Category: China

  • The strides being made by China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in advancing the capabilities of its ground combat force are illustrated by developments in robotic combat vehicles and a new 155mm self-propelled howitzer (SPH) currently undergoing testing. This modernised, next-generation 155mm tracked SPH is destined to enter service in China’s army. Its nomenclature is as […]

    The post China’s capabilities advance with SPH and UGV developments appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • On 22 July, Tehran hosted a high-level trilateral summit with senior officials from Russia and China to coordinate nuclear and sanctions strategies ahead of Iran’s scheduled negotiations with the European Troika in Istanbul today.

    All three delegations reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining close coordination on the nuclear file and pledged to expand consultations aimed at countering western policies, particularly US-led sanctions.

    The trilateral meeting followed a sharp escalation in nuclear tensions. Just last month, the US and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, prompting Tehran to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    The post Iran Confronts Europe’s Trigger Mechanism With Eurasian Allies appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In a wide-ranging interview with Global Times, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez describes China’s Five-Year Plans (FYPs) as democratic, people-centred, and grounded in material reality. He emphasises that China’s success in planning stems from its ability to align governance with popular needs and long-term strategy. “China is known globally for its effective governance and for its record of keeping its promises”, he notes, citing the 13th FYP’s targeted poverty alleviation campaign as a key example of practical planning based on extensive grassroots research.

    Carlos stresses that these plans are not top-down decrees but involve widespread consultation, making them highly democratic and responsive to the needs of the people.

    The post China’s Five-Year Plans Democratic, People-Centred And Grounded In Material Reality appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • China has said on Saturday that it wants to create an organisation to foster global cooperation on artificial intelligence, positioning itself as an alternative to the US as the two nations vie for influence over the transformative technology. China wants to help coordinate global efforts to regulate fast-evolving AI technology and share the country’s advances,…

    The post China proposes new global AI cooperation organisation appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • The invitation extended to Black Agenda Report to participate in the 2025 Belt and Road Journalists Forum , held in the cities of Nanchang, Jingdezhen, and Ganzhou in Jiangxi province China, was a testament to our 19 year history of providing “news, commentary, and analysis from a Black left perspective.“ Our work is appreciated nationally and internationally, and this columnist attended the Forum along with 100 media representatives from around the world. The Forum is a venue for journalists from Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) nations, but Black Agenda Report was also included, the only outlet participating from the United States.

    The post At The Belt And Road Journalism Forum In China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Today, more and more US government officials, especially those in Donald Trump’s two administrations, have invoked the 200-year-old colonial Monroe Doctrine to claim that Latin America is supposedly Washington’s “backyard”, that the US empire should control it, and that China and Russia cannot have relations with the countries in the region.

    Given that the US government constantly violates the sovereignty of countries in Latin America, it makes perfect sense that several governments in the region have deepened their partnership with China and Russia, because they see that Beijing and Moscow actually respect their independence and have helped them to economically develop, while Washington has only sought to exploit them.

    The post The Struggle Against US Imperialism, Nicaragua Is A Model Of Sovereignty appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • With the Trump imperium passing the half-year mark, the posture of the US empire is ever clearer. Whether animated by “America First” or globalism, the objective remains “full spectrum dominance.” And now with the neocon capture of the Democrats, there are no guardrails from the so-called opposition party.

    Call it the “new cold war,” the “beginning of World War III,” or – in Trump’s words – “endless war,” this is the era that the world has entered. The US/Zionist war against Iran has paused, but no one has any illusions that it is over. And it won’t likely be resolved until one side decisively and totally prevails. Ditto for the proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Likely the same with Palestine, where the barbarity of war worsened to genocide. Meanwhile, since Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” the empire is building up for war with China.

    In Latin America and the Caribbean, the empire’s war on the world assumes a hybrid form. The carnage is less apparent because the weapons take the form of “soft power” – sanctions, tariffs, and deportations. These can have the same lethal consequences as bombs, only less overt.

    Making the world unsafe for socialism

    Some Western leftists vilify the defensive measures that Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua must take to protect themselves from the empire’s regime-change schemes. In contrast, Washington clearly understands that these countries pose “threats of a good example” to the empire. Each subsequent US president, from Obama on, has certified them as “extraordinary threats to US national security.” Accordingly, they are targeted with the harshest coercive measures.

    In this war of attrition, historian Isaac Saney uses the example of Cuba to show how any misstep by the revolutionary government or societal deficiency is exaggerated and weaponized. The empire’s siege, he explains, is not merely an attempt to destabilize the economy but is a deliberate strategy of suffocation. The empire aims to instigate internal discontent, distort people’s perception of the government, and ultimately erode social gains.

    While Cuba is affected the worst by the hybrid war, both Venezuela and Nicaragua have also been damaged. All three countries have seen the “humanitarian parole” for their migrants in the US come to an end. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was also withdrawn for Venezuelans and Nicaraguans. The strain of returning migrants, along with cuts in the remittances they had sent (amounting to a quarter of Nicaragua’s GDP), further impacts their respective economies.

    Higher-than-average tariffs are threatened on Venezuelan and Nicaraguan exports to the US, together with severe restrictions on Caracas’s oil exports. Meanwhile, the screws have been tightened on the six-decade US blockade of Cuba with disastrous humanitarian consequences.

    However, all three countries are fighting back. They are forming new trade alliances with China and elsewhere. Providing relief to Cuba, Mexico has supplied oil, and China is installing solar panel farms to address the now-daily power outages. High levels of food security in Venezuela and Nicaragua have strengthened their ability to resist US sanctions, while Caracas successfully defeated one of Washington’s harshest migration measures by securing the release of 252 of its citizens who had been incarcerated in El Salvador’s torturous CECOT prison.

    Venezuela’s US-backed far-right opposition is in disarray. The first Trump administration had recognized the “interim presidency” of Juan Guaidó, followed by the Biden administration declaring Edmundo González the winner of Venezuela’s last presidential election. But the current Trump administration has yet to back González, de facto recognizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Nicaragua’s right-wing opposition is also reeling from a side-effect of Trump’s harsh treatment of migrants – many are returning voluntarily to a country claimed by the opposition to be “unsafe,” while US Homeland Security has even extolled their home country’s recent achievements. And some of Trump’s prominent Cuban-American supporters are now questioning his “maximum pressure” campaign for going too far.

    Troubled waters for the Pink Tide

    The current progressive wave, the so-called Pink Tide, was initiated by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s landslide victory in 2018. His MORENA Party successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, won by an even greater margin in 2024. Mexico’s first woman president has proven to be perhaps the world’s most dignified and capable sparring partner with the buffoon in the White House, who has threatened tariffs, deportations, military interdictions, and more on his southern neighbor.

    Left-leaning presidents Gabriel Boric in Chile and Gustavo Petro in Colombia are limited to a single term. Both have faced opposition-aligned legislatures and deep-rooted reactionary power blocs. Chilean Communist Party candidate Jeanette Jara is favored to advance to the second-round presidential election in November 2025, but will face a challenging final round if the right unifies, as is likely, around an extremist candidate.

    As the first non-rightist in Colombia’s history, Petro has had a tumultuous presidential tenure. He credibly accuses his former foreign minister of colluding with the US to overthrow him. However, the presidency could well revert to the right in the May 2026 elections.

    Boric, Petro, Uruguay’s Yamandú Orsi, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met in July as the region’s center-left presidents, with an agenda of dealing with Trump, promoting multilateralism, and (we can assume) keeping their distance from the region’s more left-wing governments.

    With shaky popularity ratings, Lula will likely run for reelection in October 2026. As head of the region’s largest economy, Lula plays a world leadership role, chairing three global summits in a year. Yet, with less than a majority legislative backing, Lula has triangulated between Washington and the Global South, often capitulating to US interests (as in his veto of BRICS membership for Nicaragua and Venezuela). Regardless, Trump is threatening Brazil with a crippling 50% export tariff and is blatantly interfering in the trial of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, accused of insurrection. So far, Trump’s actions have backfired, arousing anger among Brazilians. Lula commented that Trump was “not elected to be emperor of the world.”

    In 2021, Honduran President Xiomara Castro took over a narcostate subservient to Washington and has tried to push the envelope to the left. Being constitutionally restricted to one term, Castro hands the Libre party candidacy in November’s election to former defense minister Rixi Moncada, who faces a tough contest with persistent US interference.

    Bolivia’s ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) Party is embroiled in a self-destructive internal conflict between former President Evo Morales and his former protégé and current President, Luis Arce. The energized Bolivian right wing is spoiling for the August 17th presidential election.

    Israeli infiltration accompanies US military penetration

    Analyst Joe Emersberger notes: “Today, all geopolitics relates back to Gaza where the imperial order has been unmasked like never before.” Defying Washington, the Hague Group met in Colombia for an emergency summit on Gaza to “take collective action grounded in international law.” On July 16, regional states – Bolivia, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – endorsed the pledge to take measures in support of Palestine, with others likely to follow. Brazil will join South Africa’s ICJ complaint against Israel.

    At the other end of the political spectrum are self-described “world’s coolest dictator” Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and confederates Javier Milei of Argentina and Daniel Noboa of Ecuador. As well as cozying up to Trump, they devotedly support Israel, which has been instrumental in enabling the most brutal reactionaries in the region. Noboa duly tells Israel’s Netanyahu that they “share the same enemies.”

    In February, the US Southern Command warned: “Time is not on our side.” The perceived danger is “methodical incursion” into our “neighborhood” by both Russia and China. Indeed, China has become the region’s second-largest trading partner after the US, and even right-wing governments are reluctant to jeopardize their relations with Beijing. The empire’s solution is to “redouble our efforts to nest military engagement,” using humanitarian assistance as “an essential soft power tool.”

    Picking up where Biden left off, Trump has furthered US military penetration, notably in Ecuador, Guyana, Brazil, Panama, and Argentina. The pandemic of narcotics trafficking, itself a product of US-induced demand, has been a Trojan Horse for militarist US intervention in Haiti, Ecuador, Peru, and threatened in Mexico.

    In Panama, President José Mulino’s obeisance to Trump’s ambitions to control the Panama Canal and reduce China’s influence provoked massive protests. Trump’s collaboration in the genocide of Palestinians motivated Petro to declare that Colombia must leave the NATO alliance and keep its distance from “militaries that drop bombs on children.” Colombia had been collaborating with NATO since 2013 and became the only Latin American global partner in 2017.

    Despite Trump’s bluster – what the Financial Times calls “imperial incontinence” – his administration has produced mixed results. While rightist political movements have basked in Trump’s fitful praise, his escalating coercion provokes resentment against Yankee influence. Resistance is growing, with new alliances bypassing Washington. As the empire’s grip tightens, so too does the resolve of those determined to break free from it.

    The post Trump’s Latin American Policies Go South first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A conversation with Jeffrey Wasserstrom.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • China has started to build a massive dam on Tibet’s longest river, a move approved by the central government in December despite concerns by India, Bangladesh and Tibetan rights groups about its impacts on residents and the environment.

    The structure is expected to cost more than 1 trillion yuan (US$137 billion). Once completed, it would be the world’s largest hydropower dam, generating 300 billion kilowatt-hours of power annually, about three times the power of China’s Three Gorges Dam, Xinhua, a state-run news agency, reported last year. Operations are expected to begin sometime in the 2030s.

    Premier Li Qiang attended a commencement ceremony with other officials in Nyingchi in southeastern Tibet over the weekend.

    Xinhua reported that the electricity generated “will be primarily transmitted to other regions for consumption, while also meeting local power needs in Tibet.”

    (Paul Nelson/RFA)

    The river is known as Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet, Brahmaputra in India, and Jamuna in Bangladesh. It flows through all three areas from its origin in the glaciers of western Tibet.

    Climate activist and researcher Manshi Asher told RFA in December that there is “substantial evidence” of negative impacts from hydropower projects in the Himalayas.

    “This project will undoubtedly alter the environmental flows of the river,” Asher said. “The larger the dam, the greater the impact on the river flows.”

    Neeraj Singh Manhas, a special adviser on South Asia at Parley Policy Initiative in South Korea, said in December that the dam could affect agriculture, hydropower generation and drinking water availability in India.

    “Seasonal changes in water discharge could exacerbate floods or intensify droughts downstream, undermining livelihoods and ecosystems,” Manhas said.

    Over the weekend, the Chinese premier said that special emphasis “must be placed on ecological conservation to prevent environmental damage,” according to Xinhua.

    China has built an estimated 22,000 large dams to help fuel decades of rapid industrialization and economic growth — about 40% of the world’s total.

    Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and Reuters.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Al Jazeera

    International public opinion continues to turn against Israel for its war on Gaza, with more governments slowly beginning to reflect those voices and increase their own condemnation of the country.

    In the last few weeks, Israeli government ministers have been sanctioned by several Western countries, with the United Kingdom, France and Canada issuing a joint statement condemning the “intolerable” level of “human suffering” in Gaza.

    Last week, a number of countries from the Global South — “The Hague Group” — collectively agreed on a number of measures that they say will “restrain Israel’s assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

    Across the world, and in increasing numbers, the public, politicians and, following an Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza, religious leaders are speaking out against Israel’s killings in Gaza.

    So, are world powers getting any closer to putting enough pressure on Israel for it to stop?

    Here is what we know.

    What is the Hague Group?
    According to its website, the Hague Group is a global bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.

    Made up of eight nations; South Africa, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal, the group has set itself the mission of upholding international law, and safeguarding the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, principally “the responsibility of all nations to uphold the inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, that it enshrines for all peoples”.

    Last week, the Hague Group hosted a meeting of about 30 nations, including China, Spain and Qatar, in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Australia and New Zealand failed to attend in spite of invitations.

    Also attending the meeting was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who characterised the meeting as “the most significant political development in the past 20 months”.

    Albanese was recently sanctioned by the United States for her criticism of its ally, Israel.

    At the end of the two-day meeting, 12 of the countries in attendance agreed to six measures to limit Israel’s actions in Gaza. Included in those measures were blocks on supplying arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting weapons and a review of public contracts for any possible links to companies benefiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

    Have any other governments taken action?
    More and more.

    Last Wednesday, Slovenia barred far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from entering its territory after the wider European Union failed to agree on measures to address charges of widespread human rights abuses against Israel.

    Slovenia’s ban on the two government ministers builds upon earlier sanctions imposed upon Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in June by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and Norway over their “incitement to violence”.

    The two men have been among the most vocal Israeli ministers in rejecting any compromise in negotiations with Palestinians, and pushing for the Jewish settlement of Gaza, as well as the increased building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

    In May, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement describing Israel’s escalation of its campaign against Gaza as “wholly disproportionate” and promising “concrete actions” against Israel if it did not halt its offensive.

    Later that month, the UK followed through on its warning, announcing sanctions on a handful of settler organisations and announcing a “pause” in free trade negotiations with Israel.

    Also in May, Turkiye announced that it would block all trade with Israel until the humanitarian situation in Gaza was resolved.

    South Africa first launched a case for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late December 2023, and has since been supported by other countries, including Colombia, Chile, Spain, Ireland, and Turkiye.

    In January of 2024, the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, finding what it termed a “plausible” case for genocide and instructing Israel to undertake emergency measures, including the provision of the aid that its government has effectively blocked since March of this year.

    What other criticism of Israel has there been?
    Israel’s bombing on Thursday of the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, killing three people, drew a rare rebuke from Israel’s most stalwart ally, the United States.

    Following what was reported to be an “angry” phone call from US President Trump after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement expressing its “deep regret” over the attack. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    To date, Israel has killed more than 62,000 people in Gaza, the majority women and children.

    Has the tide turned internationally?
    Mass public protests against Israel’s war on Gaza have continued around the world for the past 21 months.

    And there are clear signs of growing anger over the brutality of the war and the toll it is taking on Palestinians in Gaza.

    In Western Europe, a survey carried out by the polling company YouGov in June found that net favourability towards Israel had reached its lowest ebb since tracking began.

    A similar poll produced by CNN last week found similar results among the American public, with only 23 percent of respondents agreeing Israel’s actions in Gaza were fully justified, down from 50 percent in October 2023.

    Public anger has also found voice at high-profile public events, including music festivals such as Germany’s Fusion Festival, Poland’s Open’er Festival and the UK’s Glastonbury festival, where both artists and their supporters used their platforms to denounce the war on Gaza.

    Has anything changed in Israel?
    Protests against the war remain small but are growing, with organisations, such as Standing Together, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian activists to protest against the war.

    There has also been a growing number of reservists refusing to show up for duty. In April, the Israeli magazine +972 reported that more than 100,000 reservists had refused to show up for duty, with open letters from within the military protesting against the war growing in number since.

    Will it make any difference?
    Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition has been pursuing its war on Gaza despite its domestic and international unpopularity for some time.

    The government’s most recent proposal, that all of Gaza’s population be confined into what it calls a “humanitarian city”, has been likened to a concentration camp and has been taken by many of its critics as evidence that it no longer cares about either international law or global opinion.

    Internationally, despite its recent criticism of Israel for its bombing of Gaza’s one Catholic church, US support for Israel remains resolute. For many in Israel, the continued support of the US, and President Donald Trump in particular, remains the one diplomatic absolute they can rely upon to weather whatever diplomatic storms their actions in Gaza may provoke.

    In addition to that support, which includes diplomatic guarantees through the use of the US veto in the UN Security Council and military support via its extensive arsenal, is the US use of sanctions against Israel’s critics, such as the International Criminal Court, whose members were sanctioned by the US in June over the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on war crimes charges.

    That means, in the short term, Israel ultimately feels protected as long as it has US support. But as it becomes more of an international pariah, economic and diplomatic isolation may become more difficult to handle.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Industrial capitalism was revolutionary in its fight to free Europe’s economies and parliaments from the hereditary privileges and vested interests that survived from feudalism. To make their manufactures competitive in world markets, industrialists needed to end the land rent paid to Europe’s landed aristocracies, the economic rents extracted by trade monopolies, and interest paid to bankers who played no role in financing industry. These rentier incomes add to the economy’s price structure, raising the living wage and other business expenses, thus eating into profits.

    The post How The Global Majority Can Free Itself From US Financial Colonialism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • China is a modern superpower, as is the US, but a qualitatively different superpower. The US uses military aggression, coups, and sanctions to impose US corporate interests worldwide. China is a peaceful power that respects national sovereignty, mutual development, and non-interference.

    Despite opposing imperialism, a tendency in the Western left is to recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese trade relations to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Others have written of Chinese investments in the Occupied West Bank, and even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba – clearly not issues the Western powers have problems with. 

    The post Revolutionary Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • China is a modern superpower, as is the US, but a qualitatively different superpower. The US uses military aggression, coups, and sanctions to impose US corporate interests worldwide. China is a peaceful power that respects national sovereignty, mutual development, and non-interference.

     Despite opposing imperialism, a tendency in the Western left is to recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese trade relations to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Others have written of Chinese investments in the Occupied West Bank, and even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba – clearly not issues the Western powers have problems with. 

     The US empire has at least 750 military bases in 80 countries. China has just one, in Djibouti – part of a UN mission against piracy. The US has continued wars against other countries on a non-stop basis, while China has invaded no country nor started any wars in close to half a century. The US instigated over 25 coups and coup attempts in Latin America just between 2000 and 2020. China has sponsored no coup attempts on any government. The US imposes blockades and “sanctions” warfare on at least 39 nations. China imposes no sanctions on anyone. The US regularly launches drone attacks on the people of other countries. China has launched no drone attacks on anyone. China is no imperial superpower, but a peaceful one. 

    China is the outstanding example of a Third World country developing into a superpower despite the West’s centuries-long efforts to torpedo its progress. China engages in “win-win” economic relations with other nations. Its loans and investment are carried out based on equality, consensus and joint benefit, unlike the predatory behavior of the IMF and Western lending institutions. China is helping other countries of the Global South break out of the underdevelopment that colonialism and imperialism have imposed on their countries for 500 years.

    Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role

     At present, over 150 countries have chosen to participate in China’s economic program called the Belt and Road Initiative. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega explained why:

    The People’s Republic of China has brought progress, benefits, development to peoples who were colonized, and later became independent, but who were then subjugated under the boot of the interests of the powers that had colonized them, leaving those peoples in poverty, with people in misery, people going hungry, people in illiteracy, with infant mortality, in Africa, in Asia. And the People’s Republic of China has been developing a policy bringing benefits to developing countries, without setting any conditions… The powers that have been colonialists and neocolonialists, like the US, like Europe… have not stopped being colonialists. They still are neocolonialists. They have not stopped being criminals. They still are criminals. They still are killers. 

    China’s role in helping other countries to develop has been noted by several anti-imperialist leaders. Fidel Castro rejected the notion that China was an imperial power. “China has objectively become the most promising hope and the best example for all Third World countries. I do not hesitate to say that it is already the main engine of the world economy… The role that China has been playing in the United Nations, including the Security Council, is an important element of balance, progress and safeguard of world peace and stability.” Of the Chinese leader he said, “Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.”

    Present Cuban President Diaz-Canel also had high praise for Xi Jinping.

    Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez likewise said, “one of the greatest events of the 20th century was the Chinese Revolution.” Chavez considered that an alliance with China constituted a bulwark against imperialism — a “Great Wall against American hegemonism… China is large but it’s not an empire. China doesn’t trample on anyone, it hasn’t invaded anyone, it doesn’t go around dropping bombs on anyone.” 

     Bolivian President Arce said: “We have built bridges of trust between the two countries and maintain a very positive bilateral relationship.” Evo Morales, the former president, said Bolivia and China “maintain a relationship characterized by wide-ranging and diverse cooperation and reciprocity.” China “works in a joined-up way with other countries and benefits the peoples of the world; the opposite to what was imposed on us for decades by the US, where predatory, individualistic and competitive capitalism looted our people’s resources for the benefit of transnational corporations.” “China develops, and helps, invests, without any conditions, just to support our development. China is always ready to cooperate unconditionally.”

     Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro declared, “Between China and Venezuela there is a model relationship, a model of what should be the relationship between a superpower like China, the great superpower of the 21st century, and an emerging, heroic, revolutionary and socialist country like Venezuela… China has inaugurated a new era of the emergence of non-colonialist, non-imperialist, non-hegemonic superpowers.”

     Former Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa spoke highly of Chinese aid to the Citizens Revolution. China’s assistance is “an example for Latin America and for the rest of the world.”

     Burkina Faso revolutionary President Ibrahim Traoré said Chinese aid was a “testament to a mutually beneficial partnership.”

     Even President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia recently said at the ASEAN summit, “China has consistently defended the interests of developing countries. They consistently oppose oppression, oppose imperialism, oppose colonialism, oppose apartheid, The People’s Republic of China defends liberation struggles in countries that are still oppressed by imperialism and colonialism.” 

     Recent Western Left anti-China Stories

    Yet, despite the testimonies of these anti-imperialist Third World leaders, some progressives still highlight West’s anti-China narratives, such as in Sri Lanka and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

    Sri Lanka

    The China debt-trap myth arose from Sri Lanka’s port Hambantota, that China lent money to the country to build the port, knowing Sri Lanka could not make it viable. This led Sri Lanka to default on the loans, and Beijing demanded the port as collateral. Chatham House and The Atlantic, both organs of the ruling elite, debunked this. First, the Hambantota Port project was not proposed by China, but by Sri Lanka. Second, Sri Lanka’s debt crisis resulted not from Chinese lending, but from Western loans. Third, there was no debt-for-asset swap. Rather, China leased the port for $1.1 billion, money Sri Lanka then used to pay down debts to the West. Chatham House concludes, “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 in Africa

    Liberia’s former minister of public works, W Gyude Moore noted that under European colonialism “there has never been a continental-scale infrastructure building program for Africa’s railways, roads, ports, water filtration plants and power stations…China has built more infrastructure in Africa in two decades than the West has in centuries.”

     At the most recent Forum on China–Africa Cooperation in 2024, 53 of the 54 African countries chose to attend. China pledged $50 billion over the next three years on top of the $40 billion already invested.

     Dee Knight took up the issue of China’s exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo propagandized in the book Cobalt Red. He drew on Isabelle Minnon’s report, “Industrial Turn-Around in Congo?” She wrote, “China has responded to the DRC’s need to have partners who invest in industrialization.” The West had bled Congo dry through debts that prevented its development. China brought large-scale investment on a new basis, combining financing for industrial mining and public infrastructure – roads, railroads, dams, health and education facilities.

     Minion stated the result: “After decades of almost non-existent industrial production, the country became and remains the world’s leading producer of cobalt and, by 2023, became the world’s third largest producer of copper.” This “puts an end to the monopoly of certain Western countries and their large companies,” which just plundered the Congo. Furthermore, China cancelled $28 million in interest-free loans, and gave $17 million in support to the DRC.

     During the Covid pandemic, China announced that it also forgave 23 interest-free loans for 17 African nations.  This is in addition to China’s cancellation of more than $3.4 billion in debt and restructured $15 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019.

     Chinese investments in Israel

    Chinese trades with Israel, as with all other countries, to establish mutually beneficial economic relations, to counter the US goal of turning countries against China. China’s trade with Israel is qualitatively different from that of the US, Britain, France, Germany and others since China does not export weaponry to Israel used to slaughter Palestinians and peoples in surrounding countries. 

    Some have written of Chinese business involvement in the occupied West Bank. The report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese (which brought US sanctions on her) substantiates one such instance. China’s role contradicts its vote in favor of the 2024 UN General Assembly resolution calling for no trade or investments with Israeli operations in the occupied territories. 

     Yet China worked hard to unite the divided Palestinian resistance with the recent Beijing Declaration. China has continually denounced the US and Israel in Gaza, upholds the Palestinian right to resist occupation, and has never condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas breakout attack. China is also a participant in the present The Hague Group calling for “concrete measures” against Israel.

     China and Cuba

    Some Western leftists have criticized China for lack of support for Cuba, suffering under a now worsening US blockade. However, China is working to build 55 solar installation complexes there this year, covering Cuba’s daytime shortfall, and another 37 by 2028, for a total of 2,000 megawatts. This aid would meet nearly two-thirds of Cuba’s present-day demand. China has long been a partner of Cuba in terms of trade and investment, participating in the Mariel Special Development Zone, and in projects in the production of medicines, biotechnology and agriculture.

     China, A Superpower that Supports Third World Development

    It is a contradiction that many on the Western left are not supportive of China, given that the US rulers have long called China the primacy threat to imperialist domination. 

    Recognizing the US’s continued economic and military power, if not superiority, China seeks to avoid a major destructive direct confrontation. China counters the US and Western isolation strategy by fostering a world based on cooperation with all countries, even with the US and its close allies. It focuses on obtaining essential resources for its industry and for economic self-sufficiency to fortify itself in self-defense against the US strategy to isolate it economically and politically, and on meeting countries’ desire for its cheaper goods and investments. As the Third World leaders above say, most of China’s foreign loans are not capitalist investments, but government funds that have been used to free countries from the grip of imperialism.

     That has made it impossible for the West to isolate China. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, Chinese investments in schools, roads, railroads, and other needed infrastructure are generally seen as a welcome change from the neglect and underdevelopment imposed by the imperial First World.  

     Consequently, every year China becomes more and more a world power in relation to the imperialist countries.

     China’s significance for the world lies in being a singular example of a Third World country developing despite the West’s goal to thwart its rise. This is a model for other Third World countries that seek to assert their independence of the West and make their own path.

     In this process, China, which just 75 years ago, had an illiteracy rate of 80%, has just ended poverty for 800 million people, which no capitalist group of countries ever accomplished. China has achieved the fastest growth in living standards of any country in the world. It achieved this without invading, massacring, colonizing and looting other countries, but peacefully, without threatening any other people, and in cooperation with them.

     As Daniel Ortega said:

    The self-same ideologues of imperialism state that what worries them is that they see the People’s Republic of China bringing benefits to these Peoples and they feel that there they are losing the power to keep these peoples enslaved…They are upset, outraged, because the People’s Republic of China is making available billions in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America. These are investments for the development of our peoples. They see that as bad for themselves, but why can’t they do the same? Why have they never brought investment with the same conditions that the People’s Republic of China is making available?

    The West, with the US at its head, seeks to maintain so-called “Western civilization,” the rule of the white colonizer over the rest of the world. It regards China and Russia as the two major threats to its continued domination and seeks to disable both. China and Russia are drawn into a struggle, where their continued growth, if not existence, is at stake. The more they can neutralize the West’s goal, the more this is a victory for all the oppressed people of the world.

    The post Revolutionary Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • cultivated meat china
    5 Mins Read

    A leader in green energy and electric vehicles, China is spearheading the protein transition too, with more cultivated meat patent applicants than any other nation.

    Could China be winning the alternative protein innovation race?

    Experts suggest that as the world’s largest consumer of meat, it can only decarbonise if half of its protein supply comes from alternative sources by 2060. And the country is responding to that call, mirroring its advances in green energy, mobility, and artificial intelligence.

    New analysis by the Good Food Institute (GFI) APAC has found that of the top 20 all-time patent applicants for cultivated meat, eight are from China. That’s twice as many as the next on the list, Israel (with four applicants), followed by three each from South Korea and the US.

    “Given that China’s earlier commitments to accelerating clean energy technologies are what ushered in a worldwide shift towards electric vehicles and solar power, China’s heavy involvement in the ‘future food’ sector has the potential to single-handedly drive down global production costs and turn niche products into mainstream staples,” Mirte Gosker, managing director of GFI APAC, told Green Queen.

    “China is strategically positioning itself as a locus of technological innovation, government-funded R&D, and policy leadership that can supercharge Asia’s ascendant ‘future foods’ industry,” she added.

    China tops list of cultivated meat patent families

    lab grown meat patents
    Graphic by Green Queen

    While the US leads in total unique patent applications, thanks mostly to Californian firm Upside Foods’s 143 filings, patent families are a better indicator of where technical innovation is most diverse, according to GFI APAC.

    This is because patent families are collections of applications related to the same invention, while unique patents include individual patents filed for the same invention in multiple jurisdictions. So a higher number of patent families indicates progress on a wider range of scientific fronts.

    The number of patent families is significantly greater from Chinese entities than other markets (totalling 160), with cultivated pork maker Joes Future Food leading the way in China with 25 applications. Globally, it is only surpassed by Upside Foods, which has 43 patent family filings.

    While these patents cover a broad variety of technological innovations, they are all related to animal cell cultivation for food. Specific applications include cell line development, cell culture media development, cell scaffolding for creating particular meat products, or enabling technologies to produce cultivated meat more efficiently, GFI APAC said.

    It’s worth noting that China’s applicants include multiple universities, such as Zhejiang University (21 patent families), Jiangnan University (16), and Ocean University of China (12). This suggests “very strong” government interest and an intentionally collaborative approach to build a national cellular agriculture ecosystem.

    The country’s universities have filed more cultivated meat patents than public institutions in the US and Europe combined. In fact, Asia-Pacific is home to more cultivated meat patents than North America and Europe collectively.

    Asked why China is home to such a high number of patents, Gosker contended: “By mastering the art of making delicious and affordable protein directly from animal cells, China can produce a whole lot more of it, while bolstering its self-sufficiency.”

    cultivated meat patents
    Courtesy: GFI APAC

    Public support for alternative protein ramps up in China

    The patent research comes on the back of a big few months for China’s alternative protein ecosystem. At the annual Two Sessions summit, top government officials called for a deeper integration of strategic emerging industries (which included biomanufacturing), and identified “strengthening IP protections for microbial proteins” as a food system priority.

    In an official notice about China’s agricultural priorities before the summit, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) identified the safety and nutritional efficacy of alternative proteins as a key priority, while research in novel food tech to create the next generation of food was also highlighted.

    And a week later, the No. 1 Central Document (which signals China’s top goals for the upcoming year), underscored the importance of “building a diversified food supply system”, including efforts “to cultivate and develop biological agriculture and explore novel food resources.” The following day, a briefing by MARA featured a call to action to “develop new food resources such as plant-based meat”, according to GFI APAC.

    At the start of the year, the country saw its first alternative protein innovation centre open in Beijing, fuelled by an $11M investment from public and private investors to develop cultivated meat and fermentation-derived proteins.

    lab grown meat china
    Courtesy: Fengtai District Media Integration Center

    And in May, the Beijing Municipal Commission of Development and Reform released a 2025-27 joint action plan with the Pinggu District Government, marking the capital’s first district-level special policy to advance the green economy. It’s also the first time China has released a government-issued action plan specifically for alternative proteins.

    Further, the national government’s current five-year agriculture plan encourages research in cultivated meat and recombinant proteins, while the bioeconomy development plan aims to advance novel foods. And President Xi Jinping has called for a Grand Food Vision that includes plant-based and microbial protein sources.

    China has additionally formed a new UN working group with its regulatory counterparts in Singapore, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, which centres on the implementation of global guidelines for food safety assessments of cell culture media for cultivated meat production. These will help streamline regulatory review processes and fast-track the market entry of these proteins.

    “One cannot overstate the significance of Asia’s largest economy putting cultivated meat and other novel ingredients at the centre of its national food strategy,” said Gosker.

    “It remains to be seen whether the country’s political leaders will ultimately pull all of the policy and manufacturing levers at their disposal – but staking out a key role in the alt protein sector’s development all but guarantees that if cultivated meat becomes a globally traded commodity, China will join Singapore, South Korea, and other forward-thinking nations in reaping the rewards.”

    The post Is China Leading the Cultivated Meat Innovation Race? A New Patent Analysis Argues the Case appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Air-raid sirens blared in Taipei and other cities in northern Taiwan on Thursday, part of annual drills testing the country’s response to a potential invasion by China.

    Police stopped personal vehicles and public buses and directed pedestrians into shelters, such as basements and subway stations.

    Some shops and restaurants pulled down shutters and turned off lights, moves aimed to reduce their visibility during a potential nighttime attack.

    The drills also involved simulating wartime aid distribution and a mass-casualty event.

    Video: Taiwan holds its annual military drills, aimed to prepare the country for a potential invasion by China.

    Earlier this week, Taiwanese forces held their largest-ever military drills, which included simulating a response to an amphibious invasion of the Penghu Islands.

    Troops fired Javelin missiles, machine guns and tank rounds at maritime targets.

    Taiwanese forces also conducted maritime drills around the Matsu Islands involving speed boats, drones and mortars. Soldiers fired from rubber speed boats and positions on shore, responding to a simulated “grey zone harassment” of the islands by Chinese Coast Guard and fishing vessels.

    In an early morning drill, Taiwan’s military police used Taipei’s subway system as it simulated the redeployment of troops and supplies.

    Taiwan’s military also practiced securing and defending a major bridge in Taipei. This time they were firing blanks.

    Taiwanese military officials said the Han Kuang drills replicate full combat conditions, including simulated enemy attacks on communications and command systems and a full-blown invasion scenario.

    Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and Reuters.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • To skeptics, a meme coin is a fast way to make a cheap buck.

    For exiled activist Li Ying, it’s been a way to bankroll a pro-democracy community that’s challenging Chinese censorship and authoritarian rule.

    Li, 32, is better known by his handle on the social media platform X: “Teacher Li is not your teacher.” He’s built a following of more than 2 million by posting news that Chinese authorities don’t want people to see.

    Last December, he branched out to launch $Li, a form of cryptocurrency modeled after his own social media avatar — a hand-drawn tabby cat. The goal was to provide financial support for his initiatives to crowd-source data from inside China on social issues like overwork by students and laborers with an aim to promote change.

    The English-language homepage of  the meme coin $Li, a cryptocurrency launched by exiled Chinese activist Li Ying.
    The English-language homepage of the meme coin $Li, a cryptocurrency launched by exiled Chinese activist Li Ying.
    (li-dao.org)

    But his move split the Chinese diaspora. While some supporters rallied behind Li, many activists and former supporters of Li condemned the launch as a fraud and an act of self-dealing.

    On its debut, $Li reached a market capitalization in the tens of millions of U.S. dollars. But the price quickly plunged. As of the time of reporting, $Li’s market cap had dropped more than 80%, to less than $2 million.

    Li concedes that his personal reputation took a beating, but he says that the coin’s launch has stimulated a debate about how cryptocurrency might be used to fund the activities of dissident groups beyond the reach of governments — not least the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party.

    As an exiled influencer challenging Beijing’s censorship machine, Li said he has been facing threats and pressure from Chinese authorities.

    Li said he lost his job in Italy, had his bank accounts in China frozen, and struggled to make a living through individual donations. In 2023, he publicly disclosed that his ad revenue from X averaged just €568 per month (about US$650) — well below the average monthly income in Italy.

    “I had no choice but to launch a cryptocurrency,” Li told RFA.

    The X account of @whyyoutouzhele, also known as 'Teacher Li is not your teacher.'
    The X account of @whyyoutouzhele, also known as ‘Teacher Li is not your teacher.’
    (RFA)

    According to a statement issued by Li on X, $Li had a total supply of 1 billion coins, with pricing left to market forces. A foundation was to be established to oversee the coin, with 19.5% of tokens held by the foundation and 2% held by Li himself.

    Li said he froze the majority of his own holdings because he has no plans to sell. The remainder has been used for payments to staff involved in initiatives promoting democracy in China.

    One of the managers of the foundation, Canada-based influencer “Toronto Squareface,” stated in a post on his X account that the use of funds would be determined through a democratic process. All transactions would be publicly recorded and transparent under the blockchain technology.

    In a statement on X, Li said he plans to use the foundation to build community supporting initiatives that promote freedom of speech and press freedom in China. $Li will not hold any presale, meaning that there will be no early access sales to any investors, and the team has no authority to mint additional tokens.

    According to the latest data from a trading platform GMGN, there are 6,283 holders of $Li.

    Shortly after its launch, some platforms flagged $Li as a scam or high-risk token and banned its trading. Li explained to RFA that this was primarily because those platforms have Chinese ownership, such as the on-chain wallet OKX. He added that $Li was labeled a scam as part of a political attack by the Chinese authorities.

    Despite the reassurances offered by Li about the management of $Li, many of his supporters turned against him after its launch, accusing him of betrayal and opportunism.

    “He (Li) has changed under immense pressure and the temptation of money,” wrote Huang Yicheng, an organizer and exile who participated in China’s anti-Covid protests. He announced on X that he was cutting ties with Li.

    Huang accused Li of leveraging public trust to enrich himself, which Li denies. Others claim that under the guise of promoting democracy in China, Li’s real goal was to exploit investors.

    Some critics even drew comparisons to Guo Wengui, the self-styled Chinese dissident and vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Guo was convicted on multiple counts of fraud and money laundering for allegedly using his online influence to scam followers out of more than $1 billion, including through a fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme.

    Li’s supporters, however, view the meme coin’s launch as an innovation in the civic movement.

    Video: ‘Teacher Li’ crowd-sourced and meme coin-funded website exposes overworked Chinese students.

    “Li burst onto the scene like a disruptor no one expected,” said Jiangbu, who prefers to be identified by a pseudonym for security reasons. He’s a Paris-based non-governmental organization activist focusing on social issues in China.

    Jiangbu, who once led overseas protests against China’s zero-covid policy, said he’s familiar with the slow grind of traditional non-profit work — securing grants, drafting reports, executing programs.

    “What Li did was create money out of thin air,” said Jiangbu, who has served as a coordinator for one of the initiatives funded by $Li. “The project is efficient, and everyone gets a little reward and has a real sense of participation. It’s incredibly innovative.”

    According to Aaron Zhang, a member of Li’s team who is also being identified by a pseudonym due to security concerns, staff chose $Li as a payment mechanism because of cryptocurrency’s anonymity. This has made it difficult for the Chinese government to trace transactions back to individual investors, thereby protecting their safety.

    Despite the criticism Li has faced, he said he succeeded in building a cryptocurrency-based community capable of launching initiatives with real impact on China.

    “Every time you come back from the brink,” Li said, “you come back stronger.”

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Baili Liu for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    New Zealand will not send top government representation to the Cook Islands for its 60th Constitution Day celebrations in three weeks’ time.

    Instead, Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro will represent Aotearoa in Rarotonga.

    On August 4, Cook Islands will mark 60 years of self-governance in free association with New Zealand.

    It comes at a turbulent time in the relationship

    New Zealand paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands in June after its government signed several agreements with China in February.

    At the time, a spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the pause was because the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk.

    Peters and New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will not attend the celebrations.

    Ten years ago, former Prime Minister Sir John Key attended the celebrations that marked 50 years of Cook Islands being in free association with New Zealand.

    Officials from the Cook Islands and New Zealand have been meeting to try and restore the relationship.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In 1957, Mao Zedong oversaw the publication of Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, a three-volume collection of articles compiled by the Communist Party of China for the political education of the peasantry. The following year, selections from these volumes were republished in abridged and regional editions. One such edition included a report from the Anyang Regional Communist Party Committee’s Office for the Co-operative Movement with an introduction by Mao. The text, called ‘Who Says a Chicken Feather Can’t Fly up to Heaven?’, provides the title for this newsletter.

    The post Who Says A Chicken Feather Can’t Fly Up To Heaven? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that he had “positive and constructive” talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, amid tensions over tariffs and trade.

    Rubio was in Malaysia on his first Asia trip since taking office, looking to stress U.S. commitment to the region at the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum, as countries received notices of U.S. tariffs announced by U.S. President Donald Trump this week.

    Video: Rubio meets Wang at sidelines of ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur.

    At a Thursday photo-op before the start of the U.S, Japan, Philippines trilateral meeting, Rubio learned the summit’s signature “ASEAN-way” handshake.

    “How do we do that?” Rubio asked.

    “The ASEAN-way” replied Philippines’ Foreign Secretary Theresa Lazaro.

    Japan’s Prime Minister Takeshi Iwaya then grabbed Rubio’s hands and crossed them, with the three standing and smiling with the traditional cross-armed handshake for cameras.

    Video: Rubio learns “ASEAN-way” handshake, meets with Russia’s Lavrov

    Rubio also met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov where they discussed the Russia-Ukraine war.

    Reporting by Reuters; edited by Charlie Dharapak.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • If the Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) could have its way, it would be operating fighters galore from aerospace companies emanating from Asia, across Europe and all the way to the USA. However, fiscal realities mean such ambitions remain a pipe dream. In recent times, Indonesia has been linked to the following proposed purchases: American F-15EXs, […]

    The post Indonesia keeps options open with bewildering fighter smorgasbord appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Russian counterpart on 10 July that Beijing and Moscow should strengthen strategic coordination to promote peace in West Asia.

    According to a statement by China’s Foreign Ministry, Yi said the two countries should push for a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue during a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Kuala Lumpur. “Peace cannot be achieved through force, and applying pressure won’t solve problems.”

    Dialogue and negotiations were the solution to the conflict, Yi added.

    The two foreign ministers also discussed China–Russia coordination with the countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

    The post China, Russia Vow Coordination To Promote Peace In West Asia appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In recent days, the member governments of the BRICS+ group have met in the capital of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro. This year, compared to last year’s meeting in Kazan, Russia, no significant progress is expected due to the apparent lack of full commitment by the Brazilian government to the development of an economic pole truly independent of North American and European dominance. Currently, the year-on-year growth figures of the largest world economies show that the economies of China and India are growing by more than 5% while the North American economy is growing by 2% on a downward trend, Japan and the United Kingdom by less than 2% and countries such as France, Italy and Germany by less than 1%.

    The post Militarism And Organized Crime Against The Development Of Peoples appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Today, Taiwan is caught in the crosshairs of two imperial rivals: the US and China. This is nothing new for the island nation, which has been a battleground for competing empires for centuries, but what is new is the critical role Taiwan plays in the 21st-century world economy. For example, Taiwan manufacturers 90% of the world’s most advanced microchips—the key component in everything from consumer electronics to the US military’s F-35 fighter jets. In this episode of Solidarity Without Exception, co-host Ashley Smith speaks with Brian Hioe, journalist and editor of New Bloom magazine, about the history of Taiwanese struggles for self-determination, the country’s position in the contemporary US-China rivalry, the increasing threat of imperial war, and the urgency of building solidarity among working-class people in Taiwan, the US, and China.

    Guests:

    • Brian Hioe is a freelance journalist, translator, and one of the founding editors of New Bloom, an online magazine featuring radical perspectives on Taiwan and the Asia-Pacific. A New York native and Taiwanese-American, Hioe has an MA in East Asian Languages and Cultures from Columbia University and graduated from New York University with majors in History, East Asian Studies, and English Literature. He was Democracy and Human Rights Service Fellow at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy from 2017 to 2018 and is currently a Non-Resident Fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Taiwan Studies Programme, as well as board member of the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Pre-Production: Ashley Smith
    • Stdio Production / Post-Production: TRNN
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Ashley Smith:

    Welcome to Solidarity Without Exception. I’m Ashley Smith. Blanca m and I are co-hosts of this ongoing podcast series. It is sponsored by the Ukraine Solidarity Network and produced by the Real News Network. Today we’re joined by Brian Hioe. Brian is a writer, editor, translator and activist based in Taipei during Taiwan’s Sunflower movement in 2014, he helped found New Bloom Magazine, which covers activism and politics in Taiwan and the Asia Pacific. New Bloom is also an organization that sponsors events at Taipei’s community space daybreak. Today Taiwan is caught in the crosshairs of two imperial rivals, the US and China. This is nothing new for the island nation. It has been a battleground between empires For centuries, its indigenous inhabitants where Austronesian people who had lived on the island for thousands of years in the 17th century, various capitalist and Prelist empires fought for control over Taiwan and its people.

    The Netherlands seized most of it in the early 16 hundreds, while Spain established a small outpost in the north. The Dutch eventually drove out Spain and brought in Han Chinese settlers to farm the land and police the island’s indigenous people and the resistance to colonization. China’s Ming and Ching dynasties ousted the Dutch and incorporated the island in 1683, opening the door to Han in migration that marginalized the indigenous population. But China did not make Taiwan a province until 1885, only to lose it 10 years later to Japan, which claimed control of it. In 1895 during the Sino-Japanese war, Japan ruled the island until its defeat. In World War ii, the victorious allied powers granted Taiwan to the rulers of the Republic of China. Chiang Kai-shek Kang the KMT after Chiang’s defeat at the hands of Ma Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party. In 1949, the KMT fled the mainland to Taiwan where it imposed dictatorial rule against the wishes of the island’s people until they won democratization.

    In 1987 on the mainland, Mao established the people’s Republic of China. During the Cold War, the US backed Chang’s Taiwan against Mao’s China, Washington used it to project its power over the Asia Pacific using its military bases on the island for its wars in Korea and Vietnam. The KMT oversaw development later becoming one of the so-called Asian tigers, a high-tech manufacturer, and today the 22nd largest economy in the world. Richard Nixon upset this arrangement when he seemingly changed sides and struck an alliance with Mao against the Soviet Union. In the 1970s, Washington adopted a one China policy formally recognizing the people’s republic and giving it China’s seat at the United Nations. But the US hedged its bets on China. It maintained defacto relations with Taiwan, arming it against Beijing and maintaining strategic ambiguity as to whether it would defend the island. US normalization and China’s opening up to global capitalism transformed relations between these three countries.

    Despite repeated crises in the Taiwan Straits, US Taiwanese and Chinese capital have become intertwined and so have the working classes. They exploit the US multinational. Apple exemplifies their integration. It designs iPhones, Taiwan’s Foxconn exploits Chinese workers and mainland China to make them. And the Chinese state oversees its workers and ensures labor peace. That period of integration is ending with the rise of China as a capitalist power. The US now sees it as its main economic, geopolitical and military adversary. Taiwan has become the key flashpoint of their rivalry. China claims the island as a renegade province and threatens it with invasion while the US arms it and increasingly hints that it would defend it against Beijing. The stakes of their conflict are not just geopolitical Taiwan manufacturers, 90% of the world’s most advanced microchips. The key component in everything from consumer electronics to Washington’s F 35 fighter bomber lost amidst the two great powers conflict is Taiwan’s people who now see themselves primarily as Taiwanese and as such have the right to self-determination. In this episode, Brian Hugh explains the history of Taiwan its position in the US-China rivalry and the urgency of building solidarity among workers against their common exploitation by all three ruling classes and states and against the threat of Imperial war. Now onto the discussion with Brian Hugh.

    So since World War ii, the US has been the Asia Pacific’s main hegemonic imperial power. Now China is challenging Washington supremacy and the two are in an intensifying standoff over Taiwan. China has increased its military exercises against the island while the US has responded in kind with an increasing buildup in the region. What’s the situation as it stands today in Taiwan?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, so interesting enough, Taiwan does not react very strongly to the Chinese threats directed at it because of the fact they’ve gone on so long, there are many decades of Chinese threats. People are quite used to it. And so oftentimes while there’s discussion as though war may break out tomorrow in the us, in Europe, in other Western contexts in Taiwan, life goes on. That being said, the Chinese threats against Taiwan are intensified. Since the Pelosi visit to Taiwan in 2022, the threats have escalated to your daily basis. And so things have become riskier in the region and yet life is still feeling about the same for most people. But people are aware of example, the rising tensions between the US and China as well as for example, when Trump announces tariffs on the rest of the world outside of the us. And so it is a question of what happens next in Taiwan?

    Ashley Smith:

    What are the particular things that China has done that’s different recently? And in particular, how has the US responded? Like when defense secretary Pete Haze was in at the Shangrila dialogue and threatened all sorts of responses to the Chinese aggression against Taiwan. So how is that playing out?

    Brian Hioe:

    I think actually the Chinese threats against Taiwan, people feel not very acutely. In fact, it’s often filtered through the news media to see a diagram, for example, of the amount of Chinese planes that have incurred in incursions in Taiwan’s kind of aerospace. In the meantime, the US says they’ll escalate their support for Taiwan through armed sales and so forth, but that’s not really felt by the majority of people. And so you have a lot of rhetoric. Actually the rhetoric is definitely escalating and there is a sense of that there is a rising threat, but I think that’s filtered much more through, for example, events in Ukraine or Hong Kong, seeing as images of where there has been warfare or where it has been protest against, for example, China holding control of the government. And so that has occurred and there’s a sense of I think rising awareness of that Taiwan could be caught in the crosshairs of the US and China, but in the meantime, it does still feel a bit remote sometimes. But there’s awareness perhaps that we are facing more threats.

    Ashley Smith:

    So despite Taiwan being in the news all the time in the us, most people know very little about the island’s long history in the past, various imperial powers have contested for control over it. Can you give us a brief history of its pre-colonial people, European colonization and subsequent seizure by China, Japan, then Chen Kai shek ang the KMT after its defeat at the hands of Mao’s communist party in 1949 and connected to that, how has the US used Taiwan for its own purposes since the Cold War to today?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, I think what’s very interesting is that particularly many people in western context are aware of Taiwan is producing the majority of the world semiconductor. And that’s in fact a very recent phenomenon. But Taiwan has long been fought over by imperial powers because of where it’s located, because of the fact that if you want to have hegemony over the age Pacific, Taiwan is at the crucial note of that. And so that has included Japan in terms of the Japanese empire in terms of various premodern, Chinese empires and so forth. And that is something that I think really is why Taiwan is at this center of contestation between the US and China today. The fact that Taiwan produces the majority of the world semiconductors that power everything from iPhones, PlayStations to electric vehicles, that’s actually very relatively recent. And so Taiwan’s first and abs are indigenous, they are in, it is actually a thought that many aian countries, their ancestors were in Taiwan before, but then after that it was colonized by many Western powers, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and so forth.

    And then after that by the Japanese empire, Taiwan was part of pre-modern Chinese empires, but it was often thought of as an hinterland. They were not really cared about actually as a crucial part of the territory. Taiwan was only ever a province of the Ching dynasty, in fact, for a total of seven years, seven or eight years depending on how you counted. And then after I became part of the Japanese empire for 50 years. So today when we talk about it, Taiwan, in fact as a part of China since time Memorial, it’s actually a very recent development. Maldon himself for example, suggests that Taiwan should become independent the way that Korea was, for example. And he did not necessarily think about it that much until the KMT came to Taiwan after his defeat in the Chinese Civil War. After that though becomes this notion that Taiwan is part of China since time Memorial, and it’s a very interesting to think about how it became that way, but it points these contradictions I think, of being caught between empires of having people here. They’re not say part of the Chinese empire who are indigenous or from previous waves of migration from China, but not necessarily when Taiwan’s part of any Chinese empire, any pre-modern Chinese empire. And that’s part of the reason why it’s fought over today. But I think it really goes back to geopolitics that it’s like this crystal node of trade and commerce in the region. That is why it is desired by empires historically and also today.

    Ashley Smith:

    One thing if you could elaborate a little bit more about is two things that are related to that flesh out a little bit more how the US used Taiwan against China during the Cold War and then how that shifts with the normalization of relations between the US and mainland China with the people’s Republic. So how has it shifted and how do the majority of people in Taiwan conceptualize their identity as Chinese or as Taiwanese?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, I think what is interesting is that Taiwan fits the classical pattern of a right wing dictatorship that’s backed by the US for the purposes of anti-communism because China is right there for example, also that occurred for example in the context of the Vietnam War. And so it is actually very much along that pattern, and yet I think people do not think about it enough in fact, because I think Asia conceptually people don’t pay attention as much to that this part of this global US strategy at the time. And I think that it is really that dynamic still persistent in this day in fact, because you still have American Republicans, for example, talking about this rhetoric of needing to oppose communist China and interesting enough using this rhetoric of the authoritarian KMT because of the fact that they just don’t know what Taiwan is. In fact, today that is democratized against the US batched right-wing dictatorship of Chiang Kai-shek and it Islam Chen quo.

    And so the question is then how can leftists, for example, I think worldwide think of Taiwan its own terms. That’s always been a challenge. And so I think that that is still a conceptual challenge for many people. But what has changed in the decade since then of course is democratization in that then Taiwan has become a place in which people have an impex of identity. And I think that people often do not realize, for example, that before Shang Kai Sha and his son Ang quo established a dictator from Taiwan, 90% of the population is descended from those who are already here. Descendants of those that came at the KMT, the Chinese nationals party of Taiwan are only around 10% of the population, which does include myself for example. But then the majority of the population are indigenous or they’re from prior waves of Han migration from China during times in which Taiwan was not necessarily part of a Chinese empire. And so that leads to a very different sense of identity.

    Ashley Smith:

    Now Taiwan has undergone a massive political and economic transformation after decades of martial law that you just described. It underwent democratization, significant economic development, neoliberal and the rise of its tech industry, particularly the production of high-end computer chips. So it now ranks about 22nd globally in GDP right below Switzerland. What is the role of Taiwan now in the world economy? How would you characterize its position in the order of Imperial states and what are the main political parties in the country and how has democratization and neoliberal development impacted its working people and oppressed people?

    Brian Hioe:

    Taiwan is a very interesting context in that sense because for example, many of the factories that were built up in China in the 1990s and two thousands were in fact Tommy’s investment. And so it is often categorized as part of the quote, east Asian tigers economies that rose up after World War II are often backed by enormous amounts of USAID as a bulwark mans unquote communist China. And that is what leads to the temporary semiconductor dominance of Taiwan, for example, relative to China because of the fact that the advanced trips are produced in Taiwan, but the chips in fact are put together in China, for example. iPhones are put together in China, but the advanced chips are in Taiwan. And it very much fits the pattern then of how the US created or sought to build up the economies in East Asia as a bull war against the economic political threats of face during the Cold War.

    But then in fact, you had odd development in which there is dependence upon each other in the sense that for example, advanced ships are built in Taiwan, but then in the 1990s when it seen China and the Soviet Union for example, disintegrated, there’s a shift towards the global capitalism. There’s a notion then that for example, there would no longer be such rivalries, and that is why for example, Taiwan could rise to this industry in the kind of very possible Cold War era. And in this sense, I think that Taiwan now exists at a very strange place in which at times in which the US and China are against at odds with each other. I think that now there is this notion that the Taiwan is caught between the trade war between the US and China, which is true also technology war reflects how the Cold War in that sense, the shadow of it is backed. And so many talk about this, the new Cold War and Taiwan is very caught between these different places and there doesn’t seem to be a way out because it seems like many of the old geopolitical rivalries of Cold War have resurfaced.

    Ashley Smith:

    And what impact has all this had on working people and oppressed people on the island? How has the economic development and in particular the kind of neoliberal and opening up an export of manufacturing into China done to working people’s standard of living oppressed groups, their experienced migrant labor forces, what is the reshaping of Taiwanese capitalism done to the majority of its people?

    Brian Hioe:

    I think the interesting thing is that many people are not actually totally aware of it because what happened actually in the past few decades is that the so-called 3D job, the dirty, dangerous, demeaning jobs were outsourced to southeast migrant workers who are often in Taiwan working in Taiwan’s factories. But then in spite of the rising tensions and people actually do not necessarily feel in terms of the working class, I think the era in which Taiwan capital really owned many factories in China has sort of passed. There definitely is still case, but rising tensions between Taiwan and China, actually many capitals have relocated elsewhere, mostly to southeast Asia or perhaps India. And so I think that people have not really felt it in that sense. It has not really affected life. I think actually the capital labor relations in Taiwan have not been that much affected. But then I think there’s still this issue in which Taiwan is not aware enough of that the so-called 3D jobs, the dirty dangerous city meeting jobs have gone to aka migrant Muslims. And so that has also occurred and Taiwan can be in between. Then I think in terms of that, once these went to China and now they’ve gone to southeast Asia, Taiwan is both exploited in that sense, but also an exploiter, and I think that’s something that Taiwan could reflect on much more.

    Ashley Smith:

    So what does that mean for Taiwan’s position in the structure of Imperial states? Because some people talk about it as an oppressed nation, other people talk about it as a regional power. How do you think it fits in because that’s important conceptually to figure out how the left should respond to the situation.

    Brian Hioe:

    Absolutely, and I think that’s very important to think about the various East Asian states, for example, whether it’s South Korea or Japan or Taiwan because they are oppressors, but also in that sense caught between the US and China. And so perhaps there’s a certain degree of economic level that for example, Taiwan has risen to. But in term then Taiwan becomes oppressor of other nations because at one point, for example, when there’s the error of made in Taiwan, those Chinese factory workers are taking on all these jobs. But after moving up to so-called value chain, then now Taiwan outsources these jobs to other nationalities, whether within Taiwan itself, in factories in Taiwan or outsources in directly to so Asia factories for example. And so Taiwan is caught between, and I think actually we need to think beyond these binaries of victim and victimizer in terms of capitalism because it is this endless chain in which you are at different points in the so-called value chain. And so Taiwan is somewhere in between there. And that sense, to be honest, Taiwan is I think comparatively relatively privileged, but then it is in meantime caught between the contention of geopolitical rivals. And I think there’s unfortunate fact Taiwan is caught geopolitically at the certain nexus in which it has often been the object of contestation between empires. So I think there’s a lot of layers I think through there. There’s no good versus evil, for example, narrative here.

    Ashley Smith:

    So now let’s just dive into the relationship between in this triangle of the us, Taiwan and China Taiwan’s trapped between global capitalism’s two main powers, the US and China. China claims. Taiwan is a renegade province while the US supports an arms Taiwan while maintaining strategic ambiguity as to whether it would come to its defense. In the case of an invasion by Beijing, how have the country’s main parties, the capitalist parties, the KMT, the DPP and the TPP positioned themselves amids this conflict?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, so I think what the fundamental splits in Taiwan between the two major parties, the DPP and the KMT is that one is the party of domestic Taiwanese capital, let’s say the bourgeoisie, whereas the other one at the KMT, the former authoritarian party is the party of the cross street hopping at bourgeoisie, which you jump between Taiwan and China in order to, that’s how you operate actually, you’re operating on the interests of those two countries or two entities rather. And so that is the source of conflict between the parties. And so the DPP has really doubled down on strengthening ties to the US building up domestic Taiwan capital. In the meantime, the KMT claims that for example, times prosperity is built on economic relations to China that instead in the era in which US power is potentially reigning that Taiwan should go in the direction of China.

    And so there’s that contestation. The T PPP in the meantime is a party that tries to track swing voters, those who are between the KMT and the DP, but has generally drifted much towards the KMT in past years, which is kind of strategy I think on their part, but I don’t actually think it’s totally successful. I think the all along run, they will eventually become absorbed back into the KMT. And so that is the source of tension between the two. The DPP calls a stronger ties with the us, the KMT calls a stronger ties with China, but I feel that in this present era in which for example, Chinese young people increase to identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, for example, even someone like myself who’s descended from those who came to Taiwan with A KMT and defined more as Taiwanese rather than Chinese. And so I don’t think the KMT really has a long-term future, but it’s still doubling down on that path. And so it is to be seen actually what happens going forward.

    Ashley Smith:

    So what is the current DPP government doing? What’s their strategy? What’s their political and economic strategy amidst this conflict?

    Brian Hioe:

    Part of it actually interesting is Trump throws a wrench into things because of the fact that there is this tariffs that are imposed in the world. He has created a lot of faith, a lack of faith in US power and so forth. And so there is that, but the DPP has tried to reassure or stabilize the us which honestly enough they cannot actually do. In the meantime, the KT has tried to reassure of that China will continue to grow that also pass the US inevitably based on demographics, based on economy, but also I don’t think people really have faith in that either. And so there’s a question and if the left is stronger in Taiwan, there could be a third path that emerges, but unfortunately the left is not that strong currently in Taiwan. And so attempts to articulate a third path have usually not succeeded. It’s to be seen well for allows for that in the future, but I’m not terribly optimistic currently.

    Ashley Smith:

    So let’s dive into that a little bit because we’ve talked mainly about geopolitics and politics from above in Taiwan and in the region and with these imperial powers. But let’s dive in a little bit to the history of militant popula struggles of workers and oppress people against their Taiwanese bosses and exploiters and oppressors. How do people give us a sense of the history of that struggle in the democratization of the country and how do people in such struggles view the us? How do they view China as well as the workers in those countries and in the region?

    Brian Hioe:

    I think it’s a very important question. I think that in the past, during democratization that occurred in a context in which there are many struggles in the region that were from democratization, the Philippines for example, or South Korea, and there’s this knowledge of a global struggle against authoritarian leaders that are usually US backed. And of course the KMT was US backed, but in the decades since, that is receded and in favor of capitalist struggle. And so you have people that were part of the DPP, which is interesting enough, did have a current that was closer to the left wing that has very poor labor in the past, but that’s now received in terms of this kind of national self strengthening. Actually the idea of building up the nation is taking precedence over, for example, building ties to workers movements in the region. And I think that’s a real challenge actually already against that narrative that there’s a need to actually resist capital rather than just become another capitalist power.

    But I think that is also in fact what happened with other left movements in the region as well in terms of South Korea and the Philippines that has led to this issue. There’s a desire even for Taiwan to become this powerful Catholic exploiter. And that is the vision of then articulating self-determination I think rather than connecting with other workers’ movements. And I think that that is still something to be worked on. I think that people have not thought that through that history is really seeded and that has actually been very visible recently. For example, with regards let’s say Palestine, that there are people that are DPB aligned that are very supportive of Ukraine for example, but then desire to align with Israel because Israel is of course a much more important economic, let’s say, trading partner compared to Palestine. And so a lot of the movements of the past have also fragmented.

    They do not have that power as in the past or the movement leader, let’s say even something like the 2014 slim fire movement, which I was part of a student movement against the KMT, which had taken power and sought to sign trade agreements with China. A lot of these people have also entered government and they don’t think about this desire to build ties with movements for example, but to build up Taiwan as a national power in the region. And actually we haven’t seen this tilt towards the very top down narrative rather than bottom of struggle. In the meantime, the third parties that did emerge after Sunfire mostly have petered out and have lost strength as time because of gone on because I think maybe they have not managed and play this game of how to appeal to voters when people focus disproportionately on the geopolitics or the condensation between the two parties.

    Ashley Smith:

    So what has that done to people’s attitude towards these ruling parties? I know there’s enormous questions about the cost of living, the conditions of work not only of migrant workers like you described in the 3D jobs, but of regular labor under the conditions right now in Taiwan. So is there an opening there between the sentiments of the majority and dissatisfaction with these mainstream capitalist parties?

    Brian Hioe:

    I think actually it is quite a challenge there because the two parties both agree on many of the economic woes facing the Tommy’s electorate, which is that their long hours for low pay, the cost living is rising, housing is unaffordable. And so they don’t differ too much in fact based on their platform apart from the independence versus unification platform or whether they should be closer to the US versus whether they should be closer to China. And so that actually is this further Chinese society being further admired in these issues in fact. And so I think that’s actually, it’s a challenge because basically both parties do not alter alternatives. They offer basically the same platform, and in fact on social policy, they don’t differ substantially. And so it’s actually quite interesting. I think that being said, Taiwan, both parties do support in fact a welfare state. And so for example, both parties are rather in favor of universal healthcare which does exist and they do not differ on that respect. And so the main difference is then do you want a welfare state that is more in terms of foreign policy closer to China or close to the us and that ends up being the difference between voting.

    Ashley Smith:

    So now let’s turn to the kind of position of Taiwan in geopolitics because there are two major events that have set ominous precedence for Taiwan, first Hong Kong and then second Ukraine. In the case of Hong Kong, China crushed its pro-democracy movement, an outcome that would likely befall Taiwan in the events of an invasion. In the case of Ukraine, Russia, Russian imperialism invaded the country to rebuild its old empire while the US backed the country’s resistance for its own imperial purposes. How have Taiwan’s capitalist parties and its people viewed these events?

    Brian Hioe:

    Interesting. And there’s a lot of interest in Ukraine because that was viewed as a offering, a template of what could occur to Taiwan, the event of warfare. I think there was a lot of similarities, for example, between Taiwan and Ukraine in terms of how, for example, China or Russia have claimed that Taiwan or Ukraine have no independent culture or language or that’s always in part of China or Russia. And so people really saw themselves in that. But then I think in terms of how people imagine scenarios and warfare, it is along those lines and how to actually have a much more nuanced understanding of, for example, where Ukraine is caught between Russia and the US for example. That’s not been arrived at because I think Taiwan has historically been very pro us. It’s a very interesting paradox of the fact that despite the democratization moving opposing a US backed authoritarian regime for example, there was not this awareness of that.

    Well, that’s why they could actually maintain power in so long because many of the democracy activists were in fact educated in the us. They only learned about the history that’s banned from being taught in Taiwan because they studied in the us. And so that actually has led to this blindness. And so I think that there’s a need for the Taiwan left to learn from Ukrainian left in terms of dealing with these challenges, but there’s not been a lot of dialogue on those lines. That’s something that for example, my organization has tried to do, but it’s much easier I think for Taiwanese to look to state actors. I think even though Taiwanese left has often looked much more to state actors to look it in terms of understanding Ukraine. And so various lefting actors example have only focused on the actions of Ukrainian government, for example, rather than building ties with Ukrainian leftists that are also dealing with similar challenges.

    Ashley Smith:

    Flesh out a little bit more about the impact of the crushing of the democracy movement in Hong Kong because I know lots of Hong Kongers fled to Taiwan in the aftermath of the crushing of the democracy movement. So how do people view what happened in Hong Kong? How do the mainstream parties view it, and then how do regular people view the threat that Hong Kong as a crushed democratic area? How do people view that?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, there’s a protest slogan which was that today, Taiwan, tomorrow, Hong Kong we see the opposite as well today, Hong Kong, tomorrow, Taiwan. And so Hong Kong is seen as offering a potential of what would occur if Taiwan fell under Chinese governance. But that has passed already in terms of five years since 2019 protests and Hong Kong is then viewed as a kind of lost struggle. So for example, in Taiwan there was a lot of sympathy towards Hong Kong asylum seekers. People are activists that sought a flee to Taiwan. And now there actually is a view as though Hong Kong is yet to cut out of entering Taiwan as though Hong Kong has become part of China and so that they should not be thought of. I think it’s the usual kind of anti-Islam sentiment that one sees after initial wave of wanting to support a cause. And it’s actually quite unfortunate because I think actually this is quite a thing as well because Taiwan and Hong Kong in the age of the East Asian tigers I alluded to or in terms of the 1990s and two thousands were always actually economic rivals.

    And so there’s a halo around Hong Kong because of the shared threat of China, but that has since faded. And so that has led to a shift since then. And now Hong Kong has just thought of as scary place as though we were China. And so there actually is a much more visible population of Hong Kong is in Taiwan now that are much more active in social movements and civil society. But then I think in the meantime, the majority of China civil society just views Hong Kong as a kind of lost cause. It’s quite unfortunate, I think in terms of even the fact there’s a wave of solidarity towards Ukraine. One has seen a similar sentiment in which basically there has been a receding of that enthusiasm, for example, Ukraine.

    Ashley Smith:

    What does that mean in terms of solidarity with other struggles for self-determination? You’ve talked about it a little bit in the case of Hong Kong and in Ukraine. How about in the question of Palestine, not just more from the left. How has the Taiwanese left seen that struggle and has there been an ability to raise awareness of from Ukraine to Palestine, occupation is a crime. Is there a kind of resonance of that viewpoint?

    Brian Hioe:

    Unfortunately not. Basically there’s one left group which is in support of Hong Kong, Ukraine and Palestine is near bloom. There has been this issue in which the nominal support of China for Palestine has led to this tarring of Palestine in Taiwan in which Palestine is associated with China. And so people will view Palestine as, especially with China, therefore not supported and see Taiwan as potentially needing to be in alignment with Israel, which I think is absurd as a self-determination struggle. And in the meantime, because the US is ally in support of Ukraine, then for example, Taiwan be supportive of Ukraine. And so very much the view of the world that emerges from Taiwan is in fact very campus, not in terms of the campus we talk about in terms of leftists that see the world according to geopolitical blocks and according to nation suits. And so there are very few groups that are actually in support of Hong Kong, Ukraine and Palestine.

    And New Bloom is maybe one of the only few. It’s very unfortunate because I think it should be self-evident, but then I think the imagination, the political imagination many times people is still according to this very Cold war imagination of camps against each other of geopolitical blocks against each other and has been very occluding to solidarity, I think. And so I think that really remains to be worked on the ways to build ties or to point to actual connection between empires or the fact that for example, China will have Namal support Palestine. But of course similarly Israel is a much larger economic trading partner or in terms of technology and so forth, it is much more important than that also leads to this perspective. And so actually it’s still a challenge I think how to convince Israel, I think not from the perspective of states, but from the perspective of people is

    Ashley Smith:

    Now let’s turn to the unfortunate reality that Donald Trump is president of the United States and despite all the chaos of the new Trump administration, its policy documents, especially those issued by the Heritage Foundation have made Washington’s imperial conflict with China and support for Taiwan. Its top priority. And he’s trying, albeit unsuccessfully to bring Russia’s imperialist war in Ukraine and Israel’s genocidal war in Palestine to some kind of closure so that the US can focus on China. Pete Hegseth has made this very clear, the heritage documents make it very clear how have Trump’s policies impacted Taiwan’s politics, economy, and military? What are the patterns of response among its working and oppressed people to it?

    Brian Hioe:

    Interesting enough, the first Trump administration, that’s the rise of what is termed US skeptic discourse, this discourse which is sometimes conspiratorial and sometimes realistic that Taiwan cannot trust us. There’s obvious fact that us cannot be trusted. It did back in the right winging authoritarian dictatorship in Taiwan and of course it major Taiwan under the Boston order to build tide with China. But some of it is on the vering conspiratorial, for example, saying the US engineered COVID destroy the world and that kind of thing. And so this mixture of sentiments have emerged some which I think can actually be productive for left in calling, for example, criticality of the us. The US is of course not alive as an ally. But then of course I don’t think the US created COVID or I don’t think China did either for that matter as a way to destroy the world or this kind of conspiratorial.

    And so I think particularly with Trump 2.0 that’s returned. And I think if anything compared to Trump 1.0, there’s some more competence there because he’s held the leverage of powers once. And so having this desire to go in and tear down the state and rebuild in his own image that has occurred in the meantime. I’m not sure if Taiwan is always so aware of it because the coverage of US politics that does occur in Taiwan is through very specific filters. It’s very self-selective and not the whole picture of things. But I do hope that more people are aware of this deterioration of free speech or freedom of assembly or the freedom protests in the US because Taiwan has long looked at the US as this representation of democracy, which maybe it was not always often has not been, but Taiwan is often ideal as the US in a sense.

    And I think that perhaps things can change now, but in the meantime, I think it’s still a question. I think Taiwan often is thinking much more about itself and how to navigates relation with the us, how to keep the US happy rather than thinking in terms of, for example, how are we against what we’re chain actors or how is, for example, things in the US reminiscence of Taiwan’s passing for terrorism. But I do see some interesting phenomenon of, for example, people who are part of the democracy movement in Taiwan that have since immigrated to us. Usually elders that are actually present in the streets in the US protesting often with slogans are taken from Taiwan’s democratization.

    Ashley Smith:

    Like what? Flesh that out a little bit. That’s fascinating to hear.

    Brian Hioe:

    So some of the, so slogans for example, there’s a slogan that’s popular which is taken from Portugal’s Carnation revolution when dictatorship is a fact, resistance is a revolution, is a duty. And so I’ve seen that actually in traditional Chinese and older people, older Taiwanese people holding up in signs in the US in fact. And that’s been really interesting to see. And so I think that actually perhaps there is some potential to work with there. And I think that is in fact also there’s potential to erode this idealization in the US idealization of the US empire through that in fact witnessing this change in the us. And it’s another way in which I think many of the struggles that we see worldwide are in fact by LinkedIn.

    Ashley Smith:

    I wanted to get a sense from you how Trump’s trade tariffs are impacting Taiwan and in particular the pressure to disconnect investment in China and mainland China and redirect it elsewhere in particular to the United States. How is the economic shift that Taiwan is undergoing? Is that just economic, is it under the pressure of the US and how does that fit into this conflict?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, actually I personally think that it hasn’t figured too much because the tariffs are packed everywhere in the world and they were eventually scaled back. But before that, there was already the pattern of Chinese businesses trying to get out of China, which did not necessarily to do with the us. China itself was targeting Taiwan, agriculture, construction industry, mining industry, and labeling businesses as in pro independence and targeting them. And oftentimes the business where in fact had nothing to do with poor independence dances. So the Chinese market was already starting to be viewed as politically risky, could be arbitrarily targeted. So I felt a lot of times corporations are moving to Southeast Asia because China was viewed as risky. The US and its current moves do add more incentive to that move out of China, but I think that is already happening. So actually I don’t think it’s had so much impact. It’s also possible though it’s too early to the outcome.

    Ashley Smith:

    And what do people think about this then at a popular level? What’s the reaction and what is it doing to the political space for the left?

    Brian Hioe:

    I think that there’s a view that Trump is just seeking what is Maximalist self-interest to the us. I think there’s not a sense of this kind of moving back and forth and this chaos and this lack of coordination, the fact that they’re just shifting back and forth within positions. But the left in particular I think is still very bifurcated between the independence camp and the inpatient camp. And the Eacian camp will just look at that and point to that, well, this just says that China will rise in fact, and that the US is declining and the independence camp will sometimes just paper over. In fact. In fact, there are so many things happen in the us. And so actually I think it points to that the left in Taiwan is between the independence camp and the immigration camp are still very much trapped in the narrative nation states. They thought beyond that. And so I think that there’s still this inability to get around that. And so this crisis of American imperial power I think has really shown that. But I don’t see critical discourses rising yet. I mean, for example, in my organization we do try to articulate that, but I think it’s not really catching on.

    Ashley Smith:

    Let’s turn to the political response of the left to this situation. So Taiwan is obviously the key flashpoint in the US-China rivalry with enormous geopolitical and economic stakes as well as high stakes life and death for the working classes and oppressed peoples in Taiwan, China and the entire region including the United States. So how has the Taiwanese left responded to this dangerous situation? What are the main patterns of politics and how can the left combine opposition to both imperial powers defense, Taiwan’s right to self-determination and at the same time build solidarity with working people in the region against militarism and war?

    Brian Hioe:

    I think this is the million dollar question, so to speak. And I think that the issue is that I find a lot of left, whether purification or pro independence still caught between the narrative nation states. And so from someone that is from a more independence leading organization, I mean we often will point to that we stand in solidarity with Chinese workers or resisting their bosses. And in the meantime, the pronation left, we’ll not talk about this ever because of the fact that they’re still living this narrative of nation states. And so they don’t want to talk about the wrong the Chinese state does because they still have this kind of fixation on that. And I think there’s still this challenge in which there are very status narratives that exist among the left leftism is thought of as just having a strong, powerful state that can regulate the market rather than thinking beyond that.

    And so I think thinking beyond basically the US China contention, I think also aspiring towards something that is having, for example, opposition towards the international capitalists, international working class uniting us inter capitalists, that narrative is still very difficult because people are still caught in this. And in the meantime, I don’t see enough discussion of this among the Taiwan he’s left, there’s a powerful left liberal civil society that does exist and can be critical, but then they still will, I think at the end of day slide it with the US over China and there’s a ation left that in the meantime I think lives in a very delusional world in which they don’t ever talk about the Chinese working class or oppression that occurs in China, and they have a cultural fixation on China, but they actually know very little about China in the meantime for the region. Even the recent social media uprisings, whether in the Philippines or Indonesia or South Korea, they just don’t pay attention to that. And I think that’s actually still very isolating. And so they’re trying to build a way to think about international solidarity of peoples of the working class rather than nation states. That’s still, I think, something that needs to be articulated. And so there’s still a long way to go, I think.

    Ashley Smith:

    What do you think in terms of workers in the United States in particular, what do you want to communicate to working people in the United States about why to build solidarity with Taiwanese working class people and oppressed people and Chinese working class people? Because I think the danger all around the world is nationalism in its various forms, great power nationalism, sub imperial nationalism. It’s different with oppressed nations, but still there’s a task of building solidarity from below among working people. So how does new bloom and how do you articulate that in Taiwan?

    Brian Hioe:

    Yeah, I think that the working class of different countries in the world have more common with each other than with the capitalists in the world. But then there’s the identification of nation states, of peoples with states over the nation state itself. And so then the workers of another country are viewed as competition rather than actually that you should align together with them against interests of capital. And that’s a challenge. I think that particularly America, having spent much time in America, it’s very hard to build international solidarity because of the fact that America views itself as itself enclosed because it is a very large agency. It is the world power and Taiwan though not the world power. It is an island. And so you have that island mentality. It’s also feels very enclosed. And so there’s always this challenge I think you get when you bring this up, why should we think about this thing happening so far away from us?

    It’s remote from us. It’s remote for our everyday concerns. And so people dismiss attempts at international solidarity using that kind of argument. But then how do you work against that? Because I think at the end of the day, it is these large and powerful interests of capital that affect our lives. And so having a protest in one country is not going to actually be able to change the structural world capital because capitalism itself international. And so we need to be internationalist in order to oppose how internationalized capital itself is. And I think there’s no way to have just a country by country struggle for against the interest of capital. And I think that’s why people really need to understand. It’s a challenge. I think the left has faced forever a century because of the fact that we often lose to nationalism rather than anything else.

    Ashley Smith:

    One other question is are there signs of hope in this struggle? I know for example, there have been labor conferences that have tried to pull together workers and trade unions regionally in Asia. Is there a sign of the building blocks of the kind of internationalism that you’re talking about taking place?

    Brian Hioe:

    I hope so. I think actually a lot of it’s reacting against those that view the strong dance capitalism only in terms of nation states, a k, a campus or kenkey and so forth. And so I think the reaction to that, I do see some hope because for example, how do you bring together Taiwanese and Chinese leftists in the same room to discuss this? And when I have been in those situations, that gives me a great deal of hope, but it’s easier said than done. I think that right now it’s still a long ways to go about to become the mainstream, but when that does occur, that is I think what is helpful. I just think also the spaces to have those meetings have become increasingly more difficult because connecting across distances is so difficult, even in spite of the internet technologies we have today. And in terms of the repression in the region, it’s harder and harder to have those meetings, for example, because of the fact that getting people in a room together we can talk freely is actually more and more difficult in the age of rising repression, whether from states, whether from digital technology and so forth.

    And so I think it’ll require a lot of creativity to think about that, but I hope there are ways to do that.

    Ashley Smith:

    Thanks to Brian Hugh for that revealing discussion of Taiwan. It’s entrapment in the US China rivalry, the challenges its working people face, and the urgency of building solidarity from below between the region’s, working classes against the us, Beijing and Taipei. To hear about upcoming episodes of solidarity without exception, sign up for the Real News Network newsletter. Don’t miss an episode.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • China is a modern superpower, as is the US, but a qualitatively different superpower. The US uses military aggression, coups, and sanctions to impose US corporate interests worldwide. China is a peaceful power that respects national sovereignty, mutual development, and non-interference.

    Despite opposing imperialism, too many in the Western left, recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese conduct to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka, Congo, and Occupied West Bank. Some even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba.

    The US empire has at least 750 military bases in 80 countries. China has just one, in Djibouti – part of a UN mission against piracy.

    The post Revolutionary Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • At the 17th BRICS Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from July 6 to 7, 2025, the bloc’s leaders issued a declaration reaffirming the bloc’s central role as a representative voice of the Global South.

    However, the declaration does not mention the word “genocide” when referring to the Israeli massacre of the Palestinian population, and despite condemning unilateral sanctions, it fails to mention one of the countries that has suffered the greatest impact from them: Venezuela, a strategic ally of China and Russia, two of the founding countries of the BRICS.

    In this regard, the final declaration condemns “the imposition of unilateral coercive measures contrary to international law” and denounces that such measures “have far-reaching negative implications for human rights, including the rights to development, health and food security of the general population of the affected states.”

    The post What The 17th BRICS Summit Declaration Says And Omits appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • It is often stated that China engages in win-win relationships with its partners. In Africa, in exchange for the commodities that China receives, the African country will have Chinese-built ports, airports, highways, railways. In addition, China will train local people in the construction and maintenance of the economy-supporting infrastructure. It is the old story of teaching a people how to fish rather than just giving them fish.

    China’s partners have the infrastructure and the knowledge to continue to develop and innovate. The settlement of a disputed land/border issue between China and Tajikistan has been cited as an example of a non-violent win-win situation.


    Above map from ResearchGate.

    The below video by China Project Hub relates a win-win partnership.

    Consider also Assel Bitabarova’s study — written while a PhD student at the Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University: “Contested Views of Contested Territories: How Tajik Society Views the Tajik-Chinese Border Settlement.”

    The post Depiction of a Win-Win Relationship first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In 2015, a nationwide campaign rounded up hundreds of rights advocates. Since then, suppression has become more systematic and less visible, lawyers say

    A decade on from China’s biggest crackdown on human rights lawyers in modern history, lawyers and activists say that the Chinese Communist party’s control over the legal profession has tightened, making rights defence work next to impossible.

    The environment for human rights law has “steadily regressed, especially after the pandemic”, said Ren Quanniu, a disbarred human rights lawyer. “Right now, the rule of law in China – especially in terms of protecting human rights – has deteriorated to a point where it’s almost comparable to the Cultural Revolution era.” The Cultural Revolution was a decade of mass chaos unleashed by China’s former leader Mao Zedong in 1966. During that time judicial organs were attacked as “bourgeois” and the nascent court system was largely suspended.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • China warned India on Friday against interfering in Tibet-related matters after an Indian minister supported the Dalai Lama’s statement that his successor should be chosen by a Tibetan nonprofit group, rejecting moves by China to steer his succession.

    Video: China warns India against interfering in Tibet-related matters

    “No one has the right to interfere or decide who the successor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be,” said Kiren Rijiju, India’s minister for minority affairs.

    China’s foreign ministry urged India to be prudent in its words and actions.

    “We hope the Indian side will fully understand the highly sensitive nature of Tibet-related issues, recognize the anti-China separatist nature of the 14th Dalai Lama,” said spokesperson Mao Ning.

    India’s foreign ministry later on Friday released a statement on its website saying, “Government of India does not take any position or speak on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion.”

    Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama meets with religious leaders at the end of a three-day conference in Dharamsala, India, July 4, 2025.
    Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama meets with religious leaders at the end of a three-day conference in Dharamsala, India, July 4, 2025.
    (OHHDL)

    The Dalai Lama, who fled to India in 1959, stated on Wednesday that upon his death, he would be reincarnated as the next spiritual leader and that only the Gaden Phodrang Trust would be authorized to identify his successor.

    Beijing maintains it has the right to approve the Dalai Lama’s successor.

    The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) said in a statement: “The process of reincarnation for Tibetan Buddhists is a sacred tradition. Any attempt by the CCP to interfere in this spiritual matter is an unacceptable violation of religious liberty and must be swiftly condemned by the international community.”

    Penpa Tsering, president of the Tibetan government in exile, spoke to reporters in Dharamsala at the end of the three-day conference of Tibetan religious leaders, where the Dalai Lama affirmed his succession plans.

    “If China tries to use this in any way, in any means, we will not recognize it. In the future also we will not accept any of China’s choices.”

    Reporting by Dawa Dolma and Tenzin Woser in Dharamsala; additional reporting from Reuters; edited by Charlie Dharapak


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.