Pentagon national strategy document targets China

Andre Damon

The US military published three strategic documents Thursday outlining plans for conflict with China and Russia and declaring that nuclear weapons form the “bedrock” of US military strategy.

The publication of the National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review and the Missile Defense Review comes less than two weeks after the Biden administration published its National Security Strategy, which pledged that the United States will “win” in conflict with Russia and China in what it called a “decisive decade.”

President Joe Biden meets with military leaders, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, left, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The documents double down on the fundamental assertions of the Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which declared that “inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”

Introducing the National Defense Strategy, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called China America’s “pacing challenge” while Russia was an “immediate and sharp threat.”

Austin said China remains the one adversary “both with the intent to reshape the international order and increasingly the power to do so.”

The National Defense Strategy calls China the “most comprehensive and serious challenge to U.S. national security,” and the Nuclear Posture Review asserts that “by the 2030s, the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.”

Commenting on the significance of the documents, the Atlantic Council made clear that the documents’ references to “conflict” should be understood as references to “kinetic conflict”—i.e., shooting war.

Combined with the emphasis on “Campaigning,” it sends a strong message that the world is actively contested now, and that the Department of Defense (DOD) and all of the US government is not just preparing for potential kinetic conflict, but engaged already in active contestation focused on China, and secondarily Russia.

The NDS’s focus on “Campaigning” will signal that DOD and other US departments are already conducting operations to disadvantage China—tantamount to a new Cold War. The era of DOD claiming that its activities—freedom of navigation operations, reconnaissance flights, multilateral exercises—are merely “things we have always done” is over.

In March 2020, as he was campaigning for president, Biden promised to repudiate the “first use” of nuclear weapons, writing, “I believe that the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring and, if necessary, retaliating against a nuclear attack. As president, I will work to put that belief into practice, in consultation with the U.S. military and U.S. allies.”

Biden’s nuclear strategy document not only rejects that view, but positively articulates a sweeping view of nuclear weapons as forming the “bedrock” of US military strategy.

The document, according to the US Defense Department’s fact sheet:

recognizes that nuclear weapons undergird all our national defense priorities and that no element of U.S. military power can replace the unique deterrence effects that nuclear weapons provide. Although the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack, more broadly they deter all forms of strategic attack, assure Allies and partners, and allow us to achieve Presidential objectives if deterrence fails.

In other words, the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons to respond to a non-nuclear attack, blurring the lines between “conventional” conflict and nuclear war.

In the Defense Department briefing, this point is elaborated. The NPR, a department official stated, “establishes a strategy that relies on nuclear weapons to deter all forms of strategic attack. This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means.”

The publication of the document was rapidly condemned by arms control experts. “The Biden administration’s unclassified Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is, at heart, a terrifying document,” wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk,” the UCS argued, by claiming that “the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.”

The organization continued:

The reality is, one phone call from the president and the issuing of a code shorter than a tweet could lead to the launch of hundreds of nuclear-armed missiles in less than five minutes, which would hit their targets in less than one-half an hour with warheads twenty times more destructive than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

While in fundamental continuity with Trump’s national security strategy, the document repudiates the rhetoric used by the Obama administration’s 2010 national defense strategy. As the New York Times writes of the Pentagon’s nuclear strategy,

But its contrast to the last document issued by a Democratic president, Barack Obama, is stark. Mr. Obama’s strategy—first issued in 2010 with Mr. Biden, who was the vice president at the time—aimed to drastically diminish the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defenses and focused much of its attention on keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terror groups. At the time, China and Russia were considered full partners in the effort to contain North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and dissuade Iran from building nuclear weapons.

In its introduction, the National Defense Strategy asserts that the US military “will focus on safeguarding and advancing vital US national interests,” which include America’s “economic prosperity.”

This marks a significant development from Trump’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which largely referred to the use of military force to secure economic interests in the negative—asserting that it was China that was doing so. While this was the clear implication of the 2018 document, the definition of “national interests” advanced by the Pentagon’s 2022 document to include “economic prosperity” constitutes an even more open step toward advocating the doctrine that war is an acceptable means to secure economic aims.

A section of the 2022 National Defense Strategy

These documents, which were not seriously discussed in the US media, make clear the fundamental falsehood that the massive US military buildup this year is a response to “Russian aggression.” In reality, in the thinking of the White House and Pentagon war planners, the massive increases in military spending and plans for war with China are created by “dramatic changes in geopolitics, technology, economics, and our environment.”

These documents make clear that the United States sees the economic rise of China as an existential threat, to be responded to with the threat of military force. The United States sees the subjugation of Russia as a critical stepping stone toward the conflict with China.

These documents must be taken as a warning by workers all over the world. In asserting its global hegemony, American capitalism will go to any length. As shown by the horrifying legacy of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, American imperialism is prepared to kill millions of people in the name of its campaign of global domination.

The eruption of American imperialism that began with the Gulf War in the same year as the dissolution of the USSR is more and more directly targeting Russia and China, which the United States sees as the principal obstacles to the untrammeled domination of the world. US strategists have long regarded the domination of the Eurasian landmass, with its vast natural resources, as the key to global domination.

Sri Lankan parliament passes constitutional amendment on executive presidency

Pani Wijesiriwardena

On October 21, the Sri Lankan parliament, with the support of the ruling and opposition parties, passed a new constitutional amendment. The 21st amendment, the government of President Ranil Wickremesinghe claimed, was to “limit the powers of the executive branch and ensure democracy through empowering the legislative.”

This is a blatant lie. This amendment does not limit the sweeping powers of the executive president but makes only cosmetic changes.

Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe arrives at the parliamentary complex in Colombo, Sri Lanka on Aug. 3, 2022. [AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena]

The new amendment was introduced amid deep-going popular opposition to the executive presidency after four decades of savage attacks on democratic rights, including against the Tamil minority during the nearly three-decade war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

It also follows the mass demonstrations that began in early April involving millions of workers and the poor who demanded President Gotabhaya Rajapakse and his government resign. While these developments exposed the mass opposition to the entire political establishment, the opposition parties, trade unions and pseudo-left groups, constricted these protests to just Rajapakse and his regime.

The Wickremesinghe government has insisted that the foremost “democratic” element of the 21st amendment is the establishment of a Constitutional Council. This scraps a clause in the 20th amendment, adopted by the previous Rajapakse regime, which gave the president the power to directly influence the appointment of top bureaucrats in the state administration.

Under the new amendment, the Constitutional Council (CC), which is responsible to the parliament, will appoint senior personnel to nine commissions, including the public service, national police and elections. It will have ten members, including the prime minister, the speaker, an MP appointed by the president, a professor nominated by the University Grants Commission but appointed by the president, an MP appointed through the agreement of parliamentary majority, the leader of the opposition and an MP appointed by him. It also includes someone appointed by Sri Lanka Professionals Association, and a representative appointed by Ceylon Chamber of Commerce.

The CC will also have the power to propose names for the chief justice, judges to supreme court and the court of appeal, and other high officials, such as the inspector general of police.

Notwithstanding these changes, the president can, directly or indirectly, influence the first six members of the CC because they are ruling party MPs or are directly appointed by him. The council is therefore dominated by the president, parliament and big business, and has no real independence.

The 20th amendment to the constitution, which extended the wide-ranging autocratic powers of the executive presidency was introduced after Gotabhaya Rajapakse became president in November 2019. This included the power to remove the prime minister at any time and to take over any ministry. More significantly, the president had the power to dissolve any government after two and a half years of its election. These anti-democratic powers remain intact.

The executive presidency was originally established by the United National Party (UNP) government of President J. R. Jayawardene in 1978. Current Sri Lankan president, Wickremesinghe was a minister in that administration. It made the parliament a virtual rubber stamp, with the president given sweeping powers. The president is commander in chief of all the armed forces, can declare war and impose repressive laws.

Jayawardene calculated that stronger presidential powers were required to impose “open market” economic policies and transform the country into cheap labour platform. This meant suppressing workers’ resistance to government assaults on hard-won social rights.

During its 17-year rule, the UNP ruthlessly repressed all opposition to its social attacks. In 1980, it sacked 100,000 public employees and crushed their general strike for higher wages. Systematic communal provocations against the Tamil minority resulted in the eruption of the 26-year war against the LTTE. In 1987–1990, using the communalist provocations of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) as the pretext, the UNP unleashed a violent wave of repression against unemployed rural youth in the south of the island, massacring some 60,000.

With popular opposition to the executive presidency and the whole political establishment rising to boiling point, successive parliamentary opposition parties have pledged to abolish the hated presidency. These promises have been dumped, however, as soon as they won office.

Sri Lankan Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakse admitted to parliament on October 8 that International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union and United Nations envoys often visited his ministry asking when the constitution would be amended and what provisions it would contain to restore democracy.

These international pressures would be eased, he said, but it would be helpful in obtaining IMF financial assistance if the amendment was passed.

President Wickremesinghe and his government are currently negotiating an emergency loan from the IMF to try and alleviate Sri Lanka’s catastrophic economic crisis, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine.

The IMF and other financial institutions are not concerned about the democratic rights of the Sri Lankan masses. They calculate, however, that the pretence of so-called good governance measures would help to dissipate the mass opposition to the government, as it implements finance capital’s brutal austerity demands.

The support for the 21st amendment by all the opposition parliamentary parties speaks volumes. It highlights the bipartisan agreement of the ruling and opposition parties for IMF austerity and their readiness to use the executive presidency to crush social opposition if they come to power.

The limited criticism of the new amendment by the opposition parties, even as they endorsed it, is completely bogus.

During the parliamentary debate, Sajith Premadasa, leader of Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), the main opposition party, declared: “We are voting in favour of this amendment because we want to help get this country out of the economic crisis.” In other words, his principal concern was to appease the IMF.

JVP leader Anura Kumar Dissanayake supported the amendment while criticising ruling party MPs for having previously backed amendments that increased the president’s executive powers.

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake [Photo: Anura Kumara Dissanayake Facebook]

The SJB leadership, then part of the UNP, as well as the JVP directly supported the 26-year communalist war against the LTTE, and all the associated repressive laws, including the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

These organisations silently endorsed President Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s repeated issuing of essential public service orders, as well as states of emergency to ban strikes and suppress workers’ struggles. They also provided similar support to President Wickremesinghe who has imposed essential public service orders and strike bans on petroleum, electricity and health employees.

M. A Sumanthiran, a leading Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP, criticised the new amendment, declaring that his party did not want to support any “tinkering of the constitution.” Six TNA MPs, however, voted in favour the amendment. None of this has anything to do with defending the democratic rights of the masses. The preoccupation of the TNA, a pro-US party which supports the IMF austerity, is to pressure Colombo to introduce constitutional changes for a power-sharing arrangement for the Tamil elite.

For their part, the trade unions, which are aligned with the ruling and opposition parliamentary parties, have maintained a guilty silence about these constitutional changes.

There is no section in the capitalist ruling class in Sri Lanka which defends democratic rights. From its formal independence from British rule in 1948, successive Sri Lankan governments have systematically used emergency powers to suppress the resistance of workers and the poor whilst fueling anti-Tamil and anti-Muslim provocations to divide the working class.

Elon Musk completes private takeover of Twitter

Kevin Reed

The world’s wealthiest individual Elon Musk closed his $44 billion takeover of Twitter on Thursday evening, transforming the San Francisco-based social media platform with an estimated 330 million monthly active users into his private property.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk attends the opening of the Tesla factory Berlin Brandenburg in Gruenheide, Germany, March 22, 2022. The billionaire has completed his $44 billion takeover of the social media company Twitter after a protracted legal battle and months of uncertainty. [AP Photo/Patrick Pleul/Pool Photo via AP, File]

The deal was confirmed on Friday in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by the New York Stock Exchange which showed Twitter’s stock had been delisted from the market and was no longer being publicly traded on Wall Street.

Late Thursday, Musk tweeted, “The bird is freed” shortly after he fired at least four top company executives: Chief Executive Parag Agrawal, Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal, top legal and policy executive Vijaya Gadde and the company general counsel Sean Edgett.

On Friday morning he tweeted, “let the good times roll.” Later in the day, he tweeted that a “content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints” was bring formed and that “no major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.”

However, Musk previously stated he was a “free speech absolutist” and would reverse the permanent ban on Donald Trump, which was implemented by Twitter in the aftermath of the former President’s January 6, 2021 coup attempt.

In typical arrogant fashion, Musk did not issue a formal press statement about his plans or intentions in taking over the micro blogging site which has become a critical element of public relations and instantaneous news announcements the world over. Instead, he is using the platform to tweet out short snippets of information to the public.

On Wednesday, Musk posted a nine second video of himself walking into Twitter headquarters carrying a heavy ceramic sink with the words, “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!”

In an exception to his generally sophomoric behavior, Musk tweeted a short statement on Wednesday to Twitter advertisers aimed at stemming a potential rapid drop in sales revenue. He repeated some of the things he had said previously that Twitter is “important to the future of civilization” as a “common digital town square” where a “wide range of beliefs can be debated, without resorting to violence.”

Musk wrote that he bought the platform “to try to help humanity,” that “Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences.” He concluded by saying that advertising, “when done right,” will continue on Twitter.

The billionaire Musk had originally agreed to buy Twitter in April at a price of $54.20 per share and then, with the stock market declining by 25 percent, he attempted to renege on the deal. After Twitter sued Musk in Delaware Chancery Court, he backed down and agreed to go forward with the acquisition to avoid a court battle he was likely to lose.

Earlier in the week, employees at Twitter began circulating an open letter protesting Musk’s plans to fire 75 percent of the company staff. Time Magazine published the text of the letter which read, in part, “Elon Musk’s plan to lay off 75% of Twitter workers will hurt Twitter’s ability to serve the public conversation.” The letter continued, “A threat of this magnitude is reckless, undermines our users’ and customers’ trust in our platform, and is a transparent act of worker intimidation.”

With not much good economic news to report, the corporate press has responded enthusiastically to the finalization of the private conversion of Twitter. The Wall Street Journal wrote on Friday, “By taking Twitter private, the billionaire likely can take more risks to jumpstart the company’s business.”

In its “Live Updates” coverage, the New York Times wrote, “Unlike publicly traded companies, privately held firms do not have to make quarterly public disclosures about their performance. They are also subject to less regulatory scrutiny and can be more tightly controlled by an owner. That means Mr. Musk can make over Twitter — including tweaking the platform’s content rules, its finances and its priorities — without having to consider the worries of the investing public.”

Focused exclusively on financial performance, the fact that the individual private ownership of Twitter is incapable of contributing positively to society in any way is completely lost on the representatives of corporate media.

The takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk—who has a personal wealth of $221.2 billion and also owns the electric car manufacturer Tesla and spacecraft manufacturer SpaceX—is a manifestation of the increasingly oligarchic character of American capitalism. Like Amazon founder and executive chairman Jeff Bezos who owns the Washington Post, Musk is among the wealthiest billionaires in the world who are increasingly exerting their control of the financial, media and political levers of capitalist power.

The Hijāb as a Billboard for Islamist Propaganda

Ibrahim Quraishi

As the counter-revolutionary movement intensified for over five weeks in Iran, egregious State murders indeed transformed three young brave women by the names of Nika Shakarami, Hadis Najafi & Sarina Esmailzadeh into co-martyrs of freedom and resistance along with Masha Amini, who’s initial death sparked these astounding protests over two months ago. It is time to say that in spite of horrific crackdowns, and the continuation of underground cells directed by mainly women, all those who continue to protest, all those who continue to burn their ḥijābs, deserve the full and complete support of all who subscribe to basic human values of freedom and equality. Without an ounce of doubt, these women are exceptionally fearless. They have shown an incredible reserve, a will power and an intellectual courage to no longer merely demand some supposed ‘cosmetic’ reforms, but rather, the outright overthrow of the theocratic Islamic regime.

Let’s not fool ourselves about what is actually happening in Iran now and for the last five weeks. These women are not just merely “celebrating” or marching for their freedom of expression in general political terms, no! They are fighting a piece of cloth that has come to symbolise an all-encompassing religious intolerance and zealotry as the core of a disintegrating Islamist ideology. The obligation of wearing the ḥijāb is at the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as in many other Islamic societies today. Many Iranian citizens, not only the women, have become aware how the ḥijāb has been used and abused, throughout these 43 years since the birth of the Islamic revolution of 1979, by the Ayatollahs, their religious minions, and all the other men who were and now are in power across Iran. The symbolic value of the ḥijāb must be revealed for what it really is: the female body debased as bill board for an Islamist cause.

Once again, one is reminded of the different revolts between 2017 through 2020, when university students, working class youth and unemployed youngsters throughout Iran were demanding reforms. And then, like now, women were and are at the forefront of these protests, rising up against immense injustice to raise their voices against the theocratic establishment and the Iranian religious violence in all its forms. This is not just some kind of mild transitory eruption or a mere reflection of oppressed experiences over the last forty years. An Iranian woman called Vida Movahed stood on top of a metal box in central Tehran on Revolutionary Avenue in 2017 and took off her headscarf and waved it like a flag for anyone passing by to see. This in a theocratic country where not wearing the ḥijāb is met with lashes, bodily assault, imprisonment, electrocution and even live bullets. Other brave women like Melika Qaragozlu and Nargas Hosseini refuse to exhibit remorse for demanding their basic universal rights, and consequently, continue to face horrific circumstances in Iranian prisons. Iranian women more so than their counterparts in the rest of the Muslim world (think of the atrocious situation for women in Afghanistan, Somalia or Saudi Arabia) have demonstrated tenacity,  courage and the stamina to actually stand up and resist. They rise up and fight without any weapons, leading the nation in virtually all the working-class protests against the Islamic Republic itself. It can be said that Iranian women have borne the brunt of brutal daily violence. In-spite of their second-class status, they represent over 60% of university students. They publish, they form clubs and resistant groups. They are in contact with feminists abroad and continue to fight against the political establishment and the bearded imams. A brave act of an individual or a group of women removing their scarves is not just an individual act in itself, it is a demand that expresses the collective consciousness that refuses to be silenced in-spite of all the daily barriers imposed on these and millions of other Muslim women.

The issue of the ḥijāb has been debated over and over across the West, but let’s be perfectly honest: the ḥijāb is not about modesty. Hijāb is not a cultural symbol of liberation but quite the opposite. It is a very specific cultural, political and religious marker that targets and more precisely aims to separate, discriminate and assume a very specific position between the demarcated role for women verses men. Imposed by men, it is discrimination, packaged as cultural difference. No man in Iran, or for that matter in any other Muslim country, has to cover up. No man in Iran has to prove his virginity. No man in Iran has to legally don a beard. No man in Iran has to justify who they are with in public. And virtually no “Moral Police” in Iran chases men for wearing shirts, pants, shoes and socks.

A significant point here is that perhaps while one is inside the system, one is more keenly aware of the symbolic value of the ḥijāb, much more than when one is outside of it. Of course, we in our so-called free West worry about human rights, the freedom of the individual and the rights of people to wear whatever they want to wear. And of course, we are afraid of trampling over the rights of specific minorities, and especially when it comes to Islam, many of us are even willing to negate those very hard-fought freedoms of absolute equality of the sexes (which even in the West has hardly been achieved). Some of us even speak of the virtues of a modesty in the ḥijāb  in our own midst. But let’s not compare donning the ḥijāb with wearing a Channel scarf for example, or with wearing protective facial gear while being at work in dusty environments. Rather, the hijab is a constant visible reminder of the supposed sin of being a woman: the supposed evil, potential séductrice, in need of being  held down, because she is deemed  untrustworthy,  physically and mentally feeble and seen as  being impure, thus deserving of all kinds of untold punishment that is due to them by God:  i.e. Allah, the State and men.

To argue the Qu’ran or more specifically the Surah Noor mandating the hijab as indicative for the liberty or agency for a woman is insulting at best. I am quite aware that Islam is not the only religion that has such legislation on women; indeed, some would argue that nowhere in the Qu’ran does the term hijab even signify a head covering for women.  For clarity’s sake, in the Qu’ranic context the word ḥijāb itself does not refer to women’s covering, but rather to a spatial partition in an old Testimonial context. Fatima Mernissi of Morocco pointed this out in her brilliant book, The Veil and the Male Elite many decades ago. The literal use of the idea of hijāb is more specifically connected to the supposed narrative of a screen that separated Muhammad’s wives from male visitors to his court. Other implications of ḥijāb literally go back to the Talmudic roots taken by the Qu’ran where the ancient Jewish law acted in rendering women inaccessible and unavailable to all but their husbands. In biblical times, wearing the ḥijāb came to symbolise the transition between maidenhood and womanhood within Judaism itself. During the Middle Ages, all throughout the Jewish realm, the covering of hair became solidified as a religious duty. It was during this very same period that both Muslim and Christian domains started to follow Jewish precepts on the ḥijāb. Again, feminist writers from the Muslim world like Nawal el Saadawi and Leila Ahmed have explicated this historical trajectory in their writings. The earliest confrontation with the Jewish religious authorities came in the form of wigs with a practice that began in the flamboyant French court and engulfed all of Europe. Initially decried by the Rabbinical authorities, who claimed that the wearing of wigs would enhance feminine sensuality which would evidently lead to sinful behaviour. In spite of those objections, as a matter of course Jewish communities started to accept the wearing of wigs as a normative reality.

But, the ḥijāb in the Islamic tradition makes a distinction between those who are righteous and those who are evil doers. In this regard, the bastardisation and the simplification of the term ḥijāb imposed on women can be seen in the portrayal of women as representing darkness and men as light, and this horror of interpretation has occurred throughout the vast Islamic lands. The Qu’ranic perspective on women has thus been used and abused by men to support a brute subjugation of women from all perspectives and if anything, it is about the total enslavement of the women for the pleasure and power of men. Of-course there is little criticality when the question is raised among men, who are brought up in fully-ingrained misogyny. Most men raised in a tradition of women being blamed for existing, see nothing wrong in the oppression of women and the use of violence to enforce that very oppression. Unfortunately, many women who themselves deny their own agency and buy into this religious-cultural dogma of patriarchal violence. follow silently in fear.

In a nation that brutally orders women to coverup, wearing a headscarf that is not too colourful, not too sensual, not too pretty, but no matter what, the damn headscarf has to be on even if a woman is in the midst of having a heart attack, cruelty becomes daily business. The utter ferocity against women for defying State ideology that supposedly promotes equal Islamised values and at the same time arrests, sexually violates, tortures, keeps in prison and eventually kills them, is mind boggling. Equally shocking is the fact that this regressive ideology is what many Muslim migrants in the West wish to either hold on to, or have Western secular laws accept those very Islamist morals and ethical codes that continually and unashamedly dehumanise women; even those women in our midst who have fought long for basic dignities and hard-earned equalities under Western laws that safe guard an individual’s intellectual and personal freedom, misguidedly support the wearing of hijab as a perverse kind of freedom!

For a long time already, I have been fascinated how in different countries the individual freedom of expression and speech is transformed into laws. Think for instance, how Germany has developed a legal system, regarding the wearing and distribution of its symbols of evil from its past. So, the question is when is a piece of cloth considered to be a political symbol and when is it part of the freedom of expression? What if, the women in Iran are allowed to get rid of the ḥijāb as a political symbol, maybe it then could perhaps be (re-)considered a symbol of autonomy? It seems hard for us here and now, in the West and in the East, to differentiate the freedom of expression and the symbolic value when it comes to the ḥijāb. When one sees the violence in Iran and most other Muslim societies against women on a constant basis, insisting and forcing the wearing of these symbols, one would, in my opinion, rethink one’s view on that piece of cloth. One would perhaps look differently at the presence of that very piece of cloth in our public spaces. Not all those ḥijābs and veils dawned by women in our public spheres are representations of freedom of expression as we like to think!

It is so terribly predictable that once again the Iranian government accuses both the West at large and Zionism for what it calls “social disturbances.” The Islamic Republic even dares to claim that it is “confronting enemies of state” or that “they” (meaning Jewish people) represent an international conspiracy lead by the State of Israel”, that is secretly operating behind the scenes. The utter idiocy and base anti-Semitism here seem to be the one and only pitiful official response to a genuine counter-revolutionary moment lead by women?  How insultingly stupid or gullible does The Islamic Republic thinks of its own citizenry to actually deflect its very own repressive nature by once again blaming the Jews for all of its internal and external ills.

We all remember too well, how at the roots of the Iranian revolution, many free-thinkers of that same West, women and men like Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault, were embraced and praised by the leaders of the Iranian revolution for their unconditional support. No one in the critical West and in their right mind could support, at that point, the regime of the Shah or the Savak, the Iranian secret service, but no one foresaw how so rapidly that same Iranian Revolution transformed itself into an Islamic nightmare. Of course, the images that were broadcasted on our TV -screens were themselves confusing and defied comprehension with which the speed of how a people can rise up. There was an air of resistance like the kind we had not seen before. Many Iranian women, intelligent, independent, strong, stared to dawn the ḥijāb as a symbol of anti-imperial, anti-American sentiment at that moment in time. Perhaps it was a “free choice” then and there, but what was supposedly a free choice initially, very soon became a noose. A choking obligation to take away any agency that women might possess, individually and collectively.

The Iranian State must be seen as a case of a militarised capitalistic monolith. In many ways, it has unfortunately continued the basic directions from the times of the Shah dictatorship, where the basis of the economy is characterised by the unity of its petro-chemical industry and its military. With both organisms funding all kinds of horrific terrorist organisations that exit solely to destabilise as much of the Middle East as it can, from Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, The Palestinian Territories and Israel. Since the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini and his fanatical devotees forcibly established an Islamic Republic out of the chaos of a dynamic revolution with false promises on democracy and equal representation. So much for the fanciful notions of a viable Islamic democracy? The unfortunate situation created after the Iranian revolution shut all doors of openness and joy for women. They were forced to shut their shutters of freedom and internal reflection to the religious realm. The violence of the Morality Police of the Islamic Republic of Iran has nothing to do with guidance of women. It never had. It is nothing short of a terror force against innocent women and in some cases men. The anger against the Morality Police is discernible given how women are thrown into police vans and normally beaten up while being taken to stations and then once in the complete hands of the authorities they are subjugated to more torture and abuse and unless they are from an aristocratic background or politically well connected, these women just simply languish in prisons in their thousands, without any other recourse. Given the abysmal human rights record this un-precedented act of defiance individually and collectively, these iconic images of women who are not wearing their ḥijābs anymore, setting them on fire, cutting their hair and literally risking their lives, show once and for all that women are visibly saying enough is enough while shouting “WOMEN, LIFE, FREEDOM” as we all should be shouting with them.

China’s Path to Socialist Modernization

Vijay Prashad & Tings Chak

Photograph Source: Hou Bo – Public Domain

The Communist Party of China (CPC) held its 20th National Congress from October 16 to October 22, 2022. Every five years, the delegates of the CPC’s 96 million members meet to elect its top leaders and to set the future direction for the party. One of the main themes of the congress this year was “rejuvenation” of the country through “a Chinese path to modernization.” In his report to the congress, Xi Jinping, the CPC’s general secretary, sketched out the way forward to build China “into a modern socialist country.”

Most of the Western media commentary about the congress ignored the actual words that were said in Beijing, opting instead to make wild speculations about the deliberations in the party (including about the sudden departure of former Chinese President Hu Jintao from the Great Hall of the People during the closing session of the congress, who left because he was feeling ill). Much could have been gained from listening to what people said during the National Congress instead of putting words in their mouths.

Socialist Modernization

When the Communist Party took power in China in 1949, the country was the 11th poorest country in the world. For the first time since the “century of humiliation” that began with the British wars on China from 1839 onward, China has developed into a major power with the social situation of the Chinese people having greatly improved from their condition in 1949. A short walk away from the Great Hall of the People, where the congress was held, is the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall, which reminds people of the immense achievement of the Chinese Revolution of 1949 and its impact on Chinese society.

Xi Jinping became the general secretary of the CPC at the 18th National Congress in 2012 and was elected president of the People’s Republic of China in March 2013. Since then, the country has gone through significant changes. Economically, China’s GDP has almost doubled to become the world’s second-largest economy, growing from 58.8 trillion yuan in 2013 to 114.37 trillion yuan in 2021, and its GDP expanded at a rate of 6.6 percent per year during the same period. Meanwhile, the country’s per capita GDP almost doubled between 2013 and 2021, with China approaching the high-income country bracket. In terms of the world economy, China’s GDP was 18.5 percent of the global total in 2021, and the country was responsible for 30 percent of world economic growth from 2013 to 2021. China also manufactured 30 percent of the world’s goods in 2021, up from more than 20 percent in 2012. This adds to the decades of historically unprecedented growth rate of 9.8 percent per year from 1978 to 2014 since the launching of economic reform in China in 1978. These economic achievements are historic and did not come without their set of challenges and consequences.

While delivering the report at the opening of this congress, Xi spoke about the situation that the Chinese people faced a decade ago: “Great achievements had been secured in reform, opening up, and socialist modernization… At the same time, however, a number of prominent issues and problems—some of which had been building for years and others which were just emerging—demanded urgent action.” He went on to talk about the “slide toward weak, hollow, and watered-down party leadership,” pointing out that “money worship, hedonism, egocentricity, and historical nihilism” were the deep-seated problems in a development process that was “imbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable.” These are significant self-criticisms made by the man who has led the country for the past decade.

Corruption

A decade ago, in his speech at the 18th CPC National Congress, outgoing Secretary General Hu Jintao mentioned the word “corruption” several times. “If we fail to handle this issue well,” he warned, “it could prove fatal to the party, and even cause the collapse of the party and the fall of the state.” Xi Jinping’s first task after taking over as general secretary of the CPC was to tackle this issue. In his inaugural speech as the party head in 2013, Xi said he was committed to “the fighting of tigers and flies at the same time,” referring to the corruption that had spread from the high echelons down to the grassroots level within the party and the government. The party launched “eight-point” rules for its members in December 2012, to limit practices such as inconsequential meetings and extravagant receptions for official visits, and advocated “diligence and thrift.”

Meanwhile, a year after the launch of the “mass line campaign” by Xi’s administration in June 2013, official meetings were reduced by 25 percent in comparison to the period before the campaign, 160,000 “phantom staff” were removed from the government payroll, and 2,580 “unnecessary” official building projects were stopped. Over the past decade, from November 2012 to April 2022, nearly 4.4 million cases involving 4.7 million officials were investigated in the fight against corruption. Party members have been investigated. In the first half of this year alone, 24 senior officials were investigated for corruption, and former ministers, provincial governors, and presidents of the biggest state-owned banks have been expelled from the party and given harsh sentences, including life imprisonment.

Hu Jintao’s comments and Xi Jinping’s actions reflected concerns that during the period of high growth after 1978, CPC members grew increasingly detached from the people. During the first months of his presidency, Xi launched the “mass line campaign” to bring the party closer to the grassroots. As part of the “targeted poverty alleviation” campaign launched in 2014, 800,000 party cadres were sent to survey and visit 128,000 villages as part of this project. In 2020, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, China successfully eradicated extreme poverty, contributing to 76 percent of the global reduction in poverty till October 2015.

Beyond the party’s self-correction, Xi’s strong words and actions against the corrupt “flies and tigers” contributed to the Chinese people’s confidence in the government. According to a 2020 research paper by Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, the overall satisfaction with the government’s performance was 93.1 percent in 2016, seeing the most significant growth in the more underdeveloped regions in the countryside. This rise of confidence in rural areas resulted from increased social services, trust in local officials, and the campaign against poverty.

Right Side of History

At the 20th Congress, Xi Jinping reflected on the history of colonialism—including China’s “century of humiliation”—and the implications this would have for China going forward. “In pursuing modernization,” Xi said, “China will not tread the old path of war, colonization, and plunder taken by some countries. That brutal and blood-stained path of enrichment at the expense of others caused great suffering for the people of developing countries. We will stand firmly on the right side of history and on the side of human progress.”

Chinese officials routinely tell us that their country is not interested in seeking dominance in the world. What China would like to do is to collaborate with other countries to try and solve humanity’s dilemmas. The Belt and Road Initiative, for instance, was launched in 2013 with the purpose of “win-win” cooperation and development and has thus far built much-needed infrastructure with investment and construction contracts totaling $1 trillion in almost 150 countries. China’s interest in tackling the climate catastrophe is evidenced by its planting of a quarter of the world’s new forests over the past decade and in becoming a world leader in renewable energy investment and electric vehicle production. On the public health side, China adopted a COVID-19 policy that prioritizes lives over profit, donated 325 million doses of vaccines, and saved millions of lives as a result of this. As a result of its initiatives in the public health sector, the average life expectancy of Chinese people was 77.93 years in 2020 and reached 78.2 years in 2021, and for the first time, surpassed life expectancy in the United States—77 years in 2020 and 76.1 in 2021—making this drop “the biggest two-year decline in life expectancy since 1921-1923.”

China’s communists do not see these events without putting them in the context of the long process undertaken by the government toward achieving and ensuring their social development. In 27 years, China will celebrate the centenary of its revolution. In 1997, then-President of China Jiang Zemin spoke about the two centenary goals—the 100-year markers following the founding of the Communist Party (1921) and the Chinese Revolution (1949)—that “underwrite all China’s long-term economic planning programs and contemporary macroeconomic policy agendas.” At that time, the focus was on growth rates. In 2017, Xi Jinping shifted the emphasis of these goals to the “three tough battles”: to defuse major financial risks, to eradicate poverty, and to control pollution. This new congress has gone beyond those “tough battles” to protect Chinese sovereignty and to expand the dignity of the Chinese people.