by Tony Andréani, Rémy Herrera and Zhiming Long published on July 1, 2021 in Monthly Review
In the early years of the twenty-first century, many Western capitalists saw China as a “new Eldorado. “Since it opened up more to foreign industry (particularly since the early 2000s) and was admitted to the World Trade Organization. In December 2001, China was intended to become a mass market available to investors in industrialized countries, where their multinational companies could sell much of their chronic overproduction. It will limit itself to that of the “workshop of the world”, which will enable it, more than any other economy of the South, to supply the countries of the North with cheap goods on a giant scale.
In most mainstream Western media, China is now presented as a risk, a conquering “empire,” an “imperialist” force, even if the term imperialism is taboo when it comes to the habit of Western banks, corporations, or institutions. The risk seems even more serious because Beijing’s “regime” is easily described as “dictatorial” or, in diplomatic terms, “authoritarian. “Governments are building the distressing symbol of a China eager to supplant them and wrest from them the leadership of the global capitalist system. Moreover, this is also the case, to some extent, albeit on a smaller scale, of the governing bodies of the European Union which realise that they are prisoners of their dogma of lax trade.
In fact, when it comes to trade, China has been quite successful in crushing its main capitalist competition on its own terms: flexible trade. In the North, headlines, editorials and articles from the mainstream press abound, as well as comments, debates and radio or TV broadcasts from the main channels of the status quo faithful to the coverage of the “Chinese danger”, in reference to purchases of various assets by China. : land, fair investments in companies, debts, etc. , in addition to the strong presence of products or devices manufactured in China in the fields of information technology and telecommunications. Brussels, following in the wake of Berlin, is alarmed by Chinese investments in the economies of Central and Eastern Europe, where everywhere we see the hand of Beijing and its maneuvers aimed at dividing the European Union. What could be more moving than to see Washington, after American governments subjected an intelligent component of Arab countries to fire and blood in recent decades, with the submissive complicity of Europeans, worrying so spontaneously about the fate of Muslim populations? of China, the Xinjiang Uyghurs in the lead? Behind all this, little serious analysis, much ideological blindness, bad faith, fantasies and a vast disinformation operation.
Of President Xi Jinping’s speeches, adding the one he delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2017, the bloodhounds sought to retain only theirs for globalization – that is, their praise of lax industry without restrictions – and a denunciation of protectionism. It is transparent that the Chinese president said that “economic globalization has provided a strong engine for global growth, facilitating the movement of capital and goods, the progress of science, human generation and civilization, as well as people-to-people exchanges. “Candy song to the ears of neoliberals!However, we will have to not hide the setbacks and problems, also highlighted in the same speech: “Globalization is a double-edged sword. . . The contradiction between capital and hard work is growing. . . The gaps between rich and poor, between North and South, are constantly widening. . . The richest [elements] constitute 1% of the world’s population, but they have more wealth than the other 99%. “2
With their stark bias and selective reading, mainstream commentators and sleuths have mostly revealed a widespread ignorance of the rhetoric used by China’s top leaders: indeed, the vast majority of their speeches sometimes begin by pretending to be on the positive side. of a procedure or an economic problem. politics, committing itself then to publicize its negative or inadequate results, and despite everything to seek the dialectical solution of the challenge that arises. However, it is vital to see the point of view of the Chinese here: their reforms to open up the economy have been incredibly favorable to them, and therefore they have a tendency to take into consideration that all countries have an interest in foreign industry to ensure its development, but with the only condition – let us insist on this point – of intelligent control of such an opening and its consequences on the internal economy, as the Chinese themselves have done and continue to do today3Array It is worth adding that their industrial policy does not it is by no means mercantilist: China imports as much as it exports, globally. Much of the US bilateral industry deficit is necessarily the result of its own offshoring strategy, which has failed. This can be seen in many manufacturing industries, from basic prescription drugs and pharmaceutical fixes to electronic components. 4
As a reminder, according to the Chinese government, the “five principles of nonviolent coexistence” are: (1) respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; (2) mutual non-aggression; (3) non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries; (4) equality and mutual benefit; and (5) nonviolent coexistence as such. Since 1957, these principles, enshrined in several foreign treaties with Asian spouses, have been reaffirmed.
Chinese leaders insist above all on sovereign equality: “The central concept of this principle,” said President Xi Jinping, “is that the sovereignty and dignity of a country, regardless of its size, strength, or wealth, will have to be respected, that no interference in their internal affairs is tolerated and that countries have the right to freely decide on their social formula and their path of progression. This is not an undeniable principle. The Chinese have always sought to position their movements in the Within the framework of the United Nations and its foreign institutions, which they have increasingly supported, we are rarely surprised by their passivity or their very low involvement in the bloody conflicts that have marked the last decades, but this is deliberate. They are accused of being discreet and to do nothing against either dictatorial or theocratic regimes, which are still legion in today’s world, and to do lucrative business with them – shouldn’t the West start by releasing its own garbage, its own sponsors for the maximum of those regimens? However, this position stems from the fact that the Chinese are resolutely opposed to any imperialism disguised as a false democratic front or under the guise of alleged humanitarian interventions. It is only up to the peoples to emancipate themselves and design their own strategy of progression and, if circumstances allow it, lead their own revolution. The Chinese are also reluctant to forcibly or insidiously export their own political and social formula, obviously stating: “Eager to share our experience of progress with the countries of the world, however, we do not aim to export our social formula. . formula and our model of progression, or to impose our will on them. Instead, they prefer to communicate about some “Chinese solutions”, from which other countries can simply “learn”.
As for their declarations in favour of peace and the non-violent resolution of conflicts, they will have to be approached with bad religion so as not to recognize that they are respected. Let us recall here that China, at least in its fashionable history, has never practiced colonial or expansionist policies at the expense of other peoples or countries. How many “Western” or “Nordic” countries, adding Australia and Japan, can claim the same?Today, China in no way wishes to resurrect a climate of confrontation, which would be contrary to its own conception of peace among nations. Moreover, it firmly rejects any form of military alliance. It has never participated directly in a military coalition, not even in opposition to Daesh. And it has not established a single military base abroad, with the very recent exception of a base in Djibouti, in a delicate position for maritime traffic, which presents itself as a “simple logistics facility”.
The contrast with the movements of many Western powers is therefore striking, especially in relation to the United States, which has fomented countless military or political coups, introduced brutal attacks and interventions abroad throughout its history, to the point that one can count the years in which they have not been at war on the one hand. 5 This is all the more true since for many years, long before the industrial war broke out under President Donald Trump, the United States kept China under wonderful strain and multiplied the tension problems (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, etc. ) of what looks more and more like a new Cold War. The intensity of the clash has not diminished with Joe Biden’s Democratic term.
China’s policy emphasizing the co-progression service basically targets countries classified as “less developed” or “emerging”. This is not classic state-to-state aid, because official progression assistance provided through Western countries is almost “tied”, very occasionally selective, and infrequently even a source of corruption, but more well “a very large release of financing and investment”. programs: interest-free loans for the structure of public infrastructure, granted through its specialized banks (in particular, the Development Bank and the Import-Export Bank); “concessional” loans (ie at below market rates) for other large projects, provided through other national public banks; reimbursable credits in resources (in raw fabrics for example); direct investments (such as the creation of Chinese companies, whether public or private); as well as a multitude of grants intended to help smaller projects to gain the merits of the countries in question. Some see it as evidence of a hegemonic ambition, implemented through the use of “economic weapons”. But this is to misunderstand or forget the principles on which this co-progression policy is based, namely: cooperation, shared merit (or the so-called win-win principle) and precedence aid for progression.
In recent years, China’s foreign direct investment has been directed to the most industrialized countries (through acquisitions, fair investments, service contracts, etc. ), in order to boost the progress of the Chinese economy, providing it with resources and technologies that it lacks. , and push it to the high end. At the same time, investment in countries with maximum needs has not declined. In addition, many other aid bureaucracies are distributed, that is, in the education cadre. China awards many scholarships to academics and training courses to more than five hundred thousand professionals, basically from emerging countries.
This is where the vast, already partly implemented, Silk Road project comes in: actually, land routes (the Strip) and sea routes (the Road). But why does this cooperation basically fear Asian countries?China needs to consolidate its strength through creating obligations for the Asian continent or take revenge on the West, which is why it is not with a certain newfound pride. It is rather because they are your neighbors, either the closest and a little farther away. , as in the Middle East, and because the Silk Road will first have to pass through its territories, which are very absent in the obligatory investments for progression, adding in the case of India, the only country still relatively reluctant. “neighborhood policy,” China also sees a specific advantage, of course, in selling the progression of its western provinces, which lag behind those on the east coast.
Why is it incorporated into such a project?One of the reasons adduced through China is that, in addition to the long-standing ties forged during and after the Bandung Conference with the Third World, it is the African countries that have been most affected by the difficulties of what is called, in the West or in the North, “underdevelopment”. China has lately been accused of neocolonialism: in its industry with this Third World, it imports only raw fabrics and buys land and mines. in making very important infrastructure, adding hospitals, roads, railways, ports, airports, cultural or sports facilities, which Westerners have rarely done. political conditions. Let us be frank: this cooperation is far from perfect. Despite this, the rewards are there, and they are substantial.
The land and sea routes of the Silk Road will have to be extended to Europe, and that is precisely what bothers some capitalists, who see China as a “strategic competitor”. European countries that in principle have the resources to develop would not really want Chinese investment. Note in passing that on the contrary, foreign direct investment is welcome when it comes from the United States or Japan. However, it is worth asking why certain countries such as Greece and Portugal have handed over the operation of state-owned flagships to Chinese companies. The explanation why is quite clear: those who suffer from the austerity policies of the European Union and the constant mandates to reduce their deficits and debts, and therefore from forced privatization through authoritarian memoranda, those countries are sold to the best bidder. Chinese investments, under these conditions, are considered through those countries as a means of progression. There is another dynamic at play as well. Many other states have signed protocols to join the Silk Roads. Indeed, they are experiencing economic stagnation (such as Italy) or a significant delay in progress (in the East and South) compared to the most complex countries in the European Union, as well as a dependency that makes them specialized economies in a very limited scope. area. diversity of business sectors, with many subcontractors. Of course, such investments are rarely more commonly speculative (for example, in real estate and hotels), but they are publicly discouraged in Beijing. It goes without saying that the vast majority of the direct or oblique productive investments made, that is, those of port infrastructure, are also of interest for Chinese foreign trade, but in a “win-win” logic. It is true that China has invested outside the European Union, that is, in the Balkans, which are also lagging behind on this continent. It is therefore not surprising that 17 Eastern and Southern European countries, totaling 11 members of the European Union, have so far adhered to the Silk Road initiative.
The Silk Road does not prevent in the Eurasian continent and in Africa. Cooperation is also very complex with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, especially the poorest. China already has the largest trade component of this component in the “American hemisphere. “”The Chinese do not pretend to be generous donors, which would be only a palliative for them, but they recognize that they have an interest in this cooperation, especially as a means to spread their surplus production. So why not, if Chinese goods have a charge?benefits for destination countries in Latin America and the Caribbean?
Development aid is basically provided through loans, at very advantageous rates, granted through its Silk Road Fund (a sovereign wealth fund) and its public banks. However, China does not need to be the exclusive financier, and it must involve all the countries that the means – and that do not impose political-economic situations on this financing (unlike the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank) – to participate in those Targeted lending schemes to advertise infrastructure (e. g. , high-speed rail, Array energy investments, pipelines, water treatment), on the grounds that such infrastructure provides a solid foundation for immediate development. This is the basic meaning of the creation of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank, which today has a hundred members. These come with countries like France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but not, of course, the United States, which cannot in any case be this institution, as has become the custom with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. By contrast, China, the majority shareholder of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, expressly prohibits any veto power.
Chinese indebtedness has been criticized for pushing countries to over-borrow and thus fall into a dependency scenario, or even ceding control of key public assets to compensate for imaginable default on payments (this is the case of Sri Lanka, for example, with respect to its largest port). It is true that such loans rarely constitute a massive percentage of the gross domestic product of those countries. Aware of this fact, the Chinese have agreed at times to review and renegotiate these programs, and have even expressed their willingness to allow the cancellation and cancellation of secure debts. It should be noted that these credits also serve the interests of the Chinese economy very much, especially when they allow China, among other things, to build and secure its supplies of oil and fuel, but at all times under the precept of mutual benefit.
China is also accused, through its Silk Road Initiative, of exporting its comfortable power, adding its educational style (considered the most effective in the world, according to the rating of the latest survey of the Program for International Student Assessment conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation). and Development) and the legal system. This is an ill-timed accusation when we know how the United States uses its transnational corporations to spread its values, way of life and ideology, and when we see how it uses the extraterritoriality of its law to sanction foreigners. banks or competing companies. Culturally, China claims to respect all other civilizations and needs to enrich itself in contact with them. On the legal front, it promises to fight corruption in the implementation of its systems (and not use it as a pretext to put rivals in difficulty). Recently, Beijing has even contributed to the creation of several foreign courts, as independent as possible, for intelligent relations, to resolve disputes over their loans and investments.
Thus, in a few years, the Silk Road has skyrocketed: 124 countries have already signed settlement agreements, as well as 24 foreign organizations, which together represent more than two-thirds of the world’s population. We would like to stress here that this programme is intended to exclude any political consideration. “Open to all countries” has no other objective, fundamentally, than co-development.
We also deserve to mention the alliances that China has forged with various countries, focusing on economic cooperation and the structuring of areas of lax industrial endeavor, from a multilateral perspective. Most impressive of all, as it is the largest attempted industrial agreement in the world to date, is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Association. It is a flexible industrial intent agreement signed on October 15, 2020, with the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Countries, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, representing some 3 billion people. and nearly 30% of global gross income. product. It’s an obvious success, especially after President Trump abandons a competing treaty, as he demands US hegemony, especially since industrial attempts and investment probably won’t happen. no longer in dollars, but in the national currencies of the partners. Washington is expected to respond, adding by strengthening military alliances with India, Japan and Australia, and making new introductions to the naval forces, whose transparent goal is to try to encircle China by occupying and obstructing its sea lanes. Against this backdrop, the new American administration under President Biden is likely to launch the “arms race” that once brought the Soviet Union to its knees. But this damaging escalation is no longer enough to impress a China in good economic shape and armed with sufficient deterrents.
In addition, China has powerfully developed its diplomatic network (now the largest in the world, ahead of that of the United States) and its diplomats are increasingly available and active on the foreign stage. This is not only due to his geopolitical strategy, as he has also had to deal with increasingly competitive smear campaigns.
Globalization has been, as we know, a blessing for capitalists. By giving them the opportunity to break the price chains and produce more and more segments in low-wage countries, it allowed them to increase the rates of profit whose tendency was downward and (rather poorly) the popular living of the poor classes. . . The formula of the credits helping. Financialization has accelerated social inequalities, which have reached traditionally unprecedented levels and undermined the sovereignty of states and nations. The environmental burden of globalization is now so high that it conflicts with the preservation of a habitable planet in the short term, not to mention, in the immediate future, the dangers of the spread of epidemics. All over the world (from India to Lebanon to Colombia), the capitalist formula is lately reaching its limits.
China, it is true, has benefited enormously from this capitalist globalization, but it is also true that it has done so by setting its conditions, starting with those of foreign direct investment and capital movements. The Chinese government is well aware that the benefits of this globalization are diminishing and, with them, the rates of economic growth. Therefore, more and more are turning to their domestic market, or even deeper into the national territory7.
Above all, let us hope that they will ensure that the new Regional Comprehensive Economic Association does not reproduce the same negative consequences as globalization. Respect for the co-development policy will have to go in the direction of a strict of these effects, that is to say that as a country develops, it can become more autonomous and import less. This is the paradox, but also the challenge, of the Silk Road: this program aims to increase the flow of products and maritime and land exchanges with the exterior, but through the sale of the infrastructure structure other than those of transportation, deserves and can simply inspire relocation by laying the groundwork for reindustrialization and upcoming energy production. This is undoubtedly, in our opinion, a facet that is not sufficiently articulated in the exposition of the official Chinese conception of globalization. As beneficial as clinical and cultural exchanges may be, advertising and, above all, monetary globalization lead to blind alleys. Similarly, a partial shift in the production paradigm in favor of “low technologies”, which require less capital and are more available to local users, would greatly facilitate relocation, as well as environmental protection.
We see, in the end, that it is capitalism itself that becomes unsustainable. Condemned to incessant accumulation, capitalism is incompatible with a planet of finite resources. Essentially generating ever more accentuated and scandalous inequalities, it destroys all social cohesion bureaucracy, and even many Americans. China has opted to use the dynamics of the capitalist formula to get out of its logic and expand rapidly, dominating its contradictions and containing its destructive effects. Market socialism “with Chinese characteristics” will have to gradually move further and further away from capitalism if it is to include a path of real choice for all of humanity. 8 And this is exactly its ambition: according to senior Chinese officials, and even more explicitly today, borrowing from capitalism was just a way to “cross the river”, and it will only be a very long “detour”, more or less as the New Politics deserves to have been. Economic for V. I. Lenin – road to communism9.
*****
EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publishing articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything we find interesting, to help our readers form an opinion. Sometimes we even publish articles that we disagree with, because it is vital that our readers are informed about as diverse perspectives as possible.
We’re there right now. But you can send us an email and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
Start typing and press Enter to search