Author: carlosmartinez

Raoul Hedebouw, Member of Belgium’s Chamber of Representatives, made a powerful speech on 8 July 2021 in opposition to Europe’s involvement in the New Cold War. Below we reproduce the video (in French and Dutch, with English subtitles) and the English transcript.

---

So what we have before us today, colleagues, is a resolution asking for the re-establishment of transatlantic relations after the US elections. 

The question at hand is therefore: is it in Belgium’s interest to tie up the strategic interests of our country and of Europe with the United States of America today?

Colleagues, I will try to explain to you today why I think it is a bad idea to conclude this strategic partnership with the political and economic power that during the last century has behaved most aggressively toward the nations of this world.

I think that, for the interests of the working people in Belgium, in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia, and of the working people in Europe and in the Global South, this strategic alliance between the US and Europe is a bad thing.  I think that Europe has no interest whatsoever in colluding with the US as one of the most dangerous world powers.

And I really want to make this clear to you, because today the economic tensions in the world are at a dangerous level. Why is that so? Because for the first time since 1945, an ultra-dominant economic power like the United States is about to be overtaken economically by other powers, notably by China. How does an imperialist power react when it is overtaken? The experience of the last century tells us. It reacts with war, because the military is the means that is used against other nations to settle economic conflicts.

The United States of America has a long tradition of intervening militarily in the internal affairs of other countries. I remind you, colleagues, that the Charter of the United Nations is very clear on this subject.

After 1945, a pact was made between the nations, who agreed: “We will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. “

It was on this basis that the Second World War was ended. The lesson learnt was that no country, not even the great powers, had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. This was no longer to be allowed, because it is what led to the Second World War.

And yet it is exactly this basic principle that the United States of America has discarded. Colleagues, let me list the direct and indirect military interventions of the United States of America since 1945.

The US and US imperialism intervened:

in China in ’45-’46, in Syria in ’49

in Korea in ’50-’53, in China in ’50-’53,

in Iran in 1953, in Guatemala in 1954,

in Tibet between 1955 and 1970,

in Indonesia in 1958,

in the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1959,

in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1960 and 1965,

in the Dominican Republic in 1961,

in Vietnam for more than ten years from ’61 to ’73,

in Brazil in ’64, in the Republic of Congo in ’64,

again in Guatemala in ’64, in Laos from ’64 to ’73.

In the Dominican Republic in ’65-’66.

I am not finished yet, dear colleagues.

American imperialism also intervened:

in Peru in 1965, in Greece in 1967,

in Guatemala again in ’67,

in Cambodia in ’69,

in Chile with the forced resignation of comrade Allende in 1973,

in Argentina in 1976. American troops were in Angola from ’76 until ’92.

The US intervened in Turkey in 1980,

in Poland in 1980, in El Salvador in ’80,

in Nicaragua in ’80, in Cambodia in ’80-’95,

in Lebanon, Grenada and Libya in ’86, in Iran in ’87.

The United States of America intervened in Libya in ’89,

the Philippines in ’89, in Panama in 1990,

in Iraq in 1991, in Somalia between ’92 and ’94. 

The United States of America intervened in Bosnia in ’95,

again in Iraq from ’92 to ’96, in Soedan in ’98,

in Afghanistan in ’98, in Joegoslavië in ’99,

in Afghanistan in 2001.

The United States of America intervened again in Iraq between 2002 and 2003,

in Somalia in 2006-2007, in Iran between 2005 and today,

in Libya in 2011 and in Venezuela in 2019.

Dear colleagues, what is there left to say? What can we say about a dominant power in the world

that has intervened in all these countries? What interest do we, Belgium, have, do the nations of Europe have, to link up strategically with such a dominant power? 

I am also talking about peace here: peace in the world. I have gone through all the US military interventions here. In order to make those interventions, the United States of America

has one of the largest military budgets in the world:

USD 732 billion per year in investments in weapons and an army.

732 billion US dollars.

The US military budget alone is bigger than that of the next ten countries. The military budgets of China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Britain, Japan, South Korea and Brazil together represent less military expenditure than that of the United States of America alone.

So I ask you: who is a danger to world peace? The United States of America: the imperialism of America, that with its gigantic military budget intervenes wherever it wants to.

I remind you, dear colleagues that the intervention of the United States of America in Iraq

and the embargo that followed have cost the lives of 1.5 million Iraqis.

How can we still have a strategic partnership with a power that is responsible for the death of

of 1.5 million Iraqi workers and children? That is the question.

For a fraction of those crimes, we call for sanctions against any other powers in the world,

we shout:”This is outrageous. “

And yet here we keep quiet, because it’s the United States of America.

Because we let it happen.

We are talking about multilateralism here, the need for multilateralism in the world. But where is the multilateralism of the United States of America? Where is its multilateralism?

The United States refuses to sign numerous treaties and conventions:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: not signed.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child:

not signed by the United States.

The Convention on the Law of the Sea: not signed.

The Convention Against Forced Labour: not signed by the United States.

The Convention on Freedom of Association and its protection: not signed.

Kyoto Protocol: not signed.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Against Nuclear Arms Testing: not signed.

The Convention for the Protection of Migrant Workers and their families: not signed

The Convention against discrimination in education and employment: not signed.

The United States of America, our great ally,

has simply not signed all these multilateral treaties.

But they have intervened dozens of times in other countries without a mandate, not even from the United Nations. No problem.

Why then, colleagues, should we hold on to this strategic partnership? Neither our own people nor the people of the Global South have any interest in this strategic partnership.

So people say to me, “Yeah, but the US and Europe share norms and values.”

The present resolution actually starts by mentioning our shared norms and values.

What are these norms and values we share with the United States of America? Where are those shared values?

In Guantanamo? Torture made official in a detention facility like Guantanamo, is that a value we share?

On the island of Cuba, moreover, in defiance of Cuban territorial sovereignty. Can you imagine? This Guantanamo prison is on the island of Cuba while Cuba has nothing to say about it. 

[Parliament president]

Mrs Jadin wishes to speak, Mr Hedebouw.

[Raoul]

With great pleasure, Madam President.

[Kattrin Jadin, MR]

I sense that my Communist colleague is literally going into a rage. I would have preferred you had participated in the debates in commission and you would have heard – I would also have preferred you listened to my intervention to understand that there is not just one side to the coin, but several.

There is not just one side to cooperation. There are several. Just as we do elsewhere with other countries. When we condemn violence, when we condemn the violation of fundamental rights,

we also say so. That is the domain of diplomacy.

[Raoul]

I just wanted to ask, if you have so much criticism to share about the United States, why has this parliament never taken one sanction against the United States?

[silence, no answer]

For those watching the video, you could hear a pin drop in this room right now. And that is the issue: despite the bombing, despite 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, despite the non-recognition of everything that’s happening in Palestine and Joe Biden’s abandonment of the Palestinians, Europe will never take half of a quarter of a sanction against the United States of America. All the other nations of the world, of course: no problem, boom, boom, boom, we impose sanctions! That’s the problem: the double standards.

And your resolution does talk about a strategic partnership. I mentioned the shared values it claims.

The United States of America incarcerates 2.2 million 

Americans in its prisons. 

2.2 million Americans are in prison. 

Is that a shared norm? 

4.5% of humanity is American, 

but 22% of the world’s prison population 

is in the United States of America. 

Is that the shared norm? 

That’s those famed values

that we share with the United States of America? 

Nuclear power, nuclear weapons: 

the Biden administration announces the replacement 

of the entire American nuclear arsenal 

at a cost of 1.7 billion dollars. 

Where is the danger for the world? 

Inter-state relations!  Let me talk about relations between states. Three weeks – no, five or six weeks ago, everyone here was talking about hacking. There was no proof, but they said it was China. The Chinese had hacked the Belgian Parliament. Everyone was talking about it, it was a great scandal! But what are the United States of America doing The United States of America, quite simply, they’re officially tapping our prime ministers’ phones. our prime ministers – officially. Mrs Merkel, all those conversations via Denmark, the American NSA is eavesdropping on all of our prime ministers. How does Europe react? It doesn’t.

“Sorry, we’ll try not to talk too fast on the phone next time, so you can better understand our conversations. “

Edward Snowden tells us that the United States of America, via the Prism programme, is filtering all of our European email communications. All our emails, the ones you here send to each other, 

they go through the United States, they come back, they’ve been filtered. And we don’t say anything. Why don’t we say anything? Because it’s the United States of America! Why this double standard? Why do we just let these issues pass?

So, dear colleagues, I think- and I will finish with this point – that we are at an important historical junction, that presents a great danger to the world. And I am going back to some Marxist thinkers, who are indeed close to my heart, because I find that the analyses they made at the beginning of the 20th century seem to be relevant.

And I find that what a guy like Lenin said about imperialism was interesting.

He was talking about the fusion between banking capital and industrial capital and how this finance capital which had emerged in the 20th century has a hegemonic power and intent in the world.

I think this is an important element in the evolution of our history. We have never known such a concentration of capitalist and industrial power as we have today in the world.

Of the 100 largest companies in the world, 51 are American. They concentrate millions of workers, millions of dollars – billions of dollars. They are more powerful than states. These companies export their capital. They need an armed force to be able to subjugate markets that refuse to allow them access. This is what has been happening for the last 50 years.

Today, given the global economic crisis, given the tensions between the great powers, I think that the strategic interest of Europe and of Belgium lies in reaching out to all the powers of the world. 

The United States of America will lead us into a war, a cold war first and then a hot war.

At the last NATO summit – I am talking about facts not theory here – Joe Biden asked us to go to war. Joe Biden asked us, Belgium, to follow him in this cold war against China by declaring China a systemic rival.

Well I do not agree, I beg to differ. I think that it would be in our interest – and I have heard the debates of the majority parties, Mrs Jadin, you are right -we have every interest in reaching out to all the nations of the world.

What does NATO have to do with China? NATO is a North Atlantic alliance. Since when does China border on the Atlantic Ocean?

Frankly, I always thought NATO was a transatlantic coalition, that NATO was all about the Atlantic, you know. And now, with Biden in office, I discover that China is on the Atlantic. It’s incredible.

And so France – and I hope that Belgium will not follow – is sending French military ships to join an American operation in the China Sea. What the hell is Europe doing in the China Sea? Can you imagine China parading its aircraft carriers off the North Sea coast? What are we doing there? What is this new world order they want to create now?

So the danger of war is great. Why is that? Because there is an economic crisis. A superpower like the United States of America will not willingly give up its world hegemony.

I’m asking Europe today, I’m asking Belgium, not to play the game of the United States of America. In that respect, this strategic partnership, as it is being proposed here today, is not a good thing for the peoples of the world.

That is also one of the reasons why the peace movement is becoming more active again. It is one of the reasons why in the United States and in Europea movement against the Cold War is beginning to emerge.

When someone like Noam Chomsky states that we would do better to put our own house in order first before pointing to all the other places in the world where we want to go and intervene, I think he’s right.

When they call for a mobilization against the Cold War, they’re right, the American progressive left.

So, dear colleagues, it will not surprise you, to hear that the text submitted to us today does not – to put it mildly – incite our enthusiasm, with the PTB.

I hope that we can continue the debates in the coming months, because this question is the crucial question for the next five, ten years, whether the economic crisis, like in ’14-’18, like in ’40-’45,

will lead to war – and it’s clear that the United States of America is preparing for that – or have a peaceful outcome.

In this issue, we as the PTB, as an anti-imperialist party, have chosen our side.

We choose the side of the peoples of the world. 

We choose the side of the peoples of the Third World who are suffering today under the domination 

of American and European multinationals.

We choose the side of the mobilisation of the people of the world for peace. 

Because in war, there is only one power that will profit, and that is the power of business, the arms producers and dealers.

It’s the Lockheed Martins, and other well-known arms dealers that will make money by selling ever more weaponry to the American imperialist power today.

So we will vote against this text, dear colleagues. We will vote against any initiatives to join,to completely link Europe to the United States of America and we hope that Europe can play a role of peace and not the role of defending its own geostrategic interests based on economic gain.

We don’t want to ride for the Philips,

We don’t want to ride for the American multinationals, for the Volvos, the Renaults and so on.

What we want is to ride for the people of the world, for the workers, and these imperialist wars are not in the interest of the workers. The interest of the workers is peace and social progress.

The following letter, signed by 41 progressive organizations, was sent to president Joe Biden and members of the US Congress on Wednesday 7 July 2021, urging them to reject a Cold War mentality and instead develop a cooperative relationship with China in order to tackle the issue of climate change.

---

Cooperation, Not Cold War, To Confront the Climate Crisis

Wednesday July 7, 2021

Dear President Biden and Members of the U.S. Congress:
Climate change is a global crisis. Confronting it requires global cooperation.

While we are encouraged by stated commitments from the United States and China to work together and with other countries to enact urgent climate policies, we are deeply troubled by the growing Cold War mentality driving the United States’ approach to China — an antagonistic posture that risks undermining much-needed climate cooperation.

We, the undersigned organizations, call on the Biden administration and all members of Congress to eschew the dominant antagonistic approach to U.S.-China relations and instead prioritize multilateralism, diplomacy, and cooperation with China to address the existential threat that is the climate crisis.

The escalating, bipartisan anti-China rhetoric in both Congress and the White House damages the diplomatic and political relationships needed to move forward boldly and cooperatively. It also bolsters racist, right-wing movements in the United States, fuels violence against people of East and Southeast Asian descent, paves the way for higher U.S. military spending, and, critically, does nothing to actually support the wellbeing of everyday people in either China or the United States.

Like the pandemic and so many of our most urgent crises, climate change has no nationalistic solutions. To combat the climate crisis and build a global economy that works for everyday working people — in the U.S. and China alike — we must shift from competition to cooperation.

The United States, which is significantly wealthier than China, is the biggest carbon polluter in history — responsible for a staggering one quarter of all emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution. China’s historical emissions are half those of the United States — and emissions per capita in China are less than half the levels of the United States.

A managed decline of worldwide fossil fuel production — with a just transition for workers, communities, and countries dependent on the fossil fuel economy — is a necessity to address the climate crisis. The steps each country takes to address this global crisis should be commensurate with historical responsibility and wealth. In other words, the U.S. can and must do much more than China if the world is to equitably stay on course to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The cooperation we need to solve the climate crisis depends on the United States committing to its fair share of climate action, including making urgent domestic emissions reductions and scaling up international climate finance for developing countries — truly leading by example. Regrettably, U.S. politicians have long scapegoated China as an excuse to avoid global climate commitments. From the

U.S. refusal to join the Kyoto Protocol to efforts to water down the Paris Agreement, the U.S. demonization of China has always been a major barrier to progress in global climate talks.

Both the U.S. and China bring complementary strengths that could be combined in a transition to a clean global economy. For example, the U.S. is the world leader in clean technology research and controls immense financial resources; China is the world leader in industrial capacity across a number of clean energy industries and is a major source of infrastructure financing across the Global South. Working together could speed the transition away from dirty energy economies. It could also ensure that the countries and communities benefit from the local extraction of raw materials essential for clean energy supply chains.

China and the United States should not only work together to support international best practice environmental, human rights, social, and governance standards, but also to ensure that producer countries and communities have access to affordable and clean energy — and the resources needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Financial support for poorer countries, the open sharing of green technologies, a rewriting of the rules of trade, an end to the regulatory race to the bottom — the United States should be working with China to institute these changes. Doing so is not only a matter of global justice, it is an investment in our mutual security and collective survival.

Amid a climate emergency that is wreaking havoc on communities across the globe, the path to a livable future demands new internationalism rooted in global cooperation, resource sharing, and solidarity. Nothing less than the future of our planet depends on ending the new Cold War between the United States and China.

Sincerely,

198 methods
350 Action
350PDX
ActionAid USA
Anthropocene Alliance
Businesses for a Livable Climate CA Businesses for a Livable Climate Call to Action Colorado
Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security CatholicNetwork US
Climate Law & Policy Project
CO Businesses for a Livable Climate
CODEPINK
Colorado Small Business Coalition
Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy
Earthworks
EcoEquity
Florida Student Power Network
Friends of the Earth US
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
Global Witness
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance
Haiti Cholera Research Funding Foundation Inc USA
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for Policy Studies Climate Policy Program International Student Environmental Coalition
Just Foreign Policy
Justice Is Global
MADRE
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
MoveOn
National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies Newark Water Coalition
North Range Concerned Citizens
Pacific Environment
People’s Action
Power Shift Network
Rapid Shift Network
Spirit of the Sun
Sunrise Movement
The Freedom BLOC
The Green House Connection Center
Union of Concerned Scientists
Unite North Metro Denver
Upper Valley Affinity Group (Vermont)
Wall of Women
Win Without War
Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)

This article, by Madison Tang and Jodie Evans, was originally published in Asia Times.

---

US President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year was recently announced, and it requests $715 billion for his first Pentagon budget, 1.6% more than the $704 billion enacted under Donald Trump’s administration. The outline states that the primary justification for this increase in military spending is to counter the threat of China, and identifies China as the United States’ “top challenge.”

Within the proposal is an endorsement of US Indo-Pacific Command head Admiral Philip Davidson’s request for $4.7 billion for the “Pacific Deterrence Initiative,” which will increase US military capabilities in Guam and the surrounding region. The Indo-Pacific Command is also requesting $27 billion in additional spending between 2022 and 2027 to build a network of precision-strike missiles along the islands surrounding Beijing.

The United States’ unilateral aggression toward China – in the hybrid form of economic, legal, information, and military warfare – is particularly dangerous because there is bipartisan consensus in Washington on these policies.

And while the anti-China stance may seem like a recent phenomenon to some, the consolidation of a US national-security policy that singles out a rising China as a target for “containment” in order to maintain US dominance abroad has been long in the making.

After the fall of the USSR in 1989, the US had no further political need to cooperate or engage with China to counterbalance the Soviet Union. Led by Andrew Marshall, a member of RAND and the top adviser to 12 secretaries of defense, the Pentagon’s military supremacy policy (or “full-spectrum dominance,” as the Department of Defense calls it) since then has gradually shifted focus to containing an emerging China.

In 1992, neoconservatives drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) document, or the “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” which announced the US role as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union and proclaimed the prevention of “the re-emergence of a new rival” as its main objective.

While this document was dismissed for its hubris when it was leaked, scholar and journalist K J Noh explains that its ideas were not discarded and were later converted into the 2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Along with its focus on stated enemy nations like Russia, North Korea, Iran and Iraq, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” explicitly stated that “with Europe now generally at peace, the new strategic center of concern appears to be shifting to East Asia. The missions for America’s armed forces have not diminished so much as shifted,” and that “raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status.”

So when secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced the United States’ “pivot to Asia” in Foreign Policy magazine in 2011, although she emphasized the positive rebalance and opportunity the Asia-Pacific region presented for the US economy, behind the scenes she was adhering to PNAC’s defense strategy as the intellectual justification for the transference of 60% of US naval capacity to the Asia-Pacific region, including the encircling of China with 400 US military bases with invasive radar and missile systems.

Defensive or pre-emptive?

Now the US is launching a full-scale multi-pronged new cold war on China and is relying on the same threat-inflation strategies that foreign-policy architect Andrew Marshall and his hawkish neoconservative protégés began nearly three decades ago.

From this progression, it is clear that the Joe Biden administration’s stated reasons for escalating war and hostility with China – that the Chinese government is a dangerous aggressor and that the US must maintain a robust defensive posture in response – belie the United States’ historical and ongoing imperialist motivations in its involvement in the Asia-Pacific region.

Just as the 1992 “Wolfowitz Doctrine” explicitly defined itself as a “blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence,” President Biden vowed in his first formal press conference on March 25 that he would not let China surpass the US as a global leader.

“China has an overall goal … to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world,” he told reporters at the White House. “That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States is going to continue to grow.”

Upon closer examination, the notion that China is the aggressor and the US is maintaining a purely defensive military posture does not align with the facts.

For example, the US spends about three times as much on its military as China does. The US has more than 800 overseas bases compared with China’s three; 400 of these 800 US military bases are encircling China’s borders.

The US Indo-Pacific Command has been conducting extensive military exercises, including missile test flights, with regularity. As Fareed Zakaria recently described for The Washington Post, the US has nearly 20 times the number of nuclear warheads as China, has twice the tonnage of warships at sea, and has more than 130,000 troops stationed in the Indo-Pacific.

The People’s Liberation Army of China has also not waged a full-scale war outside its borders in more than 40 years since the Vietnam War, while the US has engaged in combat in more than 66 other nations since 1979.

Importantly, China maintains a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, and has even publicly called on nuclear-weapon states to create and join a multilateral Treaty on Mutual No First Use of Nuclear Weapons; the US does not maintain a no-first-use policy.

In fact, since the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, the US has explicitly prepared for nuclear war with China, threatening “intolerable damage” in response to “non-nuclear or nuclear aggression.”

The US is continuing its attempts to maintain its status as a global power at all costs, rather than accepting the development of other nations as a positive form of progress for the international community.

Instead of provoking a new cold war, the US should be cooperating with China, whose administration has reiterated its willingness to maintain bilateral respect and non-confrontational relations, on pressing crises and humanitarian concerns like climate-change mitigation, global poverty, and equitable worldwide vaccine distribution during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Join a range of high-profile speakers at the launch meeting of the No Cold War Britain campaign. This event comes as Britain sends its largest ever warship to the South China Sea in a deliberately aggressive and provocative move.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Lowkey, musician and activist
• Martin Jacques, author of ‘When China Rules the World’
• Jodie Evans, CODEPINK
• Kate Hudson, General Secretary of CND
• Vijay Prashad, Director of the Tricontinental Institute
• Li Jingjing , Chinese journalist
• Andrew Murray, Stop the War Coalition
• Anna Chen, writer, poet and broadcaster
• Ben Chacko, Editor of the Morning Star
• Fiona Edwards, No Cold War

Wednesday 16 June at 7.00pm BST/London-time.

Register on Eventbrite

You can view a number of time zones for the meeting here.

Speakers will address a number of themes and questions including:

• The role of Britain as a junior partner in the US’ cold war against China
• How the cold war presents a threat to building world peace
• The rise of anti-Asian racism that has accompanied the cold war
• Why the British government’s increasing belligerence towards China will cause economic harm – losing lots of jobs, trade and investment
• How we build a broad movement to stand up to the cold war

We hope you can join us for this important discussion.

Follow @NCWBritain for updates about this exciting event and other initiatives.

FAQs

Who are the organisers? This event is hosted by No Cold War Britain and Tricontinental Institute.

How do I join the Zoom meeting? We will circulate the Zoom meeting details to all those registered via Eventbrite in advance of the meeting.

How do I find out more about this issue? You can visit the NoColdWar.org website and follow @NCWBritain @NoColdWar on social media for more information.

No Cold War and the Tricontinental Institute invite you to join our international webinar discussing ‘China, USA and Brazil’s quest for an independent foreign policy. The event is taking place on Saturday 15 May 2021 at 9AM US Eastern / 10AM Brasilia / 2PM Britain / 9PM China.

Speakers:

• Dilma Rousseff – former President of Brazil
• Celso Amorim – former Foreign Minister of Brazil
• Wang Wen – Executive Dean Chongyang Institute Renmin University of China
• João Pedro Stédile – MST Brazil
• Monica Bruckman – Professor at Rio de Janeiro Federal University
• Elias Jabbour – Professor Adjunto at Rio de Janeiro State University

The event will be in Portuguese with live simultaneous translation into English and Chinese. 

You can watch the event live in English on No Cold War’s Youtube channel – click here to set a reminder.

During the presidencies of Lula (2003-2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016), Brazil became an important actor on the Latin American and global geopolitical stage, especially for its role in BRICS, Mercosur, UNASUR and CELAC. President Lula and President Dilma, as well as Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, among others, have made many efforts to develop a new multipolarity in global politics, including working very closely with China.

Since the coup against President Dilma Rousseff, Brazil has de facto distanced itself from the BRICS. 

At the same time, bilateral trade between China and Brazil in 2020 reached a record figure of US $101 billion with a large surplus for Brazil. 

Faced with the pandemic, Brazil signed agreements for the production of the vaccines Coronavac (Chinese) and AstraZeneca (British), but the inputs for both come only from China making Brazil highly interrelated with China in the fight against Covid.

This international webinar will discuss the following:

1.  What will be the next chapters in China-Brazil-US relations, in the context of the new Biden administration and the unfolding pandemic?

2.  How can Brazil develop an independent foreign policy?

3. How could interested organizations and individuals contribute to the “No Cold War” campaign?

The recent murder of eight people — including six Asian women — in Atlanta is part of an alarming rise in racial hatred against people of Asian descent. While the United States is the centre of this phenomenon, violent anti-Asian racism is also resurging in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere. 

On the same day as the Atlanta murders, the results of a new Gallup poll were released, showing that US public opinion towards China has sharply deteriorated in the past year, with nearly half the population viewing China as their ‘greatest enemy’. These two trends are not coincidental. The rise in anti-Asian racism is inextricably linked with the New Cold War currently being waged by the US government and its allies, primarily against China.

In recent years, Washington, with bipartisan support, has initiated a New Cold War with increasingly aggressive statements and actions towards China. A particularly disturbing aspect has been the promotion of racist labels such as ‘Chinese virus’ and ‘Kung flu’, along with conspiracy theories of a Chinese ‘cover-up’, which have sought to blame China for the Covid-19 pandemic and generated animosity towards Asian peoples worldwide. These overtly racist narratives have been able to take root in the wider, hostile environment generated by the New Cold War. 

On a daily basis, media coverage incessantly warns of the ‘threat’ posed by China, reminiscent of the racist ‘yellow peril’ and McCarthyist ‘red scare’ narratives of the previous century. As with the Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism of the ‘War on Terror’, and the anti-Black racism of the ‘War on Drugs’, the rise in anti-Asian racism is intimately bound up with the fear-mongering narratives promoted to justify a New Cold War. 

It is wholly insufficient to criticize the overt bigotry promoted by Trump and his ilk, but continue promoting hostile confrontation with China, which inevitably lays the groundwork for such hatred to flourish. The fight against anti-Asian racism requires fighting against the New Cold War.

We support China and the US basing their relations on cooperation and dialogue, centring on the common issues which face humanity, including climate change, global health, racism, and economic development. We call on all those who stand for peace to demand that the US and its allies end their New Cold War against China.

Early indications from the Biden administration are that it proposes to continue the New Cold War on China, including through attempts to expand NATO’s sphere of operation into the Pacific. No Cold War is pleased to be hosting a line-up of peace campaigners and academic to explore the issues of the ‘Quad’ and associated attempts to construct an anti-China regional alliance; US military bases; the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system; the South China Sea; and the prospects for a peaceful Pacific.

The event will take place on Saturday 10 April 2021 at 9am (US Eastern), 2pm (Britain), 6am (US Pacific), 9pm (China).

You can register free on Eventbrite.

SPEAKERS

• Ann Wright – CODEPINK / Veterans for Peace
• Wang Danning – Research fellow, Charhar Institute (China)
• Rob Kajiwara – President, Peace for Okinawa Coalition
• Ajamu Baraka – Black Alliance for Peace / Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases
• Kate Hudson – General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
• Vijay Prashad – Director, Tricontinental Institute
• Julie Tang – Retired judge / Co-founder, Pivot to Peace
• Lisa Natividad – University of Guam / I Hagan Famalao’an Guahan
• KJ Noh – Veterans for Peace / expert on Asia-Pacific geopolitics
• Kawena Kapahua – Hawaiian activist
• Jenny Clegg – Academic / author of ‘China’s Global Strategy: Toward a Multipolar World’
• Derek Ford – ANSWER Coalition / Assistant professor, DePauw University

Our friends at the International Manifesto Group are organising a webinar on the issue of Europe in the New Cold War, on Sunday 14 March, 2pm GMT / 3pm CET / 9am EST / 6am PST / 10pm China.

You can register at Eventbrite.

---

How is the new cold war being played out in Europe? Tensions are rising in Europe between US-oriented forces and those that are turning toward the East. This panel will analyze these tensions, the forces and interests involved, and the evolution of this situation given the Covid crisis and the arrival of a new US administration.

Speakers

Bruno Drweski, historian and political scientist, co-director of the Polish section of the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations (INALCO), Sorbonne University, Paris, France. He is a member of the directory board of the French anti-war and anti-imperialist organisation ARAC.

Attila Melegh, sociologist, economist and historian. He is associate professor at Corvinus University, Budapest, and a senior researcher at the Demographic Research Institute. His research focuses on global social change and international migration. He has taught in the United States, Russia, Georgia and Hungary. Author of several books including On the East/West Slope, Globalization, Nationalism, Racism and Discourses on Central and Eastern Europe published at CEU Press. He is the founding director of Karl Polányi Research Center at Corvinus University and editor of Eszmélet.

Rade Drobac, Deputy President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, former Serbian ambassador to Hungary.

Rainer Rupp, economist, former intelligence agent with the Foreign Intelligence Service of East Germany (HVA), for which he succeeded in penetrating NATO headquarters in Brussels in 1977, where he made a career in the political affairs division. In 1993 “Topaz” (his nom-de-guerre) was uncovered and arrested, and in 2001 he was released from prison. Already from his prison cell he started writing regular commentaries for socialist newspapers on politico-military and geo-economic developments.

Francesco Maringió, journalist, President of the Italy-China Association for the promotion of Belt and Road Initiative.

Moderated by Danielle Follett

This call will take place over Zoom and will also be broadcast in real time over Facebook Live. Register on Eventbrite to join on Zoom.

Join on Facebook Live at: facebook.com/geopoliticaleconomyresearchgroup

The International Manifesto Group began discussing the evolving political and geopolitical economy of the world order and its national and regional components at the beginning of the pandemic. It has members from around the world, from north America to Japan. You can watch past IMG events here.

While the event is free, we appreciate donations to the Geopolitical Economy Research Group. A suggested donation of $5 would be appreciated as it is a non-profit. Once you have registered, please donate here.

Ofcom’s decision to remove the broadcasting license of CGTN – China’s English language TV channel – is an act of censorship which is not in the interests of Britain and its people. It is well known, and publicly acknowledged, that CGTN is a Chinese state broadcaster and viewers can therefore take this into account in judging its services and broadcasts. As a state television broadcaster, CGTN’s status is similar to that of the BBC, France Télévisions, NHK (Japan), and others.

Ofcom’s justification for taking CGTN off air is that any holder of a broadcasting licence in Britain must not be controlled by political bodies. However, this law is only selectively applied. Numerous private and state channels have clear political agendas or control – the BBC itself, for example, which had its staff vetted by MI5 has not had its broadcasting licence revoked.

This attack on free speech also takes place in the context of the threat of a new cold war against China. At such a moment, it is crucial to build mutual understanding between peoples and also to accurately comprehend the positions of the chief actors in the global situation. Denying a voice to China’s CGTN hampers this.

Britain’s claim to be a free society is undermined by Ofcom’s decision to shut down CGTN. We call upon the British authorities to reverse this decision and to reinstate CGTN’s broadcasting licence.

• John Pilger, prize winning journalist
• Oliver Stone, three time Oscar winning director, producer and screenwriter
• Tariq Ali, writer, filmmaker and New Left Review Editorial Board
• Kerry-Anne Mendoza, Editor of The Canary  
• Ben Chacko, Editor of the Morning Star
• Vijay Prashad, Chief Correspondent of Globetrotter
• Ken Loach, award-winning filmmaker
• Jonathan Cook, award-winning author and journalist
• Lowkey, Musician and activist
• Anna Chen, Writer, poet and broadcaster
• Asa Winstanley, journalist
• Alan Macleod, Senior Staff Writer at MintPress News
• John McEvoy, journalist
• Mohamed Elmaazi journalist
• Pablo Navarrete, journalist and documentary filmmaker
• Dr Helen Yaffe, academic, historian and author
• Professor David Miller
• Fiona Edwards, No Cold War campaign