All posts by John V. Walsh

French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence from the U.S.

“Clear Differences Remain Between France and the U.S, French Minister Says,” is the headline to a remarkable  piece appearing in the New York Times today.  The Minister, Bruno Le Maire, is brutally frank on the nature of the differences as the quotations below Illustrate.  (Emphases in the quotations are writer’s.) In fact, they amount to a Declaration of Independence of France and EU from the U.S.

It is not surprising that the differences relate to China after the brouhaha over the sale of U.S. nuclear submarines to Australia and the surprising (to the French) cancellation of contracts with France for submarines.  Mr. LeMaire, sounding very much like a reproving parent, characterized this as “misbehavior from the U.S. administration.”

Mr. LeMaire made it crystal clear that the disagreement over submarines is symptomatic of deeper differences in world view that have emerged not only in France but in the EU as a consequence of China’s rise.  The article states:

The United States wants to confront China. The European Union wants to engage China,’ Mr. Le Maire, a close ally of President Emmanuel Macron of France, said in a wide-ranging interview ahead of the (IMF) meetings. This was natural, he added, because the United States is the world’s leading power and does not ‘want China to become in a few years or in a few decades the first superpower in the world.

Europe’s strategic priority, by contrast, is independence,  ‘which means to be able to build more capacities on defense, to defend its own view on the fight against climate change, to defend its own economic interest, to have access to key technologies and not be too dependent on American technologies,’ he said.

The article continued, quoting the Finance Minister:

The key question now for the European Union, he said, is to become ‘independent from the United States, able to defend its own interests, whether economic or strategic interests.’

LeMaire might have pre-ambled that statement with: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Still, seasoned diplomat that Mr. LeMaire is, he provided some cold comfort to the naughty U.S. administration, saying, the United States remains “our closest partner” in terms of values, economic model, respect for the rule of law, and embrace of freedom.  But with China, he said, “we do not share the same values or economic model.”

The article continued:

Asked if differences over China meant inevitable divergence between the United States and Europe, Mr. Le Maire said, ‘It could be if we are not cautious.’ But every effort should be made to avoid this, which means ‘recognizing Europe as one of the three superpowers in the world for the 21st century,’ alongside the United States and China.

The piece concluded:

One of the biggest lingering points of contention is over metal tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump imposed globally in 2018. Officials face difficult negotiations in coming weeks. Europeans plan to impose retaliatory tariffs on a range of U.S. products as of December 1, unless Mr. Biden pulls back a 25 percent duty on European steel and a 10 percent tax on aluminum.

‘If we want to improve the bilateral economic relationship between the continents, the first step must be for the United States to lift the sanctions in the steel and aluminum case,’ Mr. Le Maire said. ‘We are fed up with the trade wars,’ he added.

Shared values are nice, but shared profits are clearly better.

The post French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence from the U.S. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

New York Times Advises China on Covid-19: Abandon Success, Try Failure

The recent outbreak of the Delta variant in China “shows that its strategy no longer fits. It is time for China to change tack.”

So declared a lead essay atop the New York Times Opinion/Editorial section on September  7 by Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Delta outbreak that “changed the game” in Huang’s words emerged after an outbreak at Nanjing international airport in July traced to a flight from Russia.  Did this outbreak change anything, in fact?

Let’s do the numbers.

Let’s do something that Huang did not; let’s look at the numbers from July 1 until September 7, the date of the article, a period that brackets the Delta outbreak cited by Huang.

During that period China experienced 273 new cases, about 4 per day, and no new deaths. That hardly seems like a failure.

To get some perspective on these numbers, during that same July1-September 7 period, the US, a country one fourth China’s size, reported 6,560,588 new cases (96,479 per day) and 45,054 new deaths (662 per day).

The same contrast can be seen for the entire period of the pandemic.  From the pandemic’s initial Wuhan outbreak in January, 2020, until September 7, 2021:

China had a sum total of 95,512 cases and 4,629 deaths;

The US had 40,196,953 cases and 648,146 deaths.

There have been two previous outbreaks of the Delta variant in China, one in Guangdong and another in Yunnan near the Myanmar border before the one arising in Nanjing.  The Delta variant was contained in each case. None of the three has turned out to be a “game changer,” as Huang incorrectly maintains.

Perhaps it is the U.S. that needs “to change tack.”

To anticipate an objection that has largely faded but persists in some quarters, can we believe the case and mortality count China gives us?  There are now many first-hand accounts of what life has been like in China these days that make the official tallies quite reasonable.  And quantitative evidence supporting China’s data is available in a peer-reviewed study in the prestigious British Medical Journal; it is summarized and discussed here.   Carried out by groups at Oxford University and China’s CDC, the study compares excess deaths in Wuhan and also in the rest of China during the period of the lockdown, and it finds that the official counts are remarkably accurate.

Do China’s life-saving measures imperil its economy?

China would need a very good reason to abandon its public health measures of massive, rapid testing, tracing and, where necessary, quarantining.  Are there any such reasons?  Mr. Huang states that the life-saving measures now “threaten overall economic growth in China”.  Does this prognostication fit the facts?

China’s GDP grew more slowly in 2020, but still it grew by 2.27%, the only major economy in the world not to contract.  In contrast the US economy contracted by 3.51%.  (Even China’s slowed growth in 2020 matched the US economy in normal times, which grew at an average rate of 2.3% in the four pre-pandemic years, 2016-2019.)

What about the future?  Economies are set to rebound in 2021 from their 2020 lows, with recent projections giving China an 8.4% bounce before settling in to an average growth of 6% over the following 5 years. For comparison the US jump in 2021 is estimated to be 6.4%, dropping to a 1.9% average over the following 5 years.

In terms of the economy present and future, China’s policies appear to be doing quite well, better, in fact, than any other major economy.  Mr. Huang has advanced a thesis that is unencumbered by the facts.

Why is the media’s failure to report on China’s success a threat to our very lives?

At every step of the way, China’s successes with Covid-19 have been met in the U.S. media with silence, denigration or a prediction that the success cannot continue (FAIR provides a brief survey here).  As a result, China’s measures are not widely known or understood.

China’s success with its public health measures is important for us now, because the pandemic is far from over. We don’t know what surprises viral evolution will have in store for us.  If a new variant emerges that is resistant to existing vaccines, then we have only public health measures to protect us until we catch up.  That is also true for future pandemics which will surely come our way. For us to be kept in ignorance of those measures or to have them dismissed, as Yanzhong Huang does, poses a threat to our very lives.

We might also wonder what would happen if the people of the West, including the U.S., understood clearly that measures were possible which could have protected us from the millions of deaths we have suffered.  Governments have toppled from far less.  Mr. Huang, the New York Times and the mass media, whatever else they are doing, are certainly protecting our Establishment from a rage that might have most unpleasant consequences.

The post New York Times Advises China on Covid-19: Abandon Success, Try Failure first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Biden Exits Afghanistan, Heads in the Wrong Direction

On August 31, Joe Biden accepted the inevitable and announced the final departure of all open military personnel from Afghanistan.

Perhaps, the most important part of the speech had to do with the future, and here Biden was unequivocal:

And here is the critical thing to understand: The world is changing. We’re engaged in a serious competition with China. We’re dealing with the challenges on multiple fronts with Russia. ….We have to shore up American competitiveness to meet these new challenges and the competition for the 21st century.

A major motivation for getting out of Afghanistan is to give the US a freer hand to bring down China and Russia. And this is not to be a peaceful “Pivot.” The US has surrounded both countries with military bases, and the Pivot to Asia, pioneered by Obama/Hillary/Biden, sees 60% of America’s naval forces ending up in China’s neighborhood.

The Final Quagmire. In the aftermath of the Afghan retreat the resolutely clueless mainstream punditocracy is asking: Has the US learned from this latest fiasco about the limits of its power? Did they not read Biden’s speech? Clearly, they have not.

If the US has not been able to defeat a minor power like Afghanistan (or Vietnam), what are the odds of doing so with major powers like Russia and China? And given the nuclear weapons capacity of these powers, where might that lead? How many Cuban Missile Crises, or worse, shall we have to go through in this New Cold War before one incident leads not simply to endless war but to a world ending war?

Let us be clear. Biden did the right thing in terminating the war and he should do the same in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. He has, however, not only done the right thing for the wrong reason, but for a very malign reason which will lead to greater problems and graver dangers.

Unfortunately, the pols, the pundits and think tankers pay no heed to the danger here. Equally sad, too many liberals are silent about this New Cold War or cheer it as a new crusade for “democracy and human rights.” But some opposition is coming from a quarter that must deal with reality, not ideology or electioneering demagoguery.

The Business Realists Push Back. On the day after Biden’s speech, the New York Times ran a story on the front page of the business section entitled, “Businesses Push Biden to Develop China Trade Policy: … companies want the White House to drop tariffs on Chinese goods and provide clarity about a critical trade relationship.” Said the article:

Business impatience with the administration’s approach is mounting. Corporate leaders say they need clarity about whether American companies will be able to do business with China, which is one of the biggest and fastest-growing markets. Business groups say their members are being put at a competitive disadvantage by the tariffs, which have raised costs for American importers.

Patrick Gelsinger, the chief executive of Intel, said in an interview last week…’To me, just saying, ‘Let’s be tough on China,’ that’s not a policy, that’s a campaign slogan. It’s time to get to the real work of having a real policy of trade relationships and engagement around business exports and technology with China.’

In early August, a group of influential U.S. business groups sent a letter to Ms. Yellen and Ms. Tai (recently appointed U.S. Trade Representative) urging the administration to restart trade talks with China and cut tariffs on imported Chinese goods.

The silent cruelty of Biden’s speech. Biden was right to grieve for the 2,461 Americans killed in Afghanistan. But he failed to mention the hundreds of thousands of Afghans killed as a direct result of the war, hundreds of thousands more as a result of disease and malnutrition and the millions displaced internally and millions more as external refugees. Instead of apologies from Biden and an offer of reparations, there came news that the US was freezing over $9 billion dollars in Afghan foreign assets needed by this starving nation lying in ruins.

The United States has apparently learned nothing either in terms of the limits of its power or the morality of its foreign policy if we are to take Biden’s speech and actions as any indication. To say the least, it will not be easy to change this, but we have no choice. A calamity beyond imagination awaits us if we fail.

The post Biden Exits Afghanistan, Heads in the Wrong Direction first appeared on Dissident Voice.

“Surely, President Biden, you must be joking”

“Surely, President Biden, you must be joking”!

On May 26, these words should have poured forth from the White House Press Corps and the mainstream Commentariat when Joe Biden declared that he was placing the question of Covid-19’s origins securely in the hands of the “National Intel Agencies.”  They were to report back in 90 days.

Have not the Intel Agencies been up to their eyeballs in deception about the “Global War on Terror” for the past 20 plus years?  Must we really remind the press and commentariat of the scandal of the Weapons of Mass Destruction hyped by the Intel Agencies to bamboozle a highly skeptical public into the War on Iraq?

Do we need to recall the embarrassing spectacle of the hapless Colin Powell solemnly presenting the WMD fraud to the UN, with CIA Director Tenet sitting nervously behind him?  Surely for those who lived through the time, those images are seared into our psyches.

Need we remind ourselves yet again that we were lied into the War on Vietnam “with a complete fabrication disseminated by the intelligence community and endorsed by corporate media outlets: that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin.”  This fraud resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that landed us in the Vietnam War.

On August 24 or thereabouts, the disgraced Intel agencies are to deliver their verdict on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.  This is an event of enormous consequence since blaming the pandemic on China moves us one step closer to all out conflict.  (It also is a distraction from the miserable performance of the U.S. with its over 600,000 deaths in contrast with China’s fewer than 5,000 deaths – over 100 times less in a country with a population four times as large.)

The vehicle to assign blame to China is the claim that Covid-19 was due either to a genetically engineered virus or to a “leak” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Since the alleged evidence for an engineered virus has collapsed in the face of molecular biological studies, the lab leak idea remains the sole hope for the China hawks.  There is absolutely no evidence for this idea either, leaving the door wide open for the conspiracy theorists and, yes, the “Intel Agencies.”

The Biden administration has preened itself on “standing with science” in the face of the pandemic.  But surely the question of the origins of Covid-19 is a scientific one.   The Intel Agencies are hardly the ones to decide a question of science – or to provide the truth in any realm.

The W.H.O. has labelled the lab leak hypothesis the least likely of the four hypotheses put forward for the origin of Covid-19.  The original W.H.O. study called this hypothesis “extremely unlikely,” although under pressure from the US, some have entered into vigorous discussion over whether to call it “extremely unlikely,” “very unlikely,” “unlikely” or some similar variation.  Whatever the label one wants to put on it, it is unfounded conjecture in search of so much as a jot or tittle of evidence.  It is based on a connect-the-dots sort of circumstantial reasoning except that there is no evidence for even the dots.  As such it richly deserves the label of “Conspiracy Theory.”

The 90-day deadline is another absurdity.  Finding the origins of pandemics has taken many years or decades, and sometimes the problem has remained unsolved. Science does not proceed according to a schedule.  With all his power, President Biden cannot order up a bit of science at a time of his choosing any more than King Canute could reverse the tides.

Let us hope that President Biden will show the same recognition of reality that he has just exhibited in terminating the war in Afghanistan. Let’s  hope he finds the Lab Leak Conspiracy Theory too untenable and just plain too embarrassing to go to the poisoned well of the Intel Agencies for a “determination” just one week after the Afghan debacle.

The first signs are not hopeful.  Biden noted that his withdrawal from Afghanistan was motivated in part by his desire to devote more resources to “competition with Russia and China.”  Not to peaceful coexistence nor to a win-win global order but to a competition with an enormous military component.  Perhaps the Intel Agencies, whose image is already tarnished to the point of corrosion, will not want their remaining credibility to be sacrificed in developing yet another casus belli.  But if past is our guide, this does not look hopeful either.

Let us not repeat the many errors of the past by trusting the Covid-19 question to the discredited and disgraced Intel Agencies.

Too much is at stake.

Let the scientists do their work.

The post “Surely, President Biden, you must be joking” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Learn From the East:  A Major Lesson of the Pandemic.

The world is now in the throes of another wave of Covid-19, with another surge in infections, sickness and deaths, this time due to the more infectious and apparently more lethal Delta variant.

Are there lessons to be learned from the previous waves of Covid-19 that might help us now?

There are, and they were evident long ago, but in the West, they have been largely ignored.  Up to now, for example, the US has suffered over 617,000 deaths; China in contrast has suffered fewer than 5,000 deaths in a population four times as large as the US.  Could there not be some lessons that might serve us in the West now and in the future?

In the US and throughout the West, the response to China’s success has all too often been to ignore or deny it.  As an especially egregious early example, in April 2020 Donald Trump and his assistant Dr. Deborah Birx called into question China’s mortality data with a none too clever lie of  omission; they were caught in this embarrassing ploy by Asia Times.  The denial of these fatality figures persists in much of the media.  Certainly, there are many reports from those in China, foreigner and native alike, on the largely Covid-19 free environment there.  But the many who regard China as a vast, impenetrable Potemkin Village are refractory to such accounts.

China tells the truth about Covid-19 Deaths

Is there any way in which the truth can be established about China’s death tally?  One method is to examine excess deaths, that is, deaths during the pandemic compared to the same period in the previous five years, a measure used in many countries.  Fortunately, a study of excess deaths in China has now been published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal (BMJ) by a team of scientists and physicians at Oxford in the UK and at China’s CDC.

The study was massive.  EurekAlert!, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recognizing the importance of the study, captured its magnitude as follows: “The researchers used official records from China CDC’s nationally-representative Disease Surveillance Point (DSP) system. It covered more than 300 million people from 605 urban districts and rural counties, representing more than 20% of the entire population in China.”  The DSP gathers deaths that are reported by local doctors, hospitals, funeral directors, police and others. The study covered the period from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020, a period when most all reported deaths occurred.  The lockdown in Wuhan, the most stringent, was begun on January 23 and lifted on April 8, 2020, a total of 74 days.

The two main findings of the BMJ study are simple and straightforward.

First, the number of deaths due to Covid-19 pneumonia in Wuhan was very much the same as the Chinese government reported.  The BMJ study states:

In Wuhan city, the most recent official figures released on 17 April 2020 suggested that 3869 deaths were directly attributable to covid-19, including 3653 deaths from covid-19 related pneumonia and 920 excess deaths from other types of pneumonia, primarily unspecified viral pneumonia.

The tally based on the study of excess deaths that can be attributed with confidence to Covid-19 was 3653, somewhat lower than the 3869 given by the official count at the time.   The demographics of the excess deaths attributable to Covid-19 matched deaths elsewhere from Covid-19 (more male than female, more old than young).  And the time course of the official and excess death fatalities matched.

What about the 920 deaths from pneumonia of uncertain etiology due to absence of Covid-19 tests during the early days?  If we include them in the total to get a worst-case number there is only a 20% difference in the estimates given by excess mortality and those given by the official count at the time.  Later China included these unconfirmed cases in its official tally, making the two tallies almost exactly equal.  No matter how one slices it, the round number of less than 5000 is correct.  It turns out China’s official account is remarkably accurate.

Second, the number of excess deaths in the rest of China decreased!  As a result, overall deaths in China during the pandemic compared to the previous five years actually declined.  In the words of the report:

Except in Wuhan, no increase in overall mortality was found during the three months of the Covid-19 outbreak in other parts of China. The lower death rates from certain non-Covid-19 related diseases might be attributable to the associated behaviour changes during lockdown.

They suggest that the reduced number of deaths outside Wuhan was due to behavior changes like masking and social distancing which would reduce other respiratory diseases like the common flu and to less road traffic.

The Lessons From China’s Handling of the Pandemic.

The authors of the BJM study state the immediate lessons succinctly:

Furthermore, the findings highlight the need for rapid and coordinated actions during major outbreaks of infectious diseases to contain, suppress, and eradicate transmission and minimize detrimental effects on human health and societal and economic activities.

Such actions in China have included rapid and massive testing followed by tracing to find contacts of those who test positive and then quarantining when necessary, whenever even a small outbreak was detected.  An example is the response in October, 2020, in Qingdao a coastal city in Shandong Province. As reported in the New England Journal of Medicine three cases of Covid-19 were detected and this triggered testing of almost 11 million people in less than a week with appropriate quarantining when necessary.  Nine additional cases were quickly found and the limited lockdowns were quickly terminated.   China has responded in the same way to every outbreak, in the process learning how to restrict lockdowns to subpopulations of one area, such as a single neighborhood, and for a shorter time.

When the lockdown began in Wuhan on January 23, 2020, there was only one death due to Covid-19 in the U.S.  The second U.S. death occurred on February 28. By April 8 when the lockdown in all Chinese cities ended there were 19,000 deaths in the US, still a small fraction of the more than 617,000 we have today.  It was apparent that China’s actions were a success by April 8, 2020, and yet the U.S. took no similar action.  The U.S. had a warning from China on January 1, 2020, and on January 11 Chinese scientists published the viral genome sequence which made immediate testing possible worldwide.

At the time of this writing China is coping with the new scourge of the delta variant of SARS-Cov-2, that began in July.  There are now as many as 100 cases reported in a day, still miniscule by Western standards (The U.S. reported over 100,000 new cases recently, August 8, 2021.) but a genuine surge by China’s.  Today, we learn that Wuhan has completed citywide Covid-19 testing in six days and found 37 cases plus 41 asymptomatic carriers among 12 million residents.  A rapid vaccination campaign had already begun months earlier, added on to the containment measures.  By August 4, over 1.7 billion jabs have been administered, 127 doses per 100 population; for comparison the US has 105 per 100 population.  And the total death toll for the pandemic as of August 9 remains at 4629, the same as February 1, 2021 before the recent July surge.  In the event of the need for a booster, China stands ready with capacity to produce more of various sorts, including the BioNTech mRNA vaccine, which Fosun Pharma has contracted to produce in China up to 1 billion doses a year.  Clearly China is willing to learn from the West.  China’s measures seem to be holding the line at the moment, still a success story.   What happens next is anyone’s guess, but for the first year-and-a-half of the pandemic China’s measures were exemplary.

One lesson for us here in the U.S. is to put in place public health containment measures for the next wave of Covid-19 and for the next pandemic.  These are certainly necessary before a vaccine arrives and the population can be vaccinated.  We might also do well to generalize this lesson.  Proceeding from reason, not blindness, exceptionalism, arrogance or condescension, might serve us well in all areas of US-China relations.  If not, far more than 600,000 deaths may be the price to pay.

The post Learn From the East:  A Major Lesson of the Pandemic. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

The Chinese Dreamers vs. the U.S. Hegemon

Do China and the US have fundamental goals that constitute a contradiction, that is, goals so profoundly at odds with one another that the goals cannot coexist? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Such a contradiction means that one side must abandon its aims if a disastrous conflict is not to ensue. Which country should step back? Is there a moral, ethical or common-sense basis for making that call, a basis on which humankind can readily agree?

What are these contradictory goals?

China’ overwhelming objective is clearly economic development, a policy to which it has hewed closely and which it declares for its future. That is no surprise; it is the dream of every developing nation. It is “The Chinese Dream.”

f such goals were no more than words on paper, there would be no problem. But China is succeeding as is widely acknowledged now. Its economy surpassed the U.S. in terms of GDP (PPP) in November of 2014 according to the IMF and is growing faster. Over 700 million have been brought out of poverty, with extreme poverty eliminated in 2020. The middle class now comprises over 400 million people. The retail market is enormous and the ecommerce market by far the world’s largest. China is the world’s largest manufacturer and trader.

According to the World Bank, China is 7th from the top of the Upper-middle-income group as of 2020 and poised to enter the ranks of the 59 countries in the High-income group. China has a set a new goal, a standard of living enjoyed by the most prosperous countries in the West, to be achieved by 2049 the centennial of the birth of the Peoples Republic of China.

With this in mind let’s turn to the American side of the equation. The U.S. has a long history of expansion and imperialism with the inevitable appeals to Exceptionalism and racism. However, the ambition of world dominance, global hegemony, emerged consciously among the US foreign policy elite in 1941 before entry into WWII as Stephen Wertheim documents in Tomorrow the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy. Henry Luce expressed the idea in his 1941 essay, “The American Century” in which he enjoined the U.S. “to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”

After World War II when the U.S. colossus looked down at the rest the world prostate after the war, we heard a similar sentiment from George Kennan considered as perhaps the principal architect of postwar U.S. foreign policy:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. … Our real task in the coming period is to … maintain this position of disparity …. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality …. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
— George F. Kennan1

(This statement of Kennan’s is discussed in detail here.)

More recently and equally starkly at the end of the Cold War, the Wolfowitz Doctrine was enunciated by Paul Wolfowitz Under Secretary of Defense for Public Policy.

It can be summed up in a single sentence:

We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.2

China fits the definition of a “potential competitor”; it not only “aspires” to a larger regional role and global role but has already attained it! By the Wolfowitz principle, China must not only be “contained” but returned to a non-competitor status by whatever “mechanism” that the US can devise.

And so we come to the basic contradiction. The U.S. insists that it be the world’s greatest power, an unassailable hegemon. This means that it must be the number one economic power since all power ultimately derives from economic power.

Now assume that China’s per capita GDP is equal to that of an advanced Western country, the goal of China by 1949. Take the US as an example. Since China’s population is about four times that of the US, then it will have a total national GDP four times that of the US! The US will then be far from the dominant power; the Wolfowitz Doctrine will go up in smoke.

This does not mean that the U.S. will lapse into penury or even that its living standard will be compromised. Indeed, there is no reason that the U.S. cannot continue to be an increasingly prosperous country. In that sense the contradiction between the US and China is not a conflict of interests between the American people and Chinese people. But it is a contradiction between the U.S. governing Elite and 1.4 billion Chinese dreamers.

Even now with China on a par with the U.S. economically in GDP (PPP) terms the U.S. cannot operate as a hegemon or as an unchallenged world power.

How can the U.S. maintain its ambition of hegemony? Simply put, China’s development must be halted or reversed. Thus, the drive for U.S. superiority is a war on the aspirations of the vast Chinese population, not simply a war on the Chinese state. Will China’s people, nearly 20% of the global population, passively accept this fate?

How then are we to look at the China-US contradiction in moral or ethical terms? Given the U.S. goal of hegemony versus the Chinese dream of a Western standard of living, which has the greater claim on the support of decent humans everywhere? The 1.4 billion Chinese dreamers or a tiny U.S. governing Elite?

  1. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume I, p. 509-529.
  2. Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-1999 fiscal years, dated February 18, 1992, from the office of Paul Wolfowitz.
The post The Chinese Dreamers vs. the U.S. Hegemon first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Infamous US Record during Covid-19 Pandemic

A health worker conducts a nucleic acid test on a resident in Chengdu, in western China’s Sichuan province, on December 8, 2020, after new Covid-19 cases were detected in the city. Almost from the start, China has responded rapidly to outbreaks. Photo: AFP / STR

December 11, 2020, is another December day that should “live in infamy” in the United States. On that day total US deaths due to Covid-19 surpassed the 291,557 American combat fatalities in World War II. The European Union saw much the same grim toll, with more than 300,000 dead. (See figure.) 

Graph constructed by the author using the open FT Covid-19 tracking site from the Financial Times, which the reader can readily access and use. Note that this is a semilogarithmic plot that on visual inspection enhances the cumulative death rate (deaths per 100,000 population) for countries with low numbers and minimizes it for those with high numbers. 

It did not have to be this way. China provides a striking and instructive contrast. It was the first to recognize this strange new virus when it appeared in the Wuhan outbreak late in December 2019. China faced a “closed-book exam,” and had to write its own playbook.

A year later as 2020 drew to a close, China had only a total of 4,764 Covid-19 deaths, an extraordinary achievement given the country’s population of 1.4 billion, 18% of humanity. On New Year’s, massive crowds came out in Wuhan and elsewhere in China to celebrate – in stark contrast to a deserted Times Square in New York City. The playbook China wrote proved remarkably successful.

China’s success was achieved by containment. First came the very tight and demanding lockdown in Wuhan, a city of 11 million, and in surrounding Hubei province with nearly 60 million. The Wuhan lockdown ended in 76 days, which now seems mercifully brief to those of us who have endured the last year of suffering and death in the United States.

Less severe but demanding measures were put in place for 700 million people, half of China’s population. A superb and honest account of life under these measures outside Wuhan by Peter Hessler can be found in The New Yorker, “Life on lockdown in China: forty-five days of avoiding the coronavirus.”

The measures, though challenging, were not as severe as often portrayed in the West. The World Health Organization report on the pandemic in China issued in March pointed out that the containment effort was made possible by “the deep commitment of the Chinese people to collective action.”

And to this observer, it seems a determined and competent national leadership, basing its decisions on the best scientific input, was another key element.

China soon “flattened the curve,” meaning it had brought the virus under control (See figure). Testing, tracing, quarantining and treatment were carried out vigorously whenever even a few new cases were detected.

An example reported in the New England Journal of Medicine was the experience in Qingdao, China, a city of 9 million. On October 1, three cases of Covid-19 were detected. A total of 4,900 testing stations were set up in the city and suburban areas. In 10 days, 10.9 million people were tested, and a total of 12 cases were found and treated. The virus was contained.

Initially, however, in December 2019, things got off to a rocky start. Confusion, denial and poor, perhaps criminal, decisions were made in the first one to two weeks of the outbreak in Wuhan. Local officials responsible for this were dismissed.

Such confusion and denial are not surprising; they are always found upon the first outbreak of an unknown infectious disease. HIV/AIDS and Ebola are striking examples.

Despite the impressive achievement over a year’s time, much of the US coverage of China’s handling of the pandemic has remained focused obsessively on those early weeks to the exclusion of the events over the year that followed.

This coverage creates a deeply distorted picture. While the performances of Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Taiwan (see figure) have been hailed, and rightly so, China’s pioneering response has been ignored or relentlessly criticized in much of our media here in the US.

In contrast, countries in the region paid close attention to what China was doing, learned and behaved accordingly. Did the lack of such coverage in the West lead to our disaster? If so, we have suffered a stunning blowback due to our media’s dismissal of China’s feat.

Perhaps most disconcertingly, the response of China versus that of the US raises a serious question of values. To save lives, China did what the West did not; it shut down the economy completely when and where necessary. At the time, it was thought that this would be extraordinarily damaging to the economic future.

But suspension was terminated surprisingly quickly, and China’s economy grew again – at an annualized rate of 3.2% in the second quarter of 2020. It turned out that the ethical decision was also best for the economy and society.

It is often said that only a country with China’s form of governance could mount such a mammoth and effective containment effort. But clearly the US has the wherewithal to mobilize the entire population for an effort like China’s.

The US carried out just such a mobilization in World War II and lesser ones for lesser wars in many places on the planet. However, it chose not to do so for Covid-19. That ought to give us food for thought. What are we to say of a society that can mobilize itself to make war, but not to save lives?

  • First published in Asia Times.
  • The post Infamous US Record during Covid-19 Pandemic first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    Brilliantina and Progresso: The Roadblock in 2020

    A sun-drenched day finds two lone figures strolling along a deserted beach, 10 feet apart and wearing masks, Brilliantina and her friend, Progresso.

    Progresso: Have you voted yet, Brilliantina?

    Brilliantina: No, I have not yet decided what to do. It needs a bit more thought.

    Progresso: I was slow to decide at first, Brilliantina, but I decided on Biden — reluctantly since I disagree with most all of his positions.

    Brilliantina:  That is strange logic, Progresso.

    Progresso:  Well, I know that, and I don’t feel entirely comfortable with it.  But you know the argument – nothing is more important than ejecting Trump. The clincher for me came from another friend of mine, a leading leftie, who is “disappointed” in Biden but will nevertheless vote for him. In response to my qualms, he told me that voting for Biden was the “consensus” on the Left.  And therefore I should vote Biden

    Brilliantina: ‘Consensus”?  But you pride yourself on thinking things through, Progresso. You very often praise an approach based on reason. Following “consensus,” despite your own convictions, seems like running with the herd or striving to be popular. Not at all like you, my friend.

    Progresso:  I am not entirely happy about it.

    Brilliantina:  Well I guess “consensus” sums up the last ditch argument for voting for Biden: Everyone in your circle is doing it. But you are not satisfied with that, as I expected, my friend.  So, let’s talk it through and maybe that will help us both decide.  What are the most important issues for you, Progresso?

    Progresso: In foreign policy a peaceful approach in general but especially with respect to the major powers of China and Russia where conflict could evolve into war, even nuclear war. Kissinger warns that a conflict with China could lay waste the entire world even worse than WWI did to Europe. In 2016 Trump talked peace but his words turn out to be empty promises.

    Brilliantina:  True enough. But Biden has been incredibly hostile to Russia, has he not, to the point of being the point man for the US/NED orchestrated regime change op in Ukraine. And on China he was on board with the 2011 “Pivot” to Asia which included transferring an astonishing 60% of the US Navy’s fleet to China’s vicinity, not to mention the economic assault called TPP designed to isolate China economically from the burgeoning East Asian economies. Worse than a trade war, I would say.

    Progresso:  I concede that Biden is far from my cup of tea on foreign policy.

    Brilliantina:  What about domestic policy?

    Progresso: The big thing for me is Medicare For All. That is a program that is within reach now since the US public favors it and the need for it was made clear by the pandemic. It would be a major factor to remedy inequality not only in and of itself but also as a model for other programs. But very sadly, Biden like Obama has closed the door on that – emphatically.  He said he would never sign such a bill were it to come across his desk. And the chances for that desk crossing are those of the proverbial snowball in hell sans leadership from the Pres.

    Brilliantina: So Biden stands firmly against both those dreams of yours, as does Trump.  Why then would you possibly vote for him?  In fact, on foreign affairs Biden might be considered worse than Trump since he is committed to lining up the “allies,” really vassal states, and getting them to gang up on China.  But China now has an economy 130% that of the US by the PPP-GDP measure used by the IMF, World Bank and even gracing the pages of the CIA World Factbook.  Many of the vassal states are tired of being kicked around and see an alternative and safe haven in China.  They are not eager to be cannon fodder for the ambitions of the US.

    Trump wants to go it alone – with the same objective of bringing down China which is often euphemistically described as “containment” or crusading for democracy.

    Progresso: You make sense, but what about reforming the Democratic Party?

    Brilliantina:  My dear Progresso, you put an enormous amount of time and energy into the Bernie campaign only to see the Democratic Establishment destroy it and Bernie capitulate.  He did not consult with you about that capitulation, I will wager.  And this is the second time it happened, a repeat of 2016.  Fool you once, dear Progresso, et cetera.

    Progresso: So what is to be done, Tina?

    Brilliantina: Let me suggest a new way to look at the Democratic Party and Joe Biden.  I suggest that it is profoundly counterproductive for someone with your views to vote for Biden.

    Progresso:  Counterproductive, Tina?

    Brilliantina: Yes.  Consider what will happen after the election if Biden wins.  You will be working again for a peaceful world and Biden will be peddling the opposite, no matter how he tries to gussy it up.  But as happened after the Obama election, your fellow progressives will be crying “Give him a chance” or “You are endangering the Democratic majority” or “You are jeopardizing the majority in House and Senate” or “You are opening the door to a Republican comeback.”  Remember that Obama won on a vague promise of peace, and the antiwar movement largely fell silent while he continued Bush’s wars, ‘surged” in those wars when he could and gave us five new ones!

    Progresso: I understand your point, Tina. It was a sad betrayal.

    Brilliantina: And let me ask you, does your experience with the Bernie campaign lead you to think the Democratic Party can be reformed?

    Progresso: Unfortunately, no. In fact, it is pretty clear that the Democratic Party Elite, who are firmly in control and cannot be dislodged, are a barrier to all that I have hoped for.  They are like a giant bolder sitting in the road.

    Brilliantina:  A roadblock — good way to put it, Progresso. If that is the case, Progresso, is not job one the removal of the roadblock so you can move forward? It seems that the demise of the Democratic Party would clear the way.

    Progresso:I guess the best way to accomplish that would be to vote for Trump, hand the Democrats a resounding defeat and proceed with the roadblock cleared.

    Brilliantina:I admit that your logic is sound in this case, Progresso, unexpectedly so.  But it overlooks the morality.  Given the Republican Establishment’s thirst for war and disdain for decent universal health care, it seems hardly moral to back the Republicans either.  So morality would seem to override that conclusion.

    Progresso: But what is to be done?  I lean to staying away from the polling place and the mailbox altogether.  But I am not sure yet.

    Brilliantina: That certainly is a logical option.

    Progresso: But what will you do?

    Brilliantina:  For me, Progesso, the overriding concern is peace in the world.  If we have a nuclear war, then all else means nothing.

    Progresso: So what will you do?

    Brilliantina:I have yet to decide.  But I am quite lucky given my main concern.  There are two Parties that are noninterventionist, the Libertarians and the Greens.  The Libertarians are the third largest Party and the Greens the fourth largest.  In 2016, the year of great discontent after 15 years of the Bush/Obama wars,  the Libertarians won 4.5 million votes and the Greens 1.5 million votes.  I am a bit confused, because the Libertarians are the largest and have the most appeal to the American voter, but the Greens have taken the most explicit stance against Launch on Warning although not as strong as is required.

    Progresso: You know in the past I was warned that a vote for the Greens would damage the Democrats.  But from our discussion of the Roadblock, I see that is exactly the points.  I wonder why they do not embrace that?  Not only is it a great selling point but it adds a bit of the feistiness that they need so badly.

    Brilliantina:  Well, it has been an illuminating discussion, Progresso.  Let us leave matters there and resume our discussion at another time.

    Progresso: Take care, Tina.

    The post Brilliantina and Progresso: The Roadblock in 2020 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    Anti-Chinese Racism Sets Stage for New McCarthyism.

    More than a dozen young visiting scholars from China had their visas abruptly terminated in a letter from administration of the University of North Texas (UNT), Denton, on August 26, in a letter dated …August 26!  The letter informed the students that they could return to campus from their lodgings to pick up belongings, but all other access was closed to them. The students and fellows were given no explanation.  They were left with no legal basis to be in the U.S. and began scrambling for the very few and very expensive flights back to China.

    At first the UNT administration simply stated that all those funded by the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) were terminated.   According to Wikipedia, the CSC is the main Chinese agency for funding Chinese students abroad (currently 65,000 with 26,000 of them in the US) and an equal number of foreign students in China, some from the US. (Americans interested in CSC scholarships to study in China can easily find information here. There is nothing secret or nefarious about CSC; the US has agencies that offer similar aid to scholars.)

    The University at last offered an explanation of sorts in a statement by its spokesperson, the Vice President for Brand Strategy and Communication (VP for BS and C) as reported on September 10 by the North Texas Daily: “UNT took this action based upon specific and credible information following detailed briefings from federal and local law enforcement.”  The VP for BS and C was “unable” to provide more details. Local police later denied any role in such briefings.  It was the feds who provoked the discharges.

    If these young students were doing something illegal or in violation of University rules, then they should be told what it is and presented with evidence so they could answer such charges.  That is what we in the U.S. claim to believe in.  If their crime is simply soaking up ideas, that is what education is all about and most assuredly that is what science is all about.  If certain areas of research are classified, then scholars working in those areas should be screened and get classifications.  And if the US does not want CSC-sponsored students here, then reasons should be given and no more visas allowed. None of that has been done. The students were found guilty of something, they know not what, and dismissed!

    Although UNT may not be well known nationally, it is rated as an “R1” or top tier research university, one of about 130 institutions falling into that top category and receiving federal research funding.  It is troubling that such action by an institution in this category and the beneficiary of federal largesse has not drawn more condemnation for its action.  And it is even more troubling that this occurs in an atmosphere of anti-Chinese hostility in the wake of Covid-19, marked by physical attacks on Chinese Americans.

    Have we forgotten the racism directed against Chinese and codified into federal law the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882, the only U.S. law ever enacted to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the U.S.?  Other such legislation followed, such as the Immigration Act of 1924 which effectively barred all immigration from Asia, including, of course, Chinese.  The rationale given by the politicians for all such heinous legislation was that Chinese were stealing “our jobs”.  Sound familiar? Notoriously the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 gave rise to the “Driving Out” period where Chinese were physically attacked to the point of brutal massacres designed to drive Chinese out of unwelcoming communities, the most infamous being the Rock Springs and Hells Canyon Massacres.

    The anti-Chinese and anti-Asian sentiment has continued down the years in one form or another, but it has had a resurgence recently with the meme that China’s prosperity has been at the expense of Americans. This narrative does not remind us that U.S. corporations and investors offshore jobs for greater “returns,” but claims that Chinese are pilfering our technology.

    Some time back The Committee of 100, a prestigious organization of leading Chinese Americans, commissioned a study on Chinese and other Asians charged under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA)., covering a period from 1996 to 2015  Some of its conclusions are as follows:

    1.)  Up to 2008, Chinese were 17% of the total defendants charged under the EEA; from 2009-2015 under Obama this percentage tripled to 52%.

    2.)  21% of Chinese were never convicted of espionage, twice the rate for non-Asians.

    3.)   In roughly half the cases involving Chinese the alleged beneficiary of the espionage was an American entity; roughly one-third had an alleged Chinese beneficiary.

    In sum a much higher rate of indictment for Chinese but a lower rate of convictions.  So the additional “attention” given Chinese was not warranted.  It seems that something changed after 2009.  What was it?  This time was the period when Obama’s Asian Pivot was put into play.  The Pivot targeted China both militarily by moving 60% of US Naval forces to the Western Pacific and economically with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) designed to isolate China from its neighbors.  Is the increased harassment of Chinese under the EEA another aspect of the strategy expressed openly in the Pivot?

    This legal attack on Chinese has continued under the present administration, but the NTU case adds a new wrinkle.  Here there was no legal action, but an action apparently taken by the University.  However, hidden pressure to oust the students came from a federal agency or agencies.  This should be no surprise since it fits in with FBI Director Christopher Wray’s “Whole of Society” approach to confronting China unveiled last February and reiterated in July when he said, “We’re also working more closely than ever with partner agencies here in the U.S. and our partners abroad. We can’t do it on our own; we need a whole-of-society response. That’s why we in the intelligence and law enforcement communities are working harder than ever to give companies, universities, and the American people themselves the information they need to make their own informed decisions and protect their most valuable assets.” (Emphasis, jw) It looks like the FBI and or its “partner agencies” gave UNT officials “the information they needed” to throw out the Chinese students without any reason given or charge made.

    Consider the position of those UNT officials when they found themselves visited by federal “authorities” and “asked’ to cooperate.  When the FBI “asks” for cooperation, it is making an offer that is perilous to refuse.  It would take considerable courage to say “no”. But that is precisely what the UNT administrators should have done if they were to live up to the presumed values and ideals of our society and universities.  The question also arises as to how many other universities have been approached to take similar steps.  It seems unlikely that UNT is alone.  But it is very likely that other Universities, wealthier and with a bevy of VP’s for BS and C, might have handled the whole matter in a discrete way and in a way that makes it appear that such suspensions are not a wholesale matter.  Perhaps other more “polished” university authorities would not own up to the dirty deeds but keep them as secret as possible.

    Let us take it a step further. What if you were approached by one of these federal agents and “requested” to keep an eye on a Chinese colleague, friend, neighbor or co-worker.  Would you have the courage to refuse?  And as the confrontation with China heats up, a peace movement is arising to counter it.  In fact, anti-interventionists are popping up across the spectrum on left and right to oppose policies that take us on the road to war with China. Will the peace advocates be targeted in the same way, on the sly as well as within a “legal” framework by the FBI and other federal agencies?  And will the precedent established in cases like the UNT case make such federal actions more acceptable?  Will those working for peace be labeled as puppets of Xi?

    “First they came for the Chinese,” it might be said.  And in the future, under the “Whole of Society” approach, they may come for anyone who chooses to work for peace with China rather than take a path to war.  Anti-Chinese racism, repugnant in and of itself, is also one part of setting the stage for a new and more dangerous McCarthyism.  It is time to stop the madness before it devours us all.

    • This essay was first published on Antiwar.com

    The post Anti-Chinese Racism Sets Stage for New McCarthyism. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    Anti-Chinese Racism Sets Stage for New McCarthyism.

    More than a dozen young visiting scholars from China had their visas abruptly terminated in a letter from administration of the University of North Texas (UNT), Denton, on August 26, in a letter dated …August 26!  The letter informed the students that they could return to campus from their lodgings to pick up belongings, but all other access was closed to them. The students and fellows were given no explanation.  They were left with no legal basis to be in the U.S. and began scrambling for the very few and very expensive flights back to China.

    At first the UNT administration simply stated that all those funded by the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) were terminated.   According to Wikipedia, the CSC is the main Chinese agency for funding Chinese students abroad (currently 65,000 with 26,000 of them in the US) and an equal number of foreign students in China, some from the US. (Americans interested in CSC scholarships to study in China can easily find information here. There is nothing secret or nefarious about CSC; the US has agencies that offer similar aid to scholars.)

    The University at last offered an explanation of sorts in a statement by its spokesperson, the Vice President for Brand Strategy and Communication (VP for BS and C) as reported on September 10 by the North Texas Daily: “UNT took this action based upon specific and credible information following detailed briefings from federal and local law enforcement.”  The VP for BS and C was “unable” to provide more details. Local police later denied any role in such briefings.  It was the feds who provoked the discharges.

    If these young students were doing something illegal or in violation of University rules, then they should be told what it is and presented with evidence so they could answer such charges.  That is what we in the U.S. claim to believe in.  If their crime is simply soaking up ideas, that is what education is all about and most assuredly that is what science is all about.  If certain areas of research are classified, then scholars working in those areas should be screened and get classifications.  And if the US does not want CSC-sponsored students here, then reasons should be given and no more visas allowed. None of that has been done. The students were found guilty of something, they know not what, and dismissed!

    Although UNT may not be well known nationally, it is rated as an “R1” or top tier research university, one of about 130 institutions falling into that top category and receiving federal research funding.  It is troubling that such action by an institution in this category and the beneficiary of federal largesse has not drawn more condemnation for its action.  And it is even more troubling that this occurs in an atmosphere of anti-Chinese hostility in the wake of Covid-19, marked by physical attacks on Chinese Americans.

    Have we forgotten the racism directed against Chinese and codified into federal law the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882, the only U.S. law ever enacted to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the U.S.?  Other such legislation followed, such as the Immigration Act of 1924 which effectively barred all immigration from Asia, including, of course, Chinese.  The rationale given by the politicians for all such heinous legislation was that Chinese were stealing “our jobs”.  Sound familiar? Notoriously the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 gave rise to the “Driving Out” period where Chinese were physically attacked to the point of brutal massacres designed to drive Chinese out of unwelcoming communities, the most infamous being the Rock Springs and Hells Canyon Massacres.

    The anti-Chinese and anti-Asian sentiment has continued down the years in one form or another, but it has had a resurgence recently with the meme that China’s prosperity has been at the expense of Americans. This narrative does not remind us that U.S. corporations and investors offshore jobs for greater “returns,” but claims that Chinese are pilfering our technology.

    Some time back The Committee of 100, a prestigious organization of leading Chinese Americans, commissioned a study on Chinese and other Asians charged under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA)., covering a period from 1996 to 2015  Some of its conclusions are as follows:

    1.)  Up to 2008, Chinese were 17% of the total defendants charged under the EEA; from 2009-2015 under Obama this percentage tripled to 52%.

    2.)  21% of Chinese were never convicted of espionage, twice the rate for non-Asians.

    3.)   In roughly half the cases involving Chinese the alleged beneficiary of the espionage was an American entity; roughly one-third had an alleged Chinese beneficiary.

    In sum a much higher rate of indictment for Chinese but a lower rate of convictions.  So the additional “attention” given Chinese was not warranted.  It seems that something changed after 2009.  What was it?  This time was the period when Obama’s Asian Pivot was put into play.  The Pivot targeted China both militarily by moving 60% of US Naval forces to the Western Pacific and economically with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) designed to isolate China from its neighbors.  Is the increased harassment of Chinese under the EEA another aspect of the strategy expressed openly in the Pivot?

    This legal attack on Chinese has continued under the present administration, but the NTU case adds a new wrinkle.  Here there was no legal action, but an action apparently taken by the University.  However, hidden pressure to oust the students came from a federal agency or agencies.  This should be no surprise since it fits in with FBI Director Christopher Wray’s “Whole of Society” approach to confronting China unveiled last February and reiterated in July when he said, “We’re also working more closely than ever with partner agencies here in the U.S. and our partners abroad. We can’t do it on our own; we need a whole-of-society response. That’s why we in the intelligence and law enforcement communities are working harder than ever to give companies, universities, and the American people themselves the information they need to make their own informed decisions and protect their most valuable assets.” (Emphasis, jw) It looks like the FBI and or its “partner agencies” gave UNT officials “the information they needed” to throw out the Chinese students without any reason given or charge made.

    Consider the position of those UNT officials when they found themselves visited by federal “authorities” and “asked’ to cooperate.  When the FBI “asks” for cooperation, it is making an offer that is perilous to refuse.  It would take considerable courage to say “no”. But that is precisely what the UNT administrators should have done if they were to live up to the presumed values and ideals of our society and universities.  The question also arises as to how many other universities have been approached to take similar steps.  It seems unlikely that UNT is alone.  But it is very likely that other Universities, wealthier and with a bevy of VP’s for BS and C, might have handled the whole matter in a discrete way and in a way that makes it appear that such suspensions are not a wholesale matter.  Perhaps other more “polished” university authorities would not own up to the dirty deeds but keep them as secret as possible.

    Let us take it a step further. What if you were approached by one of these federal agents and “requested” to keep an eye on a Chinese colleague, friend, neighbor or co-worker.  Would you have the courage to refuse?  And as the confrontation with China heats up, a peace movement is arising to counter it.  In fact, anti-interventionists are popping up across the spectrum on left and right to oppose policies that take us on the road to war with China. Will the peace advocates be targeted in the same way, on the sly as well as within a “legal” framework by the FBI and other federal agencies?  And will the precedent established in cases like the UNT case make such federal actions more acceptable?  Will those working for peace be labeled as puppets of Xi?

    “First they came for the Chinese,” it might be said.  And in the future, under the “Whole of Society” approach, they may come for anyone who chooses to work for peace with China rather than take a path to war.  Anti-Chinese racism, repugnant in and of itself, is also one part of setting the stage for a new and more dangerous McCarthyism.  It is time to stop the madness before it devours us all.

    • This essay was first published on Antiwar.com

    The post Anti-Chinese Racism Sets Stage for New McCarthyism. first appeared on Dissident Voice.