China’s Long March: from straw shoes to the fastest increase in living standards in history
Monument to the heroes of the Long March
By Stephen Bell
In early October, a No Cold War Britain campaign delegation undertook a study tour in China focused on understanding modern China via its creation and development.
The starting point was Shanghai, where, in July 1921, representatives of about 50 members formed the Communist Party of China (CPC). Only 28 years later, that party took power, creating the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in the world’s most populous country with 540 million people — but which was then almost the world’s poorest.
Today, after lifting 850 million people from poverty, and with the fastest increase in living standards of any major country, Shanghai’s over 20 million inhabitants have a skyline dominated by apartments and offices more modern than any Western city. One delegation member, seeing it, remarked: “Shanghai makes New York look like London.”
This development, in the span of a single lifetime since 1949, shows the extraordinary effect of a socialist revolution in transforming people’s lives for the better. It is by far the fastest single improvement of by far the largest number of people in human history.
The idea was to follow this process in the order in which it took place. So, we started in Shanghai by visiting the site of the first national congress of the CPC, which led this process.
The original, very modest, venue is preserved with a table laid with cups for the 13 delegates. Threatened by arrest, the founders were forced to flee to complete the congress on a boat. Few epochal events had a more modest opening.
The site museum demonstrated the background — the Chinese people’s struggle for over 100 years against the horrors flowing from the 1840s opium wars and treaties imposed by Western imperialism. Over 50 million people died in the struggles for China’s national liberation.
Successive uprisings culminated in the overthrow of the emperor system in 1911, and then the 1919 May 4th Movement against the Versailles peace conference’s decision to transfer Germany’s territorial concessions in China to Japan rather than returning them to China.
These events, coupled with the impact of the 1917 Russian Revolution, led to the establishment of the first communist group in 1920. The museum’s beautifully laid-out material ends with a plaque: “Never forget why you started, and your mission can be accomplished.”
Also in Shanghai, we visited Soong Ch’ing-ling’s former residence. She played a crucial role in securing the support of non-communist patriots to the revolution, and to oppose the pro-imperialist forces in China’s governing Kuomintang (KMT) of the inter-war period — who preferred to be foreign clients rather than establish a genuinely independent China. She became the PRC’s honorary president.
Next stop was Yudu in Jiangxi province, the departure site of the famous Long March of 1934-35. In the march’s museum, the staggering scale of its achievement and the human sacrifice necessary to create it are clear.
After over a year of incredible hardship, the Red Army arrived in Yan’an, in China’s north-central province of Shaanxi, after a march of 9,000km (5,590 miles) — longer than the distance from London to Beijing. A military battle occurred on average every 72 hours. Standard equipment on the march was straw shoes tied with string. The original force of 86,000 was reduced to 9,000 by the time of its final arrival.
This was one of the most incredible feats of endurance, not just in the Chinese revolution but in history. It laid the basis for the CPC’s role in the war of resistance against Japan’s invasion of China, which began in 1931 and lasted until 1945. The CPC emerged from this struggle with a mass army that was victorious in the 1946-9 civil war against the KMT — a triumph that transformed Asia and opened the way for today’s multipolar world.
We also visited the site of the central executive committee of the earlier Chinese Soviet Republic — the fall of this Jiangxi Soviet precipitated the Long March. But despite its failure, much was learnt. Leading a popular government in liberated areas between 1929 and 1934 created a CPC cadre capable of organising tens of millions of peasants and workers.
The experience of this struggle, and the early battles of the Long March, confirmed Mao Zedong’s analysis, compared with the representatives sent by the Comintern, leading to the continuous establishment of Mao’s leadership of the CPC from January 1935.
Jiangxi showed the extraordinarily modest conditions of this struggle — Mao and CPC cadres personally dug the Red Well site for the local peasantry, and a supreme court sat in a tiny room, where four judges presided over two adjacent desks and 10 village benches.
More formidable is the Soviet Memorial Park in Ruijin city. Here, notably, are the archaic weapons (even swords and spears) that the Red Army had to use in the 1930s in the fight against the Western-backed KMT.
Then we visited modern China’s rural revitalisation. In Rongjiang, a young woman is building a thriving industry based on traditional ethnic minority dyed fabrics, but using the state-installed internet to create national demand.
In a nearby village, we were shown round a local flower nursery by the village party secretary, a young woman from the Miao ethnic minority, with village growth focused on creating excellent social facilities for adults and children amidst great natural beauty.
In Huawu village, we saw a shrine to 17 volunteers who joined the Long March, never to return. Trees marked by a commemorative stone were planted for each. We met the grandson of one of the 17, who explained the village’s transformation, clearly visible in older, abandoned houses within sight of modern apartment replacements.
On to Yan’an, a place pivotal to China’s liberation. From here, the CPC directed its war of resistance against Japan and began the final civil war, leading to the PRC’s creation. CPC’s leaders’ living quarters were mountain caves, with an entrance, lattice-work to provide natural light.
Rudimentary lifestyle does not prevent world-shaking creativity; it was here, living in a cave, that Mao wrote his fundamental theoretical works such as On Guerilla Warfare, On Contradiction, and On Protracted War.
Then we moved on to Beijing, to join tourists sharing the splendours of the Forbidden City, Tiananmen Square, and the Great Wall.
Our last day’s visit was to the CPC’s museum, linking the heroic period of founding the PRC to the apparently more prosaic work of governing an enormous, complex country. It was for this “prosaic work” that so many had given their lives and sacrificed so much to create conditions for the peaceful improvement of the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Also fascinating was how China placed its own struggle in an international context. An exhibition reviewed the CPC’s contingent in the International Brigades of the Spanish civil war. Also prominently displayed were photos of North Americans and Europeans who served in China’s Red Army. No better ending to the tour than this reminder of internationalism’s enduring significance.
After the visit, the delegation had a discussion meeting with the International Department of the CPC, represented by Vice Minister Ma Hui. Ma provided an overview of the CPC, which included four themes.
First, the achievements meant that the “regeneration of the Chinese nation is unstoppable.” In 1949, annual per capita GDP was $30; in 2024, it was $12,000. The International Labour Organisation shows China has achieved the fastest increase in real wages of any major country in the world. Now, China is leading the world in solar, wind, and hydropower.
Second, China combined Marxism with Chinese reality to find its own socialist way forward.
Third, China has joined hands with the world’s progressive forces, as well as upholding the UN-based international order against recent unilateral attempts to overturn it. China’s Global Development Initiative and One Belt One Road contribute to international commerce and security.
Finally, the core of everything — from the early days of the CPC, through the bitter struggle for power, to the building of contemporary China’s society — depends on the support of China’s people.
A fruitful discussion then ensued on how to combat lies against China.
How to summarise? To see a development from 9,000 kilometres of marching on straw sandals to China’s ultra-modern cities, and, most of all, to see what that means in terms of improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people, is an impact no indirect report or statistic can convey.
No wonder Western media has to lie so much about China. If the people of the world, above all those of the global South, passing through the same struggle for development China has, could see contemporary China, capitalism would not survive.
The above article was initially published here by the Morning Star.
Report from the No Cold War Britain delegation to China
In October 2025, a No Cold War Britain delegation visited China for a study tour focused on understanding modern China, from its creation and development to its situation today.
A brief report of the delegation can be downloaded from here.
No to a US war on Venezuela!
By Tim Young
For the past few weeks the Trump administration has intensified its long-standing aggression against Venezuela by deploying warships (including a nuclear submarine) in the Caribbean Sea in a purported anti-narcotics operation. US forces have carried out at least five incidents of strikes on boats in Venezuelan waters to date, killing 37 people. Trump’s latest move has been to authorise the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela.
President Nicolas Maduro, as Venezuela’s current leader, has been a focus of this ‘war on drugs’ narrative, justifying the US’s illegal actions by demonising him as a ‘narco-terrorist’ engaged in drug trafficking, despite UN evidence to the contrary. The US also portrays him as being an illegitimate leader, offering a bounty of $50 million for his capture.
But overthrowing the Bolivarian Revolution has been a project of US imperialism ever since Huge Chávez became President in 1999 and set about transforming the country through a series of far-reaching measures including healthcare, education, land redistribution and anti-poverty programmes.
Key to these revolutionary changes was, and still is, the massive wealth in oil reserves that Venezuela has – the largest in the world – and the revenues generated from them. Chávez’s massive programme of wealth redistribution redirected these oil revenues to collective social purposes rather than funding the opulent lifestyle of Venezuela’s elites.
Additionally, to help realise his vision that “another world is possible”, not just for Venezuela, Chávez also envisaged (and ultimately helped create) key regional organisations to unite Latin American voices and provide progressive economic alternatives to neo-liberalism.
Aghast at what this represented, both politically and economically, the US has ever since then, in concert with the extreme right-wing elites in Venezuela, sought to destabilise the country and effect ‘regime change’.
In 2002, a US-backed military coup temporarily ousted Chávez before a spontaneous popular uprising restored him to the presidency. Other US tactics to destabilise the country have included massive funding of opposition groups to try –unsuccessfully – to win elections, coupled with disinformation campaigns to isolate the country, campaigns of violence on the streets, further coup attempts and domestic sabotage.
But the most powerful US weapon against Venezuela has been an increasingly severe set of economic sanctions, illegal under international law, designed to destroy the economy and bring the country to its knees.
The US sanctions, first introduced by Obama in 2015 and ramped up by Trump in his first presidency into a crippling economic, trade and financial blockade, led to a 99% fall in oil revenues and well over a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths.
Complementing this, Trump has at various times threatened military action against Venezuela. He also backed minor politician Juan Guaidό’s attempt to bring about ‘regime change’ by declaring himself ’interim president’ in 2019. But despite lavish bankrolling of his activities, including insurrectionary adventures, with confiscated Venezuelan assets, this attempt at ‘regime change’ fizzled out when the right-wing Venezuelan opposition ditched Guaidó in December 2022.
Throughout and to this day, the British government has supported the US’s policy, even levying its own sanctions and withholding 31 tons of Venezuelan gold worth roughly $2 billion lodged in the Bank of England’s vaults.
Despite all this, the Venezuelan economy has survived – even growing by between 5 to 6% in 2024 – though at the cost of great hardship for millions of ordinary Venezuelans.
But the political and economic dynamics motivating this drive by US imperialism to secure ‘regime change’ have not lessened.
Politically, Venezuela’s commitment to Latin American independence and resistance to neo-liberalism are anathema to the US’s historic and continuing commitment to the Monroe Doctrine. Recent progressive left electoral successes in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Brazil and Uruguay, for example, are seen by the US government as a challenge to its dominance.
Economically, Venezuela is a rich country with vast mineral reserves, but the prize is its oil. In 2023 Trump himself publicly admitted that he wanted to overthrow Maduro to secure control over Venezuela’s oil, mirroring the way he boasted in 2020 that he was militarily occupying Syria’s crude oil-rich regions in order to “take the oil”.
The overthrow of the Bolivarian Revolution would enable the US to control Venezuela’s oil and help sustain the US’s faltering economy, as well as shore up the rhetoric of Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.
But Trump is being challenged domestically, in the media and Congress. Although Congressional Democrats have long supported sanctions against Venezuela, their Senate resolution requiring Trump to seek Congressional authorisation before any further military strikes purportedly aimed at drug cartels was defeated 48-51 (with two Republicans in favour and one Democrat against).
Opposition in Latin America and the Caribbean is much more forthright. The region is clear about the enormous implications if the US were to be successful in securing ‘regime change’, especially for the future of blockaded Cuba, which has been in US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s sights for longer than Venezuela, and for heavily-sanctioned Nicaragua. Trump has also been making very similar threats against President Petro’s government in Colombia, calling openly for ‘regime change’.
Encapsulating these concerns, the ALBA bloc of countries issued a statement strongly condemning the US’s actions: “These manoeuvres not only constitute a direct attack on the independence of Venezuela, but also a threat to the stability and self-determination of all the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean (…) We categorically reject the orders from the United States government to deploy military forces under false pretexts, with the clear intention of imposing illegal, interventionist policies that are contrary to the constitutional order of the States of Latin America and the Caribbean.”
The Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC) has launched a petition urging governments and political actors internationally to join in opposing military intervention and all threats to peace in the region.
The British government has disgracefully failed to join the criticism being voiced in Latin America and the US of Trump’s illegal actions, committing only to “fighting the scourge of drugs…accordance with the fundamental principles of the UN Charter”.
A linked letter to Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper is therefore urging them to join the international effort against military intervention and in support of peace.
VSC will be joining with forces across the British labour, peace and solidarity movements to express maximum opposition to US military aggression in the weeks and months ahead.
The above article was originally published by Stop the War Coaltion here.
(9/6/2025)
To read ‘Oppose the Strategic Defence Review’, click on the headlines below or download the PDF which can be found here.
-
As anger and disgust continues to grow about a Labour Prime Minister supporting cuts to chronically ill and disabled people’s benefits, Starmer now spreads fear in the minds of millions when launching his Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
He stated, “we face war in Europe…new nuclear risks, daily cyber-attacks… growing Russian aggression in our waters… menacing our skies.”
He thanked Lord Robertson, who was appointed to lead this SDR and was the man who initiated the SDR in 1998 for “delivering a blueprint to make Britain safer and stronger, a battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances”. Be very afraid of what he describes as “this moment of danger and threat for our country” because he wants to “mobilise the nation in a common cause…every part of society, every citizen of this country has a role to play.”
This is warmongering on an unprecedented scale by the worst Prime Minister we have ever known. As CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt made clear the government is “intent on worsening the crises…increasing nuclear threats does not make us safer…it channels hundreds of billions of public funds into arms companies and their shareholders pockets….it is absolutely urgent that voices calling for a halt to this reckless war drive are heard.”
But our voices will not be heard unless we make it happen.
The SDR makes it clear “As we reform Defence and increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, the SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK.”
That is deranged wishful thinking. Starmer is clearly wanting to please the President of the United States. But it will not be enough. Trump has stated that Europe must take care of its own defence needs and increase their arms spending to 5% so the US can shift its attention to China.
Starmer was very clear about what is going to happen “We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces”
He wants to “build a fighting force that is more integrated, more ready, more lethal than ever” and as if that isn’t enough, he intends to “create an army which is ten times more lethal by 2035”.
The report also welcome’s Starmer’s launch of a national conversation on defence and security which “will involve two-years of series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends, the role wider society must play in the UK’s security and resilience, and the rationale for investing more in defence and security as an insurance policy.
He is instructing the MOD to “Work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools and expand in-school and community-based Cadet Forces across the country by 30% by 2030, with an ambition to reach 250,000 in the longer term.”
If that is not enough, Starmer wants to speed up mass recruitment by drastically shortening the period between applicants expressing interest and joining. A more modern, accommodating approach is required, including “more flexible medical and fitness standards, reducing the number of pre-existing conditions that are a barrier to entry; and shorter commitments that give people a flavour of military careers, offering them a route in while building skills and experience they can take with them for life.”
It is a shameful disgrace that the UK is one of only fifteen countries in the world that still allows the military enlistment of children aged 16. We should be ending all recruitment of children for military purposes and not making it easier or compulsory.
Starmer is sending a clear message to the rest of the EU that they need to adopt similar proposals Trump is likely to welcome. There will be a grotesque push to embrace the 5% target by others in Europe.
John Healey the UK Defence Secretary failed to rule out tax rises to pay for Britain’s “war readiness” amid some concerns that the government does not have enough money to fund the plans already outlined in the SDR. He is clear the government will “set out how we’ll pay for future increases in the future” and he is “100 per cent confident” the target would be met.
Several economists are not convinced and have warned that significant tax rises will be needed. No Cold War Britain will argue strongly against any big increase in defence spending especially when public services are massively struggling and the number of children in poverty in the UK has reached its highest level since comparative records began in 2002. In the year to April 2024, there were 4.45 million children living in a household of relative low income after housing costs are deducted - the government's own standard measure for poverty.
‘Welfare Not Warfare’ must be our message as we pursue our agenda for peace and no more wars. Everyone needs to register their rejection of the Strategic Defence Review.
-
The strategic weakness of the review is the primacy of a ‘NATO first’ strategy. With NATO dominated by the United States and its determination to maintain the US’s hegemonic position in the world this ‘NATO first’ policy has taken Britain into many aggressive wars, with or without NATO, over the last 40 years: including Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Ukraine, Palestine, Syria and Yemen. And Britain continues this aggressive military role at the behest of the US: its navy participating in ‘exercises’ in the South China Sea, its partnership in the nuclear based AUKUS pact, the U.K./Japan 2023 defence agreement, the sale of the Chagos islands to Mauritius while keeping the US/UK military base in Diego Garcia, a pivotal launch pad for their military actions.
Defence or Aggression
These wars and aggressions have caused massive destruction and the loss of millions of lives. Not one of these actions has been taken against a country that has attacked Britain, all have been acts of aggression. The UK’s subservience to the US, rather than charting a truly independent path and a peaceful approach globally, is central to the defence review.
The role the UK currently plays in Israel’s offensive against the Palestinians amply demonstrates the aggressive framework of UK policy – with the UK military providing assistance to Israel and the UK government ensuring the flow of supplies to the IDF.
Propaganda is needed to win support for increased military spending
This ‘NATO first’, subservience to the US approach has immensely damaging consequences for the U.K. domestically and for its standing globally. Falsification and propaganda are needed to try to win public support for a so called ‘defence strategy’ that includes the significant increases in military spending directed by Trump. Welfare spending and investment in infrastructure and economic development will be cut to meet these increases, industrial development will be distorted, there will be scant regard to the existential threat of climate change and living standards of the population will deteriorate. The assertion that greater military spending will boost the economy has almost no support among economists and is flatly contradicted by both empirical studies and historical experience. Moreover, the U.K. will be asked to make trade agreements contrary to its interests in support of the US foreign policy objectives. The UK’s ongoing military aggression will make both Britain and the world more vulnerable to risks and far less secure.
So, we have a ‘defence’ review when what is proposed is not ‘defence’ at all. Instead, military spending will be increased in order to continue to finance attacks on other countries whether directly or via proxies. Defence will of course be needed should any of these countries decide to respond in kind. How effective Britain’s defence will be in such an event cannot be assured by the proposed measures in the defence review. It would be madness to consider that arming a few aircraft with nuclear missiles would make Britain more secure. Security could be achieved more effectively and with no cost if the U.K. stopped threatening to attack a mightily armed country like Russia.
Also, the proposal to build more nuclear-powered attack submarines, likely to be added to the AUKUS forces threatening China, risks the launch of a US-led war with potentially devastating consequences for large parts of humanity, including in the UK.
George Robertson, who heads up the Strategic defence review told British reporters that the U.K. and its NATO allies are “confronted by a deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together” referring to Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.
And yet there is not a single shred of evidence ever given that any of those countries threaten Britain. On the contrary the UK is a willing ally of the US in its current soft power economic attacks on China and in its military build up against China. The U.K. has financed and provided military support for the US proxy war against Russia and implemented far reaching sanctions. In seeking to extend the Ukraine war, whatever the casualties and destruction, rather than do all possible to achieve a peaceful and negotiated outcome, the U.K. government increases the risks of military escalation. And yet the myths of risks to U.K. security posed by Russia and China are repeated ad nauseam in a racist propaganda war exactly designed to persuade voters to support increased military spending even if that will undermine their standards of life.
Welfare or warfare
The UK government has already succumbed to US and NATO demands for member countries to increase military spending. It plans for an increase in military spending of 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament. Initial increases will be covered by a substantial cut to the foreign aid budget but after that cuts to public services, welfare and other government departments are anticipated.
Recent figures for poverty in the U.K. show that 1 in 5 people were in poverty, that is just over 14 million people. The UK government claims it cannot afford to deal with this level of poverty and in fact it is some of the most deprived people who will experience greater hardship as a result of current government cuts to welfare spending. In these circumstances it is unconscionable that the U.K. government should consider increasing military spending in order to support US military actions. Support for people in the U.K. by engaging in peaceful cooperation and development in a multi-polar world is the alternative needed here to release vital resources.
Impact on economic growth of increased military spending
The IMF anticipates the UK’s GDP growth for 2025 will be 1.1%. This compares for example with its estimates for Russia 1.5%, US 1.8%, Brazil 2%, Saudi Arabia 3%, China 4% and India 6.2%. With U.K. growth at such a low level, investment in infrastructure and economic development needs to be a priority rather than using resources for weapons of war. Military spending, unlike other spending, produces little benefit to the overall economy. Analysis shows that military spending creates far fewer jobs than spending in other sectors. Spending on health for example is two and a half times more jobs rich than military spending.
Negative effect on UK of US soft power attacks
Each successive war that Britain has engaged in to pursue the interests of the US has undermined Britain’s reputation and standing with other countries. This matters because the US is no longer the sole global economic superpower. In effect, doing the US’s bidding has made people in this country worse off.
This is not just true in terms of trade, although that remains vital to living standards. It is also true in other areas, culturally, diplomatically and in international education and science.
As the Defence Review reinforces the overall belligerent stance on foreign policy, and will be seen as such by other countries, it will tend to reinforce this estrangement from large parts of the world
The increased risks to the U.K. from global warming
Increased military spending impacts on global warming in a twofold way: the contribution to increased carbon emissions from military activity and the transfer of resources to military spending and away from tackling climate change.
The most important issue in Gaza by far is the human consequences of the genocidal policies carried out by Israel, but researchers estimate that the long term cost of Israel’s military destruction of Gaza and its recent military exchanges with Yemen, Iran and Lebanon is equivalent to charging 2.6 billion smart phones or running 84 gas power plants for a year. (Guardian 30.5.25)
The UK’s Climate Change Committee’s assessment is that only a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve the country’s 2030 target are currently covered by credible plans. But with adequate resources “The transition to Net Zero can deliver investment, lower bills and energy security…..It is a way for the government to serve both the people of today and the people of tomorrow.” Prof. Piers Foster, interim Chair, CCC
With spending on environmental protection at 1.5% of GDP (2022) resources should be shifted from military to environment to avoid the existential threats to humanity from increased militarisation and climate change.
To conclude:
No Cold War was established as an international campaign in 2020 concerned at the increasingly aggressive statements and actions being taken by the US government in regard to China. We believe that any New Cold War (and any consequent hot war) would run entirely counter to the interests of humanity. It is from this perspective that we address the U.K. government’s Strategic Defence Review.
No Cold War Britain stands in favour of maximum global cooperation in order to tackle the enormous challenges humanity faces as a species. For the U.K. this means keeping the ‘Defence budget’ to the minimum needed for actual defence, engaging with other countries on the basis of mutual respect and cooperation and settling disputes through negotiation and dialogue rather than on paths of military destruction. Thus, monies could be used to ensure viable social protections and public services; improve living standards, equality and quality of life, for sustainable growth and development and for international relations based on fraternity.
To watch the podcast click here.
For information about the podcast click on the heading below.
(15/4/2025)
-
President Trump has launched global offensive of tariffs, with China facing by far the most intense attack. Trump's international priority is to halt China's economic advance. In addition to the new economic measures the US is taking against China, Trump is planning to step up US military resources focussed against China.
With the US planning to shift a significant part of its military resources, currently focussed on Russia to instead focus on China, Trump has demanded that European leaders in NATO implement huge increases in their own military spending.
This all raises a number of questions that need to be considered.
Given Trump’s hostility to the governments in Latin America that are on the left, how is he likely to pursue his regime change agenda in that region?
Trump has started bombing Yemen and he has given the green light to Israel to step up its massacres of Palestinians in Gaza. What can be expected as the US currently increases its pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program and also demands that Iran agrees to give up some of its conventional weapons?
Why does Trump want Europe to increase its military, with a focus on conflict with Russia, whilst at the same time Trump wants the current war against Russia to be calmed down?
Britain is wanting to demonstrate that it is taking a lead within Europe with its plans to shift resources from the welfare states to military spending. How will that effect people's living standards, the provision of public services and in particular the NHS which is already under attack?
No Cold War Britain activists Francisco Dominguez, Helen Mercer, Bob Oram, Sami Ramadani and Maggie Simpson discuss the new war drive and the fight against increased military spending.
To read the statement click on the headline below.
(25/3/2025)
-
Oppose military spending increases - Defend living standards
It is of immense concern that the British government has succumbed to the demands of the Trump administration and agreed to increase military spending from 2 to 2.5% of GDP in 2027 and then to 3% in the next Parliament.
This at a time when poverty is rising and deepening in Britain with 1 in 3 children and a quarter of adults living in poverty. So far, our government has not taken measures to alleviate these conditions and indeed attacks on welfare are set to continue. Already, most pensioners have lost the winter fuel allowance and the two-child limit on benefits remains in place. Disabled people are being threatened with £5 billion cuts. Inflation is threatening to rise again under the pressure of water, energy and other costs under conditions where the level of wage rises are already falling. This will hit all workers, and particularly lower paid ones. And government funding to tackle climate change is minimal.
A rise in military spending requires a transfer of resources and the government plans to achieve the 2027 increase in part by cutting the International Aid budget. The remainder will need to come from other department’s budgets. Moreover, military spending, unlike other spending, produces little benefit to the overall economy. Analysis shows that military spending creates far fewer jobs than spending in other sectors. Spending in health for example is two and a half times more job rich than military spending.
These attacks on Britain’s population fit in with a reactionary and dangerous foreign policy of the US administration. For now Trump will continue with his ‘ambiguity and deception’ narrative as he attempts to increase economic growth at home - something he knows is essential. At the same time, he will put huge pressure on Europe and other allies to increase their own ‘defence spending’.
Trump’s Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, has made clear that the US military’s priority is not the situation in Europe but with China. He has told the US’s European allies that they must take the lead in Europe and increase their military spending to the levels called for by Trump.
Trump needs the war with Russia and the Ukraine to end because NATO is losing it. Instead of trying to secure long term peace though, he is calling for European states to build up their military arsenals for a future return to stepping up conflict with Russia. Most West European states agree with his call for military spending to dramatically increase. For them, conflict with Russia has become a priority. Britain, France, Germany and others are already stepping up their preparations for war.
Europe’s Ursula Von Der Leyen is also running a lie on a par with the one about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It is that Russia is a threat to Europe. That is nonsense. The ratio of current military spending by European NATO members to that of Russia is 3.5 to 1. In response to Trump’s demands the proposed increase to EU military spending to 850 billion euros raises that ratio to 9 to 1. On that basis Russia is in no position to attack Europe and has repeatedly said that it would be absurd and that it has no intention of doing so.
The USA will undoubtedly prioritise projecting power into the ‘Indo Pacific’ and will likely relocate forces it intends to pull out of Europe and will continue to extend its already vast number of military bases in the region.
The proposed increases in military spending will undermine European economies and disadvantage populations. In addition the increases will be accompanied by scapegoating and promotion of racist ideas, leading to increased authoritarianism and support for the far right.
Trump’s call for European NATO countries to increase military spending should be rejected. Instead Britain and others should seek or support a resolution of the conflict between NATO and Russia. Security guarantees, mutual agreements and treaties, not an arms race, should be negotiated to create the basis for lasting peace in Europe.
Hundreds of thousands of people have already died in the US/NATO war in Ukraine against Russia. Enough is enough. Nothing good will come from raising spending on preparations for war. Securing peace and protecting living standards should be the priority.
To watch the podcast click here.
For information about the podcast click on the heading below.
(19/2/2025)
-
Trump and U.S. Defence Secretary Hegseth have opened the way for serious talks to end the war in Ukraine, after three years of fighting, by ruling out Ukraine’s membership of NATO. But there are still huge numbers of issues to be settled before peace can be achieved.
Will European leaders be able to persuade the U.S. to withdraw the promise Ukraine will not be in NATO? What will be the consequences of an attempt by European leaders to increase military spending at the expense of living standards?
What will happen to the Russian speaking minority in Ukraine and what will be the new borders of the Ukrainian state?
What attitude should the Western anti-war movement take to the conflict?
Is Trump, with the U.S. suffering defeat in Ukraine, simply trying to free his hands to attack China?
No Cold War Britain activists Helen Mercer, Sandy McBurney and John Ross, joined by Macedonian peace activist Biljana Vankovska, from former war-torn Yugoslavia, discuss whether and how peace can now be achieved in Ukraine.
Click on the headline below.
(8/12/2024)
-
1. Opening of peace negotiations without preconditions
2. Calls for a ceasefire
3. Opposition to NATO membership of Ukraine
4. Recognition of minority language rights across Ukraine and the rights of the Russian speaking majority in the East and Southeast of Ukraine
5. End all British involvement in the Ukraine war. A halt to all British arms sales and withdrawal of all British military personnel and trainers from Ukraine. The money saved to be used for strengthening of our social services instead
BUILDING A MOVEMENT AGAINST
THE US-LED GLOBAL WAR DRIVE
wHO WE ARE
The United States is leading a global war drive against China, Russia and countries in the Global South. Other Global North countries have lined up behind the US in a drive which could lead to a Third World War. Our mission is to build the broadest possible global movement to stop this war drive.