more complicated is the constant interference of the notorious “structural contradictions” between China and the Hegemon.

China-bashing is the number one politically correct game across the Beltway – and that’s bound to go out of control in 2024. Assuming a Democratic debacle next November, there are few doubts a Republican presidency – Trump or no Trump – will unleash Cold War 3.0 or 4.0, with China, not Russia, as the top threat.

Then there is the upcoming Taiwan election. If pro-independence candidates win it, incandescence will exponentially rise. Now imagine that compounded with a rabid Sinophobe occupant of the White House.

Even when China was militarily weak, the Hegemon could not defeat it, either in Korea or in Vietnam. There is less than zero chance Washington would defeat Beijing on a South China Sea battlefield now.

The American problem is encapsulated in a Perfect Storm.

Hegemon hard and soft power have been hurled down a black void with the imminent, cosmic NATO humiliation in Ukraine, compounded with complicity with the Gaza genocide.

Simultaneously, Hegemon global financial power is about to take a very hard hit as the Russia-China strategic partnership leading BRICS 10 starts offering quite viable alternatives to the Global South.

Chinese scholars, in priceless exchanges, always remind their Western interlocutors that History has been a consistent playground pitting aristocratic and or/plutocratic oligarchies against each other. The collective West now happens to be “led” by the most toxic variety of plutocracy: kakistocracy.

What Chinese qualify, correctly, as “crusader nations” are now significantly exhausted – economically, socially, and militarily. Worse: nearly totally de-industrialized. Those with a functioning brain among the crusaders at least have understood that “decoupling” from China will be a major disaster.

None of that eliminates their arrogant/ignorant drive for a war on China – even as Beijing has exercised immense restraint by not giving them any excuse to start another Forever War.

Instead, Beijing is reversing Hegemon tactics – as in sanctioning the Hegemon and assorted vassals (Japan, South Korea) on rare earth imports. Even more effective is the concerted Russia-China drive to bypass the U.S. dollar and weaken the euro – with full support of BRICS 10 members, Opec+ members, EAEU members and most SCO members.

The Taiwan riddle

The Chinese masterplan, in a nutshell, is a thing of beauty: to finish off the “rules-based international order” without firing a shot.

Taiwan will remain the prime not-yet-engaged battlefield. Roughly, it’s fair to argue that the majority of the population of Taiwan does not want unification; at the same time, they don’t want an American-engineered war.

They want, essentially, the current status quo. China is not in a hurry: Deng’s master plan pointed to reunification sometime before 2049.

The Hegemon, on the other hand, is in a tremendous hurry: it’s all about Divide and Rule, all over again, promoting chaos and destabilizing China’s inexorable rise.

Beijing tracks literally anything that moves in Taiwan – via monumental, meticulous dossiers. Beijing knows that for Taipei to thrive in a peaceful environment, it needs to negotiate while it still has something to negotiate with.

Every Taiwanese with a brain – and there are plenty of first-class scientific brains in the island – knows they can’t expect Americans to die fighting for them. First of all because they know the Hegemon won’t dare fighting a conventional war with China, because the Hegemon will lose – badly (the Pentagon gamed all options). And there won’t be a nuclear war either.

Chinese scholars are fond of reminding us that when the Middle Kingdom was totally fragmented in the 19th century under the Qing dynasty (1644-1912), “the Sino-Manchu ruling class was incapable of relinquishing their self-image and of taking the draconian necessary steps.”

The same applies to the Exceptionalists now – even as they go on serial somersaults trying to preserve their own, mythological self-image: Narcissus drowned in a pool of his own making.

It’s possible to advance that the Year of the Dragon will be a year where Sovereignty reigns. Hegemon fits of Hybrid War rage and collaborationist comprador elites will be obstacles constantly hampering the Global South. Yet at least there will be three poles with the spine, the resources, the organization, the vision and the sense of Universal History to take the fight towards a more equal and just system to the next level: China, Russia and Iran.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... ino-roads/

*******

Image

Washington elite considers Taiwan an unsinkable aircraft carrier in East Asia
In the following article, Dirk Nimmegeers (Co-editor of ChinaSquare and China Vandaag (Belgium), and member of our advisory group) provides a timely assessment of the political situation in Taiwan Province ahead of the elections on the island taking place on 13 January.

Dirk gives an overview of the US’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” in relation to Taiwan – recognising the One China principle whilst simultaneously providing support to separatist forces. As Dirk points out, the “Washington elite considers Taiwan an unsinkable aircraft carrier in East Asia, just as Israel is in West Asia.”

US support for separatists in Taiwan, and its increased supply of military aid, cannot be separated from the West’s escalating campaign of encircling and containing China. Dirk cites his fellow ChinaSquare co-editor Frank Willems on the US’s motivation for beating the war drums in relation to Taiwan: “They feel that a Cold War with China is not enough and are out for a hot war with China. Taiwan is the ideal focal point for that.”

The author also discusses the positions of the major parties competing in the elections on Taiwan Province, and expresses little confidence that the island’s next administration will take a sensible and pragmatic approach to relations with Beijing. However, a move towards rapprochement, with a vision for eventual peaceful reunification, would be of great benefit to Chinese people on both sides of the strait, and would contribute towards regional peace and security.

This article was first published in Dutch on ChinaSquare and has been translated into English for Friends of Socialist China by the author.
On Jan. 13, 2024, elections of a political leader will take place on the island of Taiwan as part of the general election for a parliament. The result could have implications for peace in Asia and even in Europe.

On principle, there is no question of a ‘presidential’ election in Taiwan: this region, which is still – thanks to the US – in practice an autonomous economic and political entity, is not recognized as an independent country by the vast majority of countries in the world. Only 12 countries of the 193 members of the United Nations (and Vatican City, an observer state of the UN) still maintain diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, the name that Taiwan has officially taken. Taiwanese political parties incorrectly speak of “presidential elections,” and media which use the same term when covering these elections in doing so give incomplete, even misleading information. Journalists often do not realize that they are thus propagandizing American anti-Chinese politics. Even progressive publicists occasionally (unwittingly?) acquiesce to the omnipotence of Western media and write about “presidential” elections in “the country” of Taiwan. Some media outlets even adopt the Taiwanese separatists’ claim that the island “never actually belonged to China. ChinaSquare.be editor Frank Willems informed Belgian journalists in a podcast “that this is totally untrue”. Frank referred to various international treaties such as the one obliging Japan, after its defeat in World War II, to cede Taiwan, which it had occupied, back to China, which effectively happened.

Ambiguous politics
The 181 countries that diplomatically recognize the People’s Republic of China, with embassies for both sides, at the same time recognize that there is only one China, with Beijing as its capital. The United States and European countries are among this number. Washington, however, as the Americans themselves say, maintains a strategic ambiguity. Words play a major role here: the US “recognizes” the Chinese position that Beijing has sovereignty over Taiwan, but does not “endorse” it. Washington regards Taiwan’s political status as “undetermined” and wants to keep it that way. This is the foundation of the current US position that the status quo must be maintained: on the one hand, Taiwan must not declare its legal independence; on the other hand, reunification of the island with China must be stopped.

The US kept the Republic of China afloat against the People’s Republic of China, and after Taiwan could “stand on its own feet,” the US continued to support the island because the Washington elite considers it an unsinkable aircraft carrier in East Asia, just as Israel is in West Asia. An autonomous Taiwan is a link in the Pacific first island chain that is of crucial strategic military importance to the US, a pillar of US hegemony, and a loyal and good customer of its arms industry.

Unambiguous militarization
The United States also dons the cloak of strategic ambiguity when it comes to war and peace, for while declaring that it is in favour of the status quo, at the same time it is strengthening Taiwan’s military capabilities, even through US Congress. Washington continued to arm the island last year, a prolonged and risky provocation. For the first time, it delivered military equipment to Taiwan under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, allowing the US to draw weapons directly from Department of Defence inventories. US military personnel are already stationed in Taiwan and their numbers will be increased. All this is of course encouraging the separatist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) now in power to continue scheming for total independence and thereby further challenging Beijing. The defence budget proposed by the current Taiwanese leadership for 2024 is 19.6 billion USD, roughly 2.5 percent of Taiwan’s gross regional product. Military service was extended from four months to one year.

Manoeuvres and strategies
Taiwanese separatists know very well that Beijing wants above all a peaceful reunification, with an economic integration that will be beneficial to all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The People’s Liberation Army will not attack the island unless it officially declares independence or in the case of foreign military intervention. The Chinese army’s manoeuvres are a warning that China means what it has been clearly declaring on this subject for decades and that its army is ready to defend the territory against further encroachments on its integrity. Moreover, the exercises are of course a powerful response to far-reaching American provocations such as the official visit of US Parliament Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Another of those provocations appears to be in the making: the administration of US President Joe Biden is planning to send an “unofficial delegation” to Taiwan immediately after the elections.

The status of Taiwan and its relationship with motherland China, have played a major role in every election, including in the present. That issue is becoming increasingly important and concerns us in Europe. As Frank Willems pointed out in the podcast already mentioned, the increased tensions between China and its province Taiwan are mainly caused by the United States. “They feel that a Cold War with China is not enough and are out for a hot war with China. Taiwan is the ideal focal point for that. That should worry us in Europe.” It certainly should if we take into account the opinions of top European politicians, such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen. This former NATO Secretary General went to Taipei telling the press there: “The most important supplier of weapons and military assistance to Taiwan will be the US. However, to prevent a possible Chinese attack against Taiwan, European countries could assist in different ways,” and: “Joint training or military exercises could be an important tool in that respect. We have done so with Ukrainian troops, and we can do the same with servicemen and women from Taiwan”. Rasmussen also told a news conference: “The first and foremost European contribution could be to join the US in comprehensive and profound sanctions against China.”

Moreover, in the context of the continuing Cold War, there is a growing number of voices in the United States in favour of moving away from strategic ambiguity and toward bellicose clarity. President Biden, meanwhile, has already himself abandoned any doubt as to whether the US would launch a war against China should Beijing decide that it has to use force to stop or undo the independence of its de facto autonomous province. In March, the US Naval Institute published an opinion piece by Second Lieutenant Ethan D. Chaffee of the U.S. Marine Corps with the telling title “Strategic Ambiguity on Taiwan Has Run Its Course”. This senior military officer raises the spectre of an “increasingly aggressive China that will no longer be deterred”. Chaffee now really wants to go into overdrive with the intense militarization of the island. For Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State in the Trump administration from 2018 to 2021, it’s even simpler. Pompeo advocates dropping the One China principle and believes the United States government should offer the Republic of China, aka Taiwan, the US’s diplomatic recognition “as a free and sovereign country.”

Importance of these elections
Three major parties are participating in the elections in addition to several small formations. Wu Rong-yuan, chairman of Taiwan’s small Labor Party, justifiably hopes that voters will give some kind of dialogue between Taipei and Beijing another chance.

The incumbent political leader, Ms Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP, is not eligible for re-election after two terms in office due to election regulations. Tsai has refused to adhere to the One-China Principle and the 1992 Consensus during her tenure, and she has gratefully accepted and in turn encouraged US interference. She has opposed economic relations between Taiwan and mainland China, which are mutually beneficial to all Chinese, seeking to undermine the basis for peaceful reunification. Lai Ching-te, her party’s candidate for the leadership election has announced that, as a “pragmatic supporter of Taiwan’s independence“, he wants to make the administration even more hostile to Beijing and more dependent on Washington.

The other major parties may be significantly more open-minded about a dialogue with Beijing. The Kuomintang (KMT) argues that the people of Taiwan and mainland China are one Chinese nation. Former KMT leader Ma Ying-jeou visited the mainland last year, and his trip clearly indicated that he (and perhaps his party) was willing to resume the rapprochement with Beijing. Hou Yu-ih, the presidential candidate of Taiwan’s largest opposition party however said recently that “within my term in office, I will not touch the issue of unification.” Hou stressed his commitment to maintaining increases in defence spending and close ties with the US, which he called an “allied country”. Although those may be election tactics to counter the idea that the KMT will “sell Taiwan out to China”, which Lai Ching-te has been peddling, it is a setback for peace. Ko Wen-je, the candidate of the relatively new Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), had and still has many ties to the separatists, but he is a pragmatist who, when mayor of the capital Taipei, expanded the city’s relationship with mainland China, and especially Shanghai. He also launched a proposal for a bridge between Taiwan’s island group of Kinmen and the mainland city of Xiamen.

It is also in the interest of the peoples in Europe that Taiwan’s political leaders and parliament be more open to the Beijing government’s vision. This was clearly expressed in Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Mao Ning’s regular press conference on 10 January:

“There is only one China in the world. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. China firmly opposes the US having any form of official contact with the Taiwan region. The US needs to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and stipulations of the three China-US joint communiqués, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues, stop official contact with the Taiwan region, stop sending wrong signals to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces and refrain from interfering in elections in the Taiwan region in any form. The DPP authorities’ attempt to solicit support from the US and other countries for ‘Taiwan independence’ will not succeed.”

Sources: Reuters, VRT.nws (Belgian Dutch language radio and television), China Daily, Taipei Times, AEI.org, (American Enterprise Institute website), Global Times, USNI.org, fmprc.gov.cn, Friends of Socialist China, Wikipedia,

https://socialistchina.org/2024/01/12/w ... east-asia/

Image

Xi Jinping to Chinese diplomatic envoys: maintain commitment to diplomacy for the people
Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, Chinese President, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, met with Chinese diplomats attending the annual work conference for envoys to foreign countries on December 29, 2023.

Xi delivered an important speech in which he urged them to have a correct understanding of the international environment and the historical mission faced by China’s work on foreign affairs and to hold high the banner of building a community with a shared future for humanity.

He said that: “In the past few years, the COVID-19 pandemic has raged and spread, and external forces have continuously escalated their suppression and containment against us, posing special challenges to our diplomatic work. You all have undergone special tests. Over these years, you have stood firm in foreign lands, been on missions for our country, sacrificed personal interests for the greater good, and toiled and struggled worldwide. It is good of you to work hard.”

Xi gave four important calls as follows:

*He urged them to keep in mind the original aspiration and mission, and be loyal to the Party. Diplomatic envoys should undertake missions and travel to various parts of the world. No matter where they go, they must never forget why they go there. They were urged to take “diplomacy for the people” as their commitment, and pass on the CPC Central Committee’s care and concern to every overseas Chinese.

*The envoys should strengthen their sense of responsibility and be pioneers in their endeavours. It is essential to be adept at making more friends and extending friendship. The work of winning public support should reach not only governments but also ordinary people.

*The envoys must have the courage and ability to carry on our fight and act as defenders of national interests. It is necessary for them to strengthen confidence and determination, be strategically sober-minded, firmly keep a worst-case scenario mindset, and, with combat preparedness and a firm determination, never yield to coercive power, so as to resolutely defend the country’s sovereignty, security, and development interests. They must strengthen strategic planning and make good use of the effective instrument of united front work.

*They should keep reforming themselves to act as promoters of full and rigorous Party self-governance. They must build a strong ideological defence line, constantly reflect on, alert, examine and motivate themselves so as to have firm political convictions and strictly abide by Party rules and discipline.

The following article was originally published on the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, Chinese president, and chairman of the Central Military Commission, met with Chinese diplomatic envoys attending the annual work conference for overseas envoys to foreign countries in 2023 at the Great Hall of the People on Dec 29. Xi delivered an important speech. 

Xi acknowledged the significant achievements made in China’s diplomatic work in the new era, and called on the envoys to conscientiously study and implement the guiding principles of the 20th CPC National Congress and the Central Conference on Work Related to Foreign Affairs, the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and the Thought on Diplomacy in particular. He urged them to have a correct understanding of the international environment and the historical mission faced by China’s work on foreign affairs on the new journey in the new era, to hold high the banner of building a community with a shared future for humanity, and to keep opening up new prospects for major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics.

Cai Qi, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and director of the General Office of the CPC Central Committee, was present at the meeting.

At around 11:40 a.m., Xi and others arrived at the North Hall of the Great Hall of the People amid a warm round of applause. Xi and others waved to the diplomatic envoys and had a cordial exchange with them before having a group photo taken together.

Amidst warm applause, Xi delivered an important speech. He said, “In the past few years, the COVID-19 pandemic has raged and spread, and external forces have continuously escalated their suppression and containment against us, posing special challenges to our diplomatic work. You all have undergone special tests. Over these years, you have stood firm in foreign lands, been on missions for our country, sacrificed personal interests for the greater good, and toiled and struggled worldwide. It is good of you to work hard.” Xi extended sincere greetings to the envoys and all those working on China’s diplomatic front on behalf of the CPC Central Committee.

Xi emphasized that at the 20th CPC National Congress, we made strategic arrangements for promoting the building of a strong country and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization. China’s major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics will enter a new stage in which more can be accomplished. He urged the envoys uphold the centralized and unified leadership of the CPC Central Committee, carry forward valuable experience in China’s diplomacy in the new era, enhance cohesion, carry on the fighting spirit, overcome all difficulties and obstacles to achieve new and greater victories.

Xi pointed out that in the just-concluded Central Conference on Work Related to Foreign Affairs, we analyzed the current and future international situation and China’s external environment, and clarified the goals, guiding principles, strategic arrangements, and basic tasks for work related to foreign affairs. Xi called on the envoys to earnestly implement the decisions and arrangements of the Central Conference on Work Related to Foreign Affairs, and make new achievements with a more energetic spirit.

First, Xi urged them to keep in mind the original aspiration and mission, and be loyal to the Party. Loyalty to the Party, the country and the people is the glorious tradition of the diplomatic front. Diplomatic envoys should undertake missions and travel to various parts of the world, no matter where they go, they must never forget why they go there, and they must keep the “scepter” in their hearts. It’s necessary for them to enrich their thinking with the Party’s innovative theories, sharpen their eyes to tell right from wrong, and always keep to the correct political direction. It’s essential for them to have a deep understanding of where the supreme interests of the Party and the country lie, and understand and implement the foreign policy of the CPC Central Committee well. Over 1.4 billion Chinese people are strong supporters of the diplomatic work. The envoys were urged to take “diplomacy for the people” as their commitment, and pass on the CPC Central Committee’s care and concern to every overseas Chinese.

Second, the envoys should strengthen their sense of responsibility and be pioneers in their endeavors. They should understand and implement the Thought on Socialist Diplomacy with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, meet difficulties head on and shoulder responsibilities. It is imperative to strengthen diplomatic capacity building, be firm in taking practical and pragmatic approaches, be alert and clear-sighted and solve difficulties through realistic approaches to serve the overall situation. It is essential to be adept at making more friends and extending friendship. The work of winning public support should reach not only governments but also ordinary people. Globalized way of communication should be used to better tell China’s stories, promote understanding between China and the world through linking the country’s past with the present, so that the world will know better about China in the new era.

Third, the envoys must have the courage and ability to carry on our fight and act as defenders of national interests. It is necessary for them to strengthen confidence and determination, be strategically sober-minded, firmly keep a worst-case scenario mindset, and, with combat preparedness and a firm determination, never yield to coercive power, so as to resolutely defend the country’s sovereignty, security, and development interests. They must strengthen strategic planning and make good use of the effective instrument of united front work. They should skillfully utilize the multilateral mechanisms and rules to seek more understanding and support from the international community.

Fourth, the envoys should keep reforming themselves to act as promoter of full and rigorous Party self-governance. All diplomatic envoys must effectively fulfill their principal responsibilities for Party governance and promote Party building with the spirit of self-reform. They must build strong ideological defense line, constantly reflect on, alert, examine and motivate themselves so as to have firm political convictions and strictly abide by Party rules and discipline.

Strict training and management makes a difference to the building of a good team. It is important to strictly rectify conduct and tighten discipline. Discipline and rules must be constantly emphasized. They must be strict with themselves, fulfill their responsibilities strictly, and manage their subordinates strictly, so as to build a contingent of disciplined and loyal diplomats, who have a strong sense of responsibility and the courage and ability to carry on our fight. 

Wang Yi, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and minister of Foreign Affairs, attended the conference and delivered a speech at the 2023 Annual Work Conference for Envoys to Foreign Countries. He urged the envoys to thoroughly study and understand General Secretary Xi’s important speech and the spirit of the Central Conference on Work Related to Foreign Affairs, deeply understand the great theoretical innovation and far-reaching significance of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy, which should serve as a guide for them to overcome difficulties, forge ahead, and continuously open up new prospects for major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics in the new era. 

https://socialistchina.org/2024/01/12/x ... he-people/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10769
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Sat Jan 20, 2024 3:38 pm

Image

Pro-poor development – how China eradicated poverty
This article by Li Xiaoyun, Chair Professor of Humanities at the China Agricultural University and a widely-respected expert in the field of poverty alleviation, makes a number of important and thought-provoking points about China’s successes in eradicating poverty.

Li makes the oft-overlooked point that China’s poverty alleviation efforts have been a long-term process starting not with the initiation of Reform and Opening Up in the late 1970s but with the land reform and social welfare measures of the 1950s. This is consistent with research showing that, around the world, “redistributive land reform, starting with breaking up land concentration and land monopolies, maximises economic efficiency and social justice and helps to alleviate rural poverty.”

By 1978, famine had been eradicated, feudal land ownership systems had been dismantled, and education and healthcare services were available throughout the country. This progress “provided an important basis for the high economic growth and massive poverty reduction that followed the reform and opening up.” Further, “the 1978 reform and opening-up policy effectively utilised the material and human resource base laid down in the area of agricultural development prior to 1978 and became the second interface of China’s poverty reduction mechanism.”

Rapid economic growth in the reform period, starting with the household responsibility system in the countryside, has been a crucial driver of poverty reduction in China. But Li also emphasises the importance of the government’s active role in this process, including through the provision of basic public services, the development of infrastructure, and the implementation of targeted poverty alleviation measures. He further notes that many countries of the Global South have experienced relatively high GDP growth but have not enjoyed similar levels of poverty reduction. This indicates that GDP growth alone does little to improve the lives of the poor, and that governments must devote substantial focus and resources to this project.

The author writes that although inequality has risen rapidly over the last four decades, the government has taken active and decisive measures to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are shared by all. “In order to address the issue of inequality, in 1986, the Chinese government formally established a leading agency for rural poverty alleviation at both the central level and at the local level. At the same time, special funds for poverty alleviation were set aside at the central financial level to designate poverty-stricken areas, thus beginning a targeted and planned rural poverty alleviation and development strategy.”

Tackling rural poverty has been a particular focus over the last two decades, starting with the complete abolition of agricultural taxes in 2006, the implementation of rural low income insurance in 2004 and the realisation of medical care coverage for all rural residents by 2010. With the start of the targeted poverty alleviation campaign in 2014, “resources are pooled through extraordinary administrative initiatives, concentrating human, material and financial resources on the poorest areas and neediest groups.”

Li observes that China’s urbanisation has also made an important contribution to poverty reduction – “the movement of the rural population into industry and cities means an increase in income and welfare, and thus industrialisation and urbanisation have a direct poverty-reducing effect.” Meanwhile “the significant decline in the rural population has also meant a relative increase in the labour productivity of those who remained in the countryside and continue to work in agriculture.” It’s worth noting that in several other countries, rapid urbanisation has taken place in a relatively disorganised manner, with peasants escaping a life of grinding poverty and debt in the countryside, only to end up in peri-urban slums without secure employment or access to services. China’s urbanisation, while not without challenges and problems, has been generally well-managed.

The article concludes with a hugely important point about the indispensable role of the Communist Party of China in the fight against poverty:

The main reason why China was able to finally eradicate absolute rural poverty was because the CPC relied on its political advantage of unifying society and strongly integrated its political commitment to poverty reduction across all sectors of government and society, breaking the constraints of interest groups and administrative bureaucracy and achieving a redistribution of wealth and opportunities.

Which is to say that a socialist system provides the best possible framework for improving people’s lives.

This article first appeared on Progressive International.
On 25 February 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping officially declared in Beijing that China will finally eliminate absolute rural poverty. As the standard for absolute rural poverty in China is higher than the World Bank’s standard for extreme poverty,2 China lags behind the World Bank’s estimates for eliminating absolute rural poverty. According to the World Bank’s poverty line of US$1.9 per person per day, there were 878 million poor people in China in 1981, and the incidence of poverty was 88.3%. By 2015, that number had fallen to 9.7 million, with an incidence of 0.7%.3

Economic growth and income redistribution are generally accepted as two important drivers of poverty reduction. Based on the situation in the United States, in 1964 Anderson suggested that economic growth was an important contributor to poverty reduction in the country.4 However, the experience of developing countries has been different. States in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, have, to varying degrees, seen relatively high levels of economic growth over the past two decades, but they have not achieved significant poverty reduction. This shows that economic growth is only one factor in poverty reduction. For poverty reduction to succeed, economic growth must also be set to address poverty alleviation.5 Secondly, the rise in income inequality accompanying economic growth is a major problem for developing countries and many middle-income countries. The rise in inequality directly worsens relative poverty, a process that China began to experience at the turn of the century. In the context of poverty reduction, China’s primary challenge before the new century was to put economic growth in the service of the poor. Since then, inequality became increasingly pronounced. These two features have greatly influenced changes in China’s poverty reduction strategies and policies.

Views on poverty reduction in China tend to fall into two categories. One sees China’s development and poverty reduction as part of a universal trend of socio-economic transformation that followed as a result of China’s assimilation into globalisation. The other sees China’s achievement of development and poverty reduction as a particular case, with its own unique Chinese characteristics.6 This paper will mainly introduce and analyse the process of poverty reduction in China from three aspects – the historical role of development in poverty reduction before 1978, economic growth in service of poverty alleviation after 1978, and the goal of poverty eradication in the face of increasing inequality – at the same time considering its core elements and their global significance.

I. Understanding the role of development for poverty reduction before 1978
Before 1978, China’s development had three effects on poverty. First, it alleviated hunger-based poverty; second, it alleviated multidimensional poverty, for example in education, health, infrastructure and gender; and third, it provided an important human and material base for further economic growth. China did not focus directly on the incomes of poor groups for a long time after the 1950s, and individual welfare improvements were slow, with national social-development goals mainly reflected in inclusive social services.7 It is worth noting that a large number of studies on poverty in China tend to ignore the relationship between development and poverty reduction before the reform and opening up of the economy. In fact, poverty simply reflects broader socio-economic conditions; neither increases nor decreases in poverty happen suddenly. In China, large-scale poverty reduction is a historical process.8

In the early 1950s, life expectancy in China was 35, compared to 68 and 63.68 in the United States and Europe respectively during the same period. In 1952, the country’s population was 575 million and total grain production was 163.92 million tonnes, with a per capita grain holding of only 285 kg. In 1950, before the Chinese government embarked on its programme of land reform, 54.8% of China’s arable land was concentrated in the hands of 14.5% farmers. Peasants, who accounted for 85.5% of China’s farmers, held less than 50% of arable land. The inequitable distribution of rural land is considered to be one of the main reasons for China’s long-term poverty.9 Following land reform, 92.1% of poor and middle-income peasants had their own land. Between 1949 and 1957, China’s grain production increased from 113.18 million tonnes to 195.05 million tonnes, and grain yields increased from 1035 kg/ha to 1463 kg/ha.10 Land systems have always been a focus of poverty research, and in general, Keith Griffin et al. suggest that redistributive land reform, starting with breaking up land concentration and land monopolies, maximises economic efficiency and social justice and helps to alleviate rural poverty.11 An analysis of countries’ experiences with different types of redistributive land reforms argues that “redistributive reforms represented by land reform, along with state facilitation and support, will contribute to real benefits for the poor”.7 12 Many developing countries, such as the Philippines, have had great difficulty in alleviating poverty due to high inequities in the land system. Practice has shown that countries that have completed land reform in one form or another have achieved significant poverty reduction, with land reform in Japan, South Korea and the region of Taiwan, which began in the 1950s, all playing a positive role in poverty alleviation and the eventual elimination of absolute poverty.13 Land reform in China in the 1950s had a direct effect on poverty reduction and can be seen as an important policy for institutional poverty reduction. At the same time, changes in the land system provided a social basis for equity.

Poverty eradication was the primary objective of China’s path of modernisation, adopted after the 1950s. Under this strategy, China began implementing broad changes to the structure of the national economy, starting with education, health care, science and technology, and infrastructure. China’s illiteracy rate fell from 80% in 1949 to 22% in 1978.14 Its irrigated farmland increased from 19.959 million hectares in 1952 to 45.003 million hectares in 1978, and the amount of fertiliser used across the country increased from 78,000 tonnes in 1952 to 8.84 million tonnes in 1978. China’s per capita grain holdings exceeded 300 kg by 1978, a significant improvement even though the FAO standard of 400 kg per capita — a measure of food security — was not attained.7

In fact, farmers’ enthusiasm for production stimulated by the rural reform was grounded largely in the country’s long-term investments in agricultural infrastructure — including in irrigation, agricultural machinery, fertiliser and especially agricultural science and technology — before the reform and opening up. 45% of the country’s arable land was irrigated in 1978, and that percentage has not increased significantly since the reform and opening up.

Another important factor in China’s development and poverty reduction before 1978 was the relatively equitable starting point. Around the year 1978, the national Gini coefficient was 0.318,15 and the Gini coefficient in rural China was around 0.212,16 which shows the equity of income distribution in Chinese society at that time. There is a complex relationship between the pattern of income distribution and economic growth. Generally speaking, income disparity is considered to affect economic growth in four ways. One view holds that equal income distribution better promotes the division of labour among different levels of skill holders, thus promoting economic growth.17 A second view, based on the assumption of imperfection in credit markets, argues that income inequality affects growth by influencing occupational choices, with poorer groups finding it difficult to access occupations that require high levels of investment.18 A third view takes a political economy perspective, arguing that income disparities are redistributed through government taxation and fiscal spending, which has an impact on economic growth.19 Finally, a fourth view says that, from the perspective of consumer demand, demand is the main driver of economic growth and that inequality in income distribution reduces consumer demand and thus constrains economic growth.20 Thus, although China’s pre-1978 policies suffered from economic inefficiencies, the relatively equitable social distribution that resulted from them provided an important basis for the high economic growth and massive poverty reduction that followed the reform and opening up. Reconciling income distribution and poverty reduction is a major issue for many developing countries as they enter into social transition, and for many countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, one of the major problems in reducing poverty is the high incidence of poverty, but also the high inequality in income distribution. The incidence of poverty in sub-Saharan African countries under the US$1.9 international poverty line has only slowly declined from 54.9% in 1990 to 42.3% in 2015,21 with such countries still facing significant pressure to reduce poverty. During the same period, the Gini coefficient in sub-Saharan African countries hovered at a high level — between 0.4% and 0.5%. The inequality of income distribution greatly affected the effectiveness of poverty reduction, and its income distribution inequality was only better than that of Latin America.22

II. Pro-poor economic growth
China’s pro-poor economic growth was primarily grounded in the agricultural development, industrialisation and urbanisation that it experienced since the reform and opening up. Since that time, China has developed different mechanisms for poverty reduction at different stages of its history, and there is an organic relationship between these mechanisms, which together form a continuous and sustainable system of poverty reduction tools.

The alleviation of non-income-based poverty before 1978, the construction of infrastructure, and the conditions of social equity all formed an important basis for China’s high economic growth after 1978, and it was the same basis that provided for the poor to benefit relatively fairly from the economic growth and get rid of poverty.

China’s post-1978 economic reforms began in the countryside. The introduction of the contract responsibility system unleashed farmers’ enthusiasm for production. 1978-1985 saw China’s agriculture enter a phase of extraordinary development, driven by the reform of the rural economy. At this time, the average annual growth rate of China’s agricultural GDP was 6.9%.23 At the same time, the annual per capita income of Chinese farmers also grew at unprecedented rates. From Table 1, we can see that from 1978-1984, the annual per capita income growth rate for Chinese farmers was 16.2%. From 1978-1984, China’s agricultural growth and farmers’ income growth remained relatively high compared to other periods.24

In terms of the characteristics of the economic and social structure, for a long time after 1978, China’s population was mostly rural, with only 17.9% of the Chinese population living in cities in 1978. Farmers’ incomes were dominated by agricultural operations. Agriculture made up more than 35% of China’s national GDP. In terms of the development of agriculture, the extraordinary growth of agriculture in the early years of reform and opening up was mainly reflected in two aspects. First, the rapid development of crop farming associated with grain production. China’s total grain production grew from 304.77 million tonnes to 379.11 million tonnes between 1978 and 1985, and per capita grain availability increased from 317kg to 358kg. China officially crossed the 300 kg per capita threshold after 1978. The second is the rapid growth of the breeding industry. Crop farming and breeding were the main occupations of small farmers in China and the main source of livelihood for their families. Economic growth in post-1978 China, which began with agricultural development, was vital to poverty reduction. In fact, Martin Ravallion and Chen Shaohua hold that economic growth in the agricultural sector has been the main contributor in increasing the income of the poor. The impact of economic growth in the agricultural sector on the livelihood of the poor is four times that of the industrial or service sector.25 The 1978 reform and opening-up policy effectively utilised the material and human resource base laid down in the area of agricultural development prior to 1978 and became the second interface of China’s poverty reduction mechanism. The relationship between agricultural development and poverty reduction does not always depend on the growth of agriculture or the size of the agricultural population. The effective ability of agricultural development to reduce poverty also depends on population growth, which has been maintained at less than 2% since 1978. The high net growth rate in agriculture has two direct effects, one leading to an increase in output per capita and the other generating a surplus. Many South Asian countries and sub-Saharan African countries have been able to achieve relatively good agricultural development performance following structural adjustment. Although these countries have not been able to sustain agricultural growth rates as high as China’s over a longer period of time, sub-Saharan African countries have largely maintained agricultural growth rates of between 3.5 and 4% over the last decade or so, a rate that is actually quite similar to China’s conventional agricultural growth rate. The difference is that the population growth rates in these countries are higher, in some cases reaching 3%. This is why the net agricultural growth rate is comparatively low, which partly explains the failure of agricultural growth to effectively alleviate poverty in these countries.26

After 1986, China’s agriculture moved from supernormal growth to regular growth, and the growth of farmers’ incomes began to slow down. The role of the poverty reduction mechanism created by the extraordinary growth in farmers’ incomes, which in itself was driven by the extraordinary growth in agriculture, began to decline. After 1986, China’s economic and social development took a new turn. The surplus capital from agriculture, driven by the rapid development of agriculture in the previous period, was rapidly transferred to township and village enterprises (TVEs) which were once mainly in the form of commune and brigade enterprises (CBEs).1 The rural industry then swiftly absorbed the surplus and raw materials, as well as the labour force from agriculture, which constituted a new driving force for China’s poverty reduction. After 1986, peasant non-farm incomes increased year by year, and after the late 1980s, a bottleneck in the development of TVEs emerged and their contribution to peasant incomes began to suffer. On this basis, China began to attract foreign investment on a large scale and created a number of labor-intensive industrialization bases mainly in developed and coastal areas, which induced the large-scale cross-regional flow of Chinese rural labor force. From the late 1990s to the beginning of the century, there were approximately 121 million migrant workers in China each year, and as of 2012, Chinese farmers’ income reached 3,447.46 RMB, accounting for 43.5% of farmers’ per capita net income of 6,977.4 RMB. Driven by industrialisation, the pace of urbanisation in China has also gradually accelerated. China’s urbanisation grew from 17.9% in 1978 to 60.6% in 2019, with nearly 300 million of China’s rural population permanently leaving the countryside. Industrialisation and urbanisation have two effects on poverty reduction, the first being that industry is a highly rewarding sector and cities are spaces of high welfare. The movement of the rural population into industry and cities means an increase in income and welfare, and thus industrialisation and urbanisation have a direct poverty-reducing effect. Without industrialisation and urbanisation, poverty reduction in China is likely to have remained at the level of poverty reduction brought about by the supernormal growth of agriculture, and is unlikely to have produced the massive poverty reduction achieved so far. The second aspect is that the significant decline in the rural population has also meant a relative increase in the labour productivity of those who remained in the countryside and continue to work in agriculture. The TVEs and rural industrialisation have organically linked China’s agricultural development to industrialisation and urbanisation, giving China’s development model a very clear endogenous development character. That is, the growth of the Chinese economy has always been centered around the basic structure of the Chinese economy, while at the same time the mechanisms of poverty reduction in China have been organically aligned with its economic structure and the social transformation of the Chinese economy. The process from agricultural development to urbanisation has always been closely linked to an increase in income and improvement of welfare for farmers, which constitutes a pattern of pro-poor economic growth in China. There is much research by scholars, both domestic and foreign, on the contribution of agricultural development, industrialisation and urbanisation to poverty reduction in China. The main conclusions are relatively consistent, with some pointing out that the driving factors behind China’s massive poverty reduction in the 40 years of reform and opening up were multiple, but the most important was the result of the combined thrust of high economic growth and poverty alleviation and development, which not only made an outstanding contribution to the global anti-poverty cause, but also provided lessons for other countries to learn from;27 there are also arguments that during the 1980s and 1990s, there was skepticism about the sustainability of China’s economic growth and poverty reduction, and the role of economic growth indeed begun to decline in the twenty-first century. However, with the promotion of an inclusive social security system, China’s development has gradually developed into an inclusive development model, from a relatively pro-poor model in the past. This development experience started to be taken seriously in the international arena, and a large number of developing countries have begun to learn from China’s development and poverty reduction experience;28 There is also a lot of discussion and advocacy surrounding the “Chinese model”, with some studies arguing that for many Third World developing countries, the adoption of the Western model has not resulted in socio-economic development and stable functioning of democracy, and that the significance of the Chinese model lies in whether it can be an alternative model to other modernisation models.29 There is also a view in the international academic arena that the uniqueness of China’s development path has become a source of ideas and new development aid that is different from other existing experiences in the post-colonial period.30

The pro-poor mechanisms of China’s economic and social transformation in different periods are very important references for poverty reduction in developing countries. Any developing country wishing to achieve sustainable poverty reduction needs to establish linkages conducive to poverty reduction in all the different stages of economic and social transformation, so that there is no decoupling of economic development from poverty reduction. Sub-Saharan Africa has maintained relatively high economic growth rates over the past decade or so, with GDP growth at 5.575% in 2010 and an average GDP growth of 3.32% from 2010 to 2018, despite falling back to a decade low of 1.6% in 2016 due to the global economic downturn.31 However, the rate of decline in the incidence of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa over the same period has not been satisfactory. An important problem with economic development and poverty reduction in these countries is that there is a decoupling between the structure of economic growth and poverty reduction.32 For example, in many African countries, the fastest growing sectors over the last decade or so have been transport, communications and mining, which are largely concentrated in technology intensive and capital intensive industries. At the heart of the disconnect between economic growth and poverty reduction is the failure to root economic growth in the underlying socio-economic characteristics of these countries, not only from the perspective of economic growth, but also from the perspective of agricultural development. Agricultural growth in most sub-Saharan African countries over the last decade or so has been driven by an expansion in acreage rather than an increase in yields per unit of land area, meaning that agricultural growth has not been based on productivity growth. Having experienced a golden period of agricultural development following structural adjustment in many African countries, the last decade has seen a rush to place agricultural development high on the national development and poverty reduction agenda. However, in many countries, agricultural development has not been complemented by industrialisation, and therefore its performance in reducing poverty has not been further enhanced or sustainable. Paul Collier’s research on African development argues that while agriculture is important for development and poverty reduction in Africa, without the pull of urbanisation, it will be very difficult to achieve economic and social transformation and poverty reduction in Africa.33 Over the past decade or so, countries in Southeast Asia have been undergoing rapid socio-economic transformation and these countries have also achieved varying degrees of poverty reduction. Based on the international poverty line of US$1.25 per person per day, the incidence of poverty in ASEAN countries plummeted from 47% to 14% between 1990 and 2015.34 At the same time, however, it needs to be seen that economic growth and social transformation in Southeast Asian countries has been driven mainly by external investment rather than benefiting from the surplus of their own agricultural development. From the perspective of capital supply, the performance of the socio-economic transformation and poverty reduction that is unfolding in South-East Asia is highly volatile.

III. Addressing inequality-based poverty reduction practices
Numerous studies by development agencies, including the World Bank, and development economists Fosu and Ravallion have shown that persistently widening inequality affects the translation of economic growth into poverty reduction and, in turn, has the effect of eroding poverty reduction gains.35 Ravallion et al. found that while economic development helped to alleviate poverty, the widening gap between rich and poor had the most significant effect on worsening poverty.36 Many Chinese scholars have pointed out that the widening income gap between urban and rural areas and within rural areas in China has reduced the access of the poor to income opportunities and their share of benefits, which is not conducive to the alleviation of rural poverty.37 China has likewise experienced a rise in inequality during its rapid economic growth and social transformation over the past four decades. China’s Gini coefficient rose from 0.288% in 1981 to 0.465% in 2016, making China one of the countries with the largest differences in income distribution in the world. As inequality continues to rise, the pro-poor character of economic development will gradually diminish.

In fact, in the mid-1980s the Chinese government had begun to recognise the multifaceted impact of economic growth on income distribution and regional development. As China’s strategy for economic development since its reform and opening up has been to encourage some people and some regions to get richer first, it is tantamount to saying that the government’s development-oriented policies themselves support the widening of disparities. Therefore, in order to address the issue of inequality, in 1986, the Chinese government formally established a leading agency for rural poverty alleviation at both the central level and at the local level. At the same time, special funds for poverty alleviation were set aside at the central financial level to designate poverty-stricken areas, thus beginning a targeted and planned rural poverty alleviation and development strategy. China’s rural poverty alleviation and development strategy is first and foremost a poverty reduction policy with the aim of complementing and correcting the shortcomings of the development policies of regional and group priorities. For example, with the support of the reform and opening-up policy, the coastal and developed regions have taken advantage of the reform and opening-up policy on a priority basis, and these regions have developed rapidly. At the same time, many marginal and backward regions, which do not have the comparative advantage of regional economic development, have seen the gap between them grow wider. China’s Rural Poverty Reduction and Development Programme targeted these backward regions through the designation of poverty-stricken counties, while providing corresponding support policies. At the end of the last century, both international and Chinese experts conducted systematic studies on the performance of China’s rural poverty alleviation and development. In 1990, the World Bank collaborated with the Chinese government to produce the study “China: Strategies for reducing poverty in the 1990s”, and in 2001, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme launched the study “China: Overcoming Rural Poverty”, following a comprehensive and systematic study of China’s poverty reduction efforts. These reports concluded that “China is widely recognized for its achievements in reducing absolute poverty since the adoption of a broad program of rural economic reforms beginning in 1978.” And that China’s “scale and funding of its poverty reduction program, and the sustained dramatic reduction of absolute poverty over the last twenty years of reform, are exemplary by any standards.”38 Domestic scholars argue that since the implementation of planned rural poverty alleviation and development, economic development in poor areas has increased significantly and the incomes of farmers in poor areas have continued to rise.39

Since the turn of the century, China’s economic and social structure has started to undergo a major transformation. This is mainly reflected in the increasing rate of urbanisation, the widening of inequality year by year, and the weakening of the pro-poor character of the economic structure year by year. Under these conditions, China’s urban-rural relationship is also beginning to change, and elements of supporting agriculture are beginning to appear in China’s development policies. The complete abolition of agricultural taxes in 2006 marked the beginning of a change from the days when agriculture was a raw material and capital provider for industrialisation. The implementation of rural low income insurance in 2004 and the gradual realisation of basic rural cooperative medical care coverage for all rural residents by 2010 marked the beginning of a shift in China’s poverty reduction policy from one that was primarily focused on economic development to one that requires a dual mechanism for poverty reduction, which is still centred on economic development and at the same time requires the introduction of a distribution mechanism for safeguards. China’s lack of social protection has been the focus of academic and social criticism and concern.. However, in terms of the effectiveness of poverty reduction, only when the marginal benefit of the developmental poverty reduction is diminishing, can the guaranteed social security poverty reduction mechanism really play an effective role. This is both an important mechanism in China’s response to how to advance poverty reduction in the face of growing inequality, and an integral part of the sustainability of poverty reduction in China. The combination of developmental and guaranteed social security poverty reduction based on economic growth is the most prominent feature of China’s poverty reduction mechanism. Ensuring that those who cannot benefit from economic competition do so through guaranteed social security poverty alleviation, while supporting those who can afford it to escape poverty through targeting mechanisms to compete in the market, is fundamental to China’s poverty reduction achievements.

The greatest obstacle to poverty eradication in a context of increasing inequality is the entrenchment of interest groups and a weakening of the pro-poor character of the economic structure itself, which results in economic growth and social structures that are exclusionary to the poor. Since 2014, the Chinese government has upgraded precise poverty alleviation to a poverty eradication campaign. The meaning of the war on poverty is that through the political authority of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to lead society and through the strengthening of government leadership, resources are pooled through extraordinary administrative initiatives, concentrating human, material and financial resources on the poorest areas and neediest groups. The Chinese government has invested an unprecedented RMB 1.6 trillion in the fight against poverty over the past eight years. Measured against the new poverty line set by the Chinese government in 2011, the incidence of poverty in China has fallen from 10.2% in 2012 to 0.6% in 2019.42

IV. Conclusion and Discussion
Poverty reduction in China was a major event in the history of global development in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. How China’s experience of poverty reduction is presented objectively and historically is important not only for how the process itself is understood, but also for development for other developing countries.

Firstly, China’s poverty reduction is the result of a specific historical process of political, economic and social change in the country. The infrastructure that China created through massive labour inputs prior to 1978 played a huge role in the subsequent development of agriculture. And the infrastructure inputs were achieved at an extremely low cost, unlike the debt burden created by many African countries’ reliance on aid money for infrastructure development. That is why Chinese officials tend to emphasise self-reliance when presenting China’s development experience. The equitable social distribution pattern that existed in China before the reform and opening up was in fact an important basis for the rapid economic growth and massive poverty reduction that was possible after China’s reform and opening up.

Second, the foundation for large-scale poverty reduction in China is long-term economic growth, which itself needs to bring about meaningful social transformation. And this process needs to have mechanisms that are conducive to the gains of the poor. Since both large-scale poverty reduction and the eradication of absolute poverty take a long time, poverty reduction mechanisms need to have pro-poor continuity in terms of the mechanisms of economic growth.

Finally, in a context of increasing inequality, the eventual eradication of absolute poverty requires strong political commitment and a strong governmental role. China’s poverty reduction practices since the turn of the century, particularly since 2012, have highlighted the role of the Communist Party and the government. In conditions of increasing inequality and decreasing social mobility, poverty is easily structuralised, and the poverty trap cannot be broken through a general governmental role alone. The experiences of Europe and the United States are the two more prominent extremes in this regard. Europe, with its long tradition of socialism and the repeated rule of socialist parties, has seen the evolution of capitalism in which many pro-poor policies have gradually become law, thanks to the alternating rule of the pro-labour or democratic socialist parties and the widespread influence of socialist thinking, as well as the impetus of the workers’ movement, resulting in a welfare-based system. The US, in contrast, has struggled to make breakthroughs in policy areas with general poverty reduction implications, with its emphasis on individuals working to improve their livelihoods in the market and securing their own welfare primarily through personal income in market mechanisms, such as investing personal income in commercial mechanisms for education, healthcare and pension insurance to ensure the maintenance or improvement of their future welfare. Although the US government has poverty alleviation programmes, particularly social charity assistance, in general, poverty governance in the US does not rely on income transfers.40 The main reason why China was able to finally eradicate absolute rural poverty was because the Communist Party of China relied on its political advantage of unifying society and strongly integrated its political commitment to poverty reduction across all sectors of government and society, breaking the constraints of interest groups and administrative bureaucracy and achieving a redistribution of wealth and opportunities.7

References at link

https://socialistchina.org/2024/01/19/p ... d-poverty/

*******

Image

Wang Yi calls for intensifying China-Russia strategic coordination
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi exchanged new year greetings with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov in a January 10 phone call.

Wang Yi said that, as two responsible major countries, China and Russia should strengthen strategic communication, build more strategic consensuses and carry out more strategic cooperation on the future of humanity and the world.

In the past year, under the strategic guidance of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era has been running on high gear, he said, adding that through high-quality strategic coordination, the two sides have not only well managed the affairs of their respective countries, but also played mainstay roles in the international arena and maintained global strategic stability.

Noting that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Russia and the commencement of the China-Russia Years of Culture, Wang said the two sides should, in accordance with the consensus reached by the two heads of state, hold celebration activities, intensify high-level exchanges, promote the in-depth development of bilateral practical cooperation, advance people-to-people exchanges in various fields, and further consolidate the public support and social foundation for bilateral relations.

The People’s Republic of China was founded on October 1, 1949. The next day, the Soviet Union became the first country to recognise the new China and establish diplomatic relations with it.

Wang added that China firmly believes that Russia will be able to successfully complete its important domestic political agenda, and maintain national stability and development. Russia is scheduled to hold its presidential election, March 15-17, in which President Putin is widely expected to be re-elected.

Lavrov said that Russia is willing to work with China to promote BRICS cooperation to achieve greater results, and strengthen communication and coordination on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to safeguard peace and stability in the Middle East. Wang responded that both China and Russia should continue to beef up communication and coordination, and urge for an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, ensure smooth delivery of humanitarian relief, and make joint efforts for restarting the two-state solution.

The following article was originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.
BEIJING, Jan. 10 (Xinhua) — As two responsible major countries, China and Russia should strengthen strategic communication, build more strategic consensuses and carry out more strategic cooperation on the future of mankind and the world, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said here on Wednesday.

Wang made the remarks in a phone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during which they exchanged New Year greetings.

In the past year, under the strategic guidance of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era has been running on high gear, said Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee.

Through high-quality strategic coordination, the two sides have not only well managed the affairs of their respective countries, but also played mainstay roles in the international arena and maintained global strategic stability, Wang said.

Noting that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Russia and the commencement of the China-Russia Years of Culture, Wang said the two sides should, in accordance with the consensus reached by the two heads of state, hold celebration activities, intensify high-level exchanges, promote the in-depth development of bilateral practical cooperation, advance people-to-people exchanges in various fields, and further consolidate the public support and social foundation for bilateral relations.

China firmly believes that Russia will be able to successfully complete its important domestic political agenda, and maintain national stability and development, Wang said.

At the recent Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs, President Xi comprehensively reviewed China’s major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics in the new era, made strategic plans for the next steps, particularly elucidating the profound connotations of the scientific system of building a community with a shared future for mankind, and advocated an equal and orderly multipolar world, as well as an inclusive economic globalization that benefits all, which conforms to the trend of development and progress of the times and resonates with the common aspirations of most countries, Wang said.

Noting that Russia-China relations have yielded fruitful results in 2023, Lavrov said that in the new year, Russia stands ready to work with China to maintain high-level exchanges, strengthen bilateral cooperation in such areas as economy, trade, and investment, deepen people-to-people exchanges in the fields of sports and culture, hold successful China-Russia Year of Culture, advance communication and coordination in international affairs, and join hands to push for new achievements in bilateral relations.

Russia firmly adheres to the one-China principle, he added.

The two sides also exchanged views on BRICS cooperation and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Lavrov said Russia is willing to work with China to promote BRICS cooperation to achieve greater results, and strengthen communication and coordination on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to safeguard peace and stability in the Middle East.

Wang said China fully supports Russia, which assumes BRICS chairmanship this year, in hosting a successful BRICS summit, and stands ready to make joint efforts with Russia to enhance the international influence of BRICS and lift BRICS cooperation to a new level.

Both China and Russia should continue to beef up communication and coordination, and urge for an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, ensure smooth delivery of humanitarian relief, and make joint efforts for restarting the two-state solution.

They also discussed other international and regional issues of common concern.

https://socialistchina.us6.list-manage. ... e26e88604a

Image

Understanding the elections in Taiwan
In the following article, which originally appeared in the Morning Star, Kenny Coyle analyses the results of the elections held in Taiwan on January 13.

He notes that the return to office of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which leans heavily towards separatism from China, has been warmly welcomed in Washington, London and Brussels, adding that it will “provide further combustible material to already tense cross-Taiwan Strait relations, with Washington eager to exploit Taiwan as a forward base for potential military conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).”

A closer look at the polling results, Kenny continues, reveals a more complex picture than that presented by western media headlines. The DPP’s candidate Lai Ching-te secured the presidency with 40% of the vote, against 33.49% for the Kuomintang (KMT) and 26.46% for the new Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).

“Lai’s 40 per cent figure represents a massive drop from the tallies achieved by his predecessor Tsai Ing-wen, who won 57 per cent of the vote in 2020 and 56 per cent in the 2016 presidential contests. The DPP also suffered serious reversals in the legislative elections, where it polled only 36 per cent in party vote share and came second to the KMT in seats, losing its majority in the legislature.”

Noting that hopes for a single KMT-TPP presidential candidate had collapsed – following initial agreement – last November, Kenny writes that: “If the two opposition parties had set aside their differences, Western media headlines would have read very differently on Sunday morning.”
Presidential elections in Taiwan have returned the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate Lai Ching-te with 40 per cent of the vote, beating his main rival Hou You-yi of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) on 33.49 per cent, and Ko Wen-je of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) supported by 26.46 per cent of voters.

Lai, who is the incumbent vice-president, led the DPP to its third consecutive term in office, the first three-time tenure since direct presidential elections began in Taiwan in 1996.

In a victory speech, president-elect Lai said Taiwan had shown the world that “between democracy and authoritarianism, we will stand on the side of democracy.”

The result has been warmly welcomed in Washington, London and Brussels which has strongly backed the separatist DPP. It will provide further combustible material to already tense cross-Taiwan Strait relations, with Washington eager to exploit Taiwan as a forward base for potential military conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The PRC argues that Taiwan and the territories it occupies are part of China, as does Taipei’s own Republic of China-derived constitution, and that as the internationally recognised state power of China, any external interference or unilateral declaration of independence is a breach of Chinese sovereignty.

The immediate response from the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council in Beijing was terse: “Whatever changes take place in Taiwan, the basic fact that there is only one China in the world and Taiwan is part of China will not change; the Chinese government’s position of upholding the one-China principle and opposing ‘Taiwan independence’ separatism, ‘two Chinas’ and ‘one China, one Taiwan’ will not change.”

Western media coverage of the election has naturally focused on the relations across the Taiwan Strait and ignored the social and economic issues that motivate voters anywhere. On a trip I made to Taiwan last year, it was striking to see the disconnect between the calmness of everyday life and the Western depictions of an island under permanent siege.

The Establishment media in Britain and the US has predictably greeted Lai’s win as a victory for democracy and an act of plucky defiance to Beijing by Taiwanese voters:

“In a Setback for Beijing, Taiwan Elects Lai Ching-te as President” — New York Times; “Taiwan elects William Lai president in historic election, angering China” — BBC.com; “Taiwan voters dismiss China warnings and hand ruling party a historic third consecutive presidential win” — CNN.com; “Taiwan’s ruling party secures presidency as voters defy China — Financial Times.

However, a closer look at the polling results reveals a more complex picture.

Lai’s 40 per cent figure represents a massive drop from the tallies achieved by his predecessor Tsai Ing-wen, who won 57 per cent of the vote in 2020 and 56 per cent in the 2016 presidential contests. The DPP also suffered serious reversals in the legislative elections, where it polled only 36 per cent in party vote share and came second to the KMT in seats, losing its majority in the legislature.

However, the KMT did not benefit from the DPP’s losses in the presidential poll and support seems stuck at around a third of Taiwanese voters — it took 31 per cent in 2020 and 38 per cent in 2016. The KMT last held the presidency when Ma Ying-jeou won re-election in 2012 with 51.6 per cent in a straight fight with the DPP.

To put it in raw figures, Lai received 5,586,019 votes, the KMT 4,671,021 and the TPP 3,690,466 votes, a combined opposition figure of well over eight million. This is not quite the ringing endorsement for an anti-Beijing stance that Western media would have us believe but rather reflects the vagaries of a first-past-the-post rather than first-round, second-round systems favoured by other presidential systems, such as France.

In the legislative elections, though, seats are allocated in three categories; 73 through district constituencies, 34 by party vote share and six are allocated to the aboriginal Taiwanese communities.

The KMT and DPP tied for seats in both the district (36 each) and party list (13 each) but the KMT took three to the DPP’s two in the aboriginal sector. The TPP won just eight seats in the party vote segment, despite winning 22 per cent of the votes overall. Minor parties took the remaining two seats in the district and aboriginal sectors.

The most significant factor has been the emergence of a potentially powerful third force in the shape of the TPP. Since the 1990s post-dictatorship Taiwanese politics have generally been characterised by the fluctuating fortunes of the Blue (rhetorically one-China) camp, dominated by the KMT, and the Greens (essentially separatist) led by the DPP.

The TPP has painted itself as the turquoise party, neither fully blue nor fully green. It seeks to build a base among the many Taiwanese who favour cross-strait detente but are alienated from the KMT, with its historical baggage, but also from the DPP, due in part to its self-harming policy of confrontation with Beijing but also its economic performance.

Presidential candidate and TPP founder Ko was seen as an ally of President Tsai but gradually moved away from the DPP during his time as mayor of Taipei. He was first elected in 2014 as an independent with DPP support but his re-election in 2018 was opposed by the DPP. Ko then founded the TPP in 2019.

While the TPP does not subscribe to the “1992 Consensus” arrived at by the then KMT-led island and the People’s Republic of China, the TPP does promote widening “cultural, economic and political” exchanges. It also criticises the DPP for frequently manipulating “cross-strait issues excessively for election purposes” thereby causing “unnecessary conflicts with China.”

Hopes that a single joint KMT-TPP presidential candidate foundered after acrimonious negotiations last November failed to agree on a common anti-DPP platform. However, in a number of district contests the KMT and TPP did agree to co-operate. If the two opposition parties had set aside their differences, Western media headlines would have read very differently on Sunday morning.

Despite constant claims of Beijing’s interference in Taiwan’s elections, the truth is that the PRC’s influence over Taiwanese politics is considerably less than that of the US.

While the KMT, founded by Sun Yat-sen in 1912, is an openly Chinese nationalist party, acknowledging the fundamental aim of eventually reunifying the island of Taiwan with the rest of China, it does not accept the absorption of the island with the People’s Republic of China under the leadership of its twice-ally, twice-enemy the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Indeed, had China possessed any real influence over the KMT, or the TPP for that matter, there would have been a single candidate, not a split opposition.

However, this embedded propaganda point about Chinese electoral manipulation could become explosive if, as is entirely plausible, the DPP were to lose a future electoral contest, with domestic and external forces refusing to recognise the result. This is a tried and trusted State Department strategy used from Latin America to Eastern Europe. The effects in Taiwan would be catastrophic.

What of Washington’s influence on the island?

The DPP’s Japanese-born vice-president-elect elect Hsiao Bi-khim is a former US citizen, through her mother. She was educated at Oberlin College and Columbia University, only renouncing her US citizenship in 2002 when she began her political career with the DPP in Taiwan. She has held positions in key bodies such as the island’s National Security Council and as representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the US, in 2020.

Hsiao even described herself as Taiwan’s “ambassador” to the US on her X (then Twitter) account, although formally the US does not recognise the island as a state, far less one with ambassadorial credentials.

Nonetheless, Hsiao attended the presidential inauguration of Joe Biden in 2020, the first time that a Taiwanese representative had been officially invited since the US ended diplomatic relations with the “Republic of China” (Taiwan) in 1979 and recognised the People’s Republic of China instead.

This was a calculated move signalling the Biden administration’s determination to further weaken the US’s stated One China policy. Nonetheless, we are incessantly told that it is Beijing that seeks to upset the status quo.

It’s certain that Hsiao will become the main Anglophone voice in the Lai administration, pushing for deepening Taipei’s military and security ties with Washington, what is unclear is to what extent the DPP’s loss of control over the legislature will dilute the separatists’ agenda.

https://socialistchina.org/2024/01/16/u ... in-taiwan/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply