Category: Uncategorized

The New Cold War is rapidly heating up, with severe consequences for people around the world. Our series, Briefings, provides the key facts on these matters of global concern.

The upcoming fifteenth BRICS Summit (22–24 August) in Johannesburg, South Africa, has the potential to make history. The heads of state of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa will gather for their first face-to-face meeting since the 2019 summit in Brasilia, Brazil. The meeting will take place eighteen months since the beginning of military conflict in Ukraine, which has not only raised tensions between the US-led Western powers and Russia to a level unseen since the Cold War but also sharpened differences between the Global North and South.

There are growing cracks in the unipolar international order imposed by Washington and Brussels on the rest of the world through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the international financial system, the control of information flows (in both traditional and social media networks), and the indiscriminate use of unilateral sanctions against an increasing number of countries. As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently put it, ‘the post-Cold War period is over. A transition is under way to a new global order’.

In this global context, three of the most important debates to monitor at the Johannesburg summit are: (1) the possible expansion of BRICS membership, (2) the expansion of the membership of its New Development Bank (NDB), and (3) the NDB’s role in creating alternatives to the use of the US dollar. According to Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s ambassador to BRICS, twenty-two countries have formally applied to join the group (including Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Algeria, Mexico, and Indonesia) and a further two dozen have expressed interest. Even with numerous challenges to overcome, the BRICS are now seen as a major driving force of the world economy and of economic developments across the Global South in particular.

The BRICS Today

In the middle of the last decade, the BRICS experienced a number of problems. With the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India (2014) and the coup against President Dilma Rousseff in Brazil (2016), two of the group’s member countries became headed by right-wing governments more favourable to Washington Both India and Brazil retreated in their participation in the group. The de facto absence of Brazil, which from the outset had been one of the key driving forces behind the BRICS, represented a significant loss for the consolidation of the group. These developments undermined and hampered the progress of the NDB and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), established in 2015 – which represented the greatest institutional achievement of the BRICS to date. Although the NDB has made some progress it has fallen short of its original objectives. To date, the bank has approved some $32.8 billion in financing (in fact, less than that has been issued), while the CRA – which has $100 billion in funds to assist countries that have a shortage of US dollars in their international reserves and are facing short-term balance of payments or liquidity pressures – has never been activated.

However, developments in recent years have reinvigorated the BRICS project. The decisions of Moscow and Beijing to respond to escalations of aggression in the New Cold War by Washington and Brussels; the return of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the presidency of Brazil in 2022 and the consequent appointment of Dilma Rousseff to the presidency of the NDB; and the relative estrangement, to varying degrees, of India and South Africa from the Western powers have resulted in a ‘perfect storm’ that seems to have rebuilt a sense of political unity in the BRICS (despite unresolved tensions between India and China). Added to this is the growing weight of the BRICS in the global economy and strengthened economic interaction between its members. In 2020, the global share of the BRICS’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity terms – 31.5 percent – overtook that of the Group of Seven (G7) – 30.7 percent – and this gap is expected to grow. Bilateral trade among BRICS countries has also grown robustly: Brazil and China are breaking records every year, reaching $150 billion in 2022; Russian exports to India tripled from April to December 2022, year-on-year, expanding to $32.8 billion; while trade between China and Russia jumped from $147 billion in 2021 to $190 billion in 2022, an increase of nearly 30 percent.

What’s at Stake in Johannesburg?

Faced with this dynamic international situation and growing requests for expansion, the BRICS face a number of important questions:

In addition to providing concrete responses to interested applicants, expansion has the potential to increase the political and economic weight of the BRICS and, eventually, strengthen other regional platforms that its members belong to. But expansion also requires having to decide on the specific form that membership should take and may increase the complexity of consensus building, with a risk of slowing the progress of decision making and initiatives. How should these matters be dealt with?

How can the NDB’s financing capacity be increased, as well as its coordination with other development banks of the Global South and other multilateral banks? And, above all, how can the NDB, in partnership with the BRICS’ network of think tanks, promote the formulation of a new development policy for the Global South?

Since the BRICS member countries have solid international reserves (with South Africa having a little less), it’s unlikely that they will need to use the CRA, instead, this fund could provide countries in need with an alternative to the political blackmail of the International Monetary Fund, which requires developing countries to enact devastating austerity measures in exchange for loans.

BRICS is reported to be discussing the creation of a reserve currency that would enable trade and investment without the use of the US dollar. If this were established it could be one more step in efforts to create alternatives to the dollar, but questions remain. How could the stability of such a reserve currency be ensured? How could it be articulated with newly created trade mechanisms which do not use the dollar, such as bilateral China-Russia, China-Brazil, Russia-India, and other arrangements? 

How can cooperation and technology transfer support the re-industrialisation of countries like Brazil and South Africa, especially in strategic sectors such as biotech, information technology, artificial intelligence, and renewable energies, while also fighting poverty and inequality, and achieving other basic demands of the peoples of the South?

Leaders representing 71 countries of the Global South have been invited to attend the meeting in Johannesburg. Xi, Putin, Lula, Modi, Ramaphosa, and Dilma have a lot of work to do, to answer these questions and make progress on the urgent matters in global development.

The 49th Group of Seven (G7) summit took place this past weekend in Hiroshima, Japan, from 19-21 May. Leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States gathered to discuss and coordinate their global strategies, with China and Russia at the top of the agenda. 

The summit took place at the very site where, on 6 August 1945, the US dropped a nuclear bomb, killing approximately 70,000 people instantly (the death toll rose to roughly 140,000 by the end of the year). That horrific act of violence – intended to send a warning to the Soviet Union – ushered in the Cold War; it is a disturbing historical parallel that, 78 years later, the US and its allies returned to Hiroshima to ramp up a New Cold War against China and Russia.

At the summit, the G7 leaders prepared a ‘unified response’ against what they term China’s ‘economic coercion’, unveiling a new ‘Coordination Platform’ to this end. This initiative is the latest step in a years-long diplomatic campaign by the Biden administration to pressure its allies to support its tech war against China, in which the US has enacted numerous trade and investment restrictions seeking to ‘kneecap’ China’s advanced technological industries. This year, both ​​US Senator Bob Menendez, Democratic Party chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss have called for the formation of an ‘economic NATO’ and coordinated sanctions against China. 

For the United States to talk of ‘economic coercion’ when it has, by far, the most extensive track record of imposing unilateral economic sanctions and coercive measures against other countries – including the six decades-long blockade against Cuba – is a most astonishing display of hypocrisy. 

Meanwhile, the G7 leaders declared that they would tighten sanctions against Russia and continue to ‘support Ukraine for as long as it takes’. With Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in attendance, US President Joe Biden pledged an additional $375 million in additional military aid to the country – on top of the $37 billion that the US has already provided since the start of the war –  and also gave permission to G7 members to send their stocks of US-made F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.

It is disappointing that the G7 leaders did not use this opportunity to put forward any serious proposals to resolve the war in Ukraine and establish a lasting peace, but rather doubled down on their commitment to prolong the conflict. While the G7 attempted to court the Global South by inviting leaders from countries such as Brazil, India, and Indonesia, the perspective of developing countries on the conflict was not taken seriously at the summit. In fact, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, an outspoken advocate for dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the war, was snubbed by Zelenskyy despite making repeated efforts to meet.

Instead, the United States and its allies appear intent on provoking another major power conflict – with China. As part of its broader efforts to militarise the Asia-Pacific, in the lead-up to the G7 summit, it was widely reported that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is planning to open a ‘liaison office’ in Japan, the first of its kind in the region. 

The G7 leaders should use their experience in Hiroshima to reflect on the immense human cost of the first Cold War and abandon their efforts to revive such conflicts today. The world needs solutions to address the urgent crises of climate change, poverty, hunger, and development, not divisive political agendas that push humanity down the path of war and destruction.

The New Cold War is rapidly heating up, with severe consequences for people around the world. Our series, Briefings, provides the key facts on these matters of global concern.

English | Español | Português

On 8 April, Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul was asked to explain ‘why Americans… should be willing to spill American blood and treasure to defend Taiwan’. His answer was telling: ‘TSMC [Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company] manufactures 90% of the global supply of advanced semiconductor chips’. The interviewer noted that McCaul’s reasoning ‘sounds like the case that [was] made in the 60s, 70s, and 80s of why America was spending so much money and military resources in the Middle East [when] oil was so important for the economy’ and then asked whether semiconductor chips are ‘the 21st century version’ of oil – that is, a key driver of US foreign policy towards China.

Semiconductor chips are the building blocks of the world’s most advanced technologies (such as artificial intelligence, 5G telecommunications, and supercomputing) as well as all modern electronics. Without them, the computers, phones, cars, and devices that are essential to our everyday lives would cease to function. They are typically produced by using ultraviolet light to etch microscopic circuit patterns onto thin layers of silicon, packing billions of electrical switches called transistors onto a single fingernail-sized wafer. This technology advances through a relentless process of miniaturisation: the smaller the distance between transistors, the greater the density of transistors that can be packed onto a chip and the more computing power that can be embedded in each chip and in each facet of modern life. Today, the most advanced chips are produced with a three-nanometre (nm) process (for reference, a sheet of paper is roughly 100,000-nm thick).

The Semiconductor Supply Chain

The commercial semiconductor industry was developed in Silicon Valley, California in the late 1950s, dominated by the United States in all aspects, from research and design to manufacture and sales. From the outset, this industry held geopolitical significance, with early manufacturers selling upwards of 95% of their chips to the Pentagon or the aerospace sector. Over the subsequent decades, the US selectively offshored most of its chip manufacturing to its East Asian allies, first to Japan, then to South Korea and Taiwan. This allowed the US to reduce its capital and labour costs and stimulate the industrial development of its allies while continuing to dominate the supply chain.

Today, US firms maintain a commanding presence in chip design (e.g., Intel, AMD, Broadcom, Qualcomm, and NVIDIA) and fabrication equipment (e.g., Applied Materials, Lam Research, and KLA). Taiwan’s TSMC is the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer or foundry, accounting for an overwhelming 56% share of the global market and over 90% of advanced chip manufacturing in 2022, followed by South Korea’s Samsung, which holds a 15% share of the global market. In addition, the Dutch firm ASML is a critical player, holding a monopoly on extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines needed to produce the most advanced chips below 7-nm.

The largest part of the semiconductor supply chain that lies outside of the control of the US and its allies is in China, which has developed into the world’s electronics manufacturing hub and a major technological power over the past four decades. China’s share of global chip manufacturing capacity has risen from zero in 1990 to roughly 15% in 2020. Yet, despite its sizeable developmental advances, China’s chip production capabilities still lag behind, relying on imports for the most advanced chips (in 2020, China imported $378 billion worth of semiconductors, 18% of its total imports). Meanwhile, China’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, only has a 5% share of the global market, paling in comparison to TSMC.

The US Campaign against China

In recent years, the US has been waging an aggressive campaign to arrest China’s technological development, which it views as a serious threat to its dominance. In the words of US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Washington’s goal is to ‘maintain as large of a lead as possible’. To this end, the US has identified China’s semiconductor production capabilities as an important weakness and is trying to block the country’s access to advanced chips and chip-making technology. Under the Trump and Biden administrations, the US has placed hundreds of Chinese companies on trade and investment blacklists, including the country’s leading semiconductor manufacturer SMIC and tech giant Huawei. These restrictions have banned any company in the world that uses US products – effectively every chip designer and manufacturer – from doing business with Chinese tech firms.

The US has also pressured governments and firms around the world to impose similar restrictions. Since 2018, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have joined the US in banning Huawei from their 5G telecommunications networks while a number of European countries have implemented partial bans or restrictions. Importantly, in 2019, after more than a year of intense US lobbying, the Dutch government blocked the key firm ASML, which builds and supplies the most advanced chip-making machinery to the semiconductor industry, from exporting its equipment to China.

These policies do not only target firms; they also have a direct impact on an individual level. In October 2022, the Biden administration restricted ‘US persons’ – including citizens, residents, and green-card holders – from working for Chinese chip firms, forcing many to choose between their immigration status and their jobs. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a leading Washington, DC think tank, characterised US policy as ‘actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry – strangling with an intent to kill’.

Alongside its containment measures against China, the US has ramped up efforts to boost its domestic chip-making capacity. The CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law in August 2022, provides $280 billion in funding to boost the domestic US semiconductor industry and reshore production from East Asia. Washington views Taiwan’s role as the manufacturing hub of the semiconductor industry as a strategic vulnerability given its proximity to mainland China and is inducing TSMC to relocate production to Phoenix, Arizona. This pressure, in turn, is generating its own frictions in the US-Taiwan relationship.

However, US efforts are not infallible. Although China has suffered serious setbacks, it has intensified efforts to promote its domestic capacity, and there are signs of progress despite the obstacles imposed by the US. For example, in 2022, China’s SMIC reportedly achieved a significant technological breakthrough, making the leap from 14-nm to 7-nm semiconductor chips, which is on par with the global leaders Intel, TSMC, and Samsung.

A Matter of Global Importance

It is important to note that the US is not only targeting China in this conflict: Washington fears that China’s technological development will lead, through trade and investment, to the dispersal of advanced technologies more broadly throughout the world, namely, to states in the Global South that the US sees as a threat. This would be a significant blow to the US’s power over these countries. In 2020, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee decried that China was facilitating ‘digital authoritarianism’ because it has ‘been willing to go into smaller, under-served markets’ and ‘offer more cost-effective equipment than Western companies’, pointing to countries under US sanctions such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe as examples. To combat ties between Chinese tech firms and sanctioned countries, the US has taken severe legal action, fining the Chinese corporation ZTE $1.2 billion in 2017 for violating US sanctions against Iran and North Korea. The US also collaborated with Canada to arrest Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in 2018 on charges of circumventing US sanctions against Iran.

Unsurprisingly, while the US has been able to consolidate support for its agenda amongst a number of its Western allies, its efforts have failed across the Global South. It is in the interest of developing countries for such advanced technologies to be dispersed as widely as possible – not to be controlled by a select few states.

Disponible en: English | Español

El 5 de abril, la líder taiwanesa Tsai Ing-wen se reunió con el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos, Kevin McCarthy, en medio de su controvertida visita a dicho país. McCarthy es el funcionario de más alto rango que se reúne con un líder taiwanés en suelo estadounidense desde 1979, cuando Estados Unidos y China restablecieron relaciones diplomáticas. La reunión a puerta cerrada tuvo lugar pocos meses después de que la expresidenta de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, Nancy Pelosi, visitó la isla en agosto de 2022 y se llevó a cabo a pesar de las repetidas objeciones y advertencias presentadas por el gobierno chino. Esta es la última de una serie de serias provocaciones emprendidas por Washington hacia Beijing, destinadas a promover la noción de que Taiwán es un país separado e independiente de China, que han escalado las tensiones bilaterales a niveles sin precedentes.

La visita de Tsai a los Estados Unidos, parte de una gira diplomática que incluyó paradas en dos países centroamericanos, Guatemala y Belice, se realizó en respuesta a la disminución del apoyo internacional a la causa del separatismo taiwanés. El 25 de marzo, solo una semana antes del viaje de Tsai, Honduras anunció que había roto relaciones diplomáticas con Taiwán y restablecido relaciones con Beijing, afirmando que “Taiwán es una parte inalienable del territorio chino”. La decisión de Honduras es parte de una tendencia más amplia: Taiwán ha perdido 19 aliados diplomáticos desde 2000, incluidos nueve desde que Tsai asumió el cargo en 2016. Hoy, 181 de los 193 estados miembros de la ONU han adoptado formalmente el principio de ‘Una China’, reconociendo que Taiwán y el continente son parte del mismo país, con soberanía que reside en Beijing; solo 12 estados miembros de la ONU mantienen vínculos oficiales con la isla, casi todos ellos pequeñas naciones bajo la fuerte influencia de Washington.

La política separatista de Tsai y su Partido Progresista Democrático (PPD) no solo enfrenta desafíos a nivel mundial sino también en la isla misma. Como lo expresó recientemente el Financial Times, existe una “división política cada vez más profunda en Taiwán” sobre cómo manejar las relaciones a través del Estrecho. En noviembre de 2022, el PPD sufrió una importante derrota en las elecciones locales ante el opositor Kuomintang (KMT), que favorece mejores relaciones con el continente. Al mismo tiempo que la visita de Tsai a los Estados Unidos, el exlíder taiwanés y predecesor de Tsai, Ma Ying-Jeou, realizó una visita histórica de 12 días al continente. El viaje de Ma marcó la primera vez que un líder actual o del pasado de Taiwán viajó al continente desde 1949. “Espero sinceramente que los dos lados del Estrecho [de Taiwán] trabajen juntos para buscar la paz, evitar la guerra y revitalizar la nación china”, afirmó Ma durante su viaje. “Esta es una responsabilidad ineludible del pueblo chino en ambos lados del Estrecho, y debemos trabajar duro para realizarla”.

Aunque la “independencia” taiwanesa a menudo se presenta como una causa infalible por parte de Estados Unidos y los países occidentales, está claro que este no es el caso en la isla o en el escenario internacional. Incluso entre los aliados de Washington hay divisiones. El 9 de abril, después de concluir una visita de Estado de tres días a China, el presidente francés, Emmanuel Macron, declaró en una entrevista que Europa debe evitar ser “seguidora de Estados Unidos” o “seguir nuestra parte en la agenda de Estados Unidos” con respecto a la cuestión de Taiwán. “[¿Es] de nuestro interés acelerar [una crisis] en Taiwán? No”, agregó.

Beijing le ha dejado claro a Washington la seriedad que le da al tema. En una reunión en persona en noviembre de 2022, el presidente chino Xi Jinping le dijo al presidente estadounidense Joe Biden: “La cuestión de Taiwán está en el centro mismo de los intereses fundamentales de China, la base de la base política de las relaciones chino-estadounidenses y la primera línea roja que no debe cruzarse”. No obstante, Estados Unidos tiene la intención de usar Taiwán, ubicado a solo 160 kilómetros de la costa sureste de China continental, como un punto de apoyo para ejercer presión sobre China. Aunque Washington ha adoptado formalmente una política de Una China, mantiene extensas relaciones ‘no oficiales’ y lazos militares con Taiwán, a través de la venta de armas, entrenamiento militar, asesores y personal en la isla, y navegando repetidamente buques de guerra a través del estrecho de Taiwán que separa la isla desde el continente. En diciembre de 2022, EE. UU. prometió diez mil millones de dólares adicionales en ayuda militar a Taiwán.

A su regreso a Taiwán después de su visita al continente, Ma Ying-Jeou declaró que las acciones de la administración del PPD de Tsai Ing-Wen y, por extensión, sus patrocinadores en Washington, “han seguido poniendo en peligro el futuro de Taiwán”, y que la isla debe ‘elegir entre la paz y la guerra para nuestro futuro’. De hecho, la interferencia de los Estados Unidos solo sirve para aumentar las tensiones globales y promover los estrechos intereses de Washington, no ofrece nada a Taiwán, el continente o la comunidad internacional. Como han declarado las fuerzas progresistas de Taiwán, “para mantener la paz en el Estrecho de Taiwán y evitar el flagelo de la guerra, es necesario detener la injerencia estadounidense”.

Available in: Español | English

On 5 April, Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen met with the Speaker of the US House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, amid her controversial visit to the United States. McCarthy is the highest-ranking official to meet with a Taiwanese leader on US soil since 1979, when the United States and China re-established diplomatic relations. The closed-door meeting took place just months after former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the island in August 2022 and was held despite repeated objections and warnings lodged by the Chinese government. This is the latest in a series of serious provocations undertaken by Washington towards Beijing, intended to promote the notion that Taiwan is a separate and independent country from China, which have escalated bilateral tensions to unprecedented levels. 

Tsai’s visit to the United States – part of a diplomatic tour which included stops in two Central American nations, Guatemala and Belize – took place in response to declining international support for the cause of Taiwanese separatism. On 25 March, just one week prior to Tsai’s trip, Honduras announced that it had severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan and re-established relations with Beijing, stating that ‘Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory’. The decision of Honduras is part of a broader trend: Taiwan has lost 19 diplomatic allies since 2000, including nine since Tsai came into office in 2016. Today, 181 of the 193 UN member states have formally adopted the ‘One China’ principle – recognising that Taiwan and the mainland are part of the same country, with sovereignty residing in Beijing; only 12 UN member states maintain official ties with the island, nearly all of them small nations under Washington’s strong influence.

The separatist politics of Tsai and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are not only facing challenges globally but on the island itself. As the Financial Times recently put it, there is a ‘deepening political divide in Taiwan’ over how to manage cross-strait relations. In November 2022, the DPP suffered a major defeat in local elections to the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), which favours better relations with the mainland. At the same time as Tsai’s visit to the United States, former Taiwanese leader and Tsai’s predecessor, Ma Ying-Jeou undertook a historic 12-day visit to the mainland. Ma’s trip marked the first time that a former or current leader of Taiwan travelled to the mainland since 1949. ‘I sincerely hope that the two sides of the [Taiwan] Straits will work together to pursue peace, avoid war and revitalise the Chinese nation’, Ma stated during his trip. ‘This is an unavoidable responsibility of the Chinese people on both sides of the Straits, and we must work hard to realise it’.

Although Taiwanese ‘independence’ is often represented as an infallible cause by the United States and Western countries, it is clear that this is not the case on the island or the international stage. Even among Washington’s allies, there are divisions. On 9 April, after concluding a three-day state visit to China, French President Emmanuel Macron stated in an interview that Europe must avoid being ‘America’s followers’ or ‘tak[ing] our cue from the U.S. agenda’ regarding the question of Taiwan. ‘[I]s it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No’, he added.

Beijing has made it clear to Washington the seriousness that it places on the issue. At an in-person meeting in November 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping told US President Joe Biden: ‘the Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s core interests, the bedrock of the political foundation of China-US relations, and the first red line that must not be crossed’. Nonetheless, the United States is intent on using Taiwan – located just 160 kilometres off the south-eastern coast of the Chinese mainland – as a foothold to exert pressure on China. Even though Washington has formally adopted a One China policy, it maintains extensive ‘unofficial’ relations and military ties with Taiwan, through weapons sales, military training, stationing advisors and personnel on the island, and repeatedly sailing warships through the narrow Taiwan Strait that separates the island from the mainland. In December 2022, the US pledged an additional $10 billion in military aid to Taiwan. 

Upon his return to Taiwan after his visit to the mainland, Ma Ying-Jeou stated that the actions of the DPP administration of Tsai Ing-Wen – and, by extension, its backers in Washington – ‘have continued to put Taiwan’s future in jeopardy’ and that the island must ‘choose between peace and war for our future’. Indeed, the interference of the United States only serves to increase global tensions and advance the narrow interests of Washington, it offers nothing to Taiwan, the mainland, or the international community. As progressive forces in Taiwan have declared, ‘to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and avoid the scourge of war, it is necessary to stop US interference’.

No Cold War (Britain) has issued the following statement urging the British government to abandon its plans to shut down Confucius Institutes.

The British government is threatening to close down Confucius Institutes on university campuses across the UK in what would be a flagrant attack on academic freedom, cultural exchanges and free speech. The British people stand to lose important educational opportunities to learn about Chinese culture and acquire language skills if the government proceeds with its plans to shut down these Institutes at the behest of a New Cold War agenda promoted by the United States government.

Confucius Institutes are public educational and cultural programs funded and arranged by the Chinese International Education Foundation which is under the authority of the People’s Republic of China’s Ministry of Education. There are hundreds of Institutes worldwide which the Chinese government spends approximately $10billion a year on.

Confucius Institutes play a similar role to other international organisations which promote language skills and cultural exchanges on behalf of countries. These include Britain’s British Council, Portugal’s Instituto Camões, France’s Alliance Française, Italy’s Società Dante Alighieri, Spain’s Instituto Cervantes and Germany’s Goethe-Institut.

The British government justifies its threat to close down Confucius Institutes on the grounds that these programs promote a positive image of China, forming part of China’s “external propaganda”, and therefore constitute a threat to British society and university life. This is clearly absurd.

The British Council in under-taking programs to promote cultural relations and educational opportunities across the world performs an ambassadorial role in favourably promoting Britain internationally. It is hardly controversial or surprising that China’s Confucius Institutes promote China’s culture and language in a positive light internationally too.

The suppression of Confucius Institutes is part of the US’s New Cold War agenda. In the past two years Confucius Institutes have been shut down in the US, reducing the number from 100 to only 20.

Closing down Confucius Institutes in Britain would not only be a direct attack on academic freedom, it would also be a dangerous move. At a time when the British government is intent on pursuing a bellicose foreign policy towards China, including the sending of British warships to the South China Sea and the establishment of the AUKUS military pact directed against China, it is vital to maintain dialogue and an understanding of China’s view of the world – a role that Confucius Institutes clearly play. To shut down such opportunities for exchanges can lead to serious misunderstandings and could lead to catastrophic miscalculations. Understanding, engaging with and learning from China, as with other countries, is vital in the current international political climate. We urge the British government to abandon its self-defeating plan to close down Confucius Institutes which can only damage education and cultural opportunities and lead to greater misunderstanding and hostility in international relations.

The New Cold War is rapidly heating up, with severe consequences for people around the world. Our series, Briefings, provides the key facts on these matters of global concern.

English | Español | Português

In recent years, Taiwan has become a flashpoint for tensions between the United States and China. The seriousness of the situation was recently underscored on 21 December, when US and Chinese military aircraft came within three metres of each other over the South China Sea. 

At the root of this simmering conflict are the countries’ diverging perspectives over Taiwan’s sovereignty. The Chinese position, known as the ‘One China’ principle, is firm: although the mainland and Taiwan have different political systems, they are part of the same country, with sovereignty residing in Beijing. Meanwhile, the US position on Taiwan is far less clear. Despite formally adopting the One China policy, the US maintains extensive ‘unofficial’ relations and military ties with Taiwan. In fact, under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, US law requires Washington to provide arms ‘of a defensive character’ to the island.

The US justifies its ongoing ties with Taiwan by claiming that they are necessary to uphold the island’s ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. But, how valid are these claims?

A Foothold for Influence

To understand the contemporary geopolitical significance of Taiwan, it is necessary to examine Cold War history. Prior to the Chinese Revolution of 1949, China was in the midst of a civil war between the communists and the nationalists, or Kuomintang (KMT) – the latter of which received billions of dollars in military and economic support from Washington. The revolution resulted in the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland, while the defeated KMT forces fled to the island of Taiwan, which had returned to Chinese sovereignty four years earlier, in 1945, following fifty years of Japanese colonial rule. From Taipei, the KMT declared that they were the rightful government-in-exile of all of China under the name of the Republic of China (ROC) – originally founded in 1912 – thereby rejecting the legitimacy of the PRC. 

The US military soon followed, establishing the United States Taiwan Defence Command in 1955, deploying nuclear weapons to the island, and occupying it with thousands of US troops until 1979. Far from protecting ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ in Taiwan, the US instead backed the KMT as it established a dictatorship, including a 38-year-long consecutive period of martial law from 1949–1987. During this time, known as the ‘White Terror’, Taiwanese authorities estimate that 140,000 to 200,000 people were imprisoned or tortured, and 3,000 to 4,000 were executed by the KMT. Washington accepted this brutal repression because Taiwan represented a useful foothold – located just 160 kilometres off the south-eastern coast of the Chinese mainland – that it used to pressure and isolate Beijing from the international community.

From 1949–1971, the US successfully manoeuvred to exclude the PRC from the United Nations by arguing that the ROC administration in Taiwan was the sole legitimate government of the entirety of China. It is important to note that, during this time, neither Taipei nor Washington contended that the island was separate from China, a narrative that is advanced today to allege Taiwan’s ‘independence’. However, these efforts were eventually defeated in 1971, when the UN General Assembly voted to oust the ROC and recognise the PRC as the only legitimate representative of China. Later that decade, in 1979, the US finally normalised relations with the PRC, adopted the One China policy, and ended its formal diplomatic relations with the ROC in Taiwan.

For Peace in Taiwan, US Interference Must End

Today, the international community has overwhelmingly adopted the One China policy, with only 13 of 193 UN member states recognising the ROC in Taiwan. However, due to the continued provocations of the US in alliance with separatist forces in Taiwan, the island remains a source of international tension and conflict.

The US maintains close military ties with Taiwan through arms sales, military training, advisors, and personnel on the island, as well as repeatedly sailing warships through the narrow Taiwan Strait that separates the island from the mainland. In 2022, Washington pledged $10 billion in military aid to Taiwan. Meanwhile, US congressional delegations regularly travel to Taipei, legitimising notions of separatism, such as a controversial visit by former US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi in August 2022. 

Would the US or any other Western country accept a situation where China provided military aid, stationed troops, and offered diplomatic support to separatist forces in part of its internationally recognised territory? The answer, of course, is no.

In November, at the G20 summit in Indonesia, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden held their first in-person meeting since Biden was elected president. At the meeting, Xi strongly reiterated China’s stance on Taiwan, telling Biden that: ‘the Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s core interests, the bedrock of the political foundation of China-US relations, and the first red line that must not be crossed’. Although Biden responded by stating that the US adheres to the One China policy and that he is ‘not looking for conflict’, just a few months prior, he affirmed in a televised interview that US troops would militarily intervene to ‘defend Taiwan’, if necessary.

It is clear from the US’s track record that Washington is intent on provoking China and disregarding its ‘red line’. In Eastern Europe, a similarly reckless approach, namely the continued expansion of NATO towards Russia’s border, led to the outbreak of war in Ukraine. As progressive forces in Taiwan have declared, ‘to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and avoid the scourge of war, it is necessary to stop US interference’.

No Cold War is pleased to publish the following interview of Wu Rong-yuan, Chairperson of the Labour Party of Taiwan, conducted by Wim De Ceukelaire. The interview has been edited for clarity.

In 1949, when the Communist Party of China established the People’s Republic on the mainland of the country, Chiang Kai-shek, China’s deposed leader, fled to the island of Taiwan together with his soldiers, political followers and their families. In total, roughly one million people would cross the Taiwan Strait. Chiang’s government and party, the Kuomintang, established a repressive dictatorship over the island’s 6.5 million inhabitants – imposing martial law for 38 years from 1949 to 1987 – and developed a close alliance with the United States.

Recently, Taiwan has been at the centre of headlines around the world as tensions increase between the United States and China. Little of this media coverage has discussed the island’s history, let alone the points of view of local progessive and left-wing forces. This interview with Wu Rong-yuan (吳榮元), the chairperson of the Labour Party of Taiwan, tries to fill that gap.

In the West, very little is known about the politics and history of Taiwan. Some will remember the island was ruled by the Kuomintang dictatorship for decades during the latter half of the 20^th century. Others will know that, since becoming a presidential democracy in the 1990s, the island has had a two-party system with the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as the main political parties. Few will know of your party, the Labour Party of Taiwan. Can you tell us about its history?

Wu Rong-yuan: The Labour Party of Taiwan was founded in March 1989 by three groups of people. First, the veteran political prisoners of the martial law period in Taiwan who persisted in their struggle while they were imprisoned for a long time. Second, a collection of progressive intellectuals who were united by the well-known magazine “China Tide” (夏潮) in the 1970s and the equally prominent publication “The Human World” (人間) in the 1980s, including Chen Ying-zhen (陳映真), Su Qing-li (蘇慶黎), Wang Li-xia (汪立峽), and others. Third, there were some leaders of the labour and social movements at that time, such as Luo Mei-wen (羅美文) (now a member of the Hsinchu County Council), Ngan Kun-chuan (顏坤泉), and others.

The establishment of the Labour Party of Taiwan initiated the third period in the history of the Left in Taiwan. The first period, from the early 1920s to 1931, was defined by the resistance against the Japanese Empire’s colonial rule;¹ the second period, from 1945 to the 1950s, was marked by the participation of the “Old Classmates” in the New Democratic Revolution² in Taiwan; and the third period, from 1988 onwards,³ has been characterised by the re-uniting the labour movement with the movement for the reunification of China. Therefore, we can say that the Labour Party of Taiwan has inherited the history of the left-wing movement of the Taiwanese people since the 1920s, and has continued the history of its patriotic anti-imperialist and unification movement, which was interrupted for nearly 40 years due to the so-called “White Terror”.

Every fall, the Labour Party of Taiwan and many pro-unification groups pay tribute to the victims who died during the “White Terror” in Taipei City. Can you tell us more about what happened to them?

Wu Rong-yuan: My heart is heavy when I talk about this historical tragedy. Most of the victims of the White Terror in Taiwan during the 1950s were local patriotic progressives. Thousands were killed and at least 140,000 were imprisoned in harsh conditions.

During Taiwan’s martial law, the former political prisoners linked up across the island after their release from prison through mutual aid associations. Immediately after the lifting of martial law in October 1987, the Taiwan Political Prisoners’ Mutual Aid Association was established and in March of the following year, Lin Shu-Yang (林書揚), the longest-serving political prisoner in Taiwan, was elected chairperson. They called each other “Old Classmates” and worked hard to continue the tradition of the anti-imperialist patriotic movement of the Taiwanese people.

These “Old Classmates” had been eyewitnesses to Japanese colonial domination and to the civil war between the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang. After the lifting of martial law, they laid the basis for a number of unification organisations, including the Labour Party of Taiwan.

Did you have experiences with repression yourself?

Wu Rong-yuan: In the early 1970s, when I was a student, young Taiwanese students had a strong Chinese national identity. The more critically minded young Taiwanese began to question the Kuomintang because its version of nationalism was full of pointless formalities and sounded hollow. Instead, we were inspired by Sun Yat-sen’s statement that “socialism and communism are the solution to people’s livelihood”⁴ and identified with the American, European, and Japanese student movements at the time, as well as the anti-Vietnam War movement and the African American civil rights movement.

During this period, Taiwan was also impacted by two major international events. One was the adoption of Resolution 2758 by the United Nations General Assembly in 1971, which recognised the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China to the United Nations.⁵ The other was the “Defend the Diaoyu Islands movement”⁶ that asserted Chinese sovereignty over these islands when the United States turned them over to Japan. In this way, my personal political views didn’t stop at criticising capitalism and advocating anti-imperialism but were also characterised by a strong identification with our motherland.

I was arrested for organising the “Communist Party of National Cheng Kung University” with my classmates in college and sentenced to death by the Taiwanese authorities. This sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment and then to fixed-term imprisonment. For a young political prisoner, that meant 15 years.

At that time, political prisoners were sent to Green Island, known as the Bonfire Island, to serve their sentences. It was there that I met many renowned political prisoners who, despite having been imprisoned for almost 20 years, were not demoralised. They were still in high spirits, displaying a rational attitude toward life. What I learned from my predecessors in Green Island Prison provided me with a systematic understanding of patriotism and socialism. The ideals of the “Old Classmates” became the political and ideological inspiration for my work in the patriotic unification movement after my release from prison.

Who were those people whom you met on Green Island?

Wu Rong-yuan: I was most impressed by the late comrades such as Lin Shu-yang, Chen Ming-zhong (陈明忠) and Chen Ying-zhen, who all made important contributions to the founding and development of the Labour Party of Taiwan. Lin Shu-yang was the honorary chairman of the Labour Party until his death in 2012. When I was on Green Island, Lin Shu-yang used to say: “Prison is a school for revolutionaries, so we must stick to our principles and maintain our fighting spirit.” Lin was an outstanding leader and theoretician of the patriotic unification movement in Taiwan. After his release from prison, he wrote and translated numerous articles on cross-strait relations, Taiwan’s history, Marxism, and the international situation.

Lin Shu-yang, who had been imprisoned for 34 years and 7 months, often emphasised the importance of combining theory and practice, and he tried his best to be personally involved in various movements that we were engaged in. Lin once said that when looking at the Taiwan issue from the historical perspective, the complete unification of the country would complete the liberation movement of the entire Chinese nation. This is the continuation of the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, and anti-colonial Chinese national liberation movement that goes back to the 19th century.

Chen Ming-zhong also was one of the key founders of the Labour Party of Taiwan. During the period of martial law, he risked ordering progressive books and voluntarily photocopied articles that were worth reading and recommended them to “Old Classmates” who wished to learn. He was particularly concerned about the socialist revolution and construction of China and the socialist future of humanity, and authored a book entitled “China’s Road to Socialism”. His biography, “No Regrets”, has become a reference book for young people who want to understand the real history of Taiwan.

Chen Ying-zhen was another strong supporter and promoter of the Labour Party of Taiwan after his release. He had already written a number of novels before his imprisonment. In 1985, he presided over the creation of a news and photojournalism magazine, called “The Human World”, which had a profound impact on the social movements in Taiwan. He has been the most important author of the unification movement and the Left in Taiwan.

Chen was also a revolutionary practitioner, and he was present at the May Day rallies of Taiwanese workers, the protest against the US invasion of Iraq, and the demonstration against the occupation of the Diaoyu Islands. When organisers invited him to speak, he would give lively speeches to inspire the participants; and when he did not have the opportunity to speak, he would carry the banner together with the others, just like any ordinary member of the group. And he would enjoy it as well.

You have provided us with an important overview of the recent history of Taiwan. Can you tell us more about the Labour Party? What kind of party is it and how has it evolved since its founding in 1989?

Wu Rong-yuan: Since its founding, the Labour Party has represented the interests of the working class in Taiwan. Therefore, we have been fully involved as a political party in the Taiwan workers’ movement, the movement against imperialist domination and interference, and the movement for reunification.

To give you an example of our influence in the labour movement, we can look at the establishment of the Taiwan Confederation of Trade Unions in 2000, the first general trade union after the end of the dictatorship. At the inaugural meeting, the Labour Movement Contribution Award was given to labour movement leaders and intellectuals. Of the five individuals who were nominated by the labour movement, three were members of the Labour Party.

At present, the Labour Party is promoting the annual May 1st Labour Day activities together with various labour organisations in Taiwan. We also have offices to provide services to the labour movement in the cities of Hsinchu, Taichung, and Kaohsiung, as well as in the North, Central and South of Taiwan.

In addition, we insist on combining social and political movements, and have been participating in local elections for more than a decade. We hope to gain seats to represent the people’s point of view through our participation, so that we can continue to expand our influence and gain favourable conditions to serve the people. At present, the Labour Party has two seats in Hsinchu County,⁷ which is the result of its hard work under unfavourable circumstances.

In the Labour Party of Taiwan’s analysis of the social and economic situation in Taiwan at the current historical stage, the contradiction between unification and independence is the main contradiction in Taiwan’s society, while the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is the basic contradiction. The Labour Party has always adhered to the One China principle.

Faced with the downturn of the international socialist movement in the 1990s and the subsequent deterioration of Taiwan’s political and social situation, the party is in a very difficult situation. However, it is increasingly clear that its analysis remains valid. The main contradiction has not changed regardless of which political party has been in power in Taiwan. It has become more and more pronounced in Taiwan’s political environment and even in the daily lives of the general public.

The war in Ukraine has sharpened the contradictions between the West and Russia, and the contradictions with China have also become more prominent. In the Western media, many commentators have begun to compare Taiwan with Ukraine. What do you make of this analysis? Is Taiwan also facing the threat of a military invasion?

Wu Rong-yuan: We believe that the Russian-Ukrainian War was caused by the expansion of the US-led NATO military alliance to the east. However, we oppose the use of war as a means of resolving this dispute and we call on both sides to sit down for negotiations and talk.

It is now clear that this is a proxy war, and Ukraine is just cannon fodder for Washington. The United States is gaining economic benefits from the war, including the expansion of the global arms market, and military benefits from weakening Russia. Therefore, if the United States is not willing to stop the war, the war will not stop. We must strongly condemn the US empire.

Taiwan is not Ukraine, because Taiwan is a part of China. Taiwan and the Chinese mainland are one country. It is an internal political issue. However, the Russian-Ukrainian war has given us a lot of insight; we are worried that Taiwan might similarly be used as a proxy to start a war in the Taiwan Strait. For example, the United States could deliberately let Taiwan cross China’s red line and provoke the mainland to attack. Such a tactic could be pursued as part of Washington’s efforts to contain and slow down the rise of China.

Now more than ever, we want peace across the Taiwan Strait. So we must defeat the attempts of the United States, in conjunction with conservative regimes in East Asia, to encircle China and escalate the conflict. 

When a number of high-profile US politicians visited Taiwan this summer, most notably US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it did provoke tensions with the Chinese mainland. Interestingly, the Taiwan government, led by President Tsai Ing-wen, seemed to welcome these visits and has generally been very receptive to US attempts to drum up tensions with China. How do you explain this?

Wu Rong-yuan: The emergence of the “Taiwan independence” separatist forces or the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has its historical roots. The DPP is the representative of the local bourgeoisie in Taiwan, which emerged as a political force at the end of the martial law period, when the Kuomintang was in power. With the rise of their economic stature, the DPP are no longer satisfied with having money but no power.

Their anti-communist politics and their desire for a Western political system gradually led to the formation of a separatist “one China, one Taiwan” political line. Following several changes of political power between these two main parties, the “Taiwan independence” forces have now become bigger, and they are going further and further down the road of national secession, pushing cross-strait relations into an increasingly dangerous situation.

The “Taiwan independence” forces have been in power twice⁸ and still have not dared to touch the political red line drawn by the mainland. The “Taiwan independence” forces understand that they will pay a price if they cross it. Therefore, the DPP authorities are trying to strengthen the island’s security system. Internally, they stir up the so-called Taiwan nationalism ideology and externally, they rely on the United States (and Japan) to resist the Chinese mainland.

In the January 2020 elections, the DPP and its leader, Tsai Ing-wen, won the elections and came to power for the second time. However, prior to this, in the 2018 local elections, the ruling DPP government suffered an unprecedented defeat, and, in 2019, Tsai’s popularity rating had dropped to just 15 percent. Ahead of the 2020 elections, any observer would have thought that there was no hope for Tsai’s re-election.

As a result, Tsai’s government launched a desperate counter-attack and began to create an anti-communist political atmosphere. The Tsai Ing-wen administration began to drum up ‘espionage incidents’. Mainland students, retired military personnel, Hong Kong businessmen, and political figures advocating unification were accused of espionage. In the second half of 2019, the DPP strengthened the national security legislation with a provision directed against so-called ‘agents of the Chinese Communist Party’. It is forbidden for people or organisations to act as ‘agents’ of the mainland or to engage in political propaganda that is deemed to endanger national security. This reminiscent to the Cold War: the regime can criminalise anyone it wants to.

In addition, other new security laws were passed and a new provision was added to the Cross-Strait People’s Relations Ordinance to de facto block the possibility of the government signing any political agreement with the mainland. This provision stipulates that a political agreement with the mainland requires the presence of three quarters of the members of the Legislative Yuan (the parliament) and the approval of three quarters. This is a higher threshold than is required for a constitutional amendment!

In 2018–19, the Trump administration escalated its trade war against China on the pretext that China was stealing US intellectual property and trade secrets. Some DPP politicians were overjoyed by this development, openly welcoming the return of the anti-communist Cold War and arguing for Taiwan to return to its old anti-communist system. Some independent Taiwanese and DPP leaders have even placed newspaper advertisements calling on the opposition Kuomintang and the DPP to return to the old anti-communist system of Chiang Kai-shek.

In short, after suffering a crushing defeat in the 2018 local elections, Tsai Ing-wen’s government weaponised the anti-communist and anti-China atmosphere both inside and outside of Taiwan. In less than a year, the administration increased its support in the polls to almost 60 percent, winning the 2020 elections with 57.1 percent of the votes. Based on this, one should be able to imagine the violent anti-communist and anti-China atmosphere the presently exists in Taiwan.

Taiwan is gradually returning to the dictatorial system of the past. A year and a half ago, a news channel in Taiwan which opposed the DPP had its licence withdrawn by the government on trumped up grounds. Meanwhile, it is a recognised fact that the DPP uses the government’s budget to maintain a large online army to manipulate public opinion in an organised manner. When people post or share comments critical of the government on the internet, they are often prosecuted by the government for allegedly creating or spreading false news; these charges are levied under legislation which dates back to the martial law era, now renamed the Social Order Maintenance Law.

The DPP has established a far-right, anti-communist, anti-China, and pro-US regime. The anti-communist operation from 2019 to 2020 has been quite successful in spreading fear among the public. As a result, in the past few years, almost no one has dared to oppose the increasing public debt accumulating from arms purchases from the United States. At the behest of Washington, Taiwan’s defence spending has risen to 2.3 percent of GDP, which is having a serious impact on social welfare and education. Despite this, the US has not relaxed its pressure on Taiwan to increase military expenditures, demanding that the government increases its spending to 3 percent of GDP. Also at the behest of the United States, the DPP government will change the military service system to a one-year conscription system.

These are very worrisome developments. How does the population understand the situation, especially the increasing closeness to the United States?

Wu Rong-yuan: In Taiwan, more and more people are seeing the true face of the United States as a result of the war in Ukraine. In particular, they see that the United States itself does not send troops to support Ukraine, but continues to supply weapons so that the Ukrainian people keep sacrificing their lives in order to combat Russia.

In the past, most Taiwanese believed that the United States would send troops to support the island in the event of a war in the Taiwan Strait. However, according to the latest poll, the number of Taiwanese who “strongly believe” or “fairly believe” that the United States would send troops to Taiwan in such a situation has dropped to 36.3 percent. We hope that the decline in Taiwanese people’s trust in the United States will help to build an atmosphere of reconciliation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

However, we are not optimistic. There are still many pro-independence forces in Taiwan who firmly believe that, unlike Ukraine, Taiwan’s geographical location is strategically important to the United States in blockading the Chinese mainland and that Washington will send troops to Taiwan in the event of a cross-strait war. Moreover, the DPP and other pro-independence forces see the Russian-Ukrainian war as an important opportunity to continue to increase military purchases from the United States and intensify militarisation.

You referred to the growing influence of United States in Taiwan under former President Donald Trump as a destabilising factor. Under President Joe Biden tensions have escalated further, including the recent passing of the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (formerly known as the Taiwan Policy Act). What do you think is behind trend? Why is the US interested in increasing tensions with China over the issue of Taiwan?

Wu Rong-yuan: The objective of the Taiwan Policy Act is to advance the United States’ own strategic interests in the name of Taiwan. It aims to provoke China and challenge China’s peaceful reunification policy. Politically, it intends to create “one China, one Taiwan” by enhancing relations with Taiwan and undermining the internationally recognised One China principle.

Militarily, it gives the Taiwanese authorities the status of major non-NATO ally and establishes the so-called “Taiwan Security Assistance Initiative” to provide USD 4.5 billion in foreign military funding over the next four years. These funds will be used to finance further arms sales to Taiwan with the intention of stockpiling a huge arsenal of weapons on the island and making it the frontline of the battlefield, and of course for the benefit of the US arms industry.

Economically, it is forcing important companies such as the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to set up factories in the United States in an attempt to cut off the natural cooperation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Worse still, there have been a number of recent reports in the US media that Washington intends to sabotage and destroy important semiconductor industries on the island of Taiwan, in a so-called “Taiwan-Chinese destruction” plot.

In terms of public opinion and propaganda, the United States has stigmatised national unification efforts between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and misled the world by referring to it as aggression. The United States believes that the status quo of “peace without unification nor separation” across the Taiwan Strait is in its national interest. However, the United States has been escalating its use of the so-called “Taiwan card”, which has encouraged separatists, changed the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, and created tension in the region.

Facing these provocations, the Chinese mainland will certainly strengthen its defence of its territorial sovereignty, exemplified by the recent military exercise around Taiwan in reaction to Pelosi’s visit. This is because China believes that the resolution of the Taiwan issue and the realisation of unification is in its core interest.

To maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and avoid the scourge of war, it is necessary to stop US interference, to encourage cross-strait exchanges under the One China principle, and to move toward the completion of national reunification through internal consultation on the basis of equality. Therefore, the slogan of the Labour Party is: “One China on both sides of the Taiwan Strait for peaceful development”.

What are the concrete proposals of the Labour Party of Taiwan to resolve the tensions?

Wu Rong-yuan: In the face of the current serious and tense situation in the Taiwan Strait, we in the Labour Party advocate peace negotiations and peaceful reunification. We believe that after cross-strait reunification, Taiwan will no longer be a neo-colony under the hegemonic control of the United States and Japan, and that the people of Taiwan, who have returned to the Chinese national community, will be in power. Without the external interference of the United States and the squeeze placed on Taiwan’s finances by arms purchases, Taiwan’s budgetary resources will be available to increase the welfare of the people.

Finally, we call on the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the progressive peace-loving people of the world to unite against the hegemonic intervention of the United States in China’s internal affairs and the Taiwan issue.

With thanks to Mrs. Wang Juan-ping (王娟萍) for her assistance with translations.

---

¹ Taiwan was occupied by Japan from 1895 to 1945. After the violent suppression of local resistance, came a period of enlightened colonial rule in the 1920s until Japanese militarism got the upper hand in the 1930s, and especially the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria on the Mainland.

² According to the theory of the two-stage revolution, the New Democratic Revolution is the first stage that countries have to go through as long as they are subjected to imperialist domination. The New Democratic Revolution aims to defeat imperialist domination and bring an end to feudal exploitation. In the case of China, the Communist Party of China successfully completed this stage in 1949, when it defeated Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang and established the People’s Republic. This was also the start of the second stage, the socialist revolution.

³ This is the period after the lifting of martial law in July 1987.

⁴ Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) became the first provisional president of China and the first leader of the Kuomintang in 1912. In 1923, he forged an alliance between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China. Sun is unique among 20th-century Chinese leaders for being widely revered in both Mainland China and Taiwan. According to Sun Yat-sen, the three people’s principles are nationalism, democracy and people’s livelihood.

⁵ China was one of the original member states of the United Nations, which was created in 1945. At that time, the Republic of China (ROC), led by the Kuomintang, was the government of China and even when they didn’t control Mainland China anymore, tthis government held on to the seat of China in the United Nations. It is only in 1971 that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 on the “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations” recognised the PRC as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations” and removed “the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” (referring to the ROC) from the United Nations.

⁶ The Diaoyu islands, also known by their Japanese name as the Senkaku islands, are a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, that were annexed by Japan in 1895 and came under United States occupation in 1945. The United States turned them over to Japan in 1972.

⁷ Hsinchu County is one of the 13 administrative regions of Taiwan.

⁸ The DPP was in power for the first time from 2000 to 2008 under president Chen Shui-bian.

The New Cold War is rapidly heating up, with severe consequences for people around the world. Our series, Briefings, provides the key facts on these matters of global concern.

English | Español | Português

In August 2022, the United States published a new foreign policy strategy aimed at Africa. The 17-page document featured 10 mentions of China and Russia combined, including a pledge to ‘counter harmful activities by the [People’s Republic of China], Russia, and other foreign actors’ on the continent, but did not once mention the term ‘sovereignty’. Although US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has stated that Washington ‘will not dictate Africa’s choices’, African governments have reported facing ‘patronising bullying’ from NATO member states to take their side in the war in Ukraine. As global tensions rise, the US and its allies have signalled that they view the continent as a battleground to wage their New Cold War against China and Russia.

A New Monroe Doctrine?

At its annual summit in June, NATO named Africa along with the Middle East as ‘NATO’s southern neighbourhood’. On top of this, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ominously referred to ‘Russia and China’s increasing influence in our southern neighbourhood’ as a ‘challenge’. The following month, the outgoing commander of AFRICOM, General Stephen J Townsend, referred to Africa as ‘NATO’s southern flank’. These comments are disturbingly reminiscent of the neocolonial attitude espoused by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, in which the US claimed Latin America as its ‘backyard’.

This paternalistic view of Africa appears to be widely held in Washington. In April, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa Act by a vote of 415-9. The bill, which aims to punish African governments for not aligning with US foreign policy on Russia, has been widely condemned across the continent for disrespecting the sovereignty of African nations, with South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor calling it ‘absolutely disgraceful’.

The efforts by the US and Western countries to draw Africa into their geopolitical conflicts raise serious concerns: namely, will the US and NATO weaponise their vast military presence on the continent to achieve their aims?

AFRICOM: Protecting US and NATO’s Hegemony

In 2007, the United States established its Africa Command (AFRICOM) ‘in response to our expanding partnerships and interests in Africa’. In just 15 years, AFRICOM has established at least 29 military bases on the continent as part of an extensive network which includes more than 60 outposts and access points in at least 34 countries – over 60 percent of the nations on the continent.

Despite Washington’s rhetoric of promoting democracy and human rights in Africa, in reality, AFRICOM aims to secure US hegemony over the continent. AFRICOM’s stated objectives include ‘protecting US interests’ and ‘maintaining superiority over competitors’ in Africa. In fact, the creation of AFRICOM was motivated by the concerns of ‘those alarmed by China’s expanding presence and influence in the region’.

From the outset, NATO was involved in the endeavour, with the original proposal put forward by then Supreme Allied Commander of NATO James L Jones, Jr. On an annual basis, AFRICOM conducts training exercises focused on enhancing the ‘interoperability’ between African militaries and ‘US and NATO special operations forces’.

The destructive nature of the US and NATO’s military presence in Africa was exemplified in 2011 when – ignoring the African Union’s opposition – the US and NATO launched their catastrophic military intervention in Libya to remove the government of Muammar Gaddafi. This regime change war destroyed the country, which had previously scored the highest among African nations on the UN Human Development Index. Over a decade later, the principal achievements of the intervention in Libya have been the return of slave markets to the country, the entry of thousands of foreign fighters, and unending violence.

In the future, will the US and NATO invoke the ‘malign influence’ of China and Russia as a justification for military interventions and regime change in Africa?

Africa Rejects a New Cold War

At this year’s UN General Assembly, the African Union firmly rejected the coercive efforts of the US and Western countries to use the continent as a pawn in their geopolitical agenda. ‘Africa has suffered enough of the burden of history’, stated Chairman of the African Union and President of Senegal Macky Sall; ‘it does not want to be the breeding ground of a new Cold War, but rather a pole of stability and opportunity open to all its partners, on a mutually beneficial basis’. Indeed, the drive for war offers nothing to the peoples of Africa in their pursuit of peace, climate change adaptation, and development.