Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Yanis Varoufakis on what's wrong in Europe today and how to fix it tomorrow morning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jec9rBFqcwc
Sanders on Venezuela - Does His Critique of US Policy Go Far Enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AAHJbeB4g
Sri Lanka to unearth details about country's largest mass grave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFJO8caeWTQ
Fearing establishment, Sanders’ leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/452853-sanders-warren-trump-clinton/
What a surprise! After Bernie
Sanders announced his bid for the US presidency, attacks on him instantly arose
from all sides.
They came not only from
President Trump, who referred to him as a "wacko," nor the
usual bunch of conservative commentators who proposed dozens of variations on
the motif "You want Sanders as president? Look at Venezuela
today!"
The smears also came from his
more centrist Democratic Party opponents. And reading these barbs, one is
immediately overwhelmed by a feeling of deja vu.
Because we have lived through
this situation before, in the time of the Democratic primaries contested
between Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Arguably, the Clinton campaign
against Sanders reached its lowest point when, campaigning for Hillary,
Madeline Albright said: "There's a special place in hell for women
who don't help each other!" (Meaning: females voting for Sanders
instead of Clinton.)
Now maybe we should amend this
statement: there is a special place in hell for women (and men) who think half
a million dead children is an acceptable price for a military intervention that
ruins a country (as Albright said in support of the massive bombing of Iraq
back in 1996), while wholeheartedly supporting women's rights and gay rights at
home.
Is Albright's worldview not
infinitely more obscene and lewd than all Trump's sexist banalities? We are not
yet there, but we are slowly approaching it.
Strong principles
Liberal attacks on Sanders for
his alleged rejection of identity politics returned from the dead again,
ignoring that Sanders is doing the exact opposite, insisting on a link between
class, race and gender.
One has to support him
unconditionally when he rejects identity in itself as a reason to vote for
someone: "It is not good enough for somebody to say, I'm a woman,
vote for me. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall
Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel
industry."
As expected, for this very
statement, Sanders was attacked as a white male chauvinist advocating "class
reductionism." Indeed, don't be surprised if it will be soon
denounced as an expression of toxic masculinity.
If we disregard straight lies
(like the claim, proven false, that the young Sanders did not work with Martin
Luther King in the civil rights struggle), the strategy of those who privilege
Warren over Sanders is a rather simple one.
First, they claim that the
difference between their respective economic programs is minimal and
negligible. (One is tempted to add here: yes, minimal, like the fact that
Sanders proclaims himself a democratic socialist, while Warren insists she is a
capitalist to her bones... It is sad to hear Elisabeth Warren declaring herself
a "capitalist to the bones" when even top corporate
managers like Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg talk about how
capitalism, at least the way it functions now, cannot survive.)
Muddying waters
Then, critics claim that in
contrast to Sanders' exclusive focus on economic injustice, Warren also brings
in gender and race injustices, so her advantage over Sanders is clear: only
Warren can unite a broad progressive front against Trump.
Ultimately, critics of Sanders
end up with a kind of electoral affirmative action: Sanders is a man and Warren
a woman. Thus, two key facts get obfuscated here: the democratic socialist of
Sanders is much more radical than Warren, who remains firmly within the
Democratic establishment.
Plus it is simply not true
that Sanders ignores racial and gender struggles – he just brings out the link
with economic struggle.
Warren is not, as her
defenders claim, a third way between centrist Democrats and Democratic
Socialists, the synthesis of what is best in race/gender identity politics and
in the struggle for economic justice.
No, she is just Hillary
Clinton with a slightly more human face. Even defenders of Warren admit that
her claim to Native American roots was a mistake – but was it really just an
innocent mistake?
The Cherokee Nation's
secretary of state, Chuck Hoskin Jr, responded to the test showing Warren was
between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American: "A DNA test is useless
to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish
whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America."
Hoskin was right, and what one
should add is that to prove that you have a little bit of exotic ancestry is to
legitimize your popular roots – it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual
fight against racism.
However, the main point is
that Warren applied for a "progressive" cause, using the
same procedure that the Nazis applied to identify those with suspected Jewish
blood.
On today's market, we find a
whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without
caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol, and the list goes on.
What about virtual sex as sex
without sex and what about the contemporary politics – the art of expert
administration – as politics without politics? Do "Leftist" Democrats
attacking Sanders not offer something similar – socialism without socialism,
deprived of the features that make it a threat to the establishment?
Monday, March 4, 2019
Going global: China’s lawmakers are gearing up for a new world order as ‘two sessions’ approach
As the nation battles a trade
war and international suspicion, delegates at this year’s National People’s
Congress can no longer concern themselves only with domestic issues, analysts
say
And as the 70th anniversary of
Communist Party rule draws ever nearer, the last thing Beijing needs is more
disruption
China’s annual gathering of
its legislative and political advisory bodies – known as the “two sessions” –
is one of the key events in the country’s political calendar and provides a
rare opportunity for observers to get close to its movers and shakers. This
year’s meetings come as China continues to fight a trade war with the United
States and battle the headwinds of an economic slowdown. They also mark12
months since Xi Jinping amended the constitution to remove a presidential term
limit and arrive as the nation prepares to celebrate 70 years of communist
rule. In the first of a three-part series, we look at the diplomatic
challenges China and Xi have to face.
This year’s annual gathering
of China’s political elites is set to be overshadowed by challenges facing the
nation on the global stage, as Beijing’s increasingly assertive diplomatic
posturing meets with rising scrutiny and resistance.
The latest gathering of the
National People’s Congress (NPC) comes after a tumultuous year for Chinese
foreign relations, after its trade war with
the United States spilled over into geopolitics and ideology, and its overseas
investments were painted as security threats around the world.
Ever since the start of the
tariff dispute between China and the US in July, diplomats and think tanks have
been urging Beijing to adjust its foreign policy approach.
Its many restrictions –
including those on exchanges between Chinese and US think tanks – have hampered
policymakers trying to make accurate assessments of US President Donald Trump’s
administration and cost them opportunities to respond to its increasingly tough
actions, they said.
Soon after the NPC, which
starts on Tuesday, President Xi Jinping will travel to Italy and France, before
hosting a forum in Beijing in May to promote the “Belt and Road
Initiative”, which has also been hit by setbacks.
A series of diplomatic trips,
including visits to Japan, North Korea and India, have also been planned for
the run-up to the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s
Republic of China, and Beijing will be hoping for a stable environment both at
home and abroad to ensure the success of the celebrations.
Pang Zhongying, an
international relations professor at Ocean University of China in the eastern
city of Qingdao, said maintaining stability would be a priority over the
upcoming months.
“Right now, whether it’s China
or the US or Europe, the focus for everyone is on domestic concerns,” he said.
“Xi has spoken about the seven big risks, so the key is stability: diplomacy
has to ensure domestic stability.”
Those attending the National
People’s Congress will be asked to address some of the United States’ concerns.
Among the documents to be presented for discussion will be draft legislation on
intellectual property protection for foreign investors and a ban on forced
technology transfers, the production of which was accelerated amid the trade
dispute, suggesting Beijing’s eagerness to tackle one of Washington’s longest
running gripes.
Since the start of the trade
war, billions of dollars in tariffs have been levelled on US and Chinese goods,
while the threat of further punitive action by the US has been put on hold
pending a proposed sit-down between the two presidents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago
estate in Florida later this month.
But even as the two sides
hailed their “substantial progress” towards a trade deal – to resolve concerns
such as the trade imbalance, access to China’s markets, and Beijing’s “unfair”
support for state firms – the real issue remains the broader strategic rivalry
between the two powers and the battle for technological supremacy.
“China-US relations have
already undergone a major change,” said Ma Zhengang, a former Chinese
ambassador to Britain and erstwhile president of the China Institute of
International Studies.
“The change is not only about
trade, although it has been reflected as such. Based on the rhetoric from American
leaders, the US already regards China as its biggest strategic competitor.”
Last year’s NPC meeting – also
known as the “two sessions” when coupled with the Chinese People’s Political
Consultative Conference gatherings that take place concurrently – made waves
for Xi’s controversial amendments to the constitution, including the removal of
the presidential term limit.
Although the charter was
edited to note that China “adheres to a path of peaceful development and a
mutually beneficial strategy of opening up”, the change reflected growing
suspicion on the world stage, much of which was directed at Xi’s belt and road
infrastructure development plan.
Amid allegations it was
creating debt traps for host countries, Malaysia has raised serious questions
about a US$20 billion railway deal, Myanmar has slashed the cost of a
China-funded port by 80 per cent, and Sierra Leone has shelved plans for a
multimillion dollar airport, all of which were being developed under the
scheme.
Sriparna Pathak, assistant
professor of international relations at Gauhati University in Guwahati, India,
said that in recent years China had adopted a more aggressive stance, with Xi
making clear that the Communist Party intended to achieve the “great
rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.
“China’s foreign relations,
especially with BRI countries, will become instruments to fulfil the ideals of
the dream,” she said.
As China has exerted its
growing economic clout over the past year, so it has faced other challenges,
such as the increased scrutiny of Chinese telecoms giant Huawei in countries – including
the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – considering using its
equipment in their 5G networks.
That dispute has also seen
rising tensions between Beijing and Ottawa over the arrest and likely
extradition to the US of Huawei’s chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou. Just days
after she was detained in December, Beijing appeared to retaliate by detaining
two Canadians on allegations of endangering national security.
“Before it was about win-win,
but now the zero-sum game mentality is very clear,” Pang said. “The diplomatic
game may become more intense, essentially it is fighting without breaking up.”
Europe has also called for
greater resistance against China’s trade and economic policies, with French
President Emmanuel Macron’s adviser saying recently that “the time of naivety
is over” in relation to China.
Other potential flashpoints
include the tensions on the Korean peninsula and in the South China Sea,
Beijing’s extrajudicial detentions of up to 1 million ethnic Uygur people
in Xinjiang, and its
territorial claims to the self-ruled island of Taiwan. With a presidential
election coming up in 2020, the United States is unlikely to soften its stance
on any of these issues, analysts said.
Gu Su, a political analyst at
Nanjing University, said many Chinese analysts were pessimistic about the
economic situation facing China in 2019 amid growing domestic and global
pressures.
“Most Chinese analysts are
quite pessimistic, and hope there will be stronger, smarter, and better
leadership decisions,” he said.
As a result of the trade war,
European countries were also challenging China’s trade policies and demanding
Beijing open up its markets to foreign competition, he said.
“This is forcing China to take
a more passive stance on international affairs,” he said. “How to ease its
relationship with the US, while dealing with European nations and others such
as Australia and New Zealand, will be a big challenge. This is the difficult
terrain we face.”
Meanwhile, a task force led by
Orville Schell of the Asia Society’s Centre on US-China Relations and former US
deputy assistant secretary of state Susan Shirk said last month that the US
must change course and compete smarter with China. The present US strategy was
“defective” in various aspects including the economy and security, it said.
And while China has sought to
reset strained ties with Japan and India, it maintains strategic rivalries with
both in terms of territorial or maritime conflicts and spheres of influence.
John Hemmings, director of the
Asia Studies Centre at the British think tank Henry Jackson Society, said that
while the US and Japan had hoped to use economic engagement to transform
China’s one-party system in the wake of the cold war, Beijing’s actions in
arenas such as maritime security had roused their security concerns.
“They are not the only powers
to be concerned,” he said. “In the short space of eight years, China has lost
influence and soft power with a range of regional and extra-regional powers due
to its use of ‘sharp power’, its debt diplomacy, and its expansion of
commercial and military control across regional sea lanes.”
Still, the most pressing
challenge for China remains the trade war, which appeared initially to catch
Beijing’s policy elite off guard, as the Trump administration levelled serious
accusations about unfair trade and intellectual property practices in its Section
301 investigation.
It highlighted in particular
the “Made in China 2025”
initiative, a core Chinese industrial policy aimed at catapulting the country
from a manufacturing powerhouse to a hi-tech superpower.
The trade war has sparked
calls for China to reform its economic structure to lower tensions with the US.
But as Beijing has pledged to review its industrial subsidy policies and Made
in China, it has faced criticism at home that it is making too many concessions
to the US.
“There is huge pressure from
the leftists, perhaps even more than from the liberals,” Gu said.
“Both sides are still in a tug
of war and need their leaders to make decisions to end it. The leading opinion
domestically is that compromise is needed for a deal to remove the tariffs, and
the discussions will continue during the two sessions.”
Ma said that a trade deal would
ease the animosity felt towards China by the United States and in turn reduce
frictions between China and other countries on issues like Huawei.
“The leadership is in the
midst of adjusting, and the strong voices on the left will continue to soften,”
he said.
“We need to admit that the US
is the world’s only superpower. In this situation, we cannot lightly say that
we can meet the US head-on, since we still lack the strength to do so.”
Huang Jing, a professor at
Beijing Language and Culture University’s Institute of International and
Regional Studies, said China needed to act according to its own capabilities,
even as it held strong on ideas like the belt and road plan and the Beijing-led
BRICS bloc, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa.
“No matter if it’s the belt
and road or multilateral diplomacy, China can work in regions it can exert
control, but in those that are too far away or face too much resistance it
should forget it,” he said. “China walking into the centre of the world stage,
leading the world’s new ties – flags like this do not need to be raised any
more if it is too tiring to be worth it. But we cannot give up on our
fundamental positions.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)