Connect with us

Americas

China’s stance on the Venezuela’s crisis and beyond

Published

on

Since January 23, President of Venezuela’s National Assembly Juan Guaido was sworn in as the country’s “interim president”. The US, Brazil and many other countries have issued statements to recognize Guaido. Yet, Venezuela’s Supreme Court reaffirmed that the relevant action of the National Assembly “has violated the Constitution”. President Maduro announced his decision to sever diplomatic ties with the United States and Columbia as well.

As usual, Chinese government immediately and firmly call upon all relevant parties to stay rational and cool-headed and seek a political solution to the issue of Venezuela through peaceful dialogue within the framework of the Venezuelan Constitution. China supports the efforts made by the Venezuelan government to uphold national sovereignty, independence and stability since it always upholds the principle of non-interference in other counties’ internal affairs. Due to this, China opposes foreign interference in Venezuela’s affairs in anyway and hopes that the international society can jointly create favorable conditions for this crisis.

China’s involvement in Latin America is expanding in a visible and dramatic way. As American scholar Ariel Armony observed, “In a time frame of one decade, China has gone from having virtually no presence in Latin America to being a very significant trade partner to a large number of Latin American states, in particular the Mercosur states.” In 2010, China and Venezuela agreed a range of packages that have included financing for Venezuela’s energy infrastructure, aerospace training, guaranteed minimums of oil supply to China and a joint Venezuela-China company for oil exploration. Equally, from a hemispheric perspective, the presence of China in the so-called “backyard” of the United States is surprising in its suddenness and scale, and this in turn has aroused a variety of commentary, debate and policy concerns, particularly in the realm of strategic thinking, political economy and bilateral relations, as argued by Kerry Dumbaugh and Mark Sullivan’s CRS Report to the U.S. Congress.

But it is necessary to note that China’s involvement in Latin America and the Caribbean is part of its general policy of “going out” and then needs to be understood within a larger context of globalization. That indicates China’s current drive to “going out” varies by region, by country, by sector and by prior patterns of engagement. Put it simply, China’s involvement in Latin America is more cautious, though in a rapidly growing profile, rather than a proactive and overall involvement in Africa. Due to this, China is not interested in engaging in geopolitical competition in Latin America.

Consider this, China’s stance on the Venezuela issue can be perceived out of the points as follows. First of all, China has been closely following the uncertain situation in Venezuela. In principle, China must support the Venezuelan government’s efforts to uphold national sovereignty, independence and stability. As Chinese spokesperson has argued, all countries should earnestly observe the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and Venezuela’s issue must and can only be independently tackled by its own people.

Second, regarding the U.S. possible intervention, either directly or indirectly, China also calls for that all parties can make more efforts to promote stability and development in Venezuela, improve its people’s wellbeing, and observe the international law and basic norms governing international relations. Yet, it is equally assured that China will be unlikely involved in Venezuela’s issue along with Russia which is much frankly critical of the United States and its allies which have cut off their normal ties with Maduro’s government two weeks ago.

Third, the leaders in Beijing are well-aware that China actually can play a minimal role in the West hemisphere if Washington is determined to take actions against the current government of Venezuela. In terms of China’s overall goal in the next three decades, Venezuela is a good and important energy partner of China, yet it is not within Beijing’s core interests. Therefore, China will not openly challenge the U.S. and its hegemony in Latin America and the Caribbean, though China would be frustrated by this reality.

Fourth, although the current government of Venezuela is at stake for the domestic challenger Guaido who has accumulated the vital support and help from the U.S., key EU states and even some of Latin American states, the current leader Maduro and his ruling party has equally large supporters inside the country and the outsides. This reality also encourages China to continue supporting Maduro and his ruling by upholding international law and diplomatic norms. Yet, all in all, China is very unlikely alliance with Russia on the current issue, no matter what end comes out.

However, China’s stance on Venezuela would likely lead to a negative image that China is a simply-driven for money and trade like “a nation of shop-keepers”, a term coined by Napoleon who used to scoff about Britain and early the United States. Liberal group might be critical of China’s indifferences toward the human rights in Venezuela while realist block likely accuses China’s pursuit of power and profits for the final competition with the ruling power, like the United States. Even Russia, which accused the U.S. and its NATO allies of discussing how to arm the opposition in Venezuela, might be unhappy with Beijing’s evasiveness in view of their overall strategic partnership and most of the developing countries would somewhat lose their confidence in Beijing’s commitment in the future. This has frequently happened in the real politics.

There is no doubt that China’s stance on the Venezuela issue comes out of the careful calculation of the reality in Venezuela, Latin America and the real leverage of the U.S. in the whole hemisphere. Recently, Venezuelan FM Jorge Arreaza openly said at a press conference at the UN headquarters that “his government wanted peace with the United States … we want mutual respect between both of us”. He even took initiative to say that he would be very pleased to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington, or perhaps in New York.

Chinese government has insisted that it is in line with the fundamental interests of the two sides and two peoples, China-Latin America collaboration has brought the latter a large number of job opportunities and solidly boosted local development and improved people’s livelihood. It is exactly due to America’s uncertainty and arrogance that it has consistently imposed tariffs on China, EU, and Japan while reforming relationships with Canada and Mexico under NAFTA. Under this growing pressure, China has joined Latin American countries in a mission to expand international markets and has offered investment worth 250 billion US dollars. Meanwhile, those with a positive view of the growing China-Latin America relationships see new opportunities in a wider range of investment fields.

As a matter of fact, China, the U.S. and Latin America countries have different comparative advantages in the global trading market. For example, both China and the Latin America are trying to move up to the higher end of the value chain. In addition, China insists in playing a win-win game whereas the current American mindset of international competition reflects the zero-sum game. China is operating in a pragmatic way, which is well-received by the Latin American countries. The best strategy for China and Latin America from now, as Farnsworth suggested, is to forge long-term cooperating relations. Presumably the trade war between China and the US is going to be reduced or end hopefully soon, so the opportunity here is to develop a long-term supplier relationship between these two sides. Once the relationships are built, they are hard to break. True, China and Latin America en bloc are not just business partners, there is more to look at, such as climate change, sustainable environment, and other similar challenges in the global system bring the two sides together, particularly the mutual understanding between the two peoples.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Just What Is An American?

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

The greatest mistake any leader, or moneyed powerful individual, or even masses of people (all 3 of which tend to have the loudest voices) is to culturally appropriate unto themselves, just exactly what it means to be an American, based on their own selfish notion of what it means.

The fact remains that the ideal of Americanism is a concept – a truly growing, organic, ever changing, and ever expanding idea that is enshrined within its founding documents and laws.

For example, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, US Constitution, Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Rights Amendment, among scores of other acts of legislation, point to an ever growing ongoing journey to forge a new nation, just like ancient Rome did, united by a common destiny, and drawn from different experiences, cultures, cuisines, religions, ethnicities, races, nationalities, and world views.

So when President Trump on July 15, 2019 told four minority female congresswomen in sum and substance to “go back to there they came from” if they “didn’t like America,” he trampled over their own views, ideals, and experiences as Americans.

Quite simply his statement was an appropriation of what it means to be an American, from the point of view of a German/ Irish American senior citizen male, to a group of Latin/ Somali/ Palestinian/ African-American younger females.

Perhaps President Trump should re-visit his own people’s racial history, wherein the Irish were systematically excluded by the previously arrived and established Anglican Protestants, or even with the Germans in America who were actually interred in camps during the periods of World War I & World War II.

The German-American Experience

During World War II, the legal basis for this detention was under Presidential Proclamation 2526, made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt under the authority of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

With the U.S. entry into World War I, German nationals were automatically classified as “enemy aliens.”

Two of the four main World War I-era internment camps were located in Hot Springs, N.C. and Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.

Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer wrote that “All aliens interned by the government are regarded as enemies, and their property is treated accordingly.”                                              

The Irish-American Experience

In 1836, young Benjamin Disraeli wrote: “The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.”

Nineteenth-century Protestant American “Nativist” discrimination against Irish Catholics reached a peak in the mid-1850s when the Know-Nothing Movement tried to oust Catholics from public office.

Much of the opposition came from Irish Protestants, as in the 1831 riots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

After 1860, many Irish sang songs about “NINA signs” reading Help wanted – no Irish need apply.

The 1862 song “No Irish Need Apply” was inspired by NINA signs in London.

Alongside “No Irish Need Apply” signs, in the post-World War II years, signs saying “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” or similar anti-Irish sentiment began to appear as well.

Continue Reading

Americas

Billionaires, Vanity and Modern Democracy

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

The bullying in Washington is the current trend.  On Monday, the British ambassador resigned his post after Trump refused to deal with him.  Well-liked in Washington and the halls of Congress, his downfall was an honest assessment of the Trump administration as ‘inept’ and ‘dysfunctional’.  The letters were leaked in the U.K.

Suppose the president tweets comments contrary to current established policy, does that mean a policy change?  Do departments adapt promptly.  Nobody knows.  That’s dysfunctional, and everyone knows it.  In the meantime, he has enjoyed 17 golf outings since February averaging three a month.  No wonder he is that rare president who does not seem to age in office from the stresses of the job.  Obama’s hair turned gray.

But then a lighter hand on the tiller has kept us out of war, whereas Obama, the Nobel Peace Laureate, destroyed Libya and escalated in Afghanistan.  The consequences are still being felt in Southern Europe particularly, through the hordes of refugees still continuing to arrive.  Also in the resurgence of anti-immigration political parties in northern Europe.

The supreme irony is the fact of refugees being rescued from ramshackle boats and dinghies or often dying in one part of the Mediterranean while the Obamas cruise on a billionaire’s luxury yacht in another.  Is that a metaphor for democracies in the modern world?  One is also reminded of Mr. Modi’s specially woven pinstripe cloth repeating his name endlessly on the stripes in the material. 

Fortunately, the current president does not like the sea, or we would never see him in Washington.  As it is he has had 14 visits to golf clubs (not as much time on the course however) since the beginning of June.  He once had a small yacht that lay anchored in New York until he sold it.  His pleasures have generally centered on the more mundane:  cheeseburgers and women — the younger the better, although perhaps not as young as those that have gotten his friend Jeffrey Epstein in trouble again.  To be fair, Trump had a falling out with him ‘about 15 years ago’ he said recently.  ‘I was not a fan of his, I can tell you,’ he added although he called him a ‘terrific guy’ in 2002.

At least one party had 28 girls to a so-called calendar-girl party at Mar-a-Lago (Trump’s estate and club) in Florida, meaning selection of a calendar girl.  The male celebrities attending, according to the man assigned the task of finding the girls, happened to be Trump and Epstein, and no one else!  So surprised, the man still remembers the story.  The falling out between Trump and Epstein was rumored to have been a business deal.

It brings us to the second resignation, that of Alex Acosta the Labor Secretary.  A Harvard-educated lawyer, Mr. Acosta was the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida when he made a generous agreement with Epstein who had been charged with sex crimes.  For a 13-month sentence of mostly community work, usually from his mansion, Mr. Epstein was protected from further prosecution.  In a clear rebuke to Acosta, the case has been re-opened with a new charge of sex-trafficking minors.

As a result, Mr. Acosta has had to bow to the chorus of calls for his resignation.  The real question:  How ever did Trump get elected?  A mainstream press failure?

Continue Reading

Americas

What has happened to Western liberal idea?

Published

on

In the recent interview with President Putin, the Financial Times seems to have launched a discussion on liberalism only at its own peril. Inadvertently, a real problem was touched upon, whose pressing nature is no longer denied by anyone in the West. The newspaper had to admit it in its Editorial of 29 June. Its authors claim that the threat to liberalism comes from within, including President Trump and his policies, Brexit and, certainly, the rise of “populist nationalism”. They refer to voters’ disillusionment with liberalism and loss of confidence in the economic system and trust in political elites. The latter are invited to redouble their efforts to take into consideration issues raised by voters and “to renew liberalism”.

Hence, the Russian leader has only identified a problem that Western elites are unable to acknowledge, desperately defending the status-quo as having no alternative. But where is the problem?

The systemic crisis of Western society, if we are to call a spade a spade, has its roots in Reaganomics and Thatcherism. In early 1980s, disregard for the lessons of the Great Depression led to Anglo-American attempts to sort of try the pre-1929 Pure Capitalism. This unleashed the forcers of a “self-regulated market” with the state playing a minimal role – a key concept of liberal economics. The idea of social accountability of business had no place in that system.

At the same time, financial sector was deregulated through the step-by-step repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was one of key elements of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Its architect was British economist John Maynard Keynes. It was only natural that the 2008 crisis also started in the financial sphere which had practically lost touch with the real sector of economy.

Then neoliberalism (as it became known) came to be imposed by Anglo-Saxon nations on the whole of the EU through the Lisbon agenda. The then Prime Minister Tony Blair was pretty good at it. When asked what she considered as her key legacy, Margaret Thatcher pointed to Blair who continued her economic policies under the “New Labour” slogan.

For instance, everyone knows what the nationalization of British railways led to. Profits are reaped by operators, while costs are borne by taxpayers who finance UK Rail, the state-run company responsible for railroad infrastructure. And this is not the only way to privatise profits while collectivising costs. In fact, globalisation has become one such practice for Western elites. Its original motive was quite liberal and far from being altruistic or even geopolitical (Donald Trump has reassessed this part of it when he blamed globalisation for China’s economic rise). It was about cheap labour for increased profits. The jobs  that were to be transferred abroad should have been compensated for by a new technological revolution. But it’s not happening, not even in the second generation. Information technologies do not create as many jobs, and we are already talking of robotisation and artificial intelligence, as well as a universal minimum living allowance as a solution to the problem of poverty and unemployment. It was Keynes who said: “Free trade assumes that if you throw men out of work in one direction you re-employ them in another. As soon as that link is broken the whole of the free trade argument breaks down”.

Liberalism in politics, especially after the end of the Cold War, has degenerated into averaging and alternative-free policies in the “end of history” spirit. Even Henry Kissinger admitted in his “World Order” (2014) that Western elites had again relied on automaticity, as was the case with the market. But as it was shown by Karl Marx supported by modern economists (Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Thomas Picketty and others), free markets always give advantage to the investing classes, which only leads to more inequality.

In this respect, the 45-year post-WW2 period was an exception to the rule due to the creation of a social welfare state – the one that is now being destroyed by the neoliberal economics. Along with it the middle class is being destroyed – the pillar of Western democracy. For these reasons the real discourse of democracy is being substituted in the West by a discourse of liberalism. This involves labelling all protest voters as “populists” and “nationalists”, allowing to side-step the issue of the inability of the actual political system to represent this silent majority. Yet, that is what’s going on when differences blur between the Right and the Left, Tory and Labour in Britain, Republicans and Democrats in the US, or Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany’s “Grand coalition”. Is it any wonder that when an opportunity arises to have a say, this majority votes for Brexit, Trump, or newly-created anti-system parties and movements, often with marginal ideologies?    

In social terms, as BBC is trying to explain in this ongoing debate, liberalism is about protecting the rights of minorities of all kind, including transgender persons. It turns out that there’s nobody to protect the interests of the majority. Yet, we are speaking of the post-war “social contract”, which simply does not work in liberal economics. Anglo-Saxons are on the path of further liberalisation, which the continental Europe cannot afford. Boris Johnson, contributing to the discussion, has said the other day that Brexit is precisely aimed at giving a new lease of life to it by following the US in income tax reductions for business and private individuals.    

British political analyst David Goodhart (in “The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics”, 2017) shows another perspective of the issue. In his opinion, the elites have become cosmopolitan, but the majority has remained rooted in their own countries, regions and communities. In other words, the majority sticks to its national identity, unlike the elites. Even the European middle class, united by similar living standards and occupations, becomes aware of its nationality when hit by bad economic times.

Those who accuse Russia of meddling in internal affairs of Western countries are essentially denying their voters the right to vote, while the genesis of the liberalism crisis clearly points to its roots and origins inside the system. It was no-one else but Angela Merkel who in 2010 spoke of failure of multiculturalism in Germany, while calling for intensifying efforts at integrating immigrants into German society.

It was not Moscow that drew the attention to this problem. As early as 2007, the Economist wrote of a “secular overreachl” in the West, while today many are voicing concerns over a “liberal overreach”. Speaking broadly, it can be said that in the absence of a competitive environment in the realm of ideas after the end of the Cold War (which ended up doing a disservice to Western elites), liberalism has mutated into a dogma, a totalitarian ideology which does not tolerate dissent or pluralism of ideas. No wonder that the elites have resorted to political technologies, media control and political correctness to tighten the grip on the freedom of speech and generate semblance of an alternative-free existence. Social media have put an end to this, becoming a tool for politically alienated electorate to self-organize. As a measure to protect the status quo, the elites are now constructing an artificial dichotomy of liberalism vs authoritarianism, i.e. if not one, it’s definitely the other.

It is, therefore, not about the end of the liberal idea, just as President Putin pointed out, but that it cannot claim to be a one-size-fits-all model negating the wealth of ideas in Europe and the world. The problem is that any ideology, as history has shown, is always aggressive when it claims the ultimate truth, exceptionalism and, as a result, becomes a threat to the world. The notion of a “liberal world order” has also been introduced only recently, as a defensive reaction of the West when its dominance in global politics, economy and finance is coming to an end. Everything could have been different, had Western elites bothered to make this order, Bretton Woods institutions included, truly liberal, open and inclusive. Nobody was preventing them from doing so.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy