Bush, Paulson make Dellinger look like a Boy Scout
As the Bush administration attempts to ram a bailout package of nearly one trillion dollars through Congress, it begins to feel like Colonel Sanders asking the public to trust him to take care of the chickens.
If it weren’t so damn serious, there would be something almost comical about it. Here we have the White House, which has squandered trillions of dollars over eight years, and its point man, Hank Paulson, fresh from 38 years of gaming the financial system while working at Goldman Sachs, insisting that Congressional leaders hand over a trillion dollars to them with no debate and no strings attached.
In this real life drama, Bush and Paulson make John Dillinger, the legendary bank robber of the Depression years, look like a Boy Scout.
Nothing to do with socialism
This is not “socialism for the rich,” as some have suggested. Socialist measures would thoroughly clean up and stabilize the financial system to be sure, but a socialist-led government would also place the good as well as the bad assets of the responsible parties (commercial and investment banks, private equity firms, and hedge funds) into the hands of a public democratically run authority. It would turn the Federal Reserve Bank, which during the Greenspan era was one of the main architects and cheerleaders of bubble economics (hi-tech, stock market and, its latest version, housing) into a publicly controlled institution. And it would bring those responsible to trial and penalize them appropriately, if convicted.
At the same time, a socialist-led government and its congressional allies would funnel money to homeowners and working people and enact special measures to assist communities of the racially oppressed, not to mention our rural towns. It would rebuild our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure, invest in renewable energy and green jobs, and bring the Iraq war to a quick end. It would also propose the people’s takeover of the energy complex, which has also turned into a cash cow of the wealthiest corporations.
Use common sense
Does it make any sense to give control of our financial and economic system for the indefinite future to the same individuals, who while gaming the system, got us into this mess in the first place? I can’t think of anything that is less democratic or goes against the grain of common sense.
In the money and banking textbooks that I read years ago, our financial institutions and system supposedly channeled idle money to productive uses – to new technologies and business startups, to build homes and create jobs, to invest in new plant and equipment, and to construct and renew our nation’s infrastructure, while extracting handsome profits all the while.
Looking back, it is fair to say that banks and investment houses did perform this function for a period in capitalism’s development, but that period has largely passed.
Finance capital’s rise and ultra-right rule
Indeed, with the rise to dominance of the extreme right and the reassertion of power by finance capital three decades ago, our financial system has operated more or less independently of other sectors of the economy, functioned largely free of any regulatory body, and grown exponentially.
Finance capital – in its quest to maximize its rate of profit – has drained dollars from the private economy (especially the manufacturing sector) and the public treasury into incredibly risky and speculative financial schemes; it has spawned a series of complex financial instruments and paper transactions which few understand, but fabulously enrich the buyers and borrowers of these exotic instruments, most of which have nothing to do with the real economy.
Finance capital has facilitated megamergers, takeovers and corporate flight to off shore locations; it has wreaked havoc on sovereign states and their economies, particularly in the developing world; it has without as much as a thought introduced enormous instability into the arteries of the U.S. and world economy, evidenced by the frequent financial contagions at home and globally.
And, it has been one of the main class agents to successfully engineer the biggest transfer of wealth in our nation’s history from wealth creators -- the world’s working people -- to wealth appropriators, the upper crust of U.S. finance capital, while leaving at the same time our nation with an astronomical pile up of household, government and corporate debt that cannot be unwound overnight.
In short, the reassertion of finance capital to a dominant position in the political economy of our country, which was only possible because of the right wing dominance of our nation’s political levers of power, has come at a heavy price for the American people and people worldwide.
Clinging onto power
And yet, despite this incredible wreckage, this almost incomprehensible corruption, this reckless speculation, these merchants of plunder, debt and hardship are still attempting to resolve this financial crisis in a way that continues to leave them in charge of the main levers of power and their wealth intact.
As I said earlier, this is not socialism. A more apt description is parasitic state monopoly-finance capitalism. According to marxism, the main mission of the state is to reproduce the conditions for the reproduction of the class structure and economic relations of capitalism. If I am not mistaken, isn’t this precisely what Bush, Paulson and team are doing now?
Arena of struggle
Of course, marxism also says that state is an arena of struggle. While the ruling class employs the state apparatus, including violence when necessary, to impose its interests on society, a united working class and people can successfully resist these measures from within as well as outside state structures. This was done in the 1930s and in so doing, secured important victories for the nation’s working class and its allies. It was also done in the 1960s and in doing so brought down the system of legal segregation. And we see it again today in the incredible efforts of millions of working people of all races and nationalities and their allies to elect Barack Obama and larger Democratic Party Congressional majorities in November. Indeed, it is a task that takes on even greater significance given the financial storm that is shaking our country.
For the moment however, the American people and their friends in Congress are faced with a first class challenge – to impose their own imprint on the way in which this financial crisis is resolved. Let’s have no doubt that our financial system can be stabilized and restored to its orderly functioning in a way that meets the needs of the American people and our country. But will take a fight!
Sam Webb is Chairperson of the Communist Party.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Ramming through the bailout
Barney Smith, not Smith Barney
The shockwaves from the financial crisis have left working class families in every part of the country in a state of great worry and fear.
Over $100 billion of public money has been spent to bail out huge financial corporations while millions of people are losing their homes, losing their health care, losing their pensions, losing their jobs and losing college loans. Those who have been paid the least, African American, Latino and women workers, are losing the most.
The line that brought down the house at the Democratic convention says it all: “The president should be worrying about Barney Smith, not Smith Barney.”
The question could be asked: who do you want in the White House as this economic crisis continues to unfold?
The economic policies of George W. Bush, supported by John McCain, including deregulation, privatization and tax gifts to the wealthy along with the $3-trillion-dollar war, are major contributors to this crisis. They have created the biggest wealth gap in the history of our country, similar to 1929.
John McCain showed that he represents four more years of the same when he declared that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. He’s been backtracking from that ever since, in an effort to maintain his campaign image of a maverick for change.
McCain’s cynical use of populist rhetoric has to be unmasked. His hypocrisy was revealed when he reversed his position and came out in support of regulation. Not only has McCain opposed regulation in the past, but his campaign staff is riddled with 83 top Wall Street corporate lobbyists. The regulation he supports now is likely to stabilize Wall Street at the expense of working people.
When it comes to Main Street, McCain voted with Bush against raising the minimum wage, voted against aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, voted against increasing veterans’ and children’s health care, home heating assistance and Pell grants for college. Barack Obama voted in favor of all of these measures.
John McCain, like Bush, supports privatizing Social Security and gambling the small incomes of senior citizens on the stock market. Millions would have been devastated when the financial crisis hit if this basic survival income was mixed up in the market. Barack Obama opposes privatization of Social Security.
John McCain says health care should rely on unregulated private plans, “as we have done over the last decade in banking.” If health insurance providers fail like the finance institutions, the ranks of the uninsured will be swelled far beyond the current 45 million to include just about everyone else. Barack Obama supports universal health care coverage.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney emphasizes the importance of a candidate who addresses the needs of working people in the midst of the financial crisis: “Permanent solutions can be found in the economic program of Barack Obama — re-regulation of the financial markets, a government focused on creating good jobs by investing in infrastructure and solutions to our energy crisis, health care for all Americans, a government that will protect and improve Americans’ retirement security, and a guarantee that American workers can bargain for their fair share of the wealth they create.”
The financial crisis raises the stakes of this election even higher. The wealth gap can be narrowed, or it can continue to escalate, plunging millions more into poverty.
The McCain campaign is spending big money on vicious ads filled with distortions and personal attacks against Obama, to create distractions and cloud the issues.
In the battlegrounds of Ohio and western Pennsylvania, union members have been knocking on the doors of fellow workers to talk things through. They are taking on the McCain “Swift boat” attack machine by comparing the candidates on issues of concern.
Those battlegrounds are beginning to turn from red to blue. Undecided workers and their families are coming to the conclusion that “enough is enough.” They want someone in the White House who voted with labor 98 percent of the time, not someone who voted with Bush all of the time last year.
Millions of similar one-on-one conversations among working people, young people and retirees all across this country can determine the outcome of the election.
Economic crises are basic to a system that allocates critical resources for short-term profit instead of for the social good. It will take a huge mass movement to achieve fundamental changes, just as it took a huge mass movement in the 1930s to win the New Deal.
An uprising of voters on Nov. 4 can change the political balance of power, thereby opening the way for new struggles and demands that the economic crisis be solved on behalf of working people instead of on the backs of working people.
That’s what this history-making election is all about.
Save Main Street Not Wall Street!
The Bush Administration has proposed a massive bailout plan of at least $700 billion (maybe as much as $1.7 trillion) to stabilize the financial system amid the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a Bush appointee, and the President are pushing for the U.S. Congress to rapidly pass the plan this week with little debate and no amendments. The rightwing and the banks want a plan that gives a blank check to Wall Street with no oversight.
We join with others who call on Congress to slow down the process to ensure there is no bailout of Wall Street without a bailout of Main Street. The process should include full debate and transparency.
While the full extent of the current crisis and its impact on working people cannot now be fully known, we do know that the crisis is deep and not easily resolved. Furthermore, we must insist that the criteria for any plan to solve the crisis must be what's good for the working people of this county and the world, not what's good for the mega-rich and massive monopolies that got us into this mess.
The situation is so dire that some type of dramatic action is needed to avoid disaster for U.S. workers. Organized labor, community groups and others are increasingly angry at the bailout currently on the table. Any plan before Congress must:
1) Protect homeowners faced with foreclosure by restructuring mortgage rates to be in line with family income.
2) Create economic stimulus for working people and small business
3) Provide $100 billion in emergency relief to state and local governments wracked with budget cuts and diminished tax revenue
4) Bar CEO severance packages and cap the pay of executives receiving a bailout
5) Regulate banking and finance with transparent public oversight
6) Maintain public control over monopolies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that have a decisive role in the economy
7) Control speculation and increase revenues by taxing large financial transactions
8) Ban predatory lending and cap interest rates on all types of debts
9) End the war in Iraq, which is draining $700 million a day from public coffers
Developments are moving quickly and their full impact has yet to be felt, but let's make sure that American workers—those who made this country rich—do not further suffer at the expense of the financial elites, those who have created this crisis.
Call Congress today! Tell them no blank check for Wall Street!
National Board
Communist Party USA
Monday, September 8, 2008
Striking Machinists at Boeing ask: “How do you hide $13 billion?”
“How do you hide $13 billion? Do you stuff it in an airplane? Do you give it to the CEO? Or, do you share it with your workers?”
These questions are printed on union flyers being distributed by thousands of striking Boeing workers at locations in Washington state, Oregon and Kansas as the total shutdown of the nation's largest airplane maker entered its second day.
Unprecedented profits now being made by Boeing are fueling the anger of the 27,000 workers who shut down the giant corporation Sept. 6.
Tom Wroblewski, who heads the union's negotiating committee, said that in the last five years Boeing has reported after tax profits of more than $13 billion - an increase of over 828 percent from the prior five year period.
“Yet Boeing continues to offer proposals more fitting of a company in bankruptcy,” he said.
Boeing says it is not in a position to pass along increased pay and benefits costs to customers.
“We agree,” said Wroblewski, “The costs should come out of their increased profits - not be passed along to the airline customer.”
The union says Boeing will come up with many additional excuses as to why it shouldn't share its profits with its workers but that the unprecedented backlogs of unfilled orders from all over the world, together with the record profits, constitute almost a moral imperative that the workers should see some benefit. The union makes no secret of the fact that it considers itself to be in a very strong bargaining position. “They need the workers,” a union source said, “they are hiring workers every day and they still can't fill the back orders.”
It is against that backdrop that workers became particularly angry when the company proposed not increases but cutbacks in benefits when it made its final offer.
Boeing demanded, for example, that a family of three should pay a maximum of $6,000 in out-of-pocket health care costs, up from the current $4,000 maximum. In addition, it proposed slashing of both vision and dental care benefits.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
War or peace? U.S. faces a choice in the Georgia-Russia conflict and beyond
Georgia, in a geo-political sense, is an outpost of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that sits directly on the border of Russia on one side and close to the Middle Eastern theater of war and Central Asia on its other side. South Ossetia, which Georgia invaded, is at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.
Georgia actually hooked up with NATO in a written agreement it signed in April 1999 at the very start of the war the alliance began against Yugoslavia. Georgia also has signed bi-lateral agreements with the U.S. Both sets of agreements are designed to protect Anglo-American oil interests in the Caspian Sea basin as well as pipeline routes. Since the signing of the 1999 agreement the country has received large amounts of U.S. military equipment.
There is plenty of evidence that Georgia acted with at least the knowledge, if not the encouragement, of the neo-cons in control in Washington.
In mid-July, Georgian and U.S. troops held a joint military exercise called “Immediate Response” that we now know involved 1,200 U.S. and 800 Georgian troops.
The Associated Press reported July 15 on an announcement by the Georgian Ministry of Defense that had stated “U.S. and Georgian troops will train for three weeks at the Vaziani military base” near the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. The exercises were completed less than a week before the Aug. 7 Georgian attack on South Ossetia.
A day after the U.S.-Georgian war games began, the Russian Defense Ministry started its own military maneuvers in the North Caucasus region. No surprise, but no comfort to those who seek a world without danger of war.
Who knew
While NATO and U.S. military advisers likely did not participate in the Georgian military operation itself, it is clear they were involved in planning and logistics.
Israel, for example, admits that the ground assault mounted against South Ossetia by the Georgians on Aug. 7 was aided by Israeli military advisers. Israel also admits to supplying Georgia with Hermes-450 and Skylark unmanned aerial vehicles, which were used by the Georgian military in the weeks leading up to the attack and at the war games with the U.S. A military jet factory on the outskirts of Tbilisi is producing Su-25 fighter jets, under the supervision of technical personnel from Israel.
When the police try to figure out who committed a crime they start by making a list of the crime’s beneficiaries. In this conflict those who see their long-term interests served by a broader U.S. – Russia military confrontation benefits more than even the right-wing despotic government of Georgia. The neo-cons in Washington and the big oil interests around the world, salivating over the world’s largest supply of “black gold” in Russia, want to see how far they can push the Russians in this region so they can plan even bigger land and resource grabs in the future. The right-wing despots in power in Georgia, meanwhile, want to take over two little autonomous border regions.
We can assess whose interests come first by carefully analyzing what happened.
If the big objective was to achieve Georgian control over the provincial government in Ossetia, we would have seen a very different type of operation. Well trained special forces would have been sent in to occupy key political buildings, communications networks and a variety of other major institutions. Instead we saw all out bombing raids on residential areas, hospitals and even a university. Provoking Russia, rather than giving South Ossetia to Georgia, was the aim. The South Ossetian and Georgian people were not clamoring for the chance to kill each other. They were not itching for the chance to jump into a civil war. Both, in fact, are victims of those who don’t mind creating a broader Middle East and Central Asian war to serve the long term interests of the ultra-right in the U.S., leading circles in NATO, multi-national oil corporations and even those looking for a launching pad for an attack on Iran.
The Russians continue to yell about the dangers inherent in NATO arming of Georgia. Sergey Lavrov, the country’s foreign minister, told Russia Today on August 9, “It all confirms our numerous warnings to the international community that it is necessary to pay attention to massive arms purchasing by Georgia during several years. Now we see how these arms and Georgian special troops who had been trained by foreign specialists are used.”
Moscow’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, sent official notes to the representatives of every NATO country a day after the Georgian attacks. He shared with them intelligence information the Russians had gathered. According to Rogozin, Georgia had initially planned to “start military action against Abkhazia (another autonomous region on the Black Sea that Georgia wants to control) but Abkhazia was too well fortified and unassailable for Georgian armed forces, therefore a different tactic was chosen aimed against South Ossetia, which is more accessible territorially. I have no doubts that Mikheil Saakashvili (Georgia’s president) had been cautioned about his actions by his sponsors – the people with whom he is negotiating his entrance into NATO.”
The argument that the attack on Ossetia was an orchestrated provocation against Russia is strengthened too by the fact that a Georgian occupation of South Ossetia was never militarily possible. The swift Russian success in repelling the invaders proved that.
From the point of view of NATO militarists a humanitarian disaster was just as much, if not more useful than a Georgian military victory – so it was the humanitarian disaster they went for.
It brought about the expected result – a swift response from the Russians, now angry that NATO was waving a red flag in their face and none to happy about 34,000 South Ossetians streaming into their country as they fled Georgian attacks. Needless to say, the Russians also weren’t happy about all their dead peace keepers in Ossetia – the first to be killed by the invading Georgians.
A test or more?
We still don’t have the answer to the next logical question: Was this simply a test to see how far Russia could be pushed or was this part of a deliberate neo-con strategy to not only trigger a Russian response but suck the Russians into a bigger conflict, first with Georgia and later with other Western forces? If it was the latter we run the risk of the conflict escalating into all out war.
There is evidence that the neo-cons are willing to risk at least some serious escalation. Georgia has the third largest contingent of “coalition” forces in Iraq after the U.S. and the UK, with some 2000 troops. Georgian troops in Iraq are now being repatriated in U.S. military planes, theoretically at least, to fight Russian forces.
It would not be beyond a few in the Bush administration, some observers note, to use these troops and Georgian troops already in Georgia as canon fodder against any massive deployment of Russian forces.
By early May of this year the Russians began sending out alarms about the destabilizing effect of continued Western arms shipments into Georgia.
Wired News on May 19 quoted the Russian defense Minister: “Georgia has received 206 tanks, of which 175 units were supplied by NATO states, 186 armored vehicles, of which 126 were supplied by NATO, 25 helicopters, of which 12 were supplied by NATO, 70 mortars, ten surface-to-air missile systems, eight Israeli-made unmanned aircraft, and other weapons.
The Interfax News Agency reported on Aug. 7 that the Georgians were, at that point, waiting for delivery of 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns and mortars, 14 combat aircraft including four Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, six surface-to-air missile systems and other arms.”
On top of the steady flow of U.S., NATO and Israeli military equipment into Georgia there appears to be a steady flow of personnel provided as “trainers” and “consulters.”
The Pentagon admits to at least 100 “military trainers” in Georgia. A Pentagon spokesman said “there are no plans to re-deploy the 130 U.S. troops and civilian contractors who we now have stationed in and around Tbilisi. Some say the numbers stationed there are much higher.
Georgia and NATO
Although Georgia is not officially a part of NATO it can almost be described as a “de-facto” NATO state now.
First, under a March 31, 2006 agreement between Moscow and Tbilisi, Russia’s two Soviet-era military bases in Georgia – Akhalkalaki and Batumi – have been closed down. The Russian pullout from Batumi began in May, 2007 and the last Russian troops left Batumi the first week of July, 2008. Six days after they left the U.S. began its joint war games with Georgia and 29 days after they left Georgia attacked South Ossetia. If that doesn’t qualify as a provocation it would be hard to imagine what would.
Second, well before the last Russian troops pulled out Georgia’s president bragged that his country was already a real part of NATO. In a 2005 speech at the inauguration of a military base in Senskaya he boasted that the base “fully meets NATO standards.” Soon after Georgia opened a second military base at Gori which the Georgian president also said would “comply with NATO regulations in terms of military requirements as well as social conditions.”
BTC pipeline
A July, 2006 report by Global Research sheds a great deal of light on the reasons for Israel’s participation in the movement by the West to arm Georgia:
Israel is a partner in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which brings oil to the Eastern Mediterranean. More than 20 percent of Israeli oil; is imported from Azerbaijan, of which a large share is pumped through the BTC pipeline. Controlled by British Petroleum, the BTC pipeline has dramatically altered the political realities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucusus.
“The BTC pipeline considerably changes the status of the region’s countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel,” Komerzant reported in July of 2006.
The Global Research report noted that “while the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will ‘channel oil to Western markets,” what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian Sea would be directly channeled towards Israel, via Georgia. In this regard, an Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel’s main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.
The report notes that Israel’s objective is not only to acquire Caspian Sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian Sea oil back to Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian Sea oil are far reaching.
Israel, therefore, has a major interest in “protecting” Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors and in channeling both military aid and training to Georgia and Azerbaijan.
The first major military cooperation agreement between Tbilisi and Tel Aviv was signed a month before Georgia signed its first agreement to work with NATO. It was signed in 1999 by then Georgian President Shevardnadze and then Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The military agreements were, of course designed to undermine Russia’s presence and influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
The current crisis in Georgia, then, is the result of a long process of escalation and confrontation pursued by the neo-cons, intent on world domination. It has the potential, if not curbed, of creating a situation far worse than what we saw in the Cold War era.
Most Americans, it is safe to say, don’t know the details behind the events unfolding these days in the Caucasus. As they discover them, however, it is safe to say they will opt for economic cooperation and friendship with Russia over confrontation and war.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Labor Department's Secret OSHA Rule
AFL-CIO Executive Council statement, August 05, 2008
CHICAGO – For nearly eight years, the Bush administration has failed to protect the health and safety of America's workers. Within weeks of taking office in 2001, President Bush supported and signed legislation repealing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ergonomics standard—a rule that was 10 years in the making and would have prevented hundreds of thousands of serious injuries each year. Driven by an intense anti-regulatory ideology (except when it comes to imposing new onerous and intrusive regulatory burdens on labor organizations and their representatives), the administration has withdrawn dozens of worker protection rules that were under development and has failed to issue new health and safety rules on serious hazards such as silica, diacetyl and crane safety. During its entire tenure, the administration has issued only two major OSHA rules, and only as a result of union lawsuits. Employers have gotten the message. In far too many workplaces, worker health and safety is given short shrift, as we have seen in tragedies such as those at the Sago Mine, BP, Crandall Canyon and Imperial Sugar, as well as the continuing fatalities from collapsing cranes, falls, explosions, occupational disease and other hazards.
Apparently, eight years of harmful neglect are not enough for the political ideologues at the Department of Labor. Now, in a last-minute action, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao’s political operatives are moving quickly and secretly to adopt a rule to tie the hands of future administrations and cripple their ability to adopt new rules to protect the health and well-being of America's workers. On July 7, 2008—without any prior notice to the public, and in violation of the Bush administration’s own policy of not issuing new proposals after June 1, 2008—the Department of Labor sent a proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. The proposal, which was developed by political operatives and not experts within OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), would dictate changes in the way OSHA and MSHA assess the risks posed by workplace hazards, and would erect new procedural hurdles for adopting new regulations in the future to protect workers from these hazards. The public outcry from unions, worker safety and public health advocates, leaders in Congress including Rep. George Miller and Sen. Edward Kennedy, scientists and others has been swift, and it is growing as this secret last-minute action gains more attention.
This administration has done enough damage to worker safety and health. The Bush administration should withdraw this secret rule. If it does not, Congress must act to stop this cynical midnight regulation.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
CPUSA Statement on the China Olympics
Author: CPUSA
First published 07/22/2008 17:23 by {article_topic_desc}
The Beijing Olympics represent a vision of the kind of future for which the Communist Party USA strives: a world where people from hundreds of countries come together peacefully to enjoy a common cause.
205 states will participate in the Olympic games, many of whom are in conflict with each other. Iraq and the United States, Israel and Palestine, Russia and Georgia, the D.R. Congo and Rwanda, Sudan and Chad: All of these nations and dozens more will be part of a single, peaceful event.
Further, these Olympic Games will take place in a country that, despite some inevitable mistakes and setbacks, has and is continuing to move tens of millions of people out of poverty and works internationally to ensure a peaceful world order.
Millions of people will have the potential to see, with their own eyes, China’s accomplishments. In only a few short decades, according to UN bodies, China has taken more people out of poverty—in raw numbers and per capita—than any other nation in the history of the world. Modern cities have flourished, and while pollution and migration remain problems, these issues are being tackled quickly.
The thousands of people who go to China for the games will see the tremendous strides China has made in the past 25 years, strides towards greater openness and self expression.
Therefore, the Communist Party USA strongly opposes any attempts to politicize, disrupt or boycott the Beijing Olympics.
It goes without saying that we condemn the July 21 terrorist attacks in the Chinese city of Kunming, as well as the recent riots sparked by a small number of perpetrators in Lhasa, in China’s Tibetan Autonomous Region. We are resolutely opposed to all forms of terror, and can never support violence against innocent civilians.
It is no secret that there are many who would like to do whatever is possible to undermine China’s status as a peacefully rising power. We urge the world community to respect China and not interfere in its internal affairs.
While in general we believe everyone has the right to dissent, we fully agree with International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge, who said:
“We do ask that there be no propaganda or demonstrations at Olympic Games venues for the very good and simple reason that we have 205 countries and territories represented, many of whom are in conflict, and the Games are not the place to take political or religious stances.”
We believe that any call for a boycott of the Beijing games should be completely rejected.
