The new U.S. movement--and China

ÁÎ×Ó¹â Henry C.K.Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú hliu at SPAMmindspring.com
Wed May 17 16:56:30 MDT 2000


Bello is a voice of reason from the Asian perspective.

US attitude on China is based on two phobias:  fear of communism and fear of
non-white Asians.
China, Cuba and North Korea are the only three communist countries left in
the world.  China is particularly worrisome for the US because it has 20% of
the world's population. In addition, China is an ancient culture with the
longest continuous history in the world.  If communism can succeed in China,
it can in the whole world.  A succesful China will also mark the end of
White supremacy.   When US foreign policy proclaims that the US national
interest as being based on American values, the bottom line is the
perpetuation of capitalism and White supremacy.

The debate on linking US-China Trade to so-called human rights is bogus on
both sides.  The objectives on both sides are the same, the debate is only
on methods.  Both camps agree that China is evil for being communist and
that a strong China is to be feared because it is alien to US values, in
other words non-white.   The so-called US Left wants to reject engagement
with China to "starve" it into submission, while the US Right wants to trade
with China to destroy the Chinese Communist Party by creating a new
caompradore calss to make profit for US capital.  The Left opts for
ideological coersion while the Right opts for "peaceful evolution".  The
Extreme Left attacks China
for having betrayed communism, while the extreme Right attacked Chinese
market moves as merely a temporary detour.  The liberal left attacks China
for being not free while the liberal right dmeands more "free" market from
China.

In a perverse way, while the left's attacks are more hostile, the impact of
its strategy is less virulent in that the strategy will retard the spread of
capitalism in China, while the right's benign "pro-China" strategy is in
fact more dangerous in that it will undermine more effectively soicialism in
China.

Moreover, Chinese current domestic politics is fixated on the myth of a
friendly US, without any factual basis.  If one reads Chinese domestic
propaganda, all the US anti-China rhetorics have been carefully censored in
the past months.  The Chinese public is being told by its government that
the US loves China, and only a samll handful of diehard extremeists.  this
is because the current leaders have placed their lot on good US-China
relations, an increasingly bankrupt policy.

The likely scenario is that the House will reject PNTR by a narrow margin.
The Clinton White House and the State Department will fail in its ambiguous
China policy of saving China from evil with "peaceful evolution".  US-China
relation will hit bottom from its current low level.  The so-called
reformers will experience a set back in Chinese domestic politics.  It is
unavoidable, because their false expectation the the US will bail them out
from the mess of they have dug themselves in in embracing market
fundamentalism has been a fantasy.  But now the reformers can blame the US
left for sabotaging China's reform program and shield themselves from attack
by hiding behind patriotism.

Bush will win the election and will de-link trade with China from human
rights. NPTR will eventually pass.   The US economy will crash, global trade
will shrink from a decline of US consumer purchasing power, with
unpredictable political impact globally.

Henry C.K. Liu



jacdon at earthlink.net wrote:

> One of the cutting-edge issues confronting the developing
> new progressive movement in the U.S.--particularly those
> forces growing out of Seattle and A16 Washington--is the
> question of whether China has the right to have normal trade
> relations with the U.S. and the right to join the World
> Trade Organization.  How this question is resolved will have
> a strong influence on the future political direction of the
> new movement.  What follows is a unique contribution to the
> debate over China written by Walden Bello and Anuradha
> Mittal, answering point by point the objections put forward
> by the anti-China wing of the movement in a measured and
> fraternal tone.   (Bello is executive director of Focus on the
> Global South, a program of research, analysis, and capacity
> building based in Bangkok; Mittal is co-director of the
> Oakland-based Institute for Food and Development Policy,
> better known as Food  First.) The article  is long, and I do not
> share all its assumptions, but for those concerned about
> the future direction of this movement I think many on this
> list will find it enlightening.
>
> Jack A. Smith, Highland, NY
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DANGEROUS LIAISONS: PROGRESSIVES, THE RIGHT,
> AND THE ANTI-CHINA TRADE CAMPAIGN
>
> By Walden Bello and Anuradha Mittal*
> Institute for Food and Development Policy, May 2000
> From: www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/5-china.html
>






More information about the Marxism mailing list