Jeremy Corbyn condemns AUKUS

Jeremy Corbyn MP, the former leader of the Labour Party, has put out a strong statement opposing AUKUS and the threat of a new cold war and danger to world peace that it represents. Reproduced from Labour Outlook.

Since its announcement last week, AUKUS has faced growing international opposition, including from Governments often closely allied with the US, UK and Australia on the global stage, with France ending its contract to supply submarines to Australia.

It has also been met with incredulity from peace and disarmament groups across the world.

This international opposition reflects an obvious truth that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear arms race or new Cold War.

AUKUS is a major new military alliance that makes Australia the key US ally in the region.

The agreement includes cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and underwater capabilities, as well as long-range strike capabilities. In terms of nuclear weapons, AUKUS includes plans to set up an Australian nuclear powered submarine fleet, brokered with the US and Britain.

This is a dangerous development. Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, is not participating in the pact, but is also clear that its “no nuclear” policy means that any Australian nuclear-powered submarines will be barred from its ports and waters.

Clearly explaining the position, New Zealand’s Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said “all partners are well versed and very clear on our position on nuclear powered vessels and also nuclear weapons. Our legislation means no vessels that are partially or fully powered by nuclear energy is able to enter our internal borders.”

Earlier this year, the Tories committed to spending £24 billion on defence including even more resources on an expanded nuclear weapons arsenal of up to 260 warheads, against our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT.)

Now they are breaking this treaty again by supplying weapons-grade uranium to Australia.

Kate Hudson of CND has said, “This is yet another breach of international law by our government, hard on the heels of the nuclear arsenal increase.”

The cost is enormous. There is unlimited money for weapons of mass destruction, yet at the same time the Government claims it can’t afford to keep the £20 uplift to Universal Credit or give nurses a decent pay rise.

Boris Johnson formally denies that Britain is part of a new Cold War with China, yet it is more and more commonly accepted internationally that the UK is the US’ major follower in pushing more hostile relations with China, despite the obvious danger of a cold war becoming an actual war – or series of proxy conflicts – in the future.

In fact, it seems the Government is the most hawkish component of the new alliance – a Stop the War Coalition press release has noted that “US officials have briefed that the UK government has been pushing hard for strong military involvement in the region as part of its push towards ‘Global Britain.’”

After Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and recent speeches, it was hoped by many that the end of the “war on terror” and its policy of regime change under the guise of “humanitarian intervention” would mean a new push for diplomacy and co-operation, but instead the fear is that resources will be re-directed to a military build-up in Oceania.

In 2020 the US spent more on “defence” than the next 11 countries combined, and a real test of Biden’s Presidency will be if he substantially cuts this spending rather than re-directs it.

In Australia opposition is growing, with former Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asked for clarity on whether the new submarines could be deployed in the midst of a conflict with China in the Pacific, as well as expressing grave concerns regarding Australia’s own nuclear NPT commitments.

Another former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said AUKUS is a “further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty” and warned that “if the United States military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK47 rifles in pickup trucks, what chance would it have in a full-blown war against China, not only the biggest state in the world but the commander and occupant of the largest land mass in Asia?”

His concerns reflect the fact that Australia will now be dependent on American technology and know-how to maintain these submarines, in the same way that the UK is totally dependent on the US for “our” Trident nuclear weapons system.

In terms of Britain meanwhile, it is vital that we build up the opposition to AUKUS.

Particularly dangerous is that Boris Johnson seems to be hawking back to the days of Empire, turning back from the decision originally implemented under Harold Wilson’s Government to pull British troops from “east of Suez,” in recognition of the fading role of the empire. It’s astonishing that nearly 50 years later Boris Johnson is turning the clock back for reasons that can only be political.

In contrast to the Tory Government’s approach, the whole labour movement and all progressives must make the case clearly that real security will come from international co-operation to tackle the global crises of our time.

In particular, the massive resources being put into the new nuclear arms race could be put to use to tackle climate change, where the UK, US and Australia are three of the Governments that most need to put far more serious levels of resources into green stimulus at home and helping green development internationally.

Whether it be the deepening climate catastrophe, the Coronavirus pandemic which is still raging across the globe, the refugee crises across the world, or the horrendous levels of inequality and poverty that scar humanity, these common challenges can only be met by international co-operation and constructive engagement. Investing in clean water, sanitation, education and healthcare should be our priorities for a safer world.

Whatever the rhetoric of the new cold war warriors, this is the approach that can bring peace, justice and human rights to the world.


Urgent! AUKUS puts peace in peril: join Saturday’s Peace Forum on a multipolar world

The announcement last week, on Wednesday 15 September, of the formation of a new anti-China military alliance between Australia, Britain and the US – AUKUS – represents a serious escalation of the new cold war against China, threatening world peace and the development of a multipolar world.

The new alliance will see Britain and the US provide Australia with the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines. This is an aggressive move which therefore poses a serious threat to peace and stability in the Pacific region.

No Cold War’s International Peace Forum on Saturday 25 September will discuss and analyse this new phase of US-led aggression towards China and the need to build and strengthen the global anti-war majority.

As the US steps up its belligerence global opposition to this new cold war is growing. Crucially the emergence of a path towards multipolarity, including growing mutually-beneficial cooperation between countries in the Global South, the Global North and China to tackle the urgent common problems facing humanity, offers an alternative.

Register now for No Cold War’s International Peace Forum here on Eventbrite.

Please find full details of the event including our excellent line-up of speakers below.

Our next webinar brings together experts from Bolivia, China, Zambia, South Africa, India, the US and Britain to discuss the path towards multipolarity.


9am US Eastern / 2pm Britain / 9pm China / 6am US Pacific

Register free on Eventbrite.

The West has intensified a conflict against China, despite the need for cooperation to overcome the pandemic. Habits of unipolarity drive the United States – with its G7 allies along for the ride. The natural instinct for humankind, divided into nations and regions, is, however, for multipolarity. This is evident in Latin America, where the Bolivarian process continues to build regional platforms. It is also clear in the Belt and Road Initiative, developed by the People’s Republic of China. The Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, set up in 2021, brings together these important currents.


  • Sacha Llorenti (Executive secretary, ALBA)
  • Fred M’membe (Founder, Socialist Party, Zambia)
  • Issa Shivji (Professor Emeritus of Public Law, University of Dar es Salaam)
  • Li Bo (Professor, China Research Institute, Fudan University, China)
  • Ajamu Baraka (National organiser, Black Alliance for Peace)
  • Jenny Clegg (Author, China’s Global Strategy: Toward a Multipolar World)
  • Radhika Desai (Professor of Political Studies, University of Manitoba)
  • Madison Tang (Organizer, CODEPINK)
  • Mikaela Erskog (No Cold War)
  • Chair: Kate Hudson (General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Britain)
  • Chair: Vijay Prashad (Executive Director, Tricontinental Institute)

The event will take place on Zoom. Registered users will receive a link within 24 hours of the event starting. The event will also be streamed to Youtube .


No Cold War Britain online rally: Stop Asian Hate – rising racism and the new cold war (6 October)

Join No Cold War Britain’s online rally opposing the rise of racism that is being fuelled by the US-led cold war on China.


7pm Britain / 2pm US Eastern / 11am US Pacific

Register free on Eventbrite

About this event

Join a range of speakers from the Chinese, East Asian and South East Asian diaspora, prominent labour movement figures and representatives of from youth, anti-racist and anti-war organisations in Britain and the US to discuss why we must build the #StopAsianHate movement in Britain and internationally.

This event comes in the wake of an alarming rise of racist hate crime against people of East and South East Asian heritage in the US and Britain and at a time when the US and close allies including Britain are increasing aggression against China in pursuit of a new cold war.

Confirmed speakers

Murad Qureshi, former Stop the War Chair and London Assembly Member

* Jess Barnard, Chair of Young Labour

* Anna Chen, writer, poet and broadcaster

Sheila Xiao, co-founder of Pivot to Peace

Ping Hua, ex-chair of Chinese Association of Southampton

Suresh Grover, Director of the Monitoring Group

Madison Tang, CODEPINK

WahPiow Tan, Human Rights lawyer, Singapore exile and activist

Aidan from Stop Asian Hate UK

Mikaela Erskog, No Cold War

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


Who are the organisers? This event is hosted by No Cold War Britain, the British section of the No Cold War international campaign.

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 website and follow @NCWBritain @NoColdWar on social media for more information.


Towards a multipolar world: An International Peace Forum (25 September)

Our next webinar brings together experts from Bolivia, China, Zambia, South Africa, India, the US and Britain to discuss the path towards multipolarity.


9am US Eastern / 2pm Britain / 9pm China / 6am US Pacific

Register free on Eventbrite

The West has intensified a conflict against China, despite the need for cooperation to overcome the pandemic. Habits of unipolarity drive the United States – with its G7 allies along for the ride. The natural instinct for humankind, divided into nations and regions, is, however, for multipolarity. This is evident in Latin America, where the Bolivarian process continues to build regional platforms. It is also clear in the Belt and Road Initiative, developed by the People’s Republic of China. The Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, set up in 2021, brings together these important currents.


  • Sacha Llorenti (Executive secretary, ALBA)
  • Fred M’membe (Founder, Socialist Party, Zambia)
  • Issa Shivji (Professor Emeritus of Public Law, University of Dar es Salaam)
  • Li Bo (Professor, China Research Institute, Fudan University, China)
  • Ajamu Baraka (National organiser, Black Alliance for Peace)
  • Jenny Clegg (Author, China’s Global Strategy: Toward a Multipolar World)
  • Radhika Desai (Professor of Political Studies, University of Manitoba)
  • Madison Tang (Organizer, CODEPINK)
  • Mikaela Erskog (No Cold War)
  • Chair: Kate Hudson (General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Britain)
  • Chair: Vijay Prashad (Executive Director, Tricontinental Institute)

The event will take place on Zoom. Registered users will receive a link within 24 hours of the event starting. The event will also be streamed to Youtube .


International online meeting: Ending US aggression on Cuba is Key to World Peace

The International Manifesto Group, No Cold War, the Tricontinental Institute and Black Alliance For Peace are proudly co-hosting the following international online meeting.

Ending US aggression on Cuba is Key to World Peace
You can register your place for this zoom meeting here.
Sunday 29 August 2021
9AM Eastern Time/2PM British Summer Time 

This international meeting analyses why Ending US Aggression Against Cuba is Key to World Peace.


  • Iroel Sanchez, Cuban journalist and Director of La Pupila Asombrada
  • Carlos Ron, Venezuelan Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs
  • Chris Hazzard, Sinn Fein MP
  • Helen Yaffe, author of We Are Cuba!
  • Arnold August, journalist and author of three books on Cuba
  • Fiona Edwards, No Cold War, Stop the War Coalition National Officer and writer
  • Manolo De Los Santos, People’s Forum and Tricontinental Institute
  • Camila Escalante,  journalist reporting on the ground in Latin America with Kawsachun News
  • Moderator: Radhika Desai, Professor of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba, Director of the Geopolitical Research Group and author of Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire

The Trump regime’s tightening of the US blockade on Cuba, with 243 new sanctions, has unfortunately been intensified by the Biden administration.

Despite the recent 184 to 2 vote in the UN General Assembly against the US economic blockade of Cuba, the new US Administration had imposed new sanctions going beyond even those of Trump.

These unilateral actions are a threat not only to Cuba but to world peace. They constitute an attempt by a single country to impose its policies on the international system, in pursuit of a cold war, in defiance of the overwhelming majority of other countries. Success in such a policy would undoubtedly lead to further aggression and defiance of international bodies and opinion.

Clearly the aim of this is to increase hardship for the Cuban people and provoke a “colour” counter-revolution – to try to regain control over the island which 60 years ago broke free of colonial control.

The attack on Cuba’s people comes when forces seeking national independence social progress and economic development are strengthening across Latin America – as recent elections in Bolivia and Peru and the US inability to overthrow the Bolivarian government of Venezuela attest. In Brazil, the left’s candidate, Lula, has a 26% poll lead for the 2022 Presidential election compared to the candidate of the right and the US – Bolsonaro.

By punishing the Cuban people, the US clearly intends to send a threatening message in particular to all Latin Americans: this will be your fate if you resist our demands.

Therefore, today is a crucial moment for all those who stand for national independence, for social justice and equality and for a multilateral world as opposed to unilateral diktats of a single country, to understand the importance of this situation for every country and to add their voices in opposition to the US unilateral policy against Cuba.

This international meeting analyses why Ending US Aggression Against Cuba is Key to World Peace.

This meeting is organized by the International Manifesto Group, No Cold War, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, and Black Alliance For Peace. The Media Sponsor for this event is the Canada Files.


Let Cuba Live! End the US cold war against Cuba

The No Cold War international campaign joins over 400 organisations and individuals in calling upon Biden’s US Administration to lift the 243 unilateral coercive measures that were imposed on Cuba by former President Donald Trump.

No Cold War supports the open letter to US President Joe Biden below which was first published in the New York Times. The letter was organised by The People’s Forum, CODEPINK and the ANSWER Coalition.

You can add your name to the ‘Let Cuba Live’ letter here.

Dear President Joe Biden,

It is time to take a new path forward in U.S.-Cuban relations. We, the undersigned, are making this urgent, public appeal to you to reject the cruel policies put into place by the Trump White House that have created so much suffering among the Cuban people.

Cuba – a country of eleven million people – is living through a difficult crisis due to the growing scarcity of food and medicine. Recent protests have drawn the world’s attention to this. While the Covid-19 pandemic has proven challenging for all countries, it has been even more so for a small island under the heavy weight of an economic embargo.

We find it unconscionable, especially during a pandemic, to intentionally block remittances and Cuba’s use of global financial institutions, given that access to dollars is necessary for the importation of food and medicine.

As the pandemic struck the island, its people – and their government – lost billions in revenue from international tourism that would normally go to their public health care system, food distribution and economic relief.

During the pandemic, Donald Trump’s administration tightened the embargo, pushed aside the Obama opening, and put in place 243 “coercive measures” that have intentionally throttled life on the island and created more suffering.

The prohibition on remittances and the end of direct commercial flights between the U.S. and Cuba are impediments to the wellbeing of a majority of Cuban families.

“We stand with the Cuban people,” you wrote on July 12. If that is the case, we ask you to immediately sign an executive order and annul Trump’s 243 “coercive measures.”

There is no reason to maintain the Cold War politics that required the U.S. to treat Cuba as an existential enemy rather than a neighbor. Instead of maintaining the path set by Trump in his efforts to undo President Obama’s opening to Cuba, we call on you to move forward. Resume the opening and begin the process of ending the embargo. Ending the severe shortages in food and medicine must be the top priority.

On 23 June, most of the member states of the United Nations voted to ask the U.S. to end the embargo. For the past 30 years this has been the consistent position of a majority of member states. In addition, seven UN Special Rapporteurs wrote a letter to the U.S. government in April 2020 regarding the sanctions on Cuba. “In the pandemic emergency,” they wrote, “the lack of will of the U.S. government to suspend sanctions may lead to a higher risk of suffering in Cuba.”

We ask you to end the Trump “coercive measures” and return to the Obama opening or, even better, begin the process of ending the embargo and fully normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba.

  • Vermont State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
  • ANSWER Coalition
  • IFCO/Pastors for Peace
  • Andres Arauz (Ecuador)
  • Nnimmo Bassey (Nigeria)
  • Jackson Browne
  • Prof. Judith Butler
  • Jeremy Corbyn (UK)
  • Daniel Ellsberg
  • Danny Glover
  • Wagner Moura (Brasil)
  • Boots Riley
  • Silvio Rodriguez Dominguez (Cuba)
  • Susan Sarandon
  • Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis
  • Marisa Tomei
  • Reinerio Arce, Instituto Superior Ecuménico de Ciencias de las Religiones (Cuba)
  • Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
  • Rafael Correa, Fmr. President (Ecuador)
  • Manolo De Los Santos, The People’s Forum
  • David Harvey, CUNY Graduate Center (UK)
  • Prof. Raj Patel, University of Texas
  • Bishop Rubin Phillip, Anglican Church of Southern Africa (South Africa)
  • Israel Rojas Fiel, Duo Buena Fe (Cuba)
  • Rev. Raul Suarez, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Center (Cuba)
  • Yanis Varoufakis, (Greece)
  • Rev. Jim Winkler, National Council of Churches USA
  • United States Peace Council
  • PazAmor, Inc
  • Noname
  • Leonardo Boff
  • Glauber Braga
  • Alicia Castro (Argentina)
  • Jandira Fhegalli
  • Luis Hernández Navarro (Mexico)
  • Dr. Robin D. G. Kelley
  • Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas (Mexico)
  • Dra. Josefina Morales (Mexico)
  • Dr. Barbara Ransby
  • Prof Raymond Suttner
  • Ruth Wilson Gilmore
  • Prof. Bruno Bosteels, Columbia University
  • John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies
  • Gabriel Coderch Diaz, Centro Oscar Arnulfo Romero (Cuba)
  • Prof. Costas Douzinas, Hellenic Parliament (Greece)
  • Jorge González Nuñez, Student Christian Movement of Cuba (Cuba)
  • Chris Hazzard, Sinn Fein (Ireland)
  • Bishop Ismael Laborde Figueras, United Evangelical Church in Cuba Lutheran Synod (Cuba)
  • Michael Löwy, French National Center of Scientific Research
  • Eugene Puryear, BreakThrough News
  • Angélica Salazar, Alliance for Cuba Engagement and Respect (ACERE)
  • President David Van Deusen, Vermont State Labor Council AFL-CIO
  • Corporación colectivo CreAcción
  • Anti-Flag
  • The Grayzone
  • Comite 68 (Mexico)
  • RadioMiamiTV y PazAmor
  • Carl Messineo, Attorney
  • New Frame (South Africa)
  • Eve 6
  • Labor Against Racism and War
  • Zackie Achmat (South Africa)
  • Santiago Alba Rico (Spain)
  • Dr. Tom Alter
  • Eduardo Alvares Moreira (Brasil)
  • Dr. Barbara Applebaum
  • Dr. Silvia Arrom
  • Maricruz Badia
  • Leo Bashinsky
  • Dr. Richard Benson
  • Altamiro Borges (Brasil)
  • Ricardo Bracho
  • Noni Brynjolson
  • Dr. Larry Busk
  • Lee Camp
  • Dr. Chuck Churchill
  • Prof. Jean Cohen
  • Ana Cortes
  • Peter Coyote
  • Edevaldo de Medeiros (Brasil)
  • Derek DePratter
  • Osvaldo Doimeadiós (Cuba)
  • Dr Jean Dreze
  • Jennifer Duprey
  • Max Elbaum
  • Liza Featherstone
  • Alon Feuerwerker (Brasil)
  • Prof. Carlos Forment
  • Morgan Glaze
  • Prof. Emeritus Karen Graffeo
  • Chris Gude
  • Prof. Peter Hallward
  • Prof. Donna Haraway
  • Michael Hardt
  • Chris Hedges
  • Prof. Anasa Hicks
  • Bruno Jaffré
  • Esteban Jimenez
  • Prof. Cedric Johnson
  • Prof. Sujung Kim
  • Dr. Tomomi Kinukawa
  • Flávia Lacerda (Brasil)
  • Greg LaMotta
  • Vivien Lesnik Weisman
  • Prof. Ania Loomba
  • Prof. Clayton Lust
  • Verónica Lynn (Cuba)
  • Dr. Richard MacMaster
  • Dr. Curry Malott
  • Professor Emeritus, SUNY Cortland John Marciano
  • James Martel
  • Aaron Maté
  • Dr. David McNally
  • Dr. Magali Menezes (Brasil)
  • Camilo Molina
  • Prof. Daniel Mosquera
  • Julio Munoz
  • Prof. Michael Neocosmos (South Africa)
  • Ben Norton
  • Dr. Marcos Oliveira (Brasil)
  • Hypatia Ostojic
  • Prof. Tanalís Padilla (Mexico)
  • João Paulo (Brasil)
  • Dr. Jacques Pauwels
  • João Pimenta Lopes
  • Beatrice Pita
  • Prof. Claire Potter
  • Lindi Ragon
  • Dr. Josiah Rector
  • Corey Robin
  • Prof. Gabriel Rockhill
  • Thomas Ross
  • Prof. Abra Salazar
  • Prof. Rosaura Sanchez
  • Sanford Schram
  • Dr. Rupa Shah
  • Prof. Beverly Sheftall
  • Prof. Lewis Siegelbaum
  • Alan Singer
  • Greg Smith
  • Samuel Stein
  • Linda Talton
  • Jules Taylor
  • Vladislava Tomova
  • Dario Ulloa
  • Prof. Luis Felipe Ulloa-Forero
  • Orlando Valle “Maraca” (Cuba)
  • Jaime Veve
  • José Villa Soberón (Cuba)
  • Byron Vu
  • Antonio Y. Vázquez-Arroyo
  • Dr Randall Williams
  • Dr. Barbara Winslow
  • Amanda Yee
  • Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi, Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies, San Francisco State University
  • David Adler, Progressive International
  • Dr. Julia Alekseyeva, University of Pennsylvania
  • Rev. Aundreia Alexander, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
  • Tata Amaral, (Brasil)
  • Christian Appy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  • Prof. Guy Aronoff, Humboldt State University
  • Etienne Balibar, Kingston University London
  • Prof. Narciso Barrera-Bassols, Grupo de Trabajo Agroecología Política CLACSO (Argentina)
  • Prof. Joel Beinin, Stanford University
  • Monica Benicio, Vereadora Psol (Brasil)
  • Dr. Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota
  • Heidi Boghosian, A.J. Muste Memorial Institute
  • Marc Botenga, Parti du Travail de Belgique
  • Prof. Robert Brenner, UCLA
  • Prof. Wendy Brown, U Cal Berkeley
  • Beatriz Cerqueira, (PT) MG (Brasil)
  • Prof. Benoit Challand, New School for Social Research
  • Dianna Cohen, Plastic Pollution Coalition
  • Fray Miguel Concha Malo, Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Francisco de Vitoria (Mexico)
  • Leslie Cunningham, Texas State Employees Union
  • Luiz Carlos da Rocha, advogado (Brasil)
  • Adriana de França, advogada (Brasil)
  • Bruno de Paiva e Souza, Igreja Reina (Brasil)
  • Susana Draper, Princeton University
  • Prof. Sandi E Cooper, CUNY
  • Augusta Eulália Ferreira, Sindicato dos Advogados de São Paulo (Brasil)
  • Dr. Jerise Fogel, Montclair State University
  • Charles Fredricks, Israeli-Palestinian Confederation
  • Rita Maria Garcia Morris, Christian Center for Dialogue & Reflection (Cuba)
  • Adam Gogola, Blind Adam and The Federal League
  • Prof. Van Gosse, Franklin & Marshall College
  • August H. Nimtz, University of Minnesota
  • Prof. Martin Halpern, Henderson State University
  • Dr. Neil Harvey, New Mexico State University
  • Gary Holloway, USW Local 675
  • Prof. Kevin Howley, DePauw University
  • Esther Iverem, Journalist
  • Dr. Katharine Jackson, University of Dayton School of Law
  • Dr. Nazia Kazi, Stockton University
  • Adam Kotsko, Shimer Great Books School, North Central College
  • Ertugrul Kürkçü, Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) (Turkey)
  • Reed Lindsay, Belly of The Beast
  • Scott Ludlam, Fmr. Senator (Australia)
  • Prof. Anastasia Mann, Princeton University
  • Prof. Eric Mar, Asian American Studies, SF State University
  • Teresa Meade, Union College
  • Iago Montalvão, União Nacional dos Estudantes UNE (Brasil)
  • Dr. Jamil Murad, Centro brasileiro pela Solidariedade aos povos e luta pela Paz (Brasil)
  • Frank Padrón, Belly of The Beast (Cuba)
  • Anya Parampil, The Grayzone
  • Prof. Paul Passavant, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
  • Carol Proner, ABJD (Brasil)
  • Paulo Roberto da Silva Lima, Entregadores Antifascistas (Brasil)
  • Dr. Julio Vernon Ruíz, MD, FORNORM
  • Prof. Saskia Sassen, Columbia University
  • Roger Scott, AFSCME Local 2401
  • Cliff Smith, United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local 36
  • Walter Sorrentino, PCdoB (Brasil)
  • Lester Spence, Johns Hopkins University
  • Neal Sweeney, UAW Local 5810
  • Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation
  • Gilberto Vieira dos Santos, Conselho Indigenista Missionário Cimi (Brasil)
  • Prof. Barbara Weinstein, New York Univ.
  • Philip Wohlstetter, Red May
  • Colonel Ann Wright, Veterans for Peace and CODEPINK
  • Kevin Young, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  • Acácio Zuniga Leite, Associação Brasileira de Reforma Agrária (Brasil)
  • Black Lives Matter Global Network
  • The People’s Forum
  • Landless Workers Movement-MST (Brasil)
  • V (Formerly Eve Ensler)
  • Miguel Barnet Lanza (Cuba)
  • Frei Betto (Brasil)
  • Chico Buarque (Brasil)
  • Noam Chomsky
  • Prof. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
  • Jane Fonda
  • Nancy Morejón (Cuba)
  • Manu Pineda (Spain)
  • Eduardo (Choco) Roca Salazar (Cuba)
  • Mark Ruffalo
  • Oliver Stone
  • Emma Thompson (UK)
  • Dr. Cornel West
  • Rev. Dr. Dora Arce Valentin, Presbyterian-Reformed Church in Cuba (Cuba)
  • Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, ACT Alliance
  • Lula Da Silva, Fmr. President (Brasil)
  • Rev. Dr. Chris Ferguson, World Communion of Reformed Churches
  • Gleisi Hoffman, Worker’s Party (PT) (Brasil)
  • Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize (Argentina)
  • Vijay Prashad, Tricontinental Institute for Social Research
  • Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party
  • Dr. Earl D. Trent Jr., Florida Avenue Baptist Church
  • Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research
  • Alliance for Cuba Engagement and Respect (ACERE)
  • Observatorio Latinoamericano de Geopolítica (Mexico)
  • Democratic Socialists of America
  • Phillip Agnew
  • Atilio A Boron (Argentina)
  • Dr. Charisse Burden-Stelly
  • Roberto Chile (Cuba)
  • Dr. Pablo González Casanova (Mexico)
  • Dr Gerald Horne
  • Gloria La Riva
  • Fernando Morais (Brasil)
  • Alderperson Carlos Ramirez-Rosa
  • G. C, Spivak
  • Estela Vazquez
  • Dr. Enrique Alemán Gutiérrez, Plataforma Cubana Pra el Dialogo Intereligioso (Cuba)
  • Kenarik Boujikian, Association of Judges for Democracy – Brazil
  • Fernando Chavez, Son of Cesar Chavez
  • Prof. Jodi Dean, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
  • Former Assistant Secretary Education and Public Service Smithsonian Institution James Counts Early, Institute for Policy Studies Board
  • Rev. Dr. Carlos Emilio Ham Stanard, Seminario Evangelico de Teologia (Cuba)
  • Prof. Fredric Jameson, Duke University
  • Max Lesnick, La Alianza Martiana/ Radio Miami
  • Dianet Martínez Valdés, World Student Christian Federation – Latin America (Cuba)
  • Prof. Adolph Reed Jr, University of Pennsylvania, Dept of Political Science
  • Rev. Tania Sánchez Fonseca, Moravian Church in Cuba (Cuba)
  • Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
  • DISPARADA – Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) (Brasil)
  • CUBA Solidarity Forum Ireland
  • Denver Peace Council
  • United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS)
  • Get Better Records
  • Associação Intervenção Democrática – ID
  • Historians for Peace and Democracy
  • Dream Defenders
  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement (South Africa)
  • Prof. Gregory Afinogenov
  • Jonathan Alingu
  • Breno Altman (Brasil)
  • Prof. Elisabeth Anker
  • Mauricio Arenas
  • Dr. Albena Azmanova
  • Maura Barrios
  • Kenneth Baynes
  • Katiusca Blanco Castiñeira (Cuba)
  • Atilio Boron (Argentina)
  • Peter Bratt
  • Prof. Susan Buck-Morss
  • Prof. Lana Cable
  • Dr. Roosbelinda Cardenas
  • Prof. Joshua Clover
  • Prof. Deborah Cohen
  • Bernardo Cotrim (Brasil)
  • Rubén Darío Salazar (Cuba)
  • Prof. T. J. Demos
  • Richard Dickerson
  • Prof. Elizabeth Dore
  • Dr. David Dulceany
  • Prof. Zillah Eisenstein
  • Ernesto Espinoza
  • Jorge Fernández Souza (Brasil)
  • John J. Fitzgerald
  • Prof. Nancy Fraser
  • Prof. David Theo Goldberg
  • Prof. A. Tom Grunfeld
  • Digna Guerra (Cuba)
  • Nigel Hanrahan
  • Michele Hardesty
  • Dr. John Harfouch
  • Doug Henwood
  • Vanessa and Ted Hope
  • Jon Jeter
  • Esteban Esteban Jimenez
  • Prof. Rebecca Karl
  • Prof. Esther kingston-mann
  • Rachel Kushner
  • Annie Lacroix-Riz
  • Dr. Tamara Lee
  • Jonathan Lethem
  • Susan Luss
  • Prof. Kara Lynch
  • Francisco López Sacha (Cuba)
  • Prof. Geo Maher
  • Bernardo Mançano Fernandes (Brasil)
  • Dr. Nadia Marsh
  • Abby Martin
  • Prof. Peter McLaren
  • Veronika Mendoza (Peru)
  • Prof. Márgara Millán
  • Alexis Moncada
  • Prof. Eshragh Motahar
  • Prof. James Neel
  • Prof. Mary Nolan
  • Luna Olavarria Gallegos
  • Jacqueline Osorio
  • Fraser Ottanelli
  • Scott Parkin
  • João Paulo Souza de Alencar (Brasil)
  • Sandra Pereira
  • Peyman Piran
  • Graziella Pogolotti (Cuba)
  • Prof. Margaret Power
  • Ignacio Ramonet (Spain)
  • Dolores Rintoul
  • Dr. William I. Robinson
  • Tania Romero
  • Vicente Rubio-Pueyo
  • Prof. Josefina Saldaña-Portillo
  • Magdiel Sanchez Quiroz (Mexico)
  • Ellen Schrecker
  • Cindy Sheehan
  • Prof. Francis Shor
  • Prof. Renato Simões (Brasil)
  • Doris Smith
  • Mark Spencer
  • Margaret Stevens
  • Dr. Maria Tamiolaki
  • Niren Tolsi (South Africa)
  • Peter Truskier
  • Maria Ulloa
  • Nadia Valavani (Greece)
  • Lesbia Vent Dumois (Cuba)
  • Henrique Vieira (Brasil)
  • Aldo ‘Bocafloja’ Villegas
  • Roy Vu
  • Ben Wilkins
  • Dr. Helen Yaffe
  • Alejandro Zuñiga
  • Darryl Accone, New Frame (South Africa)
  • Christine Ahn, Women Cross the DMZ
  • Luiz Alencar Dalla Costa, Coordenação nacional MAB, Coordenação internacional do MAR, FRENTE BRASIL POPULAR BTASIL (Brasil)
  • Harry Amana, UNC-CH
  • Tânia Andrade, Advogada (Brasil)
  • Valerio Arcary, PSol (Brasil)
  • Ericah Azeviche, A Revolta da Lâmpada, Coletiva ComunaDeusa (Brasil)
  • Ajamu Baraka, Black Alliance for Peace
  • Prof. Ericka Beckman, University of Pennsylvania
  • Douglas Belchior, Coalizão Negra por Direitos e Uneafro Brasil (Brasil)
  • Prof. Daniel Benson, St. Francis College
  • Prof. Martha Biondi, Northwestern University
  • Prof. James Borchert, Cleveland State University
  • Prof. Robert Brenner, UCLA
  • Prof. Howard Brick, University of Michigan
  • Prof. Robert Buzzanco, University of Houston
  • Prof. Beatriz Cerqueira, Deputada estadual (PT) em Minas Gerais (Brasil)
  • Dr. Paloma Checa-Gismero, Swarthmore College
  • Robert Carl Cohen, The film “Three Cubans”
  • Prof. Drucilla Cornell, Rutgers University
  • Prof. Daniel Czitrom, Mount Holyoke College
  • Prof. Bruno De Conti, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil (Brasil)
  • Maria de Fátima Carneiro de Mendonça, (Brasil)
  • Eliane Dias Caffe Alves, Cineasta
  • Prof. Lisa Duggan, New York University
  • Hassan El-Tayyab, Friends Committee on National Legislation
  • Wagner Firmino Santana, Sindicato dos Metalurgicos do ABC (Brasil)
  • Prof. Derek Ford, DePauw University
  • Carlos Gabas, Consórcio de Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Nordeste (Brasil)
  • Dr. Nathaniel George, Harvard University
  • Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now
  • Prof. Maggie Gray, Adelphi University
  • Rev. Graylan Hagler, Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ
  • Dr. Kenneth Hammond, New Mexico State University
  • Alexandre Henrique Bezerra Pires, Centro Sabia e Articulação no Semiárido Brasileiro (ASA) (Brasil)
  • Srećko Horvat, DIEM, Democracy in Europe Movement
  • Derek Ide, University of Houston
  • Dr. Christina Jackson, Stockton University
  • Ammar Ali Jan, Haqooq-e-Khalq Movement (Pakistan)
  • Prof. Claudia Koonz, History. Duke University
  • Prof. Peter Kuznick, American University
  • Prof. Andrew Lamas, University of Pennsylvania
  • Helmut-Harry Loewen, Canadian Anti-racism Education & Research Society
  • Prof. Sergio Machado Rezende, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (Brasil)
  • Prof. Patrick Manning, American Historical Association
  • Prof. Lori Marso, Union College
  • Dr. Rosemari Mealy, City College of NY (CUNY)
  • Daniel Montero, Belly of The Beast
  • Liz Oliva Fernández, Belly of The Beast (Cuba)
  • Jerry and Koohan Paik-Mander, International Forum on Globalization
  • Commissioner Mariah Parker, Athens-Clarke County Unified Government
  • Dr. Jennifer Ponce de León, University of Pennsylvania
  • Mike Prysner, The Empire Files
  • Prof. Andrew Ross, New York University
  • Alvaro Salgado, Centro Nacional de Apoyo a Misiones Indígenas (Mexico)
  • Lohana Schalken, LOUD (Brasil)
  • Ivan Silveira, Ubatuba/SP (Brasil)
  • Joaquim Soriano, Executiva Nacional do Partido dos Trabalhadores (Brasil)
  • Deyvid Souza Bacelar da Silva, FUP – Federação Única dos Petroleiros (Brasil)
  • Devyn Springer, Walter Rodney Foundation
  • Astra Taylor, Debt Collective
  • João Vicente Caixa d’Água, Sindicato dos Advogados de São Paulo (Brasil)
  • Jeanette Vizguerra, Sanctuary for All Colorado
  • Prof. Suzi Weissman, Saint Mary’s College of CA
  • Patti Woods, Patti Woods Interiors
  • Prof. Emeritus Nicholas Xenos, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • Orlando Zaccone D’Elia Filho, Movimento Policiais Antifascismo (Brasil)

Webinar: The Past 100 Years: China, the West and the World (21 July)

The last 100 years have seen dramatic changes in the relation between the West and China. From 1921-1945 China was chiefly seen by the West as an ally against Japan’s militarist aggression. Then from 1949-1972 the US launched cold, and hot (Vietnam, Korea), wars involving China. In 1972 Nixon made his dramatic trip to Beijing starting 40 years of overall US-China détente. Then, from 2012, the US launched the ‘Pivot to Asia’, a clearly aggressive policy against China. This was deepened under Trump and Biden by an open US new cold war against China.

What lies behind these dramatic shifts in US policy to China? How has China responded? What are the chances to end this cold war and return US-China relations to a path of cooperation?

These are among the questions that will be discussed by leading Chinese and Western experts on China and its international relations at a China-West webinar on 21 July at 9am US Eastern, 9pm China, 2pm Britain.

Speakers include:

  • Martin Jacques
  • Wang Wen
  • Vijay Prashad
  • Liu Xin
  • Margaret Kimberley
  • Radhika Desai
  • Jaya Josie
  • Yury Tavrovsky
  • John Ross

The event will be streamed on YouTube at and on Weibo, Bilibili and other internet channels in China.

The event is hosted by No Cold War and Chongyang Institute, Renmin University of China.


Raoul Hedebouw: speech in Belgian parliament against the New Cold War

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.


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.


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.


Over 40 progressive US groups urge cooperation with China on tackling climate change

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.


198 methods
350 Action
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
Colorado Small Business Coalition
Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy
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
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
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)


More of the same: Biden’s hybrid war against China

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 Chinathreatening “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.