1096 UPDATED Michael Hudson condemns IMF Loans & $ Imperialism, but praises China's Belt & Road

Michael Hudson condemns IMF Loans & $ Imperialism, but praises China's
Belt & Road

Newsletter published on December 29, 2019

(1) Michael Hudson condemns IMF Loans & $ Imperialism, but praises
China's Belt & Road
(2) Michael Hudson says IMF loots countries by foreclosing on $ loans
(3) A non-militaristic variant of Nazi economic policy? Yes, the postwar
Japan Miracle
(4) Henry C K Liu sees lessons for China: Nazism and the German economic
miracle (2005)
(5) Bernie Sanders' Policy on China - at odds with Michael Hudson
(6) As Bernie Sanders looks a winner, Democratic Establishment turns on him
(7) Tulsi Gabbard abstained from Impeachment vote because of 'partisan
tribal animosities'

(1) Michael Hudson condemns IMF Loans & $ Imperialism, but praises
China's Belt & Road

- by Peter Myers, December 29, 2019

Michael Hudson is one of the leading 'Left' economists in the world. The
son of Trotskyist leader Carlos Hudson, Michael identifies as a
Trotskyist, and recently attended a conference commemorating Rosa Luxemburg.

Yet, while "street" Trots condemn China over Tibet and Xinjiang, Michael
has attended several conferences in Beijing, and roundly applauds
China's economic policies; in particular, its independence of the IMF,
the World Bank, and the austerity policies pursued elsewhere.

In the video in item 2 below, he explains how the IMF makes loans to
other countries, always in $ not local currency. The goal is not to help
them out, not to get interest on the loan, but to foreclose and seize
the assets which are collateral for the loan.

These might be railroads, water supply systems, electricity or other
utilities. When the recipient country's currency collapses, and it can't
pay, the IMF seizes the collateral, forcing Privatization of the asset.
In that way, the USA lives off the rest of the world.

Hudson prefers China's economy, especially because it's state-run and
its shuns Austerity policies.

However, Hudson turns a blind eye to China's slavery at home (forcing
its workers to do 12-hour shifts for very low wages) and colonialism
abroard - where its loans are entrapping recipient countries and forcing
them to sell assets to China, much as happens with IMF loans.

Hudson also enthusiases about China's Belt & Road. I see this as a
colonial project, similar to the autobahns built by Nazi Germany, on
which its armies later marched.

Henry C. K. Liu, who was in the Gang8 forum on Finance with Michael
Hudson, praised Nazi economic policy and advocated China following it.
He may have become an unofficial adviser to the Chinese government. See
item 4.

I had suggested that Michael Hudson might make a good Secretary of the
Treasury in a Sanders administration. But he has sold out to China;
Bernie Sanders could not appoint someone so pro-China.

For more, see my webpage 'Left economists praise China, but others liken
it to Nazi Germany':
http://mailstar.net/china-nazi.html.

(2) Michael Hudson says IMF loots countries by foreclosing on $ loans

https://www.globalresearch.ca/austerity-and-its-consequences-america-threatens-to-self-destruct-if-other-countries-dont-obey-it/5698953

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xluStDQp9yE

Resisting Empire

Dr Michael Hudson

Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term
Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, and
Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of
Missouri in Kansas City. He is also the author of J is for Junk
Economics from (2017), Killing the Host from (2015), and his 1968
classic Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. His
website is michael-hudson.com

(3) A non-militaristic variant of Nazi economic policy? Yes, the postwar
Japan Miracle

- by Peter Myers from http://mailstar.net/world-war-II.html

The US and Australia are going the way Hitler envisaged for the Ukraine:
becoming mere quarries and markets for industrial exporting countriess,
as well as destinations for immigration. And worse, our populations are
being dumbed down.

Is there a non-militaristic variant of Nazi economic policy?

Richard A. Werner shows that there is - the postwar Japan Miracle. His
book Princes of the Yen is about the role of Japan's central bank in the
"miracle" years and the recent "crisis" years.

Werner is Professor and Chair of International Banking at the University
of Southampton.

Werner writes, 'Noguchi and Sakakibara were the first and only public
figures to clearly identify and acknowledge the true nature of Japan's
economic system. They called it the "wartime system for total economic
mobilization."' (p. 80).

(4) Henry C K Liu sees lessons for China: Nazism and the German economic
miracle (2005)

 From my mailing list in 2005

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:21:12 -0400 From: "David Chiang"
<chiang.d@worldnet.att.net>

http://www.henryckliu.com/page105.html

no longer at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE24Dj01.html

Nazism and the German economic miracle

By Henry C K Liu

Asia Times, May 24, 2005

[...] Hitler's economic miracle

The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy
was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero
prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent
monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works
program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped
of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in
Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact,
German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament,
in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by
the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US
entry to World War II put the US market economy on a war footing. While
this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy, the
effectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which
had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is
undeniable.

There were major differences between the German situation in 1933 and
that in 1945. Not having been a battlefield in World War I, Germany in
1933 was not physically in ruins, as it was in 1945. What lay in ruins
was its political and economic institutions. But in 1933, Germany not
only did not have the benefit of the Marshall Plan, it was saddled with
ruinous war reparations and an inoperative credit rating. What Germany
had in 1933 was full sovereignty through which the Third Reich was able
to adopt policies of economic nationalism to full effectiveness. In
1945, Germany was deprived of sovereign power and national policies had
to be adjusted to comply with US and Soviet geopolitical intentions.
Economically, the dependence on foreign investments and credit forced
West Germany into an export economy at the mercy of its main market: the
United States.

After two and a half decades of economic reform toward neo-liberal
market economy, China is still unable to accomplish in economic
reconstruction what Nazi Germany managed in four years after coming to
power, ie, full employment with a vibrant economy financed with
sovereign credit without the need to export, which would challenge that
of Britain, the then superpower. This is because China made the mistake
of relying on foreign investment instead of using its own sovereign
credit. The penalty for China is that it has to export the resultant
wealth to pay for the foreign capital it did not need in the first
place. The result after more than two decades is that while China has
become a creditor to the US to the tune of nearing China's own gross
domestic product (GDP), it continues to have to beg the US for
investment capital.

{BUT: by doing Trade as a 'tiger' economy, China gained huge Technology
Transfer; + dollars to secure future assets & with which to get other
countries in debt. Anyway, Germany 'traded' by barter. - Peter M.}

The period between World Wars I and II, like no other period in modern
European economic history, saw the success of centrally planned
economies in Germany and the Soviet Union, two major states. The United
States as the dominant victor of World War II was determined to
perpetuate its hegemony by suppressing national planning everywhere to
prevent the emergence of economic nationalism and socialism. It promoted
global market capitalism and neo-liberal free trade to keep all other
economies subservient to the US economy. It is the economic basis of the
Pax Americana. [...]

 From the very outset of his rule, Hitler, whose main short-term goal
was the economic revival of Germany with the help of German nationalist
bankers and industrialists, won popular support of the nation. Hitler
adopted an aggressive full-employment campaign. Between January 1933 and
July 1935 the number of employed Germans rose by a half, from 11.7
million to 16.9 million. More than 5 million new jobs paying living
wages were created. Unemployment was banished from the German economy
and the entire nation was productively engaged in reconstruction.
Inflation was brought under control by wage freeze and price control.
Besides this, taking into account the lessons learned during 1914-18,
Hitler aimed at creating an economy that would be independent from
foreign capital and supply, and be well protected from another blockade
and economic war. For Germans, all of the above was proof that Hitler
was the one who had not only brought Germany out of economic depression
but would take it directly to prosperity with new pride. German popular
trust in the Fuehrer rose dramatically. [...]

The financing of Nazi economic-recovery programs drew upon sovereign
credit creation techniques already experimented prior to Hitler's
appointment as chancellor. What changed after 1933 was the government's
willingness to create massive short-term sovereign credit and the its
firm commitment to retire in full the debt created by that credit.
Short-term sovereign credit was important to change the general climate
of distrust on government credit. The quick rollover of short-term
government notes created popular trust within months in German sovereign
credit domestically.

Hitler told German industrialists in May 1933 that economic recovery
required action by both the state and the private sector. The
government's role was limited to encouraging private-sector investment,
mainly through tax incentives. He expressed willingness to provide
substantial public funding only for highway projects, not for industry.
Investment was unlikely if consumers had no money to spend or were
afraid because of job insecurity to spend money to buy products
produced, and Hitler understood that workers needed decent income to
become healthy consumers. Thus full employment was the kick-start point
of the economic cycle. To combat traditional German fear of the social
consequences of appearing better off than their neighbors, Nazi
propaganda would psychologically stimulate the economy by developing a
lust for life among consumers.

Hitler stressed on May 31, 1933, that the Reich budget must be balanced.
A balanced budget meant reducing expenditures on social programs,
because Hitler intended to reduce business taxes to promote needed
private investment. To avoid reducing social programs, a large work
program without deficit spending had to be financed outside of the Reich
budget. Hitler resorted to "pre-financing" (Vorfinanzierung) by means of
"work-creation bills" (Arbeitsbeschaffungswechseln), a classic response
of using monetary measures to deal with a fiscal dilemma.

Under the scheme of "pre-financing" with work-creation bills, the Reich
Finance Ministry distributed these WCBs (three months, renewable up to
five years) to participating credit institutions and public agencies.
Contractors and suppliers who required cash to participate in
work-creation projects drew bills against the agency ordering the work
or the appropriate credit institutions. These credit institutions then
accepted (assumed liability for payment of) the bills, which, now
treated as commercial paper, could rediscount the bills at the
Reichsbank (central bank). The entire process of drawing, accepting and
discounting WCBs provided the cash necessary to pay the contractors and
suppliers. The experience of successful rollover every three months
quickly established credit worthiness. The Reich Treasury undertook to
redeem these bills, one-fifth of the total every year, between 1934 and
1938, as the economy and tax receipts recovered. As security for the
bills, the Reich Treasury deposited with the credit institutions a
corresponding amount of tax vouchers (Steuergutscheine) or other
securities. As the Treasury redeemed WCBs, the tax vouchers were to be
returned to the Treasury. Hitler increased the money supply in the
German economy by creating special money for employment. [...]

NOTE (Peter M.): Nazi Germany did all this without Gold; its economy was
fiat-based. Until then, it was  thought that you could not operate an
economy without Gold. See my article The Finance Policy of Nazi
Germany: Feder, Schacht and Hitler, at
http://mailstar.net/Feder-Schacht-Hitler.doc.

(5) Bernie Sanders' Policy on China - at odds with Michael Hudson

https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-china/

Updated for 2020!

BERNIE SANDERS ON CHINA

"Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over 3
million manufacturing jobs. It’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one
of our major economic competitors. When we are in the White House, we
will win that competition by fixing our trade policies." – Bernie May 1,
2019

China is the world’s largest economy. It also has the world’s biggest
population, and is the world’s biggest polluter, by far. Bernie wants to
change our disastrous trade policies with China, which force American
workers to compete against low-wage labor and primarily benefit wealthy
corporations. Bernie has a strong record of supporting Tibet as well as
political and religious freedoms in China. Bernie also supports
preventing foreign sales of weapons to China to prevent them from
building up their military. He opposes militarization of the Pacific.

Trade Policy: Our current trade policy with China is detrimental to
American workers.

Military Build-up: China continues to grow militarily and we must work
with the international community to deter foreign support for China’s
military buildup.

Human Rights: We must support Tibet, and call upon China to respect
fundamental human rights both in Tibet and within China.

Trade Policy With China

"Let’s be clear: one of the major reasons that the middle class in
America is disappearing, poverty is increasing and the gap between the
rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider is due to our
disastrous unfettered free trade policy." – Bernie Sanders, 2011

Bernie opposed normalizing trade relations with China. He firmly
believes that current trade relations with China are detrimental to job
growth and wealth equality in the United States. Bernie has criticized
trade deals as being "designed to protect the interests of the largest
multinational corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the
environment, and the foundations of American democracy."

The growing trade deficit with China has led to the loss of over 3.4
million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2001. As of 2018, the U.S. trade
deficit with China was $419 billion.

What is our trade policy with China?

Beginning in 1944, trade between the U.S. and China was governed under
the Bretton Woods Agreement. In 1948, the General Agreement of Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) was signed and developed into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in 1995.

Parallel to these trade agreements are U.S. laws that give China
preferential status. Congress gave China Most Favored Nation status in
1993 and passed a law to establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) with China in 2001.

Here’s a more in-depth breakdown of the U.S. history of trade agreements
with China:

GATT: the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was the first
multilateral free trade agreement. It grew out of the 1944 Bretton Woods
Agreement that removed the gold standard and created the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF). GATT began with 23 countries in
1948 and grew to 125 nations and regulated 90 percent of world trade by
1995. GATT eliminated tariffs and trade barriers and increased
international trade. China and the U.S. both joined in 1948.

WTO: The World Trade Organization replaced GATT. It oversees existing
free trade agreements and settles trade disputes like dumping low priced
goods on a market. Since the WTO’s failure to help developing countries
in the Doha round in 2006 countries negotiate their own trade
agreements. All member countries in the WTO have Most Favored Nation Status.

Most Favored Nation Status: Most Favored Nation Status means the country
is given the lowest tariffs, the fewest trade barriers, and the highest
import quotas.

PNTR: The U.S. Congress voted to grant permanent most favored nation
status to China in 2000 by passing legislation for permanent normal
trade relations.

There are two main problems with U.S. trade policy with China. The first
is the enormous trade deficit, which is caused by the mass import of
cheap Chinese goods and the reality that the Chinese don’t buy enough
products produced in the U.S. The second is that China restricts entry
to their market so that U.S. companies doing business in China must hire
Chinese workers. This gives Chinese companies production knowledge and
access to intellectual property, allowing them to make their own cheap
knock-off products. Eventually, the U.S. companies can’t compete and
leave. However, the damage to the U.S. economy and workers has already
been done. The factories that moved to China don’t return to the U.S.

PNTR with China is a large reason that there is an enormous trade
deficit between the U.S. and China. China joined the WTO in 1995 as a
developing country and it refuses to give up developing country status.
China repeatedly violates the terms of trade agreements by setting
quotas and imposing tariffs. China dumps low cost goods to flood markets
and drive competition out of the marketplace. Products shipped from
China regularly do not meet safety standards. Workers are exploited,
child labor is used. Wages are abysmal. The environment is being destroyed.

What has been the effect of our trade policy with China?

The trade deficit with China has cost the U.S. 3.4 million jobs since 2001.

In 2018, the Economic Policy Institute released a report which found
that between 2001 and 2011 alone, trade deficits with China:

Reduced the incomes of directly impacted workers by $37 billion per year.

Cut wages for non-college graduates by $180 billion in 2011 alone.

Redistributed lost income to corporations as higher profits and higher
wages to workers with college degrees.

Additionally, the U.S. trade deficit with China has increased since
China entered into the WTO.

This chart shows the trade imbalance with China:

Maybe trade agreements aren’t great for Americans, but don’t they
provide millions of jobs for Chinese workers?

Bernie firmly rejects the idea that America’s standard of living must
drop in order to see a raise in the standard of living in China. When
asked about the impact of these trade agreements for Chinese workers in
a July 2015 interview, Bernie said:

"I want to see the people in China live in a democratic society with a
higher standard of living. I want to see that, but I don’t think that
has to take place at the expense of the American worker. I don’t think
decent-paying jobs in this country have got to be lost as companies shut
down here and move to China. I want to see the Chinese people do as
well, but I do not want to see the collapse of the American middle class
take place, and I will fight against that as hard as I can."

What’s going on? Are we really in a trade war with China?

Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China is one of the most
consequential international free trade agreements, with the loss of 3.4
million manufacturing jobs as a result. The intended goal was to grant
China membership in the World Trade Organization so it could participate
equally in global trade and in turn would open access to it’s large
consumer market so that more U.S. products could be sold there. That
didn’t happen, and the already large trade imbalance between the U.S.
and China significantly increased.The PNTR was a mistake.

Granting China PNTR and facilitating China’s entry to the WTO was an
opportunity for the U.S. to demand that China conform to international
human rights standards. That opportunity was lost when the U.S. delinked
trade and human rights when dealing with China.  China has largely
ignored an unenforceable provision that created a permanent commission
to monitor Chinese human rights.

China regularly devalues its currency in relation to the U.S. dollar.
This means the products produced in China are less expensive to buy so
it boosts exports of Chinese goods, which helps the Chinese economy. It
harms the U.S. economy because the competitive advantage for China makes
U.S. exports more expensive, and so fewer U.S. products are sold.  The
result is that less U.S. production is needed to meet the reduced market
demand for higher priced U.S. goods and so U.S. jobs are lost. Granting
PNTR and participation in WTO were intended to prevent China from
engaging in these uncompetitive manipulations of the marketplace. That
hasn’t happened, China continues to manipulate its currency to gain a
market advantage by lowering the price of its goods.

In response to the trade imbalance and currency manipulation, the
current administration has started a trade war with China. In addition,
President Trump issued an executive order that declared a national
emergency over Chinese threats against US technology and added Huawei
Technologies, one of China’s largest companies, to the Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List, which makes it more difficult
for Huawei to do business with U.S. companies. The ongoing trade dispute
with China has disturbed the markets and will likely fail to reduce U.S.
trade deficits with China or stop the currency manipulation. Instead,
tariffs may make things worse. The trade dispute will hurt American
families and likely cost American jobs.

Bernie does not disagree with the tough approach to China, just the way
it’s being done by the administration. He said, "The problem is that the
Trump administration is mainly interested in addressing some of the
imbalances between America and China overall, when it also needs to
address basic drivers of economic inequality. The future of this
relationship requires both a degree of pressure on China, and reform of
the economy inside the United States itself."

What does Bernie think we should do about trade with China?

"I would be supportive of Americans workers. I think it is wrong that
when large corporations are making huge profits that they simply shut
down in this country, throw American workers out on the street, and look
for cheap labor abroad."

– Bernie May 7, 2019

In 1993, Bernie voted in the House against granting China "Most Favored
Nation" status. In 2000, Bernie voted against Permanent Normal Trade
Relations.

Bernie lists Ten Fair Ways to Reduce the Deficit and Create Jobs, among
them is stopping China’s currency manipulation.

In a 2015 editorial, Bernie wrote, "our overall trade policy must also
change for corporations to start investing in America and creating jobs
here again, and not just in China and other low wage countries."

Bernie’s Agenda for America calls for ending free trade policies.
Instead of passing such trade deals, Bernie argues we must "develop
trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here,
and not abroad."

In addition, Bernie is a founding member of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, and has at times adopted the CPC’s position papers
regarding trade deals. The CPC’s principles on trade highlight a
commitment to putting workers first, stopping currency manipulation, and
respecting human rights.

In this 2019 interview, Bernie talks about how he would deal with China.

Here’s another video where Bernie talks about China:

Other than opposing free trade agreements with China, how does Bernie
plan to keep jobs in the U.S.?

"Right now employers are able to take workers, put them in a private
room, threaten them that if this company becomes union we’re moving to
China, or say that if you try and organize the union, well, you’ve been
late lately, I’m afraid we’ll have to fire you. I think we have to make
it easier. There’s legislation, which I support, the Employee Free
Choice Act that says if 50 [percent of] workers in an agency plus one
sign a union card, they have a union. And I believe in that." – Bernie
Sanders, 2015

Bernie has announced his 2019 plan to guarantee every American a job. He
announced a similar work guarantee plan in 2018.

He is a cosponsor of the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, which will raise
the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

 From the start of 2015, Bernie has been on the forefront of the Fight
for $15. He understands that raising the minimum wage will be a
tremendous help for all workers.

Bernie has supported unions throughout his career and continues to fight
for working families. Bernie believes that in order to rebuild the
American middle class, we must rebuild the American trade union movement
as well as expand employee ownership and participation in the industry
through worker co-ops. In 2017, Bernie was given a 100 percent Pro-Union
rating by the AFL-CIO and has a lifetime score of 98%. Bernie often
joins the picket lines and supports striking workers.

Bernie has said, "Standing with workers on picket lines is something
I’ve done my entire life– that’s what I do and what I believe. Unions
are my family."

Bernie introduced the Workplace Democracy Act of 2018, which would ban
anti-union laws and make it easier for workers to organize a union.
Bernie introduced the Workplace Democracy Act during his very first term
in Congress in 1992 and re-introduced the bill every two years for
nearly a decade.

Bernie has also voted for the Allowing Collective Bargaining for Public
Safety Officers bill, which required the Federal Labor Relations
Authority to enforce the ability of public safety officers to engage in
collective bargaining. He also voted against a 2011 amendment which
would have terminated collective bargaining rights for employees of the
Transportation Security Administration.

In 2015, Bernie introduced the Rebuild America Act, which called for an
investment of $1 trillion over 5 years to rebuild and expand our
country’s infrastructure and to create over 13 million good-paying jobs.
It would be paid for by closing corporate income tax loopholes and
overseas tax havens.

In 2017, Bernie joined Senate Democrats in supporting the Blueprint to
Rebuild America’s Infrastructure Plan, which also called for a $1
trillion investment in infrastructure.

Here’s Bernie talking about the 2015 Rebuild America Act:

Bernie, along with Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (D-D.C.), announced the Employ Young Americans Now Act. This
bill, which is nearly identical to his 2018 plan, includes $4 billion in
grants to state and local governments to provide employment
opportunities to low income youths and assistance with child care and
transportation. $1.5 billion is for grants to employers, community
colleges, and local organizations, for apprenticeships and on-the-job
training.

See our Infrastructure page and Youth Employment page and Workers Rights
page for more information.

Find out more about Bernie’s plans for creating American jobs on our
Economy and Jobs page.

Military Build-up

Bernie believes we must deter China’s military build-up. Even as the
Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the early 1980s, Bernie sent letters to
China and the Soviet Union urging them to work in conjunction with the
United Nations’ international disarmament efforts. China has built
enormous man-made islands in the South China Sea with radar capabilities
and military bases in once empty international waters. Bernie is opposed
to China’s military build-up and supports continued arms sanctions
against Beijing. He has also stated that countries that export armaments
to China should be sanctioned and violators should be punished. In 2005,
Bernie voted for a bill to deter foreign arms transfers to China.

What policies does Bernie support around this?

Bernie supports an arms embargo against China that includes:

Denying participation in cooperative research and development

Prohibiting ownership and control of any business registered as a
manufacturer or exporter of defense articles or services

Revoking all licenses relative to dual-use goods or technology

Prohibiting participation in any foreign military sales Human Rights

All countries must respect fundamental human rights, including China.

As a senator, Bernie cosponsored legislation condemning the violence by
Chinese government in Tibet. Bernie has also cosponsored a congressional
resolution condemning China for its poor human rights record, and is a
member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

Watch Bernie express his support for Tibet and call out China for its
long record human rights violations:



Which policy proposals does Bernie support in this regard? Bernie has
repeatedly cosponsored legislation that pushes for China to:

Stop the persecution of all religious practitioners and safeguard
fundamental human rights.

Release all religious practitioners, Falun Gong members, and prisoners
of conscience from detention and end torture and other cruel, inhuman,
and degrading treatment.

Allow the Chinese people to pursue their personal beliefs.

Adhere to the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and
on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Respect the right of the people of Tibet to speak of the Dalai Lama and
possess his photograph.

Allow international journalists free access to China.

Provide a full accounting of the March 2008 protests in Tibet.

Bernie cosponsored the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act to permits
journalists and diplomats to freely enter Tibet.

In 1998, Bernie introduced a resolution, which passed unanimously, that
criticized China’s human rights record, supported a dialogue between the
government of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on religious and
cultural autonomy for Tibet within China, and called on the president to
make Chinese diplomatic missions in the U.S. contingent on the U.S.
being allowed to establish a diplomatic office in Lhasa, Tibet.

Bernie has cosponsored legislation condemning the human rights abuses,
mass internment and ‘re-education’ of Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic
groups.

(6) As Bernie Sanders looks a winner, Democratic Establishment turns on him
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/bernie-sanders-faces-the-democratic-establishments-wrath/

DEC 27, 2019 OPINION

Bernie Sanders Faces the Democratic Establishment's Wrath

A central premise of conventional media wisdom has collapsed. On
Thursday, both the New York Times and Politico published major articles
reporting that Bernie Sanders really could win the Democratic
presidential nomination. Such acknowledgments will add to the momentum
of the Bernie 2020 campaign as the new year begins—but they foreshadow a
massive escalation of anti-Sanders misinformation and invective.

Throughout 2019, corporate media routinely asserted that the Sanders
campaign had little chance of winning the nomination. As is so often the
case, journalists were echoing each other more than paying attention to
grassroots realities. But now, polling numbers and other indicators on
the ground are finally sparking very different headlines from the media
establishment.

 From the Times: "Why Bernie Sanders Is Tough to Beat."

 From Politico: "Democratic Insiders: Bernie Could Win the Nomination."

Those stories, and others likely to follow in copycat news outlets, will
heighten the energies of Sanders supporters and draw in many wavering
voters. But the shift in media narratives about the Bernie campaign’s
chances will surely boost the decibels of alarm bells in elite circles
where dousing the fires of progressive populism is a top priority.

For corporate Democrats and their profuse media allies, the approach of
disparaging and minimizing Bernie Sanders in 2019 didn’t work. In 2020,
the next step will be to trash him with a vast array of full-bore attacks.

Along the way, the corporate media will occasionally give voice to some
Sanders defenders and supporters. A few establishment Democrats will
decide to make nice with him early in the year. But the overwhelming
bulk of Sanders media coverage—synced up with the likes of such
prominent corporate flunkies as Rahm Emanuel and Neera Tanden as well as
Wall Street Democrats accustomed to ruling the roost in the party—will
range from condescending to savage.

When the Bernie campaign wasn’t being ignored by corporate media during
2019, innuendos and mud often flew in his direction. But we ain’t seen
nothing yet.

With so much at stake—including the presidency and the top leadership of
the Democratic Party—no holds will be barred. For the forces of
corporate greed and the military-industrial complex, it’ll be all-out
propaganda war on the Bernie campaign.

While reasons for pessimism are abundant, so are ample reasons to
understand that a Sanders presidency is a real possibility. The last
places we should look for political realism are corporate media outlets
that distort options and encourage passivity.

Bernie is fond of quoting a statement from Nelson Mandela: "It always
seems impossible until it is done."

(7) Tulsi Gabbard abstained from Impeachment vote because of 'partisan
tribal animosities'

https://www.mintpressnews.com/war-pillaging-and-peace-why-tulsi-gabbard-did-not-vote-to-impeach-trump/263657/

A VOTE OF CONSCIENCE

The Real Reasons Tulsi Gabbard Did Not Vote to Impeach Donald Trump

Gabbard’s decision had much more to do with a desire to censure Trump
over his real crimes: carrying out wars without congressional approval,
illegally "occupying and pillaging" Syria, " and continuing to support
Saudi Arabia’s "genocidal war" in Yemen.

December 20th, 2019

By Alan Macleod

Along strongly partisan lines, the Democrat-controlled House of
Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two articles,
by a total of 230-197-1 on abuse of power and 229-198-1 on obstruction
of Congress. The first stems from his alleged pressuring of the Ukranian
government to announce investigations into his political rival, Joe
Biden. The second is because of his alleged refusal to cooperate with
the investigation, withholding evidence and barring aides from
testifying. The notable "1" in both counts was Hawaii Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard, who, instead of siding with the overwhelming majority of
her fellow Democrats, voted "present" both times.

Gabbard, who is currently running for the Democratic presidential
nomination, was roundly criticized by her party for the decision. "I
really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," said Rep.
Pramila Jayapal (D–WA), "If she can’t make a decision about whether to
vote yes or no on these articles of impeachment, I’m not sure how she
intends to make those decisions in the White House." Jayapal added that
she was very disappointed and considered Gabbard’s stance a "cop out."
"These votes are votes of courage, they are votes of conscience…I don’t
think people are looking for a ‘present’ vote at the moment," she concluded.

Freshman New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also expressed
her unease with Gabbard’s decision. "Today was very consequential. And
to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave
consequence to this country is quite difficult. We’re sent here to
lead," she said.

The Hawaii congresswoman explained her stance yesterday with a press
release on her campaign website. "I could not in good conscience vote
against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of
wrongdoing," she said.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal
of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan
process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our
country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry
nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity
of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor.
Tragically, that’s what it has been."

She also introduced a resolution calling on the House to censure Trump
on five issues she implied were far more substantial. Those include
carrying out wars without congressional approval, illegally "occupying
and pillaging" Syria, "recklessly enabling" Turkey to invade Northern
Syria and ethnically cleanse Kurds (a U.S. ally), continuing to support
Saudi Arabia’s "genocidal war" in Yemen and scrapping nuclear agreements
with Iran and Russia, thereby strongly increasing the risk of nuclear
proliferation. [...]


1