radiofree.asia

Category: China

  • The Cycles and Spirals of Capitalism

    Orientation

    How long has capitalism existed? Has it always been with us all the way back to tribal societies or is it a product of the modern age? Is there any pattern to its evolution? Is it cyclic,  spiral-like  or random? What is the nature of capitalist crises? Why does capitalism grow flush in certain parts of the world, die out in others and yet seemingly reignite itself in another part of the world? What can world-systems theory tell us about the current battle between the Anglo-American empire and the multipolarists of China, Russia and Iran?

    What is capitalism?

    Capitalism is a historical economic system that arose in Europe in the 15th century.  Over a 600-year period its leading hegemons were first the Italian city-states of Genoa and Venice. In the 17th century these city-states were superseded by the Netherlands. The British overtook the Dutch in the 18th century and the United States crowded out the British well before World War I. Capitalism is characterized by a law-enforced right of private property (as opposed to state or community ownership) in the areas of:

    • raw materials (land)
    • means of production (tools and methods of harnessing energy)
    • labor (who uses the tools and the methods of harnessing energy to work on raw materials)
    • commodities (finished products and services)
    • money which is transformed into capital – stocks, bonds and derivatives
    • power settings in which decisions about the economy are made (political settings). These include The National Association of Manufacturers and The Business Round Table. Internationally the Council of Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum and the G7 are examples.

    The purpose of capitalism is to make a profit which is unlimited in scope, protected by law, and if necessary, by the military. According to world-systems theorist Immanuel Wallerstein capitalists derive their profits by two processes:

    • broadening its reach, colonizing the periphery counties for its natural resources, inducing it to produce a single cash crop while paying wages far below wages of the workers in the core countries.
    • deepening its reach into core countries through increased commodification of previously uncommodified land and labor, automation, withdrawal of investment in military and finance capital

    Trends in capitalism

    Trends within capitalism over a 600-year period include:

    • a tendency towards a concentration of capital
    • a tendency to expand around the globe through transnational corporations
    • a movement from scattered territories to larger territorial control
    • phases in investing in merchant, agricultural (slavery), industrial, military and finance capital which become cycles
    • these become Kondratieff waves of expansion and contraction which occur every 55 years.
    • the end of a cycle is characterized by bifurcation points, crisis which occur at shorter and shorter intervals
    • crises points fuel increasing anti-systemic opposition
    • capitalist crises which accumulate to produce both the possibility of abundance, shorter work week and an accumulation of crisis of unresolved problems of previous cycles including ecological devastation
    • greater variety of resources

    Where are we headed?

    I begin my article by comparing world-systems theory to modernization theory across seven categories.  Next, I compare the characteristics of the three zones in world-systems theory – core, periphery and semi-periphery. While we can imagine capitalism over a 600-year period as a movie, we also want to take “snapshots” of the world-system on four separate occasions. Probably the most important part of the article is in describing Giovanni Arrighi’s cycles and spirals of capitalism over the last 600 years up to the close of the 20th century. In the last section in the piece I identify all the revolutionary changes that are happening to the 21st century world-system. The battle between the Anglo-American empire and the multipolarists will be framed from a world-systems perspective.

    What is World-systems Theory?

    In the 1950s, political science and international relations was dominated by an anti-communist “modernization theory”. In the 1960s the conservativism of modernization theory was first challenged by something called “dependency theory” led by Andre Gunder Frank and later by the “world-systems theory” of Immanuel Wallerstein. World-system theories were socialist but they were critical of the state socialism of Russia, China and Cuba. They argued that those countries were state capitalist. They strove to apply Marx’s theory of capitalism to the whole world as opposed to just single nation states as many Marx did. They challenged Lenin’s theory of imperialism as the last stage of capitalism as being too linear. In their perspective, imperialism is part of the end of each of the four cycles and was common for the Italians, the Dutch, the English and now the Yankees.

    World-systems theory was criticized by more traditional Marxists like Robert Brenner because he felt they did not emphasize enough the class struggle within nation states. World-systems theory seemed to be more interested in the political economy of the dynamics of three zones (core countries, peripheral countries and the semi-peripheral countries) rather than the class struggle within each zone.  I’ll discuss these zones in detail shortly.

    Modernization Theory vs World-systems theory

    Are nation-states primarily independent or interdependent?

    For modernization theory, nation states are independent and internally driven. The responsibility for their past, present and future direction is strictly determined by their foreign policy. In world-systems theory, nation-states are subordinate to an international system of capitalism and have only relative control over their foreign policy.

    Therefore, modernization theorists would look at poor countries in the world (what world-systems theory might call the periphery) and say their poverty was due to a failure to build modern institutions such as science or capitalism. They are dismissed as irrational tribalists marred by superstition. World-systems theorists would say countries on the world periphery are poor because they have been colonized and exploited by the core countries. Because nation-states are understood to be autonomous, capitalists are thought to be loyal patriotic servants of their nation-states. For world-systems theorists, capitalists are the most unpatriotic class of all. They are committed to making profits anywhere in the world. They will feign patriotism when they need foot soldiers to fight wars against other capitalist countries but otherwise they have no loyalties.

    What is the relationship between politics and economics?

    For modernization theorists’, politics and economics are separate. As you can well see, throughout the 1950s and even after modernization theory was criticized in the 1960s in political science classes, economics was never a serious part of a discussion. It would be like saying political meetings in Congress are strictly determined by the political ideologies of liberalism or conservatism. Money has no part in it. At the same time, the teachers of economics courses act like capitalist economics has no political dimension. This would be like saying the economic decisions of transnational corporations would not be influenced by political turmoil or a revolution in a periphery country in which they had large investments. Speaking internationally, for modernization theory, all wars are about political ideology.

    For world-systems theorists, there is only political economy. All economics is political and all political acts have economic aspects to it. For world-systems theory, wars have mostly to do with battles over natural resources. They also can be political but when a socialist country gains power in a war the trade relations become more unfavorable for capitalists.

    How is social evolution understood?

    Modernization theories imagine social evolution as progress. They say there is something inherently progressive about Western societies that older civilizations such as China and India lack. The wealth produced by capitalist societies is distributed somewhat unevenly because some people work harder than others. All roads in social evolution lead to the West with the pinnacle being Western Europe and the United States. Progress is linear, and modernization theory imagines that tribal societies are just dying to be modernized, blaming themselves for their situation. Modernization theory fails to account for complex societies’ disintegration and going backward (Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies) or Jared Diamond (Why Societies Collapse). Even when socialist societies are industrialized they are not considered modern because state control over the economy and one-party rule lack democracy.

    World-systems theory argue that progress in the history of human society has been uneven. They are willing to admit that the egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherers is admirable. They are well aware that an increase in the productive forces through technology, in fact, leads to more work for the lower classes rather than less. While world-systems theory acknowledges the benefits of science and some of the wealth produced by capitalism, it also points out the exploitation and misery it produces for working-class people as a result of class stratification.

    Rate and type of change

    Generally speaking, modernization theory understands the rate of social change to be gradual, evolutionary and relatively harmonious across social classes. For world-systems theory, like all Marxist theories, political and economic change is sudden, discontinuous, filled with conflict and driven by class struggle. For modernization theory instabilities are temporary and part of “business cycles” which settle back down into equilibrium and homeostasis. For world system theory, capitalist crisis is no static equilibrium model. Capitalism today will turn into a terminal crisis from which it will not recover. Whether it is the tendency of the rate or profit to fall, profit squeeze theory or under-consumption theory, the days of capitalism are numbered.

    While for modernization theory all roads start and end in Western Europe and the United States, for world-systems theorists, modernization may have begun in Europe, but it by no means is it likely to stay there. As we can see today, the world-system is shifting operations to China, the new center of the world-economy.

    Attitudes towards socialism

    As I mentioned before, modernization theorists are anti-communist. The only socialism for modernization theorists is Stalinism. Even when socialist societies industrialize, modernization theorists deny they are a modern system, because they lack bourgeois rights and a two-party system. They see socialist societies as some kind of throwback to Karl Wittfogel’s Orientation Despotism. While world-systems theorists essentially call themselves socialist, they criticize Stalinism as state capitalist, and Cuba and China as bureaucratic states. They look more favorably to Nordic evolutionary socialism, especially Sweden in the 20th century up to around 1980.

    Modernization theory understands capitalism and socialism as two separate systems. It imagines the rebellions of the 1960s as rebellions against socialist regimentation. It has been difficult for them to explain why an entire generation would rebel against the fleshpots of capitalist modernization in Western Europe and the United States. On the other hand, world-systems theorists understand that the existing socialist countries, including the state socialist countries, are part of a broad anti-systemic movement against capitalism which includes the various Leninist parties, social democrats and anarchists.

    For modernization theorists’ socialism has been tried and failed. Case closed. They would support Fukuyama’s claim that after the fall of the Soviet Union, history is over and capitalism has won. “Not so fast” say world-systems theorists. Capitalism is 500 years old and has only achieved economic and political dominance in the 19th century. Socialism is about 170 years old. It is too soon to tell whether socialism is a realistic alternative.

    Place and misplace of foreign aid

    For modernization theorists aid to poor or peripheral countries may be driven by a combination of self-interest at worst, and at best creating win-win situations. Foreign aid is given in the hopes that with the help of the West poor countries will industrialize, shed their backward ways and become competitive partners. For world- systems theorists the relation between core and peripheral countries is not neutral but imperialistic. Rich countries exploit poor countries for their land and labor and turn them into one crop-producing colonies. As Andre Gunder Frank quipped, the core countries underdeveloped the peripheral countries. Furthermore, world capitalist banks like the World Bank or the IMF do not give loans that will enable peripheral countries to build scientific institutions along with engineers. One reason is because scientists and engineers may discover new resources that might undermine the resources of core countries such as oil. This is one reason why fundamentalist religious institutions always seem to grow in peripheral countries because they are of no threat to capitalism. The CIA always finds money for them.

    Theoreticians

    As I’ve said, modernization theorists were most prevalent in the 1950s. They included Walt Rostow and Lucian Pye. Daniel Lerner specialized in telling the story of how tribal societies got on the road to modernization. Samuel Huntington is more contemporary with works like The Clash of Civilizations along with Francis Fukuyama, with his book The End of History.

    Early world-systems theorists were Oliver Cox who looked at race and caste from an international perspective. Immanuel Wallerstein provided a foundation for world-systems theories, drawing on the work of Fernand Braudel. Christopher Chase-Dunn and Tom Hall extended a world-systems perspective all the way back to tribal societies. Giovanni Arrighi took a deep look at the history of capitalism (to be covered shortly) and Samir Amin has been a kind of watchdog always trying to keep world-systems theory from being too Eurocentric. Beverly Silver made a study of workers movements from a world-systems perspective. Lastly Christopher Chase Dunn and Terry Boswell located the history of workers’ movements over a 600-year period of capitalism, not as isolated in nation-states (as traditional Marxists have done) but as part of the dark side of the cycles and spirals of capitalism.

    Characteristics of the Three Zones

    In world-systems theory, there are three regions of the world — the core, the periphery and the semi periphery. In the 20th century the core countries were the wealthy countries of Yankeedom, Western Europe and Japan. The Scandinavian countries are cases of successful state-capitalism. Most of the periphery countries were the heavily colonialized states of Africa. In the semi-periphery were Russia, China, Eastern Europe, most of Latin America and Southeast Asia.

    Economics and politics

    Contrary to what Marx predicted, there are no countries in the core of the world- system that are socialist. In the semi-periphery there has arisen both capitalist and state socialist societies. Most of the periphery countries are operating with a combination of tribal or state redistributive system combined with exploited low wage workers at the beck-and-call of imperialists in the core.  In terms of political power, core countries have developed their own bourgeois representative systems without any political pressure outside the core. Peripheral countries have the least political power. Many of the core countries have installed dictatorships there in the hopes of controlling peripheral economies. Home-grown leaders of peripheral countries are often anti-imperialist revolutionaries agitating to overthrow imperialism in their country.

    Countries in the semi-periphery have a moderate degree of autonomous political power but their elections are closely watched by the deep state in core societies because they have more technological self-rule and could get out of control. In state socialist countries, political power is highly concentrated at the top. Socialist societies cannot afford to have many political parties. Those smaller parties are subject to manipulation by the deep state within core countries which works to overthrow socialism. Because peripheral countries have been exploited by imperialism they are poor. World capitalist banks offer loans at interest rates so high that it is rare for peripheral countries to get out of debt. The loans received from these banks are only for raw materials and for cash crop agriculture. No loans are made for education or building infrastructures.

    Energy bases, commodities and wages

    The energy bases of core countries are electronic-industrial. The semi-periphery countries are industrial-agricultural while in the periphery they are mostly agricultural or horticulture in the sub-Sahara Africa. The technology in the core countries draws on inanimate sources of energy and machine-based. In the periphery, work is labor intensive using mostly animal and wind power. In the semi-periphery capitalists implement hand-me-down machines from core countries. As might be expected, wages are highest in core countries because unions have been institutionalized. In the periphery, because there is very little industry, there are no unions and it is here where wages are lowest. Typically, workers might work part-time in industry, also working in garment industry, as water carriers, day laborers with some cash crop planting. In the semi-periphery there is some unionization and in state-socialist societies wages might be good.

    Commodities and economic policy: free trade vs protective tariffs

    Because of their colonial relations with the periphery core counties import raw materials cheaply and export manufactured goods, which are more expensive. In peripheral countries, they export raw materials, mostly cash crops and import goods from the West at higher prices, keeping them in a dependent relationship.

    The economic policy of the core countries is “free trade” which, of course, is not free but gives them a license to go wherever they want, exploiting land and labor where there is little or no resistance. Countries in the semi-periphery, when driven by their population or the vision of their leaders, may adopt protective tariffs in the hopes of protecting the growth of their home industries. On the periphery, the economic policy is forced free trade with colonialists. Often one of the major efforts in peripheral liberation movements is to elect leaders who follow protective tariffs to attempt to build up home industries. Semi-periphery countries are somewhat dependent on core countries but they in turn also exploit the periphery to a less extent. These semi-periphery countries use their surplus to invest more in their domestic economy. They export peripheral-like goods to the core and export core goods to the periphery.

    Class, race, ethnic and regional conflicts

    For most of the 20th century in the core countries the conflicts between groups were class conflicts and in the United States, race conflicts. However, regional conflicts still smolder in Yankeedom between North and South. In Europe regional loyalties smolder in Spain, Northern Ireland, Belgium among others. The semi-periphery has similar class and regional problems. The periphery is torn apart between tribal loyalties and loyalties to the newly formed states which were once part of national liberation movements.

    Role of the military

    Lastly, we turn to the role of the military. After two world wars over colonies, core states have agreed not to attack each other and the military is rarely involved in its domestic politics. The military of core countries is mostly employed in attempting to control the political life in the semi-periphery and the periphery. The military in semi-periphery countries is more volatile because core countries are concerned about the domestic policies there since these countries have the resource base – the science and engineers – to undermine the resource base of the core. The military in the semi-periphery gets involved, either as right-wing dictators or to bring in a left-wing military leader such as Hugo Chavez. The most direct military involvement is in the periphery because colonialists want to maintain control of the cheap land and labor they exploit. The military also tries to impose order in clashes within the domestic population between tribes, ethnic groups and state loyalists.

    Snapshots of the History of the World-system

    In his book An Introduction to the World-system perspective, Thomas Shannon introduces four “snapshots” (maps) of the world-system:

    • world-system from 1450-1620 (merchant capital)
    • world-system in 1763 (agricultural, slave capitalism)
    • world-system in 1900 (industrialization)
    • the contemporary world system in 20th century (finance capital, electronics)

    What might be confusing is that the world-system, though it has the “world’ in it, does not mean it is a global society. For most of the history of world-system, the core, periphery and semi periphery only covered part of the globe. The fact is in the world system of 1450-1620 most of the world system was concentrated in Europe – Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, France and England. The periphery consisted of the Scandinavian countries and central and South America. The United States was not even in the world-system while Russia, China and India were part of agricultural empires.

    In the 1763 snapshot, the core countries are Great Britain and  France, with the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal slipping into minor core status. The semi-periphery then consisted of the North Italian city-states and Prussia. Thanks to colonialization by the British, the United States and West Africa were now on the periphery of the world system. Poland and Russia were now in the periphery. China and India were still outside the world system.

    By 1900 Great Britain and France remained as core countries but they were now joined by late developing Germany and the United States.  By 1900 most of the globe was now in the world-system, with Russia moving to the semi-periphery and China now on the periphery. This was the age of colonialism as all of Africa, China and South America were on the world capitalist periphery.

    By the 20th century the world-system was rocked by two world wars which hollowed out Europe and reduced them to minor core status. The rise of Japan in the late 19th century and early 20th century catapulted it into core status. The first three quarters of the 20th century were the time of Yankeedom. The 20th century saw the emergence of the first socialist states in Russia, China and Cuba. Russia maintained its semi-peripheral status while Cuba and China continued to be poor and in the periphery of the world-system.

    Capitalist Cycles and Their Leading Hegemons

    In 1994 Giovanni Arrighi wrote a great book with a bad title, The Long 20th Century.

    The heart of the book is the tracing of the history of capitalism through four cycles. Instead of looking at capitalism as a linear line moving from merchant capitalism to agricultural capitalism, to industrial, to finance capitalism and imperialism, Arrighi analyzed capitalism as a series of four cycles which played themselves out through leading hegemons throughout Europe. Through each cycle there were mercantile, agricultural, industrial and financial phases, but they weren’t all of the same weight.

    Italian city-states

    For example, the first place the cycles occurred were in the city-states of Genoa and Venice between 1450 and 1640. They made profits based on merchant capital through trading. Being city states, they didn’t make much profit on agriculture and what industry existed was small. However, when their profits were made on finance and wars, that was the end of their power. As we shall see throughout all hegemon rulers, when profits are made on war and finance they are on their way out.

    Dutch sea trade

    After the Italian wars and the discovery of new trade routes West, the Italian city-states lost their core status. Dutch sea power arose in the 17th century. Again, the Dutch profits were based on merchant trade but trade on a much larger scale than the Italians. They were led by East Indian and West Indian monopoly companies. There were at least five reasons the Dutch superseded Genoa and Venice.

    • scale of operation – the Dutch had greater commercial and financial networks
    • financial base of the Dutch monopoly companies are less vulnerable to competing trade countries
    • Dutch interest clashed more dramatically with central authorities of medieval world. This drove them to be more independent from religion
    • Dutch war-making was superior
    • the Dutch had greater state-making capacity

    The end of the line for the Dutch was also when money houses became a greater source of profit than trade. Dutch hegemony ended in wars with the English beginning in 1781. England was also a great sea power at this time and were also better colonizers than the Dutch.

    The sun never sets on the British empire

    The secret to British hegemony in the 19th century was the industrial revolution. Here profits were made rebuilding cities with railroads and textile factories. While Britain made profits on trade (merchant capital), while it derived profits from cash crops and slavery (agricultural capital), what made it distinct was the industrial revolution and the harnessing of coal and steam. For Britain the end came towards the end of the 19th century when it shifted its wealth from industry to finance, The British empire was with the wars over colonies with Germany, Italy and Japan.

    The American century 1870-1970

    The United States made profits off its sea power and its planters made profits on agricultural slavery working with the British. But its greatest profits derived from industry. By the second half of the 19th century the United States became an industrial powerhouse, competing directly with the British. Besides coal, the oil Barons made a fortune on the railroads in this ascendent phase of capitalism. In the two world wars that followed, the United States became the only core country standing. After World War II it was the sole core power. Between 1948-1970 it peaked.

    However, in the 19th and 20th centuries capitalist countries were racked by depressions in 1837, 1873 and 1896 and then the Great Depression of 1929-1939. Capitalists in the United States noticed that it was investment in military arms that got the US capitalist economy out of the depression more than Roosevelt’s programs. After World War II, the defense industry became an ongoing investment even in peace-time. Then it began to sell arms around the world to fight communism.

    Lastly, investing in finance capital – stocks, bonds and derivatives – gave quicker turn-around profits than investing in industry. Once Japan and Germany had recovered from World War II, the United States faced real competition. Instead of investing in infrastructures, it invested in finance capital. Instead of investing in its workers, it pulled industries out of the United States and relocated in peripheral countries where land and labor were cheap. This was the beginning of the end. So began a 50-year decline.

    Trends in the History of Capitalism

    From investing in the physical economy to investment in finance

    In describing these trends as a whole, Arrighi takes some liberties with Marx’s C-M-C; M-C-M formula. He says that in the ascendant phase of capitalism the M-C moment of capitalism is pronounced. That means that money is invested in commodities, trade, production and expansion. Money is invested in solid material. When a hegemon’s days are numbered C-M commodities are invested in money, the capitalist economy is contracting and capital is invested in finance capital, profits made on stocks and bonds can easily be moved around (liquidity).

    Shortening of cycles

    The four cycles Arrighi analyzes are not evenly distributed in time across the hegemons. The pace of rise and fall speeds up. The rise and fall of the Italian city-states was 220 years; the United Dutch provinces lasted 180 years; the British heyday lasted 130 years and the United States 100 years from 1873-1973. Meanwhile the cycles do not just end and resume again without accumulating consequences.

    Some twentieth century trends

    • artificial intelligence which has the potential to shorten the work week
    • the opportunity to live longer – thanks to science
    • the chance to colonize space
    • an increase in rebellion over the centuries including the rise of socialism in the second half of the 19th century among workers and peasants
    • the impact of ecology with increasing pollution and severe weather
    • the deterioration of health due to genetically modified foods and pharmaceutical drugs.

    Revolution in the World-system in the 21st Century

    Rise of an alliance between semi-periphery countries

    When the Soviet Union collapsed around 1990 it looked as if, despite its declining power, Yankeedom would continue to be the hegemon into the 21st century. But a funny thing happened in the first two decades of the 20th century. One was the rise of nationalism in Russia under Putin. The other was the emergence of a powerhouse economy in China. This was predicted  by Arrighi in his later book Adam Smith in Beijing and Andre Gunder Frank’s book ReORIENT.

    From a world-systems perspective, the rise of a semi-peripheral country like China is no surprise, as world-systems theory has always argued that the semi-periphery countries have the most revolutionary potential. This is because they are wealthy enough to support scientists and engineers who potentially can produce an economic policy separate from the core countries. What seems unprecedented is the alliance of two semi-peripheral countries (Russia and China) with a deep alliance which cuts across military and economic cooperation.

    In fact, the rise of BRICS as a challenge to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is noteworthy because virtually every country in BRICS is a semi-peripheral country. The multipolar world is composed of semi-peripheral countries unified by the New Silk Road. Furthermore, if China continues to grow the way it has been, in the next twenty years it will become the first core country since the beginnings of capitalism not located in the West. Secondly, under the leadership of the Communist Party and state-owned enterprises, China clearly has a socialist end in mind. It would be the first time a core country in the world-system was socialist. Third, China has not pressured Russia, Iran or any country in the multipolar orbit to become socialist. So whatever political and economic tensions might develop in the multipolar world, it is not likely to be the old capitalism vs socialism battle.

    The United States and Europe

    In the new multipolar world-system, the United States will sink to the status of a semi-peripheral country because its capitalists will not invest in rebuilding its abandoned infrastructure. It is likely to live on as a home of finance capitalists giving loans to other decimated capitalists countries or in supplying military arms to countries which have not joined in the multipolar world. These lost countries could be in South or Central America or in Middle Eastern countries which are not part of the Belt Road initiative.

    Europe has been vassal of the United States for 80 years. Up until the last couple of years, Germany was the only European country which was an industrial powerhouse. But this has changed since the US has insisted that Europe abide by its sanctions of Russia. There is not a single European county with the exception of Hungary that has stood up to the United States. As the United States continues its decent from core to semi-periphery, Europe will follow with England being the weakest country. Once it slowly dawns on the European rulers that Yankeedom will not save them, they may attempt to make back-room deals with Russia and China in terms of natural gas and other sources of energy. It might be that in the next 50 years the old European core countries may regain their balance and occupy a semi-peripheral status in the new multipolar system.

    The Middle East and South America

    To the extent that China can diplomatically integrate Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Middle Eastern countries with oil, they will remain in the semi-periphery of the world’s new multipolar system. Expect Israel to degenerate as Mordor will be less able to help them and they will be surrounded by hostile Arab states with scores to settle. In South America Argentina and Chile will join Brazil in the semi-periphery. Venezuela will finally be spared from Mordor’s intervention and be protected by China as a fellow socialist society.

    Global South

    The refusal of African states to do the bidding of Mordor against Russia speaks volumes for the end of their hopes to ever get a fair deal from the United States or its financial institutions. There has been an openness to project proposals from China and Russia for building railroads and schools. Some African states like Nigeria or Sudan might, over the course of a generation, build their countries up to a semi-periphery status the way Libya was when Gaddafi was in power.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US bill would punish enablers of Uyghur human rights violations in China

    A bill re-introduced to Congress by two lawmakers on Tuesday would expand U.S. sanctions to include foreign companies that do business with entities identified as contributing to human rights violations against ethnic Uyghurs in China’s Far West.

    The proposed law, the Sanctioning Supporters of Slave Labor Act, would authorize U.S. government agencies to impose secondary sanctions on companies or individuals that have transactions with sanctioned entities, such as the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, or XPCC, the biggest state-owned enterprise in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. 

    If it passes, any non-U.S. company that enters transactions with such entities would be banned from working with American companies and their assets in U.S. bank accounts would be frozen, according to the office of Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, one of the two sponsors of the bill.

    Companies would be forced to choose between keeping sanctioned suppliers in Xinjiang or continuing to sell their products in the United States, his office said.

    “Further actions must be taken to hold accountable those individuals and entities benefiting from the forced labor of Uyghurs,” Rubio said in a statement. “Not only should China’s genocidal regime answer for the crimes they are committing but also the companies that profit from these atrocities.” 

    The bill expands on a previous law, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, passed in 2020, that imposes sanctions against entities determined to be supporting the Chinese Communist Party’s violations of Uyghur and other ethnic minority rights.

    U.S. Rep. Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

    The bill had initially been introduced in 2022, during the last congressional session, but wasn’t passed, so the lawmakers have re-introduced it.

    International condemnation

    China has come under harsh international criticism in recent years for its severe rights abuses of the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs, including forced labor.

    The U.S. government and several Western parliaments, including the German Bundestag, have declared that the abuses in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in the far western part of China amount to genocide or crimes against humanity.

    The United States has passed two pieces of legislation to address these grave abuses.

    Congress passed a law that took effect In December 2021 called the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, or the UFLPA, that directed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to support enforcement of the prohibition on the import of goods into the U.S. manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor in China, especially from Xinjiang. 

    And in late May, a bipartisan piece of legislation, the Uyghur Genocide Accountability and Sanctions Act was introduced, which further reinforces the two existing laws by mandating new sanctions on Chinese entities and requiring companies to disclose any ties they have to supply chains that touch Xinjiang.

    Rubio was one of the sponsors to introduce these bills, and has been sanctioned by Chinese authorities.

    Some lawmakers have accused American companies of aiding and abetting the Chinese Communist Party in their human rights violations.

    “Prior experience with the effort to get UFLPA passed shows that corporate America is willing to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses and even genocide, if it means maximizing their profit margins,” Sen. Rubio added.

    A 2020 New York Times report revealed that major corporations such as Nike and Coca-Cola had invested heavily in lobbying Congress to weaken the UFLPA.

    Rubio said he hoped the new legislation would put more teeth into previous laws. 

    “This will only increase pressure on the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) to stop its senseless attacks on Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and the other peoples living in Xinjiang,” Rubio said.

    Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Bing Xiao.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • French President Macron to make historic visit to PNG, Vanuatu

    RNZ Pacific

    French President Emmanuel Macron will make a first official visit to Papua New Guinea next Friday as part of a short Pacific trip.

    AFP news agency reports that Macron’s trip will start in New Caledonia before he travels to Vanuatu and Port Moresby.

    A French official told the news agency the trip was “historic” because no French president had ever visited non-French islands in the region.

    President Emmanuel Macron in Noumea on an earlier visit to New Caledonia … “recommitting” France to the Pacific region. Image: Crikey

    Macron will use those two stops to outline his Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at “recommitting” France to the region, the official said.

    PNG Prime Minister James Marape said he would meet one-on-one with Macron, and the itinerary for the visit also included a courtesy call on Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae and the signing of various agreements.

    Marape emphasised the significance of Macron’s visit in strengthening bilateral relations between France and Papua New Guinea.

    “Under my leadership, France and PNG have been actively enhancing our bilateral relationship, along with other nations,” he said on his website.

    “I appreciate President Macron’s commitment, as demonstrated by his decision to visit PNG and engage in discussions on matters of mutual interest between our countries.”

    Final LNG decision
    Macron’s visit comes on the eve of the final investment decision (FID) by French super-major TotalEnergies on the Papua LNG Project.

    TotalEnergies is also involved in downstream processing of natural resources such as forests.

    “In the midst of the evolving geopolitical landscape in the region, Papua New Guinea serves as ‘neutral ground,’ and I will urge France to consider PNG’s strategic position amid the changing regional dynamics,” Marape added.

    “The visit of President Macron to PNG will further solidify the growing cooperation and shared goals between our two nations, particularly in the areas of forest conservation, French investments in PNG such as TotalEnergies, mobilising resources to support small Pacific Island countries and communities, and other relevant matters.”

    Macron last year relaunched France’s Indo-Pacific approach in the aftermath of a bitter row over a cancelled submarine contract with Australia, casting France as a balancing power in a region dominated by the tussle between China and the United States.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Heatwave hits southern Europe, US and China | Channel 4 News | 17 July 2023 | Just Stop Oil


    This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China Sees Record-Breaking Temperatures as Europe Faces Historic Heat This Week

    The world is in the grips of a dangerous heat wave that has sent temperatures skyrocketing to deadly levels throughout Asia, Europe and the Americas. Unless urgent action is taken to reduce carbon emissions, the United Nations says, Earth could pass a temperature threshold in the next decade when climate disasters are too extreme to adapt to. We speak with longtime climate journalist Jeff Goodell…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Why Are There No Slums in China?

    With over 20 million inhabitants each, Shanghai and Beijing are among the “hypercities” of the Global South, including Delhi, São Paulo, Dhaka, Cairo, and Mexico City, far surpassing the “megacities” of the Global North like London, Paris, or New York.1 Walking the streets in China’s cities, you will however, quickly notice one marked difference – the absence of large slums or pervasive homelessness that is so common to most of the rest of the world.

    Slums were not uncommon in Chinese cities a few decades ago, from the precarious working class districts of 1930s Shanghai to the shanty towns of British-occupied Hong Kong in the 1950s onwards. How did China manage to develop in a way that decreased mass housing precarity?  What are the structural reasons behind it?

    This issue of Dongsheng Explains looks into how the Chinese government deals with homelessness, how this issue relates to socialist construction, and how China confronts the challenges posed by rapid economic development, urbanization, and the migration of recent decades.

    Why did mass urbanization not create large slums in China?

    When reform and opening up began in the late 1970s, 83 percent of China’s population lived in the countryside. By 2021, the proportion of the rural population had fallen to 36 percent. During this period of mass urbanization, over 600 million people migrated from rural areas to cities.

    Today, there are 296 million internal “migrant workers” (农民工, nóngmín gōng), comprising over 70 percent of the country’s total workforce.2 Migrant workers became the economic engine of China’s rapid growth, which created the world’s largest middle class of 400 million people.

    This historic migration came with many challenges, including the emergence of “urban villages” that had poor living conditions and inadequate infrastructure. Although basic amenities – such as running water, electricity, gas, and communications – were provided, sanitation, public services, fire safety, and other such amenities resembled that of rural villages. Due to lower rents and the lack of other affordable housing, urban villages are largely inhabited by migrant workers.

    With the acceleration of urbanization in the 2000s, the Chinese government began to promote large-scale transformation of the old areas of the cities, focusing on renovation of historically deteriorated neighborhoods and the removal of dangerous housing. Between 2008 and 2012, 12.6 million households in urban villages were rebuilt nationwide.Migrant workers are workers whose household registration is still in rural areas and who are engaged in non-agricultural industries or leave their hometowns for work in another part of the country for at least six months of the year.3 At the same time, efforts were made to construct public rental or low-rent housing. For instance, in Shanghai today, families of three or more people with a monthly income of less than 4,200 yuan per person can apply for low-rent housing, with the monthly rent being just a few hundred yuan (or five percent of monthly household income). In 2022, the central government announced the construction of 6.5 million units of low-cost rental housing in 40 cities, representing 26 percent of the total new housing supply in the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025).4

    Indeed the explosion of rural-to-urban migration in recent decades is not a phenomenon unique to China. While understanding that there are different definitions of “slums” used by countries and international organizations, they all point to the same tendency:  since the 1970s, slum growth outpaced urbanization rates across the Global South. China’s efforts to upgrade existing precarious housing or build new affordable housing does not, however, explain why China did not develop slums like in so many other countries. Urbanization in China, therefore, must be understood within the context of socialist construction.

    What is the “hukou” system and what does it have to do with socialism?

    One unique characteristic of China’s urbanization process is that, although policies encouraged migration to cities for industrial and service jobs, rural residents never lost their access to land in the countryside. In the 1950s, the Communist Party of China (CPC) led a nationwide land reform process, abolishing private land ownership and transforming it into collective ownership. During the economic reform period, beginning in 1978, a “Household Responsibility System” (家庭联产承包责任制 jiātíng lián chǎn chéngbāo zérèn zhì) was created, which reallocated rural agricultural land into the hands of individual households. Though agricultural production was deeply impacted, collective land ownership remained and land was never privatized.

    Today, China has one of the highest homeownership rates in the world, surpassing 90 percent, and this includes the millions of migrant workers who rent homes in other cities. This means that when encountering economic troubles, such as unemployment, urban migrant workers can return to their hometowns, where they own a home, can engage in agricultural production, and search for work locally. This structural buffer plays a critical role in absorbing the impacts of major economic and social crises. For example, during the 2008 global financial crisis, China’s export-oriented economy, especially of manufactured goods, was severely hit, causing about 30 million migrant workers to lose their jobs. Similarly, during the Covid-19 pandemic, when service and manufacturing jobs were seriously impacted, many migrant workers returned to their homes and land in the countryside.

    Beyond land reform, a system was created to manage the mass migration of people from the countryside to the cities, to ensure that the movement of people aligned with the national planning needs of such a populous country. Though China has had some form of migration restriction for over 2,000 years, in the late 1950s, the country established a new “household registration system” (户口 or hùkǒu) to regulate rural-to-urban migration. Every Chinese person has an assigned urban or rural hukou status that grants them access to social welfare benefits (subsidized public housing, education, health care, pension,  and unemployment insurance, etc.) in their hometown, but which are restricted in the cities they move to for work. While reformation of the hukou system is ongoing, the lack of urban hukou status forces many migrant parents to spend long periods away from their families and they must leave their children in their grandparents’ care in their hometowns, referred to as “left-behind children” (留守儿童 liúshǒu értóng). Though the number has been decreasing over the years, there are still an estimated seven million children in this situation. Today, 65.22 percent of China’s population lives in cities, but only 45.4 percent have urban hukou. Although this system deterred the creation of large urban slums, it also reinforced serious inequities of social welfare between urban and rural areas, and between residents within a city based on their hukou status.

    How does the Chinese government deal with homelessness?

    In the early 2000s, the issues of residential status, rights of migrant workers, and treatment of urban homeless people became a national matter. In 2003, the State Council – the highest executive organ of state power – issued the “Measures for the Rescue and Management of Itinerant and Homeless in Urban Areas.”5 The new regulation created urban relief stations providing food rations and temporary shelters, abolished the mandatory detention system of people without hukou status or housing, and placed the responsibility on the local authorities for finding housing for homeless people in their hometowns.

    Under these measures, cities like Shanghai have set up relief stations for homeless people. When public security – the local police – and urban management officials encounter homeless people, they must assist them in accessing nearby relief stations. All costs are covered by the city’s fiscal budget. For example, the relief management station in Putuo District (with the fourth lowest per capita GDP of Shanghai’s 16 districts and a resident population of 1.24 million), provided shelter and relief to an average of 24.3 homeless people a month from June 2022 to April 2023, which could include repeated cases.6

    Relief stations provide homeless people with food and basic accommodations, help those who are seriously ill access healthcare, assist them to return to the locations of their household registration by contacting their relatives or the local government, and arrange free transportation home when needed.

    Upon returning home, the local county-level government is responsible to help the homeless people, including contacting relatives for care and finding local employment. For a very small number of people who are elderly, have disabilities, or do not have relatives nor the ability to work, the local township people’s government, or the Party-run street office, will provide national support for them in accordance with the “method of providing for extremely impoverished persons”, which is stipulated in the 2014 “Interim Measures for Social Assistance”. The content of the support includes providing basic living conditions, giving care to impoverished individuals who cannot take care of themselves, providing treatment for diseases, and handling funeral affairs, etc.

    This series of relief management measures ensure that administrative law enforcement personnel in the city do not simply expel homeless people from the city, but must guarantee that they receive proper assistance, in terms of housing, work, and support systems.

    What are the current challenges of urbanization, migration, and inequality?

    While creating relief centers is an important advancement, it is clear that shelters are not a structural solution and they alone cannot meet the needs of a metropolis like Shanghai of 25 million people, let alone the country’s 921 million urban residents. The government has been implementing many structural reforms to address inequality, and to make the cities and the countryside more liveable.

    In his report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, President Xi Jinping said: “We have identified the principal contradiction facing Chinese society as that between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life, and we have made it clear that closing this gap should be the focus of all our initiatives.”7 The unbalanced and inadequate development points to the gap between the countryside and cities, between underdeveloped and industrialized regions, and between the rich and poor.

    On a broader scale, the anti-poverty campaigns – highlighted by the eradication of extreme poverty in 2020 – and the rural revitalization strategy have helped alleviate the pressure of migrant workers moving to the cities. The government has invested substantial funds and resources, using diversified ways to alleviate poverty beyond income-transfer schemes, including developing rural industry, education, health care, and infrastructure.8 These measures fundamentally improved the living and employment environment in rural areas and created more opportunities so that people have the option to stay and work in the countryside. For example, every year, more migrants are returning from cities back to their hometowns, which increased from 2.4 million (2015) to 8.5 million people (2019).

    Over the last decade, China has implemented reforms to balance the easing of hukou residency requirements and to improve the social welfare of migrant workers, while ensuring that urbanization and population distribution responds to the country’s needs. Since 2010, major cities have gradually relaxed the household registration restrictions for school admission, allowing children of migrant workers to attend public schools like children with local hukou. Furthermore, according to the 2019 Urbanization Plan, cities with populations below three million people are required to remove all hukou restrictions, while bigger cities (under five million) can begin to relax restrictions. The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) and the country’s economic strategy until 2035 focus on redistributing income through tax reform, reducing the gap between the rich and poor, and removing the barriers that prevent millions of migrant workers from enjoying the full benefits of urban life. In 2021, the government invested US$5.3 billion to relax the hukou residency rules, and to also boost urban migrants’ spending power as part of the country’s “dual circulation” policy.9

    These efforts to tackle the “three mountains” of the high cost of housing, education, and health care faced by all Chinese people, including migrants, is at the center of the government’s vision and policy reforms towards “common prosperity” for all its citizens and the building of a modern socialist society.

    ENDNOTES


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dongsheng News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China Railway Completes 453 km/h Train Tests

    This week’s News on China.

    • CATL develops and researches electric batteries in Germany
    • More support measures for the real estate sector
    • Clean energy targets achieved 5 years ahead of schedule
    • China Railway completes 453 km/h train tests

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Looking to Sell Weapons, Military Contractors Push Arms Race With China

    Manufacturing in China has long supported the relatively high standard of living of millions of U.S. residents while helping U.S. corporations profit handsomely. Apple, Tesla, General Motors, Nike, Texas Instruments and Qualcomm have significant manufacturing operations in China. Meanwhile the Chinese government invests in U.S. Treasury and government agency bonds, having purchased about a…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • China conducts a 100-day ‘strike hard’ campaign against Uyghurs

    In the latest “strike hard” campaign in Xinjiang, authorities are cracking down on any gatherings of more than 30 people and say it will last 100 days, according to Chinese media and two police officers in the region, in the latest effort to persecute the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs who live there.  

    China regularly conducts “strike hard” campaigns in its far western region of Xinjiang that include police raids on Uyghur households, restrictions on Islamic practices and curbs on the culture and language of the ethnic minority group.

    Reports about the start of the new campaign in Xinjiang appeared on the Chinese social media app Douyin on July 3, saying it was being implemented across Hotan prefecture, which is in southern Xinjiang.    

    “The Hotan Prefecture Public Security Bureau will implement summer strikes, taking place from June 25 to Sept. 30 in order to ensure the protection of security within the region,” said Chinese media reported.

    Other media in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and Korla, the second-largest city in the region, broadcast similar announcements. Information about the 100-day strike hard campaign also appeared on government websites for every prefecture in Xinjiang.  

    Local public security bureaus are carrying out the operation in their respective areas, focusing on “crimes” deemed to pose a threat to public order, Chinese media reports said.

    The illegal activities include “stirring up trouble, engaging in group fights, bullying the public, blackmailing, monopolizing the market, participating in illegal gatherings, and spreading rumors with malicious intent.” Authorities also will target “illegal mafias and criminal organizations.” 

    ‘Combat illegal activities’

    RFA contacted police stations in various cities and counties in Xinjiang for information on the campaign, and two officers working the night shift at the Toqquztara County Police Department in northern Xinjiang’s Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture confirmed the 100-day campaign.

    A Chinese police officer said that the 100-day strike hard measures are in effect continuously throughout the year.  

    “We take action against illegal activities at any time throughout the entire year, 365 days,” he said. “Even after the conclusion of the 100-day strike, our efforts to combat illegal criminal activities will not cease.”

    Another officer there said the current strike-hard campaign is targeting individuals involved in drug use, drug dealing, gambling, group fighting and theft, as well as those who pose threats and disturbances to public peace. 

    “If we just watch and do nothing, they will think nothing is going to happen to them,” he said. “Some individuals may choose to hide during the day and engage in theft during the night, and we can take care of that.”

    Additionally, those who host gatherings with more than 30 people, organize parties or conduct religious ceremonies without first reporting to their neighborhood committee or to police will be targeted for holding “illegal gatherings,” the police officer said, referring to religious gatherings.

    “While some individuals may attend gatherings with good intentions, there are others who may have ulterior motives,” the policeman said. “However, regardless of their initial intentions, if any participant engages in discussions or activities involving forbidden matters, all individuals present at the gathering will face consequences.”

    Other illegal activities include watching and sharing forbidden content. 

    Reading from the Quran, the central religious text of Islam, should only be done under the guidance of a government-assigned imam, and individuals are forbidden to discuss the holy book on their own, the second officer said.

    Individuals from abroad who come to Xinjiang, including those visiting relatives, should report to neighborhood committees or a local police station within three days of their arrival or risk police action, he added.

    Neither Chinese media nor police contacted by Radio Free Asia states reasons for the current strike hard campaign. 

    Catalyst for crackdown

    The current crackdown coincides with a politically sensitive anniversary of deadly ethnic violence in Urumqi, which began on July 5, 2009.  

    The unrest was set off by a clash between Uyghur and Han Chinese toy factory workers in southern China’s Guangdong province in late June that year that left two Uyghurs dead. News of the deaths reached Uyghurs in Urumqi, sparking a peaceful protest that spiraled into beatings and killings of Chinese, with deaths occurring on both sides. Chinese mobs later staged revenge attacks on Uyghurs in the city’s streets with sticks and metal bars.

    About 200 people died and 1,700 were injured in three days of violence between ethnic minority Uyghurs and Han Chinese, according to China’s official figures. 

    Uyghur rights groups say the numbers of dead and injured were much higher.

    The crackdown in Urumqi became a catalyst for the Chinese government’s efforts to repress Uyghur culture, language and religion through mass surveillance and internment campaigns.

    “Behind the repressive measures undertaken by the Chinese Communist Party government, there are significant underlying issues,” said Omir Bekali, a Uyghur of Kazakh descent who spent nine months in three “re-education” camps in Xinjiang on allegations of terrorist activities, commenting on the latest strike hard campaign.

    “First, the timing of this ‘strike’ operation coincides with the July 5 Urumqi incident, a sensitive event that the Chinese government prefers not to acknowledge,” he told RFA. “It has been 14 years since the incident, yet the crackdown persists.” 

    “Second, the current policies pursued by the Chinese government in the region can be seen as a form of ethnic and cultural genocide,” he said, adding that authorities justify subjecting Uyghurs to physical and psychological harm as necessary measures for maintaining social stability. 

    The government also imposes restrictions on Uyghur weddings, funerals and candlelight ceremonies that do not adhere to government regulations, labeling them “illegal gatherings” as another way of carrying out genocide, said Bekali, who now lives in the Netherlands.

    The U.S. government and the parliaments of several Western countries have said that abuses, including the detention of Uyghurs in camps and prisons, physical mistreatment and torture, and the use of Uyghur forced labor, amount to genocide or crimes against humanity.

    Translated by RFA Uyghur. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Mehriban for RFA Uyghur.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China blocks prominent Tibetan lama from preaching

    The Chinese government has canceled a Tibetan Buddhist religious event where a prominent lama was scheduled to preach, though organizers obtained permission from authorities in advance, two Tibetans with knowledge of the situation said.  

    The seventh Gungthang Rinpoche Lobsang Jamyang Geleg Tenpe Khenchen was to give a Kalachakra teaching in Dzoege, Ngaba county, in the western Chinese province of Sichuan, where the he was born, the sources said. 

    The Kalachakra, which literally means “infinite wheel of time” in Sanskrit, is a sacred event where key Buddhist teachings are passed on to devotees. Only a very few qualified Tibetan Buddhist masters, including the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, can impart such teachings.

    The Rinpoche is an influential religious figure from Labrang Tashikyil Monastery in Xiahe county, Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, in Gansu province — part of the region traditionally known to Tibetans as Amdo. In 2004, he was recognized as the seventh reincarnation of Gungthang Rinpoche by the sixth one, Jamyang Zhepa. 

    The Tibetan title “rinpoche” means “precious one” and is used at the end of the name of lamas who have been recognized as the reincarnation of a great teacher.

    “The Kalachakra was scheduled to begin in July in Dzoege, but just when it was about to commence, the authorities canceled it,” said a Tibetan from inside Tibet, who requested anonymity so he could speak freely. 

    “The Chinese government cited that the month of July marks the 70th anniversary of the instituting of Kanlho prefecture, and therefore, the Kalachakra had to be canceled,” he said, referring to the Tibetan name for Gannan prefecture. 

    The move illustrates ongoing efforts by Chinese authorities to maintain a firm grasp on Tibetans by suppressing expressions of their Buddhist religion. 

    It also comes as the ruling Chinese Communist Party seeks to appoint its own Panchen Lama — the second-most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism who is chosen by the Dalai Lama — as a state-selected proxy. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the legitimate 11th Panchen Lama, has been missing since Chinese authorities abducted him in May 1995.

    In recent years, Chinese authorities have strengthened laws to control the behavior of religious teachers in an effort to curb the spread of Tibetan Buddhist teachings, demolished Tibetan religious sites, and closed down religious schools.  

    The Tibetan source went on to say that the venue and tents for the event had been in place since June, but that “Chinese authorities suddenly banned the Kalachakra for some lame excuses.”

    Tibetan Buddhists now hope that the authorities will allow the Kalachakra to be held in August, he added. 

    A Tibetan who lives in exile said the event was canceled because the Chinese government aims to curb the influence of Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan religious teachers. 

    “The Chinese government is aware that thousands of devotees from many Tibetan areas of Amdo, such as Machu, Luchu, Thewo, Dzoege, Shagdom, Jhamey, Thangkor and other regions, were going to attend the Kalachakra teaching, so the government canceled it to control and restrict these influences,” said the source who declined to be named so he could speak freely. 

    Translated by Tenzin Dickyi for RFA Tibetan. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Sangyal Kunchok for RFA Tibetan.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Why The Most Urgent Need, in Order to Prevent WW III, Is to End All Military Alliances Now

    World Wars I and II were contests between empires, and so America’s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was determined that after WW II, all empires would be outlawed and all international relations (between nations) would be controlled only by a global all-inclusive federation of nations, which in 1941 he referred to would be called “the United Nations” and which would exclusively possess the Executive, Legislative, and Juridical, powers and authorities  — to make and enforce the international laws that would be created by that international Legislature of all nations, subject to that Supreme Court which would interpret that Legislature’s constitution or “Charter” for this global government between nations, and which would be enforced by that international Executive. All strategic weaponry would be owned and under the control of that Executive and none other. This was FDR’s plan to replace empires and world wars, by creating the world’s first democratic federation of all nations, which would supersede and replace any and all empires.

    On 25 July 1945, FDR’s immediate successor Harry Truman, became convinced by two imperialists whom he deeply respected, Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower, to reject that plan by FDR, which plan Truman didn’t even know about but only inferred might have existed and been FDR’s plan. In any case, Truman secretly despised FDR, and replaced his entire Cabinet within two years, so that he (instead of FDR) would shape the post-WW-II world.

    The first-ever military alliance was created by Truman (under the guidance of Eisenhower, Churchill, James Byrnes and others) in order to carry out his plan for ultimate global conquest. A “military alliance” is a military contract between nations that is legally binding between them by a provision in it that says an invasion against any one of them will be an invasion against all of them and will automatically place each one of them into a state of war against that invader. It is unlike all prior empires because it is by contract instead of by exigency. Unlike in World Wars One and Two, in neither of which, the empires or coalition of empires that were waging war against each other were subject to any overriding pre-signed contract amongst them, the U.S. Government in 1949 created the world’s very first military alliance by contract, NATO, and many of the signatories to or members of that contract didn’t know when they signed it that they were thereby committing their nation to relying upon the U.S. Government to determine their foreign policies, which would be enforced by the U.S. military — they didn’t know that they were thereby becoming vassal-nations or colonies of an entirely new TYPE of empire: a military alliance by contract, instead of merely by exigency (such as had been the case in WW I & WW II).

    This was an entirely new phenomenon in world affairs, and it is increasingly forcing the world’s nations to either comply with whatever the demands by the U.S. Government are, or else to potentially become victimized by the U.S. and its ‘allies’, such as Germany did when the U.S. Government arranged for the Russo-German-owned Nord Stream fuel pipelines from Russia to Germany and the rest of the EU, to become blown-up and destroyed (which was an act of war by the U.S. Government against both Russia and Germany, Germany being itself a member-nation in NATO and therefore having no recourse against it).

    When the Nord Stream pipelines were blown-up, Germany could not rely upon the NATO Treaty to protect itself against that invader because the invader in that instance was the U.S. Government, the virtual owner of NATO; and, furthermore, the U.S. Government has 231 military bases in Germany; so, Germany’s Government was powerless to resist in any way — verbally or otherwise.

    The world’s second military alliance was the Warsaw Pact, which was created on 14 May 1955 by the Soviet Union in direct response to the U.S. Government’s contemptuous rejection of the Soviet Union’s secret request on 22 April 1954 to Eisenhower, to be considered for possible admission into NATO. That rejection was the moment when Khrushchev recognized to a certainty that the U.S. Government was determined to conquer the Soviet Union, no matter what concessions the Soviet Union might make. Whereas in the NATO treaty, its Article 5 is the core, the core in the Warsaw Pact treaty is its Article 4, which is equivalent to it. Whereas the Warsaw Pact agreement became terminated in 1991 on the basis of verbal promises not to expand the alliance, which the U.S. Government and its allies had made in 1990 to the Soviet Government, all of which turned out all to have been lies that were controlled by U.S. President GHW Bush, the NATO agreement remained in force and even doubled its membership after the Warsaw Pact ended.

    The world’s third military alliance is the AUKUS Treaty, this being a secret treaty (thus even worse than the NATO Treaty, which was not a secret agreement) by which the U.S. and its UK partner created a new military alliance, between Australia, UK, and U.S., but this time against China, instead of against Russia. There have been efforts by the U.S. Government to get its NATO military alliance to include the leading nations in the areas of the Pacific and Indian Oceans to join NATO, but NATO’s France has thus-far blocked that. Apparently, if the U.S. Government is determined to force WW III to start in Asia-Pacific, then the military alliance will have to be based on the secret AUKUS agreement, not on the public NATO agreement.

    In order for AUKUS to avoid being criticized on account of the non-publication of the treaty, a Web-search for such phrases as “AUKUS text” produces subsidiary documents such as this, instead of the actual document, and this is done in order to deceive researchers to think that it’s not even a military alliance at all (and in that linked-to example, it’s only an agreement about technological cooperation, which doesn’t even mention “China” nor have any mutual-‘defense’ clause in it). They’re treating researchers as fools.

    Consequently, there now are two military alliances, NATO against Russia, and AUKUS against China, and both of them are intended ultimately to conquer the entire world with the participation of America’s ‘allies’ or colonies.

    To the extent that either of these military alliances succeeds, there will be a Third World War; and, so, now, all nations of the world are implicitly being challenged, either to join the U.S. to conquer Russia and China; or, else, to say no to the U.S. Government, and to demand that it reverse what it did and for it to participate with other nations to institute the changes that must be made to the U.N.’s Charter in order to transform that into what FDR had been intending; or, else, for all decent nations to create together a replacement of Truman’s U.N., so that the U.S. Government will become isolated in its aim to win a WW III, and there will instead become the type of world that FDR had been hoping would follow after WW II — a world that would NOT produce another World War..

    Conceptually, the issue here is between the Truman-installed win-lose plan for the future (which is no basic change from the past), versus a win-win plan for the future, which is what FDR and the Governments in both Russia and China have been advocating for but no one is doing anything to help actually bring about. Ironically, the Truman plan would actually be lose-lose, because any WW III would destroy this entire planet. But it’s the direction we are heading toward.

    It’s important to understand that though FDR invented and came up with the fundamental principles for his planned “United Nations,” it was Truman right after FDR’s 12 April 1945 death who basically controlled the San Francisco Conference, during 25 April to 26 June 1945 and the text that it wrote for the U.N.’s Charter. We got Truman’s U.N. — not FDR’s.

    Also ironically, the Truman pathway we are on, toward that result, is the opposite of “democracy” though is claimed to epitomize democracy. For example: just consider the ridiculousness of the AUKUS contract being a SECRET treaty among self-proclaimed ‘democracies’. Then add to this the fact that the secret treaty is a preparation for a WW III that would start in Asia against China instead of in Europe (which had been the main battleground in both of the first two World Wars) and against Russia. So: its presumption is that the world’s publics will quietly be shepherded into WW II on the basis of — among other lies — a secret treaty, the one that created the world’s second military alliance and that isn’t even criticized for its being a secret (and extremely dangerous) treaty among ‘democracies’. Lies can kill the world.

    These are the reasons why both NATO and AUKUS must be disbanded, just like the Warsaw Pact was. Either that, or else we’ll have WW III.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Kerry: China won’t surrender ‘developing country’ rights

    China won’t surrender its status as a “developing nation” any time soon due to the benefits it confers, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said Thursday ahead of a trip to Beijing, even as he acknowledged the designation had poor optics given China is the world’s largest carbon polluter.

    Kerry also told lawmakers that concerns about human rights abuses in China should not stop cooperation to mitigate climate change.

    Appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee ahead of talks in Beijing next week, Kerry was asked by Chairman Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, whether he would push Chinese officials to surrender the self-designation of “developing nation.”

    “It just continues to baffle me that the second-largest economy in the world is somehow treated as a developing nation,” McCaul said, complaining that it both lets Beijing access cheaper World Bank loans and commit to less stringent carbon-reduction goals.

    China, he noted, plans to continue increasing carbon emissions until 2030 and then start a program of reductions to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, despite already being the world’s leading annual emitter.

    ENG_CHN_JohnKerry_07132023.2.jpg
    Coal is loaded onto trucks for delivery to power generation plants, after being unloaded from ships at the port in Lianyungang, in China’s eastern Jiangsu province on July 12, 2023. (Photo by STRINGER / AFP / China OUT)

    “I talk to my constituents back home and say, ‘Yeah, you know, Secretary Kerry’s going over there trying to save the world. It’s great, but hey, guess what? China doesn’t have to comply till 2060, because they lie and say they’re a developing nation,’” McCaul said.

    “The United States,” he continued, “we’ve got to comply almost immediately. The American people understand fairness. And honestly, sir, they do not see this as fair.”

    Be realistic

    Kerry replied that he understood the poor optics of the designation.

    “I can’t disagree with that. They do not see it as fair,” Kerry said, adding it was not only McCaul’s constituents who were “concerned about this differential in the designation” with the United States.

    “With respect to this developed/developing [question] it should confound anybody at this point in time – and it’s one of the topics I’ve raised this with my counterpart in China and others,” Kerry said.

    Kerry said he believed the United Nations would “revisit” the issue of development designations next year, but that he did not expect Beijing to surrender “developing” status next week due to U.S. pressure.

    “Let me just be frank with you: That’s not going to happen,” the climate envoy said. “It’s just not going to happen on this visit. But the Chinese government understands that this is a growing issue of concern.”

    Big but developing

    China is by far and away the world’s largest carbon emitter, according to the latest World Bank data, emitting more carbon dioxide each year than the next seven-placed countries – the United States, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Germany and South Korea – do combined.

    But the question of the development status of the world’s second-largest economy is complicated. 

    While the United Nations allows countries to self-designate their status – to the chagrin of lawmakers like McCaul – other institutions have more concrete metrics, and China is only just reaching the top tier.

    The World Bank, for instance, puts in its top bracket of “high income countries” only those that have a per-capita annual gross national income of above US$13,205. Last year, China fell a few hundred dollars short of that – at $12,805 – and was far behind most Western countries. The United States, by comparison, reached $76,370.

    When it comes to responsibility for climate change, China has also emitted less in total than the United States over the course of history, due to the much earlier industrialization of the Western world.  

    That has not gone unremarked upon by Chinese officials.

    “Requiring a country that has only been developing for a few decades to shoulder the responsibilities of those industrial countries who have developed for hundreds of years, this itself is unfair,” China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, said during a press conference in 2019.

    Uyghur slave labor

    During the hearing, Kerry was also pressed over an interview he gave to Bloomberg last year in which he appeared to downplay the treatment of Uyghurs by Beijing, which the United States has termed a genocide.

    ENG_CHN_JohnKerry_07132023.3.jpg
    “Life is always full of tough choices in the relationship between nations,” says U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, seen at a House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 13, 2023. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP)

    Kerry was asked in the interview if he had concerns about negotiating climate change mitigation given China’s rights abuses.

    “Well, life is always full of tough choices in the relationship between nations,” he replied, pointing out that U.S. President Ronald Reagan met Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s to seek deals on nuclear weapons despite calling the Soviet Union as “the evil empire.” 

    “The point I’m making is that, even as there were egregious human rights issues, which Ronald Reagan called them out on, we have to find a way forward to make the world safer, to protect our countries and act in our interests. We can do and must do the same thing now.”

    On Thursday, Kerry reiterated that point, after being asked by Rep. Cory Mills, a Republican from Florida, if he thought it was a “tough choice” whether the United States should import solar panels “built on the backs of Uyghur slaves” in order to reduce carbon emissions.

    He replied he often brought up concerns about the treatment of Uyghurs in China during his talks, but that it would be “malpractice of the worst order” for the United States not to engage the second-largest economy on climate change due to its human rights concerns.

    “We don’t have to wrap [our priorities] up,” Kerry said, “so one becomes hostage to the other, where you don’t make progress.”


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alex Willemyns for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • West Ignores Role of NATO Expansion in Driving Russia’s War on Ukraine

    After the closing of a major NATO summit in Lithuania, President Biden vowed to support Ukraine and warned the war may continue for a long time, before flying to Finland, the newest member of NATO, which shares an 830-mile border with Russia. The goal of this summit may have been to make Ukraine seem more aligned with NATO, but “they actually revealed that the alliance was split” when they did not…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • China, ASEAN agree to accelerate accord on preventing conflict in disputed waters

    China and Southeast Asian nations agreed Thursday to speed up an agreement to prevent conflict in the South China Sea where overlapping claims by Beijing and its neighbors have raised tensions. 

    The guidelines to accelerate negotiations on a code of conduct for the South China Sea represent a “milestone,” the Indonesian foreign minister said after diplomats from both sides adopted them at a meeting in Jakarta. 

    No details were released, although the Associated Press news agency cited an unnamed Southeast Asian diplomat as saying that both sides agreed to conclude a pact before autumn 2026. 

    The Jakarta meeting was attended by all foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) barring Myanmar, and Wang Yi, who heads the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s foreign affairs commission, the Indonesian Foreign Ministry said.

    Indonesia’s top diplomat, Retno Marsudi, who co-chaired the meeting with Wang, said the agreement showed their commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the region.

    “These achievements should continue to build a positive momentum to strengthen a partnership that advances the paradigm of inclusivity and openness, respects international law including UNCLOS 1982, and promotes a culture of dialogue and collaboration,” Retno said in a statement, referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    Retno also welcomed the completion of the second reading of the draft code of conduct this year, after the completion of the first reading in 2019.

    China “should be a trusted partner of ASEAN” in nurturing an open and inclusive regional architecture, she said. 

    “Only in this way can we achieve win-win cooperation for the sake of peace, stability, and shared prosperity in the Indo-Pacific,” Retno added.

    Wang, meanwhile, said Beijing supported ASEAN’s central role in the region, according to China’s Xinhua news agency.

    China stands ready to continue to play a constructive role in its early conclusion, Xinhua quoted Wang as saying. 

    China and ASEAN have been negotiating a code of conduct for the South China Sea since 2002, but progress has been slow amid disputes over the scope and legal status of the document.

    ID-CH-SCS-pic2.JPG
    An aerial view shows the Nanshan Islands, locally known as Lawak, one of the nine features the Philippines occupies in the disputed Spratly Islands, in the South China Sea, March 9, 2023. (Eloisa Lopez/Reuters)

    China claims almost all of the strategic waterway, which is also contested by Taiwan and ASEAN members Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. And stability in Southeast Asia has been threatened lately with alleged incursions by Chinese vessels in the exclusive economic zones of the Philippines and Malaysia in the South China Sea.

    Indonesia does not have any territorial disputes with China, but it has repeatedly lodged protests against Chinese fishing boats and coast guard vessels entering its EEZ near the Natuna Islands.

    In 2016, the Philippines won a landmark international ruling at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which threw out China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea. Beijing, however, has ignored the verdict and carried on with its military expansionism in the strategic waterway, including building artificial islands.

    The South China Sea has also become a theater for big-power rivalry, as the United States, which has vital interests in the region, has accused China of militarizing the area and undermining freedom of navigation.

    For its part, Beijing calls Washington’s moves in the region interference and insists it has historical rights to the sea’s resources.

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is scheduled to meet with his ASEAN counterparts at a conference in Jakarta on Friday. 

    ‘Potential positive impact’

    The guidelines agreed to by ASEAN members and China could be in the nature of technical agreements on how the preventive principles in the code can be implemented, said Vinsensio Dugis, the head of the ASEAN Studies Center at Airlangga University in Surabaya.

    “If this is the case, this should be welcomed, because it reflects the intention of the parties that claim part or all of the South China Sea territory to reach an agreement on the implementation of the code of conduct,” he told BenarNews.

    Additionally, one of the sticking points in the negotiation revolved around the involvement of countries outside China and ASEAN in the implementation of the code of conduct, Vinsensio said. 

    “China does not want any involvement of other countries, while some ASEAN countries see the need for countries such as the U.S. to also be involved in the process. I think this has been a major obstacle to implementing the principles in the code of conduct,” he said.

    Still, the agreement between ASEAN and China brings potential positive impact to Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region. 

    “This means that there is a possibility of stability in the region, which is very important for peace and development,” he said.

    On trade, China has been an important partner for ASEAN in promoting economic growth and fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, Indonesia’s Retno said.

    Their bilateral trade reached U.S. $975 billion last year, making China ASEAN’s largest trading partner, while China was also the fourth largest source of foreign investment in ASEAN with $13.8 billion, Retno said.

    A day earlier, China’s Wang urged ASEAN to speed up negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement that would boost economic ties and post-COVID-19 pandemic recovery.

    “China and ASEAN should jointly safeguard the global free trading system, uphold the ASEAN centrality, and jointly maintain regional peace and development,” Wang said after talks with Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on Wednesday.

    China and ASEAN have been operating a free trade area since 2010, which covers trade in goods, services and investment. It is the largest free trade area in terms of population and third largest in terms of nominal GDP. 

    The two sides launched negotiations on an upgraded version of the free trade agreement in 2016, aiming to further liberalize and facilitate trade and investment. 

    Wang said both sides should speed up the talks on the so-called FTA 3.0 to “inject new impetus into regional development.”

    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Tria Dianti for BenarNews.

  • Red Scare reloaded: Chinese ‘foreign agents’ and a new era of McCarthyism

    This story originally appeared in Liberation News on July 11, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    On February 9, 1950 the period of Red Scare witch hunts officially launched as Senator Joseph McCarthy addressed the Women’s Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. Just months before, Mao Zedong had led the communists to victory over the U.S.-backed Kuomintang, establishing the People’s Republic of China. Looking for scapegoats to bear responsibility for their so-called “loss of China,” McCarthy warned of “enemies within” the U.S. government. Claiming government infiltration by communists, McCarthy asserted he had in his possession a list of 205 names in the State Department who were “card-carrying members” of — or at least loyal to — the Communist Party.

    In the beginning, McCarthy directed the witch hunts against China experts within the State Department, but in the highly politicized Cold War environment, the persecution soon spilled over to other government employees, and then throughout society as Hollywood actors, teachers, academics, union organizers, civil rights activists, artists, and many others were targeted as communist sympathizers or suspected Soviet agents. By the time the Red Scare concluded in the late 1950s, hundreds of people had been imprisoned, while thousands of others had been blacklisted, lost their jobs, or otherwise had their reputations ruined.

    The loss of China was never forgotten by the U.S. ruling class. Over 70 years later, with China rising as an economic superpower, we have entered a new era of McCarthyism and anti-communist fervor with the same enemy.

    Same Red Scare propaganda and lies

    “One thing to remember in discussing the communists in our government is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of new weapons,” McCarthy warned in his 1950 speech. “We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.”

    This new era of McCarthyism reproduces the same paranoia as the first iteration in the 1950s: that communist infiltrators both in government and throughout wider society are influencing policy and public opinion in the enemy’s interests. 

    “For decades, a broad range of entities in China have forged ties with government and business leaders at the state and local levels of the United States, often yielding benefits for both sides,” a 2022 U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center report stated. “However, as tensions between Beijing and Washington have grown, the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under President Xi Jinping has increasingly sought to exploit these China-U.S. subnational relationships to influence U.S. policies and advance PRC geopolitical interests.”

    This time around though, the Red Scare propaganda has the benefit of being laundered through D.C. policy think tanks, giving it an additional veneer of legitimacy.

    A 2018 Hoover Institute report ominously warned of the Communist Party of China’s reach in its supposed project to assert political influence:

    China’s influence activities have moved beyond their traditional United Front focus on diaspora communities to target a far broader range of sectors in Western societies, ranging from think tanks, universities, and media to state, local, and national government institutions. China seeks to promote views sympathetic to the Chinese Government [sic], policies, society, and culture; suppress alternative views; and co-opt key American players to support China’s foreign policy goals and economic interests … Except for Russia, no other country’s efforts to influence American politics and society is as extensive and well-funded as China’s. 

    Going one step further, a Council on Foreign Relations report in 2022 accused China of running a “global influence campaign,” in which it was not only trying to shape U.S. policy and certain to meddle in the then-upcoming 2022 midterm elections, but it was also “continuing a pattern of influence operations it began earlier this century in the Pacific Rim, seeking to shift narratives in its favor and promote pro-Beijing politicians — or sometimes just sow chaos and falsehoods.”

    The Foreign Agents Registration Act

    But we cannot discuss McCarthyism in the 21st century without explaining its weapon of choice in the new Cold War: the Foreign Agents Registration Act. FARA is a U.S. law ostensibly aimed at curbing foreign influence in politics and requires “foreign agents” (those who engage in advocacy or lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity) to register with the Department of Justice, periodically disclose activities, and “comply with extensive reporting requirements”. However, the law is written in such a sweeping, broad manner that it lends itself easily to interpretation and political weaponization. 

    Nick Robinson, a senior legal advisor at the International Center for Non-Profit Law wrote:

    On its face, FARA is startlingly broad: it applies equally to “agents” of a foreign government — like Saudi Arabia — or of a foreign person or entity — such as a Japanese company like Toyota, a nonprofit based abroad like Amnesty International, or a foreign-based media organization such as The Guardian.  Covered activity under the Act includes attempts to influence U.S. public opinion on any foreign or domestic policy issue; soliciting or disbursing anything of value; or disseminating oral, visual, or written information of any kind for or in the interest of a foreign principal.  Unlike a traditional principal–agent relationship, an agency relationship under the Act does not require “direction” or “control” by the principal over the agent, or even the consent of either party. Instead, it can be created if someone in the United States acts at the mere “request” of a foreign principal.  For example, if a nonprofit in Chicago sets up a public meeting at the “request” of a Canadian nonprofit partner to discuss the best way to fight the opioid epidemic, the Chicago nonprofit would arguably need to register as a “foreign agent”: in setting the public meeting, the Chicago nonprofit would be attempting to influence U.S. public opinion on a domestic policy issue at the “request” of a foreign principal — the Canadian nonprofit.

    Based on this extremely broad definition, any organization or individual can also be indicted under FARA for what the DOJ deems as “engag[ing] in ‘political activities’ on behalf of a foreign principal.”

    “In other words, ‘political activities’ includes not just lobbying U.S. government officials, but, arguably, it covers almost any advocacy efforts that engage with the public,” continued Robinson. “It also seemingly includes most reporting by journalists, if the journalist ‘influence[s]’ U.S. public opinion on a policy issue, even if it is just through factual reporting to create a more informed debate.” 

    And FARA has been used in exactly that manner. As tensions with China increased in 2018, the DOJ invoked FARA to force Chinese state media outlets like Xinhua News Agency and China Global Television Network (CGTN) to register as “foreign agents.” This move on the part of the ruling class effectively designated Chinese news outlets as unreliable “propaganda” that promotes the interests of a foreign entity, while at the same time, legitimizing warmongering media sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post — which are controlled by their corporate owners — as the true purveyors of trusted, objective journalism. Furthermore, other foreign news agencies from countries that are allies of the United States and toe the Washington consensus, such as The Guardian and BBC News, are not required to register under FARA.

    FARA was created in 1938 as a recommendation by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities — the investigative body that led the witch hunts against suspected communist sympathizers during the McCarthyism era. The law was first used to prosecute those spreading Nazi propaganda, but enforcement began to decline after the end of World War Two. The few indictments seen during the Cold War targeted communists — most notably, W.E.B. Dubois was prosecuted under FARA in 1951 as an agent of the Soviet Union for petitioning against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    Since the end of World War Two, FARA remained a relatively obscure law that was rarely enforced. While the DOJ encouraged compliance, most lobbyists considered it a bureaucratic inconvenience to be skirted. It is worth noting, however, that in the last 40 years on the rare occasions the act was enforced, it was often weaponized against anti-war and progressive activist organizations such as the Palestine Information Office, Irish Northern Aid Committee, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.

    But all that changed with the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which led to the prosecution of Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates under FARA. The number of indictments have skyrocketed since.

    Amid an escalating trade war and increasing political tensions with China, the Trump administration then began using FARA to its own political advantage. For instance, in 2018 the House Committee on Natural Resources brought FARA inquiries against four environmental advocacy organizations. One of these organizations was the Natural Resources Defense Council, which the Committee accused of “aiding China’s perception management efforts” with regard to environmental protections “in ways that may be detrimental to the United States.”

    In 2018, the DOJ announced it would begin invoking and enforcing FARA as part of its China Initiative — a program launched to go after and prosecute Chinese nationals living in the United States for alleged “espionage” activities and theft of intellectual property.

    In 2021, MIT Technology Review conducted a thorough analysis of all the cases brought under the China Initiative and published its findings. From the MIT report, it’s clear the China Initiative was nothing more than a McCarthyist witch hunt, based on racial profiling. The report concluded that the DOJ had “neither officially defined the China Initiative nor explained what leads it to label a case as part of the initiative”; that most cases had little or no obvious connection to national security issues; that 90% of those charged under the initiative were of Chinese descent; and that, over the course of the program, there was a decreasing focus away from espionage and hacking toward “research integrity” issues — in many cases, academics or researchers were targeted for simply failing to disclose foreign affiliations on grant-related forms. Of the nearly two dozen cases of FARA brought against academics, most ended in dismissals, with many of the defendants accusing investigators of misconduct.

    The controversial China Initiative program officially ended in 2022, but FARA continues to be invoked under the Biden administration. What was once a rarely enforced, obscure law is now being used with increasing regularity as the DOJ weaponizes FARA to target activists who speak out on U.S. foreign policy. Under Biden, FARA has been invoked to target Black liberation activists like the African People’s Socialist Party for criticizing U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war and Chinese American hotel worker and organizer Li Tang “Henry” Liang for advocating  peaceful relations between the United States and China.

    “Secret Chinese police stations”

    As the Biden administration continues the policy of containment and military encirclement of China abroad, the DOJ is using FARA to go after so-called “secret Chinese police stations” domestically. In New York City earlier this year, FBI authorities arrested “Harry” Lu Jianwang and Chen Jinping, two leaders of the American Changle Association, for failing to register as foreign agents. The ACA is an organization that operates out of Manhattan Chinatown and assists immigrants from the Changle, Fujian region in China. Authorities accused the two men of setting up a “secret Chinese police station” in their ACA Chinatown office, which, they alleged, operates as a satellite of the Chinese government to surveil and harass dissidents living abroad.

    The case in New York City is only part of a wider crackdown on what the media refers to as “secret Chinese police stations” across the globe. Two Chinese centers in Québec — the Service à la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal and the Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud — were accused by Canadian authorities of being such overseas stations. Despite the Public Safety Minister announcing that they had been shut down, representatives for the two centers both stated they had never been approached by authorities or police and were, in fact, still open to the public. The media circus had already done its damage, however, as both centers lost a number of donors due to the press frenzy. 

    These centers are actually what are known as overseas police service stations, extremely common in areas with high concentrations of Chinese immigrants, and serve a function similar to that of a consulate. The stations usually consist of a video conferencing room and are set up in conjunction with local municipal governments in China to assist immigrants in filling out paperwork and renewing Chinese driver’s licenses remotely. The stations are not secret, as they promote their services among community members, nor do they have police on staff or on premises.

    All of the accusations of these so-called “secret Chinese police stations” are based on a Safeguard Defenders 2022 report, which claims the existence of over 100 of these centers across the globe. According to the NGO, these police stations are used to monitor overseas Chinese citizens charged with various crimes in China and pressure them to return to face trial.

    But according to Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center senior fellow Jeremy Daum, who analyzed the report and checked its Chinese-language sources, the paper is riddled with factual, contextual, and translation errors — as well as a lack of general understanding of how Chinese government works. For example, the overseas service stations are not set up by the central authorities of the Chinese government as implied in the report. They are set up by local provincial governments, such as Fuzhou, Anxi, and Qingtian counties. They are not a program set forth and required by central authorities, nor are they national policy — this would be like equating a county-level initiative here with one of the entire U.S. federal government. And while the Chinese government does have a national policy of persuading fugitives abroad to return to face trial (which is not unusual in and of itself — the United States does the same and has extradition treaties with over 100 countries), all of that police work occurs in China. There is no link or coordination between that investigative work and the local service stations abroad.

    According to Daum, one source quoted in the report even directly contradicted the authors’ own claims, stating, “These measures aren’t at all required by the central authorities, and aren’t even the province’s ideas, but are just ‘measures thought up’ at the basic level to move work forward.”

    When Daum’s criticisms were brought to Safeguard Defenders’ attention, the NGO issued a new version of the report correcting some of the mistakes raised, and then yet another version a couple of weeks later addressing more issues. However, Daum notes that similar errors remain, and he still wasn’t persuaded by the report’s claims that China had launched a secret international policing campaign. Despite the release of these updated versions, we should be extremely cautious of trusting at face value the overall findings given the significant number of errors to begin with, and the contextual manipulation and carelessness of translation to fit the authors’ agenda.

    Denial of student visas

    In 2020, Trump issued an executive order canceling the visas of thousands of Chinese graduate students and researchers who had ties to universities affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army. Biden has continued this policy, denying visas to graduate students based on the Chinese universities they attend. According the proclamation, Chinese graduate students can be denied visas to study or conduct research in the United States if they receive “funding from or who currently is employed by, studies at, or conducts research at or on behalf of, or has been employed by, studied at, or conducted research at or on behalf of, an entity in the PRC that implements or supports the PRC’s “military-civil fusion strategy.”

    “To put the proclamation in perspective,” stated Stuart Anderson in Forbes, “If another country had a similar policy, it might deny visas to Americans who studied at U.S. universities that ‘support’ a strategy or actions the foreign government finds objectionable or that received funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.”

    Of course, while there are hundreds of universities in the United States that receive DOD funding, the students who attend those schools are not automatically affiliated with the U.S. military. Nor do all students automatically endorse the views or actions of their universities.

    And how does the U.S. government determine which Chinese universities to blacklist? The primary source it depends on for these denial of visas is the China Defence Universities Tracker, an online database which assesses the level of risk of each Chinese school on a scale from “low” to “very high.” The database is a creation of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra-based think tank that was one of the primary purveyors of the “Uyghur genocide” myth a few years ago. In a 2018 report, ASPI accused students from PLA-affiliated schools of infiltrating Five Eyes universities to build up China’s military capabilities, despite representatives of some host universities stating there was little evidence to suggest this beyond “shadowy inferences.”

    According to ASPI’s 2021-2022 annual report, the think tank received over a million dollars from the U.S. State Department alone, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars from military contractors like Boeing Australia and Lockheed Martin. Because of its funding streams, ASPI has been one of the most vocal and hawkish peddlers of Cold War anti-China propaganda in the last few years.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • China signals willingness for more fiscal stimulus

    China’s economy is facing multiple headwinds, including a local government debt crisis, weak domestic demand and the collapse of property prices.

    Meanwhile, unemployment among young people has hit a five-year high. 

    It’s taking its toll, with high numbers of young people dealing with depression amid an uncertain job market and uncertain futures.

    China’s 18-24 year-olds were found to have a 24.1% risk of depression in a government mental health survey completed last year, compared with an overall risk of 10.6% for adults generally.

    In a further signal of dark clouds on the horizon, this year China’s population declined for the first time in more than half a century.

    “China is entering a severe demographic crisis … becoming more and more so a demographically old country,” said Dudley Poston, an emeritus professor of sociology at Texas A&M University.

    2016-03-14T120000Z_1683736422_GF10000344792_RTRMADP_3_CHINA-DAILYLIFE.JPG
    People enjoy the sunshine at an old residential site in Shanghai, China, March 14, 2016. Credit: Reuters

     

    The latest in China’s multiple economic woes is deflation, which economists broadly believe to be a signal of weak demand.

    Data released Monday showed that the cost of the average Chinese shopping basket stayed the same in June, while the Producer Price index, a measure of inflation at the wholesale level, sharply fell, according to reports.  

    Nomura economist Richard Koo said in a recent episode of Bloomberg’s “Odd Lots” podcast that deflation “is a very bad sign macroeconomically.”

    “Individually, [people trying to save money] might be doing the right things, but collectively, they may be killing the economy.”

    Koo coined the term “balance sheet recession” – the idea that too much debt can plunge an economy into recession for many years, even decades – to describe Japan’s “lost years” after it fell from commanding economic heights in the late 1980s.

    He argues that China faces “Japanification” if it does not come up with the right policies, such as offering support for key areas of weakness like the property sector.

    The balance-sheet recession experienced around 30 years ago in Japan was triggered by a collapse in property prices, said Koo. “That is already happening in China. So few people are borrowing, so many people are paying down debt.”

    Hesitant spenders

    Late last year, the Chinese government announced an ambitious 12-year plan that would see household consumption driving the economy, in a move away from fiscal stimulus, or investment, which has long been Beijing’s tool for stimulating the economy.

    China’s household spending accounts for just 38% of its GDP, well below the global average of 68%, while 43% of China’s economy is driven by investment – about double what the U.S. economy relies on. 

    Some economists cheered the move, which would see a massive restructuring of the Chinese economy.

    Others were more skeptical.

    Writing for Foreign Affairs last month, Zhongyuan Zoe Liu and Benn Steil said, “Sensible though it is, consumption-led growth in Xi’s China is doomed to fail. As Xi has done so often in the past, he will back away from the policy once the inevitable backlash from powerful constituencies, including state-owned enterprises, local governments, and the national security bureaucracy, takes hold.”

    000_33JR2LM.jpg
    A woman selects clothes at a shopping mall in Beijing on June 15, 2023. Credit: AFP

    It was a prescient warning. Chinese consumers are simply not spending and Beijing is already showing signs that it is ready to use fiscal stimulus measures to jumpstart the sputtering economy.

    Bloomberg this week reported that “more economic support measures are imminent” with authorities signaling it was time to offer relief to the ailing property market by extending loan relief for developers.

    State media ran reports this week suggesting that supportive policies were needed in the property sector in order to boost business confidence.

    Economist Michael Pettis, writing for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that household consumption comprises less than 40% of China’s GDP as of 2020,” versus a global average in other countries of roughly 60%. “China has by far the lowest consumption share of GDP of any economy in the world,” he wrote.

    Pettis argues that the reason Chinese consumption, as a share of GDP, is so low is “no mystery.”

    “Chinese households retain a very low share – in the form of salaries and wages, other income, and transfers – of what they produce, so they are unable to consume more than a low share of what they produce.”

    Pettis argues that Beijing’s much touted “common prosperity” policy, which will theoretically redistribute wealth from the rich to ordinary Chinese and broadly boost spending confidence, is likely to only help “at the margins.”

    Back to stimulus

    China’s first move back to its tried and trusted stimulus playbook is likely to focus on the property sector, and according to reports financial regulators have been stepping up pressure on banks to ease terms for property companies and extend outstanding loans.

    The People’s Bank of China and National Financial Regulatory Administration said in a joint statement on Monday that the aim is to ensure the delivery of homes that are under construction.

    2011-03-01T000000Z_759290950_GM1E73115ZR01_RTRMADP_3_CHINA-PROPERTY.JPG
    Laborers install scaffolding near recently finished buildings at a residential construction site in Hefei, Anhui province March 1, 2011. Credit: Reuters/Stringer 

     

    “When a large bubble bursts and asset prices collapse badly, it’s going to take five, 10 years easily to repair those balance sheets,” said Koo.

    He added that the Chinese are aware of this problem.

    “Once you know that this is a recession that is produced by lack of borrowers – the borrowers are not coming to borrow money because they have balance-sheet problems themselves … then the government has to step in and borrow and put that money back into the income stream, which means fiscal stimulus is absolutely essential.”

    Koo said, it’s not a problem that China can export its way out of because China already has the world’s biggest trade surplus and any moves to make it bigger will face resistance from other countries. “It will cause trade friction,” he said.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chris Taylor for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • New wave of repression against human rights lawyers unleashed in China

    In a joint statement published today, over 60 human rights organisations {such as the ISHR}, bar associations, scholars and Chinese human rights activists in exile urge global attention to the Chinese government’s new wave of repression against human rights lawyers unfolding over the past three months.

    Human rights lawyers are a cornerstone of China’s human rights movement. From Uyghurs, Tibetans and Hong Kongers, to religious minorities, LGBTQI and feminist advocates, journalists, and political dissidents: human rights lawyers defend the full spectrum of civil society. They accompany and empower the most vulnerable against land evictions, discrimination, health scandals, or extra-legal detention. They embody the promise of rule of law and hold the government accountable to its commitments under China’s constitution, laws, and the international human rights treaties it has ratified. They ensure that no one is left behind.

    As a result of this work, for many years and particularly since the round-up of over 300 human rights lawyers and legal assistants in the days following July 9, 2015 – an episode known as the 709 crackdown -, this profession has been ‘effectively criminalised in China,’ according to UN experts.

    This year alone, Chinese authorities have passed harsh sentences on national security grounds of ‘subversion of State power’ against three lawyers who had attended a private gathering: Xu Zhiyong (14 years), Ding Jiaxi (12 years) and Chang Weiping (3.5 years). [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/04/11/xu-zhiyong-and-ding-jiaxi-two-human-rights-defenders-in-china-sentenced/]Xu’s partner, feminist activist Li Qiaochu was also recently put on trial behind closed doors, being denied both a lawyer and access to healthcare.[see also: https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/latest-news/news/2022/12/09/index]

    Previously, lawyer Yu Wensheng – recipient of the 2021 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders – and his wife Xu Yan had also been arrested on their way to the Delegation of the European Union in Beijing, over a year after Yu’s release. See: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e

    China’s abuse of national security to target lawyers has been growingly mimicked in Hong Kong, where Chow Hang-tung and Albert Ho are awaiting trial under the territory’s overbroad National Security Law.

    Beyond arrests, authorities are also increasingly using travel bans and enforced disappearances – including through a criminal procedure known as ‘Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location’ (RSDL) – to intimidate and silence human rights lawyers. Lawyer Li Heping and his family were intercepted at Chengdu airport in June this year, while lawyer Tang Jitian was detained for 398 days for attempting to attend a Human Rights Day celebration in December 2021. For RSDL, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/residential-surveillance-at-a-designated-location-rsdl/

    Released lawyers increasingly face disbarment, while their relatives, including underage children, are subjected to unrelenting harassment from the authorities. In recent months, Beijing-based lawyer Wang Quanzhang and his family have been forced to move 13 times, reporting constant threats and repeated cuts to their gas and electricity supply.

    ‘Human rights lawyers are one of the last avenues left to Chinese citizens seeking justice for the trampling of their most basic rights. Without sustained global pressure, the government will ramp up its campaign to imprison, disbar or silence these critical advocates for a more equal, just and rights-respecting China.‘

    Raphael Viana David, ISHR’s China Programme Manager

    Detained human rights lawyers are constantly subject to physical and psychological torture and ill-treatment in pre-trial detention and prison. They are routinely denied contact with their relatives and access to medical care, despite critical health issues. The government impedes family-appointed lawyers from accessing court documents and representing victims, instead imposing government-appointed lawyers whose identities are not disclosed or refuse to communicate with relatives. Detained lawyers are often convicted during sham closed-door trials, without notification to families nor disclosure of court verdicts for prolonged periods.

    My husband Ding Jiaxi and his colleagues always fought for what’s right, despite knowing they risked being disappeared, tortured, disbarred. Their bravery is only equalled by their moral commitment to defending the rights of the most vulnerable, enshrined in China’s constitution and international treaties. Their sacrifice cannot be in vain: governments should stand with China’s human rights lawyers.

    Sophie Luo Shengchun, human rights activist and wife of Ding Jiaxi

    The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has determined that China has a ‘systemic problem with arbitrary detention which amounts to a serious violation of international law.’

    Against this new wave of repression, which has been known as the ‘709 crackdown 2.0’, the 63 signatories call on the international community to urge the Chinese government to:

    • Put an end to its crackdown on human rights lawyers and defenders;
    • Immediately and unconditionally release all those arbitrarily detained;
    • Amend laws and regulations, including national security legislation, its Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, to bring them into full compliance with international human rights standards; and meaningfully cooperate with the United Nations human rights bodies to that end.

    Full statement here in English and Chinese

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/china-unleashing-new-wave-of-repression-against-human-rights-lawyers-global-response-needed/

    https://thediplomat.com/2023/07/8-years-after-709-persecution-of-chinese-human-rights-lawyers-continues/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Govt to receive strategy for ‘authoritarian tech vendors’

    The Department of Home Affairs is preparing advice for the Albanese government on the risks of “authoritarian vendors” after departments spent the last six months ripping out security equipment manufactured in China and removing the TikTiok app from officials’ phones. The department has already delivered a report to Home Affairs minister Clare O’Neil with a…

    The post Govt to receive strategy for ‘authoritarian tech vendors’ appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Solomons PM’s ‘I’m back home’ comment in Beijing ‘shameful’, says Wale

    RNZ Pacific

    Solomon Islands opposition leader Matthew Wale has accused the country’s Prime Minister, Manasseh Sogavare, of mocking Solomon Islanders.

    On Monday, Solomon Islands signed nine deals with China, including an agreement on police cooperation to upgrade the relation between the two nations.

    Sogavare arrived in Beijing on Sunday and reportedly told Chinese officials: “I am back home.”

    Wale said it was shocking to hear such a statement on foreign soil in light of Sogavare’s pledge during last week’s national day celebrations to pursue an independent foreign policy that did not take sides in the geopolitical struggle between China and the United States.

    He said it was offensive for other nations that Solomon Islands had links with to hear such a statement.

    “It was indeed surprising to hear this from the Prime Minister,” Wale said.

    “For a Prime Minister to imply that China is his home is undiplomatic and shameful,” he said.

    "We want to know" about the China agreements
    “We want to know” about the China agreements, reports The Island Sun today. Image: Charley Piringi/@cpiringi7

    Transparency lack ‘outrageous’
    The opposition leader also said the lack of transparency in nine new agreements the Sogavare signed with China was “outrageous”.

    Wale claimed that some government ministers were not aware of the deals and he questioned whether cabinet had agreed to them.

    He said the Prime Minister’s recent actions in China had pushed Solomon Islands further into the spotlight in the geopolitical struggle between the superpowers.

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

  • Myanmar’s traditional gold leaf industry threatened by China imports | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • NBA star says he was dumped for China criticism

    Former NBA No. 3 draft pick Enes Kanter Freedom told Congress on Tuesday that he was blacklisted from the league after he wore shoes with messages highlighting Beijing’s persecution of Tibetans and Uyghurs, prompting his team’s games to be banned in China.

    The NBA’s Chinese subsidiary is worth about US$5 billion, according to analysis from ESPN. The league has also proven especially protective of the market, rebuking a team executive who in 2019 tweeted “Stand with Hong Kong” and triggered a ban on NBA broadcasts in China. 

    Speaking at a hearing on U.S. corporate complicity in Chinese rights abuses, Freedom – who grew up in Turkey before being picked at No. 3 in the 2011 NBA draft – noted he never faced issues across a 748-game career while speaking against the Turkish government’s rights abuses, and had been even encouraged to do so.

    But it changed, he said, when his focus turned to China after a chance meeting with a young fan at a basketball camp a few years ago.

    ENG_CHN_EnesKanter_07112023.3.jpg
    Then-Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter Freedom plays in a game Dec. 2, 2021, in Boston. (Charles Krupa/AP)

    “His parents called me out in front of everybody, and said, ‘How can you call yourself a human rights activist when your Muslim brothers and sisters are getting tortured and raped every day in concentration camps in China?’” said Freedom, who became a U.S. citizen in 2021. 

    “I was like, ‘I promise I’m gonna get back to you,’” he said.

    Free Tibet and Free Uyghurs

    After learning more about the persecution of Uyghurs, which the U.S. government has labeled a genocide, and the plight of the Tibetans, Freedom said he noticed other NBA players were writing out political messages like “Black Lives Matter” on their playing shoes.

    He said he decided to do the same, writing out “Free Tibet” on his shoes before a Boston Celtics clash with the New York Knicks.

    Though he was not allowed to play in the shoes by team managers – who he said threatened to ban him – he remained courtside for the first half before heading into the locker room to check phone messages.

    One from his manager stood out in particular.

    “He said every Celtics game is banned in China. It literally took them 24 minutes – first quarter 12 minutes, second quarter 12 minutes – to ban every Celtics game on television,” Freedom told the hearing.

    He subsequently agreed not to wear the shoes again.

    “They were pressuring me and my manager so much, I was like, ‘You know what, I promise: I’m never going to wear ‘Free Tibet’ shoes ever again,’” Freedom said. “The next game, I wore ‘Free Uyghurs’ shoes.”

    “One of my teammates walked up to me and said, ‘You know this is your last game in the NBA, right? You’re never gonna get any contract after this,’” he said, adding the comment was prophetic. “February came, I got released [by the Celtics], and it was over for me.”

    ENG_CHN_EnesKanter_07112023.2.JPG
    Then-Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter Freedom wears shoes with “Free Uyghurs” printed on them before a game against the Toronto Raptors in Boston, Oct 22, 2021. (Brian Fluharty-USA TODAY Sports)

    The 32-year-old, 208-centimeter (6-foot-10-inch) center has not played since. 

    Other NBA players, meanwhile, have sought to avoid any criticism of Beijing, with Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James – the league’s all-time leading scorer – infamously pledging to not talk about China.

    “I won’t talk about it again,” James told ESPN during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. “I’d be cheating my teammates by continuing to harp on something that won’t benefit us. We’re trying to win a championship.”

    Malign influence

    NBA officials have denied any links between Freedom’s dumping from the Celtics and the league’s vast business interests in China.

    “We spoke directly about his activities this season,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told The New York Times last year, “and I made it absolutely clear to him that it was completely within his right to speak out on issues that he was passionate about.”

    But Freedom has questioned the sudden evaporation of suitors after he spoke out against Beijing. Prior to joining the Celtics in 2021, he played for the Utah Jazz – who drafted him – as well as the Oklahoma City Thunder, New York Knicks and Portland Trail Blazers. 

    In his testimony, he noted he was picked to play in every Celtics game in the 2021/22 season prior to wearing the shoes, and reiterated past criticism that the NBA was two-faced about his criticism of China.

    “If they were really supporting me,” he said of the NBA and Silver in an interview with CNN in 2021, “they would have put something out there. They would have put out some kind of statement.”

    At Tuesday’s hearing, Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey and chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, argued it was clear why Freedom is no longer in the NBA.

    He noted that the star was no slouch, and remains the 61st highest ranked all-time player in terms of the catch-all player efficiency rating statistic, “a metric that basketball fans will absolutely recognize.”

    “His commitment to speaking truth to power has led him to becoming ousted from the NBA,” Smith said, “but rather than buckling under or yielding, Mr. Freedom continued to stand tall and firm.” 

    The New Jersey representative slammed “the NBA’s willingness to acquiesce to the dictates of the Chinese Communist Party.” 

    It is a prime example, he said, of how Beijing “has leveraged its economic clout to demand political ideological compliance across American corporations, Hollywood and academic institutions.”

    Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alex Willemyns for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The US Is War: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

    Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

    ❖

    The US won WW2 and then immediately plunged into the Cold War. The US won the Cold War and then immediately set to work destroying the Middle East. The US destroyed the Middle East and then immediately started another cold war in preparation for another world war. The US is war.

    A normal country wages war with the goal of getting back to peacetime. The US wages war with the goal of getting to the next war.

    ❖

    The “Uyghur genocide” narrative is a lie, the “debt trap diplomacy” narrative is a lie, the “social credit score” narrative is a lie, they’re lying about Taiwan, and they’re lying about China trying to conquer the world. They lied about every other disobedient nation, and they’re lying about China.

    ❖

    You cannot understand the geopolitics and major conflicts of the 2020s without understanding that the US empire has been actively amassing military threats in the immediate surroundings of its top two rivals that it would never tolerate anyone else amassing near the US.

    ❖

    How can anyone still support the idea of progressive reform in the Democratic Party after watching AOC transform into Nancy Pelosi before their very eyes?

    ❖

    I used to dismiss the idea of lesser-evil voting because it causes people to vote for evil political parties, thereby ensuring they vote for continued evil. Now I just dismiss electoral politics altogether, because you’ll get evil no matter how you vote since “voting” is itself a fake diversion to help manufacture the illusion of freedom and control.

    ❖

    It’s crazy how we let wealthy corporations run the media who then spend all day every day telling us we should definitely support political norms that are friendly to wealthy corporations.

    ❖

    A normal person has a conflict with someone and begins communicating and working to sort out the true from the false. A manipulator has a conflict and immediately begins working to establish narrative dominance. This is true of individual sociopaths and sociopathic empires alike.

    ❖

    Too many people look at authoritarian measures like government surveillance, online censorship etc in terms of how it will directly affect them personally rather than how it shapes society as a whole. Sure you yourself may not be directly affected by surveillance or censorship, but you have to live in a society where people’s thoughts, words and behaviors are being strictly regulated by authority in ways that serve the interests of authority. You have to live in a civilization of brainwashed, power-serving automatons instead of free thinkers who come up with creative solutions to our problems, who hold power to account, and who put the powerful in check when they don’t serve the interests of the people.

    ❖

    Civilization is a game. Like any other game, there is a points system set up to determine how well everyone is doing. Like any other game, there are people who fare better and get more points than others. And, like any other game, the rules are completely made up.

    The rules consist of made-up financial and economic systems which make up the “points” system of this game, along with made-up laws and government policies, and made-up cultural norms and societal expectations.

    One major difference between the made-up game of civilization and other made-up games is that players who don’t do well suffer real-world consequences as a result. They can go hungry or be made homeless if they don’t get enough of the made-up points. They can wind up in prison if they try to get some points in ways that are against the rules. They can even get military explosives dropped on their homes by other players if they happen to live in the wrong part of the world.

    This despite the fact that it’s all made of language — made of words. All of civilization is just a collection of stories we’ve all agreed to pretend are true. Stories about how money works. How trade works. How labor works. How society works. How we all need to be moving, organizing and consuming on this planet we were born on.

    The good news is that, like any other game, we are free to change the rules if enough players decide that’s what they want to do. It’s all made of narrative, and the narratives are only as real as we agree to pretend they are. If the current agreed-upon stories aren’t working for us, we can collectively agree to start playing by another set of rules, and if enough of us decide to do this there’s not really anything anyone can do to stop us.

    Those who benefit from the current rules of the game understand this and do everything they can to make sure we keep playing by the current rules. That’s why so much of our media is dedicated to normalizing status quo politics and manufacturing consent for the actions that are necessary to maintain the current order of things. Our information ecosystem is continually saturated with the narratives of the people who get the most points in this game we are playing.

    But again, that’s all just narrative. It’s all just story. They put so much effort into manufacturing our consent because they know they absolutely do need our consent, because we can collectively decide to change the rules of the game at any time.

    So the bad news is that we’re in a rigged game that’s stacked against us for the benefit of a few manipulative players. The good news is we don’t have to play anymore, and can choose to start playing something else whenever we are ready.

    _______________

    All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon, Paypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Biden Keeps Lying About The US “Not Trying To Surround” China

    Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

    ❖

    President Biden had a recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during which he defended his controversial decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine and suggested that the US can continually support Ukraine the way it supports Israel rather than adding it to the NATO alliance.

    About halfway through the interview Biden said something about China that’s worth flagging, because the claim he makes is self-evidently false, and it’s not the first time he’s made it.

    Describing the conversations he’s been having with China’s President Xi Jinping, Biden said the following:

    class=”mu mv mw”>

    “We’re going to put together the Quad which is India, Australia, the United States and Japan. I got a call from him [Xi] on that. He said why are you doing that. I said we’re not doing that to surround you, we’re doing that to maintain stability in the Indian Ocean and in the South China Sea. Because we believe the rules of the road about what constitutes international air space, international space and the water should be maintained.”

    Biden uttered this same bogus talking point about not trying to surround China last month at the private fundraising event where he made headlines by calling Xi a “dictator”:

    class=”mu mv mw”>

    “But what he was really upset about was that I insisted that we — we reunite the Qu- — so-called Quad. He called me and told me not to do that because it was putting him in a bind. I said, All we’re doing — we’re not trying to surround you, we’re just trying to make sure the international rules with air and sea lanes remain open.”

    Biden is lying. The US is deliberately surrounding China with war machinery and has been for years, and has rapidly escalated its efforts to do so during Biden’s term. There are currently no fewer than 313 US military bases in East Asia by the Pentagon’s own admission, with the Biden administration adding four new ones in the Philippines. Biden’s war machine has been busy instituting the AUKUS alliance which is specifically set up to menace China, moving nuclear-capable bombers to Indonesia, signing a military deal with Papua New Guinea, working to station missile-armed marines at Japan’s Okinawa islands, staging provocations in Taiwan, and getting into increasingly confrontational encounters with Chinese military vessels and aircraft off China’s coast as part of its dramatically increased military presence in the area.

    So of course the US is trying to surround China, as evidenced by the mountains of US war machinery that are being moved into areas surrounding China. Biden can babble all he wants about wanting to secure sea lanes and protect international waters, but only a drooling idiot would believe the world’s most powerful empire is militarily surrounding its top geopolitical rival as an act of defense.

    And Beijing is under no illusions about this. Xi said in a speech earlier this year that “Western countries — led by the U.S. — have implemented all-round containment, encirclement and suppression against us, bringing unprecedentedly severe challenges to our country’s development.”

    So Biden isn’t trying to fool the Chinese government with his “We’re not trying to surround you” schtick — he’s trying to fool you. He’s trying to fool the western public and the allies of the United States, who would get spooked if the US president openly admitted to a deliberate campaign of militarily encirclement against an economic superpower they all trade with extensively.

    You simply cannot understand the geopolitics and major conflicts of the 2020s without understanding that the US empire has been actively amassing military threats in the immediate surroundings of its top two rivals — China and Russia — that it would never tolerate anyone else amassing anywhere near the United States. The single dumbest thing the US empire asks us to believe nowadays is that surrounding its two biggest foes with war machinery is a defensive action, rather than an act of extreme aggression.

    The best advice I can offer about US-China tensions is to ignore the words and watch the actions. Ignore what officials say about wanting peace and not trying to surround China and supporting the One China policy etc, and just watch all the US war machinery that’s being rapidly added to that region. The US empire is better at international narrative manipulation than any power structure that has ever existed in human history, but what they can’t spin away is the concrete maneuverings of solid pieces of war machinery, because they are physical realities and not narratives.

    ________________

    All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon, Paypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Yellen hails China visit as ‘productive’

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen departed Beijing on Sunday after what she described as a “direct” and “productive” 10 hours of bilateral meetings with senior Chinese officials.

    Yellen left amid signs that China’s senior officials were receptive to her overtures. Referring to a rainbow Yellen saw when she arrived in Beijing on Thursday, Chinese Premier Li Qiang said to Yellen on Saturday that China-US relations can also see “more rainbows” after a round of “wind and rain,” nationalist tabloid, the Global Times reported.

    Yellen told a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on Sunday morning that she was confident her four-day visit had advanced U.S. efforts to “put the U.S.-China relationship on a surer footing.”

    Yellen said, “President Biden and I do not see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict.

    “We believe that the world is big enough for both of our countries to thrive. Both nations have an obligation to responsibly manage this relationship, to find a way to live with each other and share in global prosperity.”

    She described her meetings with Chinese senior officials as “direct, substantive and productive,” adding that the meetings had put the U.S.-China relationship on a “surer footing.”

    Yellen also said she had made it clear that the United States does not seek to decouple from China.

    “There is an important distinction between decoupling on the one hand and, on the other hand, diversifying critical supply chains or taking targeted national security actions.”

    YellenPresser.JPG
    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attends a press conference at the U.S. embassy in Beijing, China, July 9, 2023. Credit: Reuters/Thomas Peter

    Earlier this month, China implemented a new foreign relations law, which some critics contend broadens China’s definition of espionage to the point it could be used to interfere with the operations of foreign businesses and the daily work of foreign journalists.

    In March and April, raids were undertaken on U.S. management consultancy Bain & Co.’s office and U.S. due diligence firm Mintz in Beijing, detaining five Chinese nationals in the process

    Yellen called for fair treatment so that American companies can compete in the Chinese market on a level playing field. She said she raised the issue of “the recent uptick in coercive actions against American firms.”

    “Senior level engagement is particularly vital during moments of tension,” she said.  

    She also raised the issue of China’s support for Russia’s “illegal invasion of Ukraine” and said she hoped that Chinese firms would not provide Russia with material support.

    The Treasury Secretary added, “We discussed areas where we can work together on global challenges, from tackling the climate crisis to addressing sovereign debt.

    In the press conference Q&A session in Beijing, Yellen repeatedly circled back to national security concerns.

    “I do believe that it’s possible for the two countries to be attentive to and take actions to protect their national security interests,” she said. 

    “That’s what the U.S has done and will continue to do. But I do think it’s important that we be transparent about the actions we’re taking.”

    Climate crisis

    The U.S. treasury chief noted that the U.S.-Sino partnership had yielded significant breakthroughs such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, urging China to support multilateral climate institutions such as the Green Climate Fund. 

    “Both our economies seek to support partners in emerging markets and developing countries as they strive to meet their climate goals,” she said.

    China has long maintained it is the responsibility of developed nations to help poor countries pay to address climate change. The United Nations still describes China as a “developing nation.”

    John Kerry, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, will travel to Beijing this month for talks with Chinese officials on global warming.

    The visit is tentatively scheduled for the week starting July 16, an official at the State Department told Radio Free Asia on condition of anonymity because the travel plans have not yet been officially announced. 

    Kerry is expected to meet with Xie Zhenhua, China’s special envoy for climate change. Kerry and Xie have not met publicly for talks since then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s August 2022 trip to Taiwan soured relations between Beijing and Washington.

    “China and the United States are the two largest economies in the world and we’re also the two largest emitters,” Kerry told the New York Times in an interview. “It’s clear that we have a special responsibility to find common ground.”

    Business first

    Yellen described her visit as “an opportunity for a new team, a new economic team in Beijing to meet with us and for us to establish a desire and willingness to work together, to discuss issues where we have agreements and to seek deeper engagement on the part of our staffs.”

    She expressed confidence that there will be more frequent and regular communication.

    YellenWomenEconomists.JPG
    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, center, speaks during a lunch meeting with women economists in Beijing, China, Saturday, July 8, 2023. Credit: Mark Schiefelbein/Pool via Reuters

    In the Beijing press conference Q&A session on Sunday, Yellen said she had heard her counterparts express skepticism about decoupling, remarking, “They have expressed concern that de-risking amounts to decoupling.”

    She said she had assured her Chinese counterparts that these are “by no means the same thing, that de-risking involves attention to carefully articulated and narrowly targeted security concerns as well as with a broader concern about diversifying our supply chain.”

    Both the U.S. and China are facing economic headwinds. According to a recent survey, most Americans think that a full blown recession is imminent.

    China has its own problems – a disappointing consumer rebound from the COVID lockdown period, youth unemployment, a property sector in crisis and vast piles of local government debt.

    If Fed hikes tip the U.S. into recession, economists warn, a simultaneous slump in the world’s two economic powerhouses is a possibility.

    Bloomberg News notes, “President Xi Jinping’s government doesn’t have great options to fix things.”

    Beijing’s old playbook of using “large-scale stimulus to boost demand has led to massive oversupply in property and industry, and surging debt levels among local governments, sparking speculation that China is headed into “Japan-style malaise after 30 years of unprecedented economic growth.”

    Speaking at the Diaoyutai State Guest House in Beijing at the opening of her meeting with her counterpart He Lifeng on Saturday, Yellen said there is “ample room” for U.S. and Chinese companies to boost trade and investment.

    “The fact that despite recent tensions we set a record for bilateral trade in 2022 suggests there is ample room for our firms to engage in trade and investment,” Yellen said.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chris Taylor for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • An Accident Waiting to Happen: NATO Looks to Asia

    Since the end of the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has distinctly strayed from its original purpose.  It has become, almost shamelessly, the vessel and handmaiden of US power, while its burgeoning expansion eastwards has done wonders to upend the applecart of stability.

    From that upending, the alliance started bungling.  It engaged, without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, in a 78-day bombing campaign of Yugoslavia – at least what was left of it – ostensibly to protect the lives of Kosovar Albanians.  Far from dampening the tinderbox, the Kosovo affair continues to be an explosion in the making.

    Members of the alliance also expended material, money and personnel in Afghanistan over the course of two decades, propping up a deeply unpopular, corrupt regime in Kabul while failing to stifle the Taliban.  As with previous imperial projects, the venture proved to be a catastrophic failure.

    In 2011, NATO again was found wanting in its attack on the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.   While it was intended to be an exemplar of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the intervention served to eventually topple the doomed Colonel Gaddafi, precipitating the de-facto partitioning of Libya and endangering the very civilians the mission was meant to protect.  A continent was thereby destabilised.  The true beneficiaries proved to be the tapestry of warring rebel groups characterised by sectarian impulses and a voracious appetite for human rights abuses and war crimes.

    The Ukraine War has been another crude lesson in the failings of the NATO project.  The constant teasing and wooing of Kyiv as a potential future member never sat well with Moscow and while much can be made of the Russian invasion, no realistic assessment of the war’s origins can excise NATO from playing a deep, compromised role.

    The alliance is also proving dissonant among its members.  Not all are exactly jumping at the chance of admitting Ukraine.  German diplomats have revealed that they will block any current moves to join the alliance.  Even that old provoking power, the United States, is not entirely sure whether doors should be open to Kyiv.  On CNN, President Joe Biden expressed the view that he did not “think it’s ready for membership of NATO.”  To qualify, Ukraine would have to meet a number of “qualifications” from “democratisation to a whole range of other issues.”  While hardly proving very alert during the interview (at one point, he confused Ukraine with Russia) he did draw the logical conclusion that bringing Kyiv into an alliance of obligatory collective defence during current hostilities would automatically put NATO at war with Moscow.

    With such a spotty, blood speckled record marked by stumbles and bungles, any suggestions of further engagement by the alliance in other areas of the globe should be treated with abundant wariness.  The latest talk of further Asian engagement should also be greeted with a sense of dread.  According to a July 7 statement, “The Indo-Pacific is important for the Alliance, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.  Moreover, NATO and its partners in the region share a common goal of working together to strengthen the rules-based international order.”  With these views, conflict lurks.

    The form of that engagement is being suggested by such ideas as opening a liaison office in Japan, intended as the first outpost in Asia.  It also promises to feature in the NATO summit to take place in Vilnius on July 11 and 12, which will again repeat the attendance format of the Madrid summit held in 2022.  That new format – featuring the presence of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, or the AP4, should have induced much head scratching.  But the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Washington’s beady eyes in Canberra, celebrated this “shift to taking a truly global approach to strategic competition”.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is also much in favour of such competition, warning member states of Beijing’s ambitions.  “We should not make the same mistake with China and other authoritarian regimes,” he suggested, alluding to a dangerous and flawed comparison between Ukraine and Taiwan.  “What is happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow.”

    One of the prominent headscratchers at this erroneous reasoning is French President Emmanuel Macron.  Taking issue with setting up the Japan liaison office, Macron has expressed opposition to such expansion by an alliance which, at least in terms of treaty obligations, has a strict geographical limit.  In the words of an Elysée Palace official, “As far as the office is concerned, the Japanese authorities themselves have told us that they are not extremely attached to it.”  With a headmaster’s tone, the official went on to give journalists an elementary lesson.  “NATO means North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”  The centrality of Articles 5 and 6 of the alliance were “geographic” in nature.

    In 2021, Macron made it clear that NATO’s increasingly obsessed approach with China as a dangerous belligerent entailed a confusion of goals.  “NATO is a military organisation, the issue of our relationship with China isn’t just a military issue.  NATO is an organisation that concerns the North Atlantic, China has little to do with the North Atlantic.”

    Such views have also pleased former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, whose waspish ire has also been trained on the NATO Secretary-General.  In his latest statement, Stoltenberg was condemned as “the supreme fool” of “the international stage”. “Stoltenberg by instinct and policy, is simply an accident on its way to happen”. In thinking that “China should be superintended by the West and strategically circumscribed”, the NATO official had overlooked the obvious point that the country “represents twenty percent of humanity and now possesses the largest economy in the world … and has no record for attacking other states, unlike the United States, whose bidding Stoltenberg is happy to do”.

    The record of this ceramic breaking bloc speaks for itself.  In its post-Cold War visage, the alliance has undermined its own mission to foster stability, becoming Washington’s axe, spear and spade.  Where NATO goes, war is most likely.  Countries of the Indo-Pacific, take note.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Iran Joins Shanghai Cooperation Organization

    This week’s News on China.

    • SCO’s 23rd Summit
    • Measures to protect the chip industry
    • Over-reliance on seed imports
    • Fewer Chinese students in the US

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Trade Reciprocity

    China recently passed the Foreign Relations Law, which lays out foreign policy with an aim to “multipolarity.” The West is freaking out about it saying that it is a power grab. We have a guest to break down the anti-China rhetoric today. Carl Zha is the host of the “Silk and Steel Podcast” focusing on China, history, culture and politics. He explains how this is a reaction to Western sanctions and why the West is having a fit about it.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US Treasury Secretary Visits China Amid Rising Economic Tensions

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s visit to Beijing, currently underway, is just as important as Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s higher profile visit last month. She will be searching for ways to stabilize badly damaged economic relations threatening harm to all sides. On her first day of meetings Friday, she and Chinese Premier Li Qiang made pledges to strengthen their economic ties…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The World Needs a New Socialist Development Theory

    Over the course of the past century, substantial changes have taken place in debates about social development. Dossier no. 66, The World Needs a New Socialist Development Theory, examines the historical evolution of development theory over four distinct eras, analyses the obstacles that stand in the way of development today, identifies processes that have the potential to advance genuine alternatives, and offers an outline of a new socialist development theory.

    Enduring neocolonial structures in the world economy have made it difficult for countries in the Global South to pursue viable development agendas. However, following the 2007–2008 Western financial crisis, large developing states have begun to contemplate the revival of a South-South development agenda. The emergence of South-South institutions, as well as the rapid expansion of China’s trade policy and regional initiatives, have provided developing states with more choices than have been available to them in decades and have reduced their dependence on Western-controlled institutions. These new realities demand the formulation of new development theories, new assessments of the possibilities of, and pathways to, transcending the obstinate facts of social despair. In other words, what has been put back on the table is the necessity for national planning and regional cooperation as well as the fight to produce a better external environment for finance and trade.

    The emergence of institutions of South-South cooperation and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project provides new opportunities for socialist movements and governmental projects to work together to formulate a new socialist development theory. This theory must engage with what Samir Amin termed the ‘five controls’ that constrain the development agenda – the West’s monopoly control over natural resources, financial flows, science and technology, military power, and information – and find mechanisms to wrest control over these arenas.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • John Bolton Accidentally Explains Why US Policy On Russia And China Is Wrong

    Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

    ❖

    Professional psychopath John Bolton has an article out with The Hill titled “America can’t permit Chinese military expansion in Cuba” which inadvertently spells out exactly what’s wrong with the way the US empire keeps amassing heavily armed proxy forces on the borders of its large Asiatic enemies.

    Citing a Wall Street Journal report from last month in which anonymous US officials claim that Havana has entered negotiations with Beijing for a possible future joint military training facility in Cuba, Bolton argues that the US must use any amount of aggression necessary to prevent this facility’s construction, up to and including regime change interventionism.

    “The potential of significant Chinese facilities in Cuba is a red-flag threat to America,” Bolton writes, arguing that such activities “could well camouflage offensive weapons, delivery systems or other threatening capabilities.”

    “For example, hypersonic cruise missiles, already harder to detect, track, and destroy than ballistic missiles, are natural candidates for installation in Cuba, a prospect we cannot tolerate, along with many other risks, like a Chinese submarine base,” he adds.

    All of which are arguments that could be made pretty much note-for-note by Russia and China about the ways the US has been threatening their security interests with war machinery in their immediate surroundings.

    Arguing that the US is “bound by no commitment limiting our use of force,” Bolton advocates “Revoking diplomatic relations with Cuba; increased economic sanctions against both China and Cuba; and far stricter implementation of existing sanctions” as an immediate response to this reported development, advocating regime change interventionism as an ultimate solution to Cuba’s disobedient behavior.

    “Had Presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy acted more forcefully and effectively against Castro, we might have avoided many perilous Cold War crises, sparing us decades of strategic concern, not to mention the repression of Cuba’s people,” Bolton writes, adding, “With Beijing’s threat rising, we should not miss today’s moment without seriously reconsidering how to return this geographically critical island to its own people’s friendlier hands.”

    Bolton notes that Guantanamo Bay “remains fully available to us today” for any operations the US should choose to avail itself of to topple Havana.

    This would be the same John Bolton who in 2002 falsely accused Cuba of having a biological weapons program in a bid to sweep the island up in the same post-9/11 war push he was helping the US construct against Iraq with extreme aggression.

    Any time there’s the faintest whisper of a foreign power setting up a military presence in Washington’s neck of the woods, hawks immediately begin pounding the drums of war and exposing the hypocrisy of the US empire’s insistence on its right to form military alliances and amass proxy forces on the doorstep of its geopolitical rivals. Empire apologists always dismiss Russia and China’s claims that US military encroachments on their surroundings are an unacceptable security risk and say that no nation has a right to a “sphere of influence” which its enemies are forbidden to enter, yet we can plainly see that the US reserves a right to its own sphere of influence from its own doctrines and behaviors.

    Earlier this year Senator Josh Hawley ominously asked an audience, “Imagine a world where Chinese warships patrol Hawaiian waters, and Chinese submarines stalk the California coastline. A world where the People’s Liberation Army has military bases in Central and South America. A world where Chinese forces operate freely in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.” Which is exactly what the US military has been doing to China.

    The single dumbest thing the US-centralized empire asks us to believe is that the military encirclement of its top two geopolitical rivals is a defensive action, rather than an act of extreme aggression. The idea that the US militarily encircling Russia and China is an act of defense rather than aggression is so in-your-face transparently idiotic that anyone who thinks critically enough about it will immediately dismiss it for the foam-brained nonsense that it is, yet because of propaganda that is the mainstream narrative in the western world, and millions of people accept it as true.

    The point of highlighting hypocrisy is not that being a hypocrite is some special crime in and of itself, it’s to show that the hypocrite is lying about their motives and behavior, and to dismantle their arguments defending their positions. If the US would interpret a Chinese military presence in Cuba as an incendiary provocation, then logically the far greater military presence the US has amassed on the borders of Russia and China is a vastly greater provocation by that same reasoning, and the US knows it. There exists no argument to the contrary that doesn’t rely on baseless “well it’s different when we do it” assertions.

    Demanding that Russia and China tolerate behavior from the US that the US would never tolerate from Russia or China is just demanding that the world subjugate itself to the US empire. Those who argue that Russia should have tolerated Ukraine being made into a NATO asset or that China should just accept US military encirclement because something something freedom and democracy are really just saying the US should be allowed to rule every inch of this planet completely uncontested.

    If what you really want is for the US to dominate every inch of this planet completely uncontested, don’t try and tell me that your actual concern is for the people of Ukraine or Taiwan or anywhere else. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Just be honest about what you are and where you stand.

    _________________

    All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon, Paypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    Featured image via Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)