oh I'm doing pretty good got lots of lots problems and a lot of decisions and but I'm feeling pretty good that's important well that's the important thing yes how you've been getting along pretty good thank you thank you sir you you had a nice holiday I take it well I enjoyed I enjoyed my Christmas very much had my two daughters there and rather quiet good weather and things like that we were we were very pleased that your gift of your papers it was was a source of great satisfaction to us and pleasure on the part of our very close friends who saw the gifts and even some one man read it read part of the book well yes they'll they'll do better with the years because there were so few of them and they they represented least best we could do in two years and I think they there will be some very interesting ones down through the years the remarkable papers there I still talk about that speech at the University of Michigan I think it was a very very very fine speech the one on I just been working on this budget I'm real worried about it I'm down now to the strategy question of the get more by asking for more of asking for moderate or as for less just to exactly how I go about it I'm gonna shock them a good deal I expect to the preliminary one this morning about 13 and a half billion well it's gonna be the defense that was pretty well predicted last year they say it wasn't but it was Russell got on CBS tennis got on NBC and the various committee chairman Jerry Ford got on they all said it'd be around 12 billion that's what it's gonna be that's that's what it is it's about four billion money and about eight nine billion obligations are contracting for ships and for planes that won't be delivered but you have to under the budget system you have to list them a year your quorum that doesn't bother me and that's that'll be voted unanimous practically won't be any problem what does bother me is my budget last year was 99 and plus and this year it's going to be but close to 115 yeah which is a whopping increase of six 15 16 billion now good deal of that is that is Vietnam the good deal of its great society too and I've got all these new programs to fund here's a sample of what I'm up against we have a school bill for impacted areas not spend mostly southern areas where you have Richmond Virginia or something where they are Norfolk Virginia where they have a naval base and you build up your troops so the families in there and with the mother and the two children there while her husband's off at sea and that we give them between three and four hundred million the impacted area it's a very popular program with Congress well that's fine but I've got to get a billion for the elementary school bill so I'm going to cut impacted area and still give the schools the Norfolk schools on the basis of eight and nine hundred million more a day this year but it's going to raise hell by cutting impacted area and I just came good conscious give them both because I don't have it I'd get 120 billion for that that's right but the schools are actually going to get to say four times as much as they got last year schools per say but the name impacted areas kind of like a school lunch program you might buy them steaks and better dinners and banquets and everything but if you cut out that school lunch yeah but another thing in order to get my poverty around like I want it I have to cut something one thing I'm cutting is milk school lunch program to children whose parents can afford to pay well this is also another one of those touchy areas where a name means something that's right they don't but we're not going to put a sign on them and say my daddy doesn't have enough to pay we're going to pick school districts where they upper echelon and unless they in the rich areas the Long Island areas they know use of just having a free lunch program giving them milk to all the people there they can pay for the milk and we don't want a means test but that'll save us good even money and they won't really be opposed by anybody except the milk producer but I get all them bad on poverty I've got lots of static building up there Dirksen and Ford and McClellan some of them a little combination of many we've been getting some bad publicity bad breaks on it around the country I'm going to give it some increase over last year but I'm not going to give them anything like what they like to use but I've drafted 500,000 of their boys and I've spent a billion four hundred million in Appalachia in contracts and words is training a hundred thousand of them and the employment dropped again today unemployment 4.1 and we estimate it'll be three next year so you can't go on if you if we if we've getting that kind of jobs you see that's right but I'm going to give them more and I give them last year I noticed Dirksen and Ford built up a little flak there for you and McClellan they then Russell yesterday they all going after great society as soon as they hit town and they gonna say that we got to fight a war so we can't do any of these other things my general position is gonna be that we are rich enough and powerful enough that we can do both I'm glad here you say that I thought that would be your position we're not going to reduce really anything domestically this year except something like that as I told you the impact at school there but when we came in Kennedy Johnson we had about three billion that was health education welfare this year I moved it up to seven something next year I'm moving it up to close to 11 on the overall picture you aren't retreating an inch I'm going I'm going I'm going I'm going up way to hell up that's why our budgets going up to 114 1314 15 somewhere there but what they say they say I cut well I got requests of 125 billion and you get requests from every state but you their quest kind of do it the question is what I'm doing this year compared to last year and I'm fighting the war and doing a hell of a lot more on all the products the difference in the base where you it's whether you count what they ask for and that you were cut from or whether what you count what you did last year is against what you're doing this year now we got another problem that's our HUD and Mr. Weaver and what we do over there I've got a task force report and it's a rather exceptional report I recommend one thing it recommends is we take community action put it in HUD and I think it normally that would be reasonably good they were task force was all of them for doing that except Kermit Gordon wasn't and Whitney Young wasn't but this fellow Robert Woods of Harvard MIT he headed it up do you know him I know obviously he's exceptionally able I understand he's very able he's exceptionally able he doesn't have standing up they all do it on the ferry the city is where our problem is and we've got to have some muscle in the city cabinet agency and that's where the community action is that's where it ought to be run my theory I think he makes a very convincing argument but I can't quite buy it now purely on the basis the politics I think if we spread it out among different cabinet offices where we don't have one salesman at the top of it that we a don't get the image and be we knock it off and see they can defeat it easier and can kill it easier I think in due time we might do that but I'm a little afraid to do it now I'm going to be a little bit different do you have any reaction on that my reaction has never been very strong on that on the transfer of community action that is from poverty program over to HUD that's right what they do is really reorganize poverty out of existence you give words that neighborhood youth core and and the job core and you give a gardener the head start and the educational angles that head start thing with the president is ten strike oh it's one of you thought about it's the best thing we've got absolutely wonderful it's a no I'm not tired of credit for it although I supported me Johnson that supported it and we have very strong part and with crazy about this is Johnson's identification with it makes it a chance and project and it's just wonderful I won't try the best I can to start that this year abroad in the African countries and Latin American countries Asian countries I'm gonna hit them with three things minor amount of money but the principle kind of like Roosevelt got REA started he had to do it by executive order he couldn't get a bill through it didn't see start off $25 million I've got over 300 million my budget part now but he got it started so I'm gonna try to take some aid money and start head start programs in these countries where the kids come in get examined physically we have a health program and they all are inoculated for cholera and malaria and things that kind and I'm gonna try to drive a cholera out of 10 or 15 countries in malaria and things that kind and I'm gonna have read and write and stood all these PhDs coming to exchange and the Fulbright program 50 60 million I'm gonna let about 30 go for them I'm gonna try to take 30 40 and put in teaching kids read and write and test the answer to your specific answer to your question I haven't given it much thought it does seem to me that that it there's a good deal to be set for it being over there community action city problems urban problems and muscle that you need there I just just haven't gone into all the in-outs and butts about it I'm sorry that that I don't and not able to offer you anything more definite than that but I can't see really any evil in transferring it and I don't know that I see any take your evil and it's staying where it is I think we'll just try to write it out for a while and so I let's driver let's driver try to get it appropriations anyway and then maybe we'll be strong enough and maybe clean up but we create a little difficult now we get on the weaver saying I you know about me I you know about let me say the right at the outset you have the right to select your own family and you have the right to select the man that in your estimation you feel will do the best job he's got to carry out your policies in your program that's be close to you let me ask you this question don't don't don't you have a feeling or do you you don't need to say anything if you don't don't you have a feeling that this man would be loyal to me if I named him wouldn't he be to his dying day grateful that I made him the I've had it on what I think he would be very grateful I I think he I'm pretty sure he would I have no doubt about that I do feel this that there's a lot to be said for what you the reason you advanced before the business of driving and the difficulties of creating this thing and I remember especially your long-range prediction that what a little look a year from now that's what I'm worried about but I'll tell you how I'm trying to give some thought to that I've watched him very carefully and I've given him every chance in the world stump his toe and he had he just functioned as perfectly as you would have and I'm trying to think about I had the best man I know in this department that's completely objective that doesn't give a ticker down about we ever are the Negro question to go out and write me a summary of his views and I just got him that's why I called it's written at full 15 January 5th and I read you this memorandum I asked him today at launch when I was talking about HUD and various problems in it who he thought I ought to make administrator and I gave I told him that I felt that we were not a very sensational fellow and not a very intellectual fellow and not a very driving fellow and not a fellow that was much I didn't be an innovator in


Hello everyone welcome thank you all for joining my name is Leanne and I am the education director at the people's forum, which is a political education and revolutionary culture center based in New York City. I'm really excited for this very urgent conversation today and I want to thank you all for joining everyone who's participating on zoom or on YouTube. And especially to our wonderful group of speakers that we have with us today, Jodi Evans, Tabitha Chow, Sheila Zhao, Charles Xu, Molly Hurley and Eric Sperling. So if you didn't know this is the second in a two part conversation on the escalating US led aggression on China. Last week we had a really great panel that helped us understand better the situation and sort through the disinformation that's characterizing the discourse around China, coming from both major US political parties. I'm joined by Danny hayfong, Kenneth Hammond tanks check, Mikhaila Erskog, Alice Slater and Vijay Prashad and Jodi Evans of course and together they gave us some much needed clarity. We heard comments on the history of the US and China relations and US aggression on China. We also heard about how media and political narratives help promote war and sinophobia, and some of the alternative media projects, like Dong Feng collective and try continental Institute for social research that are available to us. We also address the false narratives that's aimed to delegitimize China's relationships on the African continent. And we heard very clearly, what are the real and urgent stakes in this issue. And the consequences of hybrid or direct or even nuclear conflict cannot and war cannot be underestimated, and it was very clear after that discussion that there is an urgent need for a broad based campaign for peace, and against this US like cold war on China. So, no matter what anyone's opinion is on the intricacies of Chinese politics or US politics or economic policy or social policy, and wherever anyone identifies themselves within different leftist or progressive or anti war spaces. It really is undeniable that any escalation will be and already is horrifically destructive for the international community and the international working class. So if you didn't get a chance to watch that first part of this conversation I encourage you to check it out. It is on our YouTube channel people's forum NYC and I'll post those links shortly in the zoom and the YouTube chat. So today we're here to pick up the conversation where we left off on this call for a broad based campaign for peace. So lucky to have with us today an example of what this broad based campaign might look like with speakers who do incredibly important and urgent work in different sectors and with different approaches and orientations, but with a shared commitment to peace and end to this cold war. So we will hear from each intern and then we will hopefully have some time for questions. If you are on the zoom, you can submit any questions using the Q&A button on your screen. And if you're in YouTube you can post them in the chat and we will collect them from there. I would like to start by first giving a warm welcome to Jodi Evans. Jodi is the co founder of Code Pink and the after school writing program 826LA. She has been a visionary advocate for peace for 50 years. She's produced two books stop the next war now with Medea Benjamin and Twilight of Empire responses to occupation with Viggo Mortensen. And also, she produced many documentaries shadow world and most dangerous men in America are just a few of them. Welcome Jodi and thanks so much for being here. Thank you Leigh Ann, and thank you Rita for supporting us today and thank you to the team of the People's Forum for hosting this important discussion can't think about better place for it to happen. This is, Leigh Ann said, you know, last week we we heard about the seriousness of the Cold War in China but colder hot it's already a war. It's a hybrid war, and the first weapon has been sanctions, and underlying that is all the money that is being used to utilize. They to our weapons. So, you know, we started code pink in response to the same pattern bush was frightening the American war, and the American people to support a war with his color coded alerts, orange, red and yellow. We called code pink for peace. After 20 million people marched in the streets across the world, we didn't stop that war. We have to learn the lessons from that. No matter how outrageous and wrong, this is for a million reasons, those empower those who make money off of it, don't care. Greed and imperialism are blind to the needs of human beings and the planet. The media works for those more mongers, and will deliver their lives no matter how many times you correct the lies with facts. Congress will lose their minds and think that dropping bombs delivers peace. The war machine and weapons companies who are small then have more than tripled in size and they are co-opting everything. Women run four of the five major weapons companies, which is nothing to do with feminism. And now they are poaching on young black girls and stem to bring them into the war machine. We used to stand outside high schools to protect students from army recruiters it's become even more insidious. The lies have been crafted to tug at hearts to point the finger at China, even though as VJ reminded us last week. There was not a Korean war. There was a US war on Korea. There was not a Vietnam war. There was a US war on Vietnam. And like with Russia. This is a Cold War driven by the US on another country.   No way to treat anyone. The Korean people did not want to be attacked the Vietnam people, Vietnamese people did not want to be attacked. And the people in Iraq did not want to be attacked. I was there. I can tell you what it felt like being to be in Iraqi when the United States decided to drop shotgun on them. A country that had just experienced a terrorist attack terrorized another country of 35 million people. I watched people shake. I watched what it feels like. We do not want to do this. We're already, you know, crushing Iran with sanctions and Venezuela with sanctions and Cuba with sanctions. We know what that looks like and how devastating that is to human life. We also know this is not just about China that like with the attack on Iraq, it destabilizes an entire region. So, you know, our mantra it could pink is China is not our enemy. The US loves to divide and conquer. When I was in Iraq just after the invasion I met the intelligence officer in Bremer's office, Bremer was essentially in charge of Iraq. The intelligence officer made it clear that they were separating the country into Shiite Sunni Christian and curve to divide and conquer, and they were partnering with Iran to keep the instability. The reason the US keeps troops and countries is to keep destabilizing. This gives them and the military contractors power and the capacity to pick your pockets for more money to make them rich. Today's panel is about how we engage now. First and foremost, we need a big tent. I'm grateful to the people's forum and everyone here today to show that this is a concern of everyone alive on the planet, and to all our different issues, no matter what our values and our interests and our commitments. We need to be directing it towards this Cold War. The big tent, you know, who isn't against imperialism militarism and more if you really break it down for them. We know it leads to nothing good, but the rich getting richer at the cost of people and planet, and all those that have any issue that will be depleted or if this path continues. Those of us who live in the belly of the beast, the largest terrorist organization on the planet that can wreak havoc far and wide and pay no consequences. We need to be engaged. The Democrat who is head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when the vote to go to war in Iraq was before him, said yes, we must bomb Iraq to peace. He is now president of the United States, and is bringing all those with him who were wrong. They have not been held responsible for over a million Muslim deaths. They have not been held responsible for 4 million displaced refugees. And they are again, wanting to drive us to war. And this time with China. Once we Biden bully China by alleging they acted irresponsibly at the beginning of covert a lie that has been debunked by the head of the US CDC, but it continues to be a cheap talking point of the media and those in power. He also talks about sitting at the head of the table of the world. Hello, we feminists feel like it should always be around table, but the hubris to think a country that is failing in all the markers that make a country healthy should be sitting at the head of a table is beyond problematic. The commitment to US hegemony must be stopped. Not to mention that, you know, it spent 19 years destabilizing the Middle East and spending $5 trillion doing it. While US streets are overflowing with those without a roof over their heads or food to eat. While China, at the same time has lifted everyone out of extreme poverty. So we need to educate and mobilize. One of the things I learned and organizing against wars and for peace is that it's hard for people to have a relationship with war to understand and engage with something that's so abstract and far away. So what the climate change movement have seen, except those people that are really feeling the expense of it and young people who know it means their future.  So one of the things is how do we engage what one of the first places that we can have a fact is to rise up against the lies and hate. And I'm going to talk about racism and xenophobia and I'll let Sheila and Charles take that on later, but it code pink we're using this as an opportunity to teach about what is happening by directing an action at Kamala Harris, the first Asian American vice president by calling on her to back down the Biden administration on their hate and lies. We also have a chat at code pink or backslash Kamala. Last week we delivered 5000 signatures to her home in Brentwood her apartment in Washington DC, and through three close advisors of hers we delivered it to her email. We are continuing to collect signatures and we will deliver a new batch every week until we see the Biden administration backing down. We will be holding Congress members who are willing to rise up on this important issue that understand the costs and the responsibility that Congress has their Congress right now their attention needs to be on the knee. Their attention has to be on the needs of the people, not more war, and I'll leave that to Eric and Toby who can take us deeper into that. We do have to engage movements where a cold war in China will deeply affect their work. We need to be cooperating on health care and pandemics. We need to be cooperating on the climate crisis. We need to be learning about poverty alleviation and agricultural breakthroughs. So these movements need to be with us as we stop with a road their work. But, you know, we also have to remember that war militarizes our lives here in the United States and militarizes our streets, and we'll create more surveillance, more insecurity, which results in more militarization and controls within the US and more excuse to take away our civil liberties. We are currently crafting a letter to Biden on the environment for the environmental movement, calling on him to understand that what we need is cooperation, not war, and the China is not our enemy. Just this week, there was a really good example of how to engage. There's always things happening on Twitter and in the media where you just need to speak up and be a teacher. This week it was Senator Marsha Blackburn, who tweeted China has a 5000 year history of cheating and stealing. Some things never change. What a great place to just pile on some teaching. I see many of the folks on the panel here, we're climbing, we're climbing on but we, we don't want to let that go just check her out and give her some, some of your own teaching and remind her that what she said is racism. And, you know, it's a really great opportunity don't back down keep piling on. There's a lot. You can be learning and teaching while you go. We have to stand up to everything. Everything they throw at us, we need to make a discussion, we need to create a moment of teaching. And so, for the last few weeks it could pink. We've been trying to stop the appointment of Michelle Flournoy to the Department of Defense. Here is a woman who was for the Iraq war for the bombing of Syria at the bombing of Libya and who's now urging the Cold War on China. And she wants it to justify even greater military spending because she wants to spend a trillion dollars on new artificial weapons and cyber warfare and drones, but she was said that she wants to be able to bomb the entire China fleet 300 military vessels submarines merchant ships within 72 hours. She spoke those words. There were troop deployments in the South China Sea to conduct antagonistic roving war games. I mean, near to nuclear powers. China and North Korea. This is insanity. So we've watched a campaign to stop her and, and it's been one of the leading conversations around Biden's appointments, and it needs to build. We're going to sign on at code pink dot org, not her, and use the hashtag, not her. Because this is a great opportunity to unmask us imperialism, the revolving doors between weapons manufacturers in the White House, which exposes the greed beyond behind all these wars. Please join in. We're launching a letter from feminists that will be up tomorrow. So another important way to engage your communities and movements are understanding that this is not a Cold War like Russia. This is not a lie about weapons of mass destruction. These are two nuclear powers. And the US are the only ones who have dropped a nuclear bomb and dropping just a few more would take us to a nuclear winter. And it would be the end of life on earth. We're not a game we're playing. And I'll let Molly talk about this more later. Find an issue that is you relates to you. Find the group you want to learn more with be engaged, the warmongers never sleep. What I learned from trying to stop the Iraq war is we need to want peace as much as they want more. They are driven by an addiction to power and money, and we by the love of life, each other and the generous planet that supports our existence. And so sharing on how to engage have ways that you could be engaged code pink. We have we hold monthly women weekly women webinars on China's not our enemy you can find them at code pink.org backslash China, and keep up with the news from China. Check out the Dongfang collective. We must be engaged there. This is where we can stop imperialism. It is going to take all of us. This is the most critical conflict of our time. If you do that, if you engaged with all your passion, those around you will pay attention and join with you. Thank you for all you do for peace. It happens in communities, and it happens from our hearts. Thank you so much Jodi for that great analysis and call to action and for all of the crucial work that you and code pink do and have been doing for peace every day. That's many offerings for people to get engaged and stay mobilized and hopefully everyone can stay posted and participate. So I would like to introduce to beta chow. To beta is the director of justice is global, a special project of people's action to build a more just and sustainable global economy and defeat right wing nationalism. This work focuses on countering the growth of xenophobia and anti Asian racism by building us China internationalism grounded in organizing Chinese and other Asian diasporas who are being directly impacted by these trends to be to thank you so much for being here and welcome. And thanks to Jodi for the overview and for inviting me to this event and thanks everyone who's spending your valuable Sunday weekend time with us here. So the role that that I've played at justice is global this year around the US China conflict is a lot of it is as a convener. We have a broad array of different groups to talk about analysis and strategy around this conflict so we work with like climate groups, public health, economic justice foreign policy, just groups that work on a wide range of issue areas, trying to clarify how we all have in place a shared stake in stopping this conflict. We also work with Asian American community organizations and grassroots groups and that's the piece that I've been asked to speak to in particular today. I want to start by talking a bit about my own stake in this work from my perspective as a member of the Chinese diaspora here in the United States. So, long story short this growing US China conflict puts me at risk it's a threat to my future here in the United States. The more the United States the US government the US state sees China as an enemy. The more people in the US are going to see people of Chinese descent as an enemy. This is going to impact not just people of Chinese descent, but a lot of other Asians, and sometimes even indigenous people who are going to suffer because the racist in this country just can't be bothered to tell us apart. Right. And we've already started to see this this year as this conflict has escalated drastically under the covert 19 crisis. Early in February so very early on in the crisis I witnessed my first anti Asian hate crime in downtown Chicago where Chinese American women just about like 10 feet ahead of me was confronted and assaulted, and a complete stranger came up to her and just spat right into her face. Such an alarming thing to see so early in the crisis. It's just such an active just deep dehumanization. Since then during the course of the year others I know other Asian Americans in the US have been targeted with harassment with assault. There's been targeting both around blaming people for the pandemic. There's also been suspected of being spies, and this is connected to the claims that the Chinese government is stealing technology from the United States that translated into just people thinking like any Chinese person around them might be a spy. We've also seen a rise in racial profiling policies from the US government targeting people who come here from China. And I think perhaps other speakers will talk more concretely about about that later on so I'll maybe leave that for now. But so we've seen this massive escalation this year. We can anticipate that under a Biden administration, the trajectory of this stuff is going to change but it's not going to fundamentally change. It's not going to end fundamentally this trajectory of growing conflict with China and anti Chinese politics, unless we can build the power necessary in order to change it. But so that's my stake just about my own status here in the United States. But there's also an international aspect to this. I have friends and family across the Pacific. So I have loved ones in Asia, who are threatened with being stuck in the middle of this conflict. And if it gets bad enough, they could end up getting hurt. And you know beyond the people that I know personally and care about personally. When I think about the violence of the US military getting used just against anyone who looks like me on the other side of the Pacific. That's that's very painful to think about. So whatever our background here on this at this event, like we all share a sense of horror when US state violence is used against anyone. But when it's when it's targeting someone who looks like you it just it hits different and it carries a different personal meaning. So that's, that's, that's the perspective that I bring to this work. It's not just my perspective. So like I said before I've been working with a number of Chinese diaspora organizers and other Asian diaspora organizers to build solidarity and to build power around this same perspective. So, you know, this approach is, is not just to build power around countering this anti China politics just within the Chinese diaspora, but working across lines of ethnicity and nationality. So, this includes people from like Hong Kong from Taiwan from Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, and so on. And I think like across these lines of ethnicity and nationality we all have a shared stake in how rising anti China politics and this movement is leading into increasing racism that impacts all of us here in the United States. We also have a shared stake in preventing escalating US China conflict from threatening the well being of people in all of our countries of origin, all a whole range of countries in Asia and really across the global south are at risk of getting caught in the middle of this US China conflict and as we saw in the 20th century, Cold War countries that get caught in the middle of a conflict between two great powers can be crushed, they can be crushed, they can be crushed economically, they can be crushed militarily and millions of people can be made to suffer in the name of a conflict between two other great powers that they have no power over. So we need to work together to stop that. So we are some of the people in the United States who have the clearest personal stake in stopping this new Cold War. And that means that we have to lead the movement against it we have to lead this movement we have to exercise leadership with the broader left. And there are some challenges for us because given our place here in like white US society. We are always taught that our position in this society is to be a follower and not a leader, we're taught that our role is to be useful to the agenda of like some other person probably a white person rather than like setting our own agenda. And we need to we need to step up and play a different role in the anti war movement in the years to come. So, you know I want to name that one consequence of this approach of building power across these lines of you know mainland Chinese Hong Kong or Taiwanese Vietnamese and so on, is that we have to take seriously the critiques that that they have of the Chinese government like from their perspectives. So as organizers in the US our target is the US government, but they also have from their perspectives critiques of the Chinese government.  If you're familiar with some of these tensions you can you can imagine so some of my comments for example in the Taiwanese diaspora have taken me to task for some things I've said about Taiwan. That didn't take seriously enough the legitimate concerns that people in Taiwan have about China and the Chinese military. This led to like very tense conversations. And it was a struggle for me to like, like be fully open and not defensive in those conversations, but that tension turned out like very productive. And so we came up, we came up with much stronger relationships, a sense that we have each other's backs. And I think that my politics improved as a result of navigating those tensions and facing up to them directly. And by grappling with that we together we can build greater power and a sense of shared purpose across these lines of ethnicity and a nationality, because we have a shared sense that this increasing conflict between the US and China is going to make people more vulnerable in the US. And it's also going to make people more vulnerable across the Pacific people in mainland China but also in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea across Southeast Asia, all of these countries. It will also, I believe like make oppressed people, including Uyghurs and others in mainland China more vulnerable I think it just feeds into a nationalistic and authoritarian politics within the Chinese government. So overall, the approach here is that whether you're, you know, whether you think the biggest threat to you and or like people in your country of origin is nationalism and militarism like within the US or within China. We have a shared stake in stopping this US-China conflict. And here in the US that means exercising leadership to build a new anti-war movement. So again, this can create tensions that are difficult to navigate, but in my experience it also greatly increases the power that we're able to build by entering into that space of tension and trying to create something constructive out of it. I think it also increases our ability to build power beyond Asian diasporas. It gives us a different way to respond to critiques that I'm sure we've all encountered where if you, once you start talking about how a US war with China would be disastrous, which is just obvious. People respond by accusing you of, you know, throwing people from like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Uyghurs and so on like under the bus. And in my experience, coming from a perspective of saying like if you care about those issues, you also need to share with us the agenda of ending this US-China conflict, because that's only going to make everyone more vulnerable and put us all at greater risk. That is, that's been a powerful response in my experience organizing around these issues. So, I think, so, you know, I've been talking about organizing within specifically Asian diasporas. I think there are ways that we could expand this that I'm interested in exploring. I think there are other diasporas from like other parts of the global south, particularly Jodi mentioned Africa and how Africa, many African countries are getting stuck in the middle of this US-China conflict. I think there's a similar approach to take, potentially with like leftist from African diasporas around like what's our shared stake is this like broader set of diasporas encountering the US-China conflict. And, you know, I'm also interested in exploring the potential for organizing leftists in the Uyghur diaspora who can share this analysis with us. And that gets that, you know, that's an exceptionally tense issue when it comes to US-China, the US-China relationship and in criticisms of China within US political discourse. And I think there is some real potential there as well. And again, beyond that, building solidarity across groups that work on different sets of issues like climate, like public health, like economic justice and so on. We need to dig in and really make clear the stake that they have in this anti-war movement and building like a much larger block of organizations that are united around this agenda, while also crucially increasing our own power. Like we need to build our own power as well while also building up these alliances. That's the work that we've embarked on this year at Justices Global and, yeah, in it for the long haul because this is going to be the work of years if not decades. And grateful to be in this with you all. Thank you so much, Tobita. It's so true we have to be in it for the long haul and stay committed to this process. And very much appreciate your words and the work that you're doing. Next, I would like to introduce Sheila Xiao. Sheila is one of the co-founders of Pivot to Peace and has been building power in her community to stop the Cold War that's building towards China. Sheila is an institutional research analyst at Rio Hondo Community College in Southern California and she's born and raised in San Francisco. Recently, Sheila facilitated a really brilliant panel for Pivot to Peace. Chinese Americans united to reject the new U.S. Cold War on China. I encourage you all to check it out. And Sheila, the floor is yours. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much, LeAnne. And thank you again to the People's Forum for organizing this and all of the speakers on the panel today as well as last weekend. And I especially want to thank Jody and Tobita for setting up the stage for this. Again, my name is Sheila Xiao and I am an organizer and co-founder with Pivot to Peace. I was born and raised in San Francisco to a Chinese immigrant family and I'm now speaking to you from Los Angeles so I really like that Tobita set up the conversation by talking about what our stake is as people of Asian descent. You know, this issue hits very close to home for myself, for my family, for the people that I've organized with so I'm very thankful for this panel and teaching today. So now that we've kind of had a chance to hear from the experts from last week's teaching about China's development, a lot of people don't know anything about China's development, China's role in Africa and so forth. I think it's quite important for us to discuss what we have to gain as Americans with peace and collaboration with China rather than confrontation and aggression and really how do we build the movement around the shared goal and a shared point of unity. So the group that formed Pivot to Peace began meeting basically early January of this year around this shared goal, right. We are a body made up of not only American peace activists who have been in this movement for decades, but also veterans, lawyers, judges, academics, and so forth who are just so deeply concerned about the rampant escalation in really the China bashing that we've seen over the past couple years as a result of this really incredibly disturbing reorientation of US military foreign policy that deems China as an adversary. And we know with the history that Jodi laid out in the beginning, this ultimately leads to major power conflict if there isn't a significant grassroots force to stop it. We've seen this reorientation impact the consciousness of everyday Americans in the US that it has not only generated fear, but deep hatred against China and as a consequence Chinese Americans, and Asian American people which we've already kind of talked about and the earlier speakers. And, you know, currently in mainstream media or politics, you know, in our view and Pivot to Peace, there really is just no room for any debate about China. That is fair or balanced, right much of what we hear in the media has a dominant narrative with a pro war agenda, one that promotes the biases and distortions. In which the bottom line conversation about China begins with the assumption that China is a great evil that the US is competing against. And many people really lack even the basic historic knowledge and understanding of China's past with colonial subjugation as well as not just the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in the US but the many different anti Asian policies along the way up until today. You know, a lot of folks don't know that one of the worst mass lynchings in the US or were mass lynchings of Chinese labors here in Los Angeles. So, we in Pivot to Peace believe in fair and open communication of information about China. It's economic social political affairs that's free from from fear mongering free from racism. So, I personally think that a unique aspect of Pivot to Peace's work is that we are very much dedicated to mobilizing both the Chinese American public and the non Chinese American community. And our founding members are actually respected members of the Chinese American community and actually have a deep history in the civil rights movement of the 60s and the 70s. Along with seasoned anti war activists as I mentioned earlier we are a very diverse group of people. And while we can debate about US foreign policy on China. I think there needs to be a space in the anti war movement as to be dimension.  What does this new Cold War mean for the broader Chinese American community. You know if you're Chinese or Asian American you are not just simply contending with foreign policy right it's not a debate about China's policies versus US policy.  So, we, of course, have seen this exponential increase in hate crimes against Chinese and Asian Americans, since the onset of coven 19, and the scapegoating of China and Chinese people in the mainstream media and by US officials alike and I just want to mention here like, you know, in January when COVID first was picking up wind in the media anti Chinese racism and just kind of the China bashing was so intense but now we've seen, you know, it has proven that coven 19 was found much earlier in other nations and other countries around the world but it's almost like we've forgotten about all the China bashing that happened in the beginning of this year. So, you know, in February of 2020 this year actually before the lockdown before the pandemic became a thing here in the US. The numbers in Pivot to Peace organized a rally in San Francisco's Chinatown where over 1000 Chinese Americans came out to demand an end to this scapegoating. Some of the first people to actually mobilize around this and the slogans that they use were fight the virus not the people. Personally, this was one of the most inspiring events of my activist life in my years of organizing in the anti war space because I had never really had the opportunity to do this type of work within my own community, especially in the community I grew up in San Francisco. And yeah, you know I think that it's just this alone is important to know because it's these kinds of voices these kinds of experiences that desperately need to be amplified into the mainstream and into the movement, and we must take a stand against us aggression and the human cost of these policies. There was a tension to a platform called stop API hate that is already doing this kind of work. This platform was developed by Chinese for affirmative actions, San Francisco State University and Asia Pacific Policy and Planning Council, where people can now use this platform to report hate crimes against the API community. This is the inception of March 2020. More than 2700 I think it's 2800 now hate crimes have been reported onto this tracker. So if you haven't already I highly encourage people to follow the work at stop API hate. The website is stop API hate dot org, and they also have done some great reports and analysis of the data that they've gathered. Racism is just part and parcel of the US war drive, as we've seen in histories past right. Again, I really wanted to echo the patterns that Jodi outlined earlier in this teaching about this country is devastating track record of weaponizing racism in this way. As Leon mentioned pivot to peace held a webinar that was titled Chinese Americans United against the Cold War, where many members of the esteemed and many esteemed members of the Chinese American civil rights community came together to speak about just the souring of US China relations and how it has deeply affected our community from a really great historical narrative of anti Chinese racist history to Obama's pivot to peace strategy to the impact of the first Cold War of McCarthyism. One of the speakers spoke about how McCarthyism affected Chinese Americans during that time, which I think is often missing from the conversation about McCarthyism. And also, the, the, the webinar we had talked about the case for collaboration with China. With the impending climate catastrophe. It's important that we collaborate with and work with countries that are making the pledge to preserve our planet and for the sake of humanity, right. In California we are hitting yet another massive lockdown right in time for the holiday season, right. There is no identifiable solution in sight for the containment of this virus in the US. And every day like it's just devastating to watch the news, as we see record highs of death, record highs of cases. We ought to learn from other countries such as China and also many other nations with far fewer resources than the United States that have really dealt with this virus successfully. And so we need to push the American consciousness to look beyond the facade of racist scapegoating towards process of prosperous future of collaboration for all humanity. I've often heard people say, Well, what you are advocating for is all well and good. And yes, we agree that we should not be, you know, advocating for war with China, but it shouldn't stop us from criticizing the Chinese government. And one of the speakers on our last webinar said, you know, he certainly disagrees with many policies of the Chinese government. But then he asked the question, is this reason enough to justify war? Is this reason enough to foment such hatred among the American populace. So we know that feeding into the propaganda machine is feeding into racism. Our place as peace loving people in America is to stop the war atrocities created by the US government as people as Americans in the belly of the beast, that includes firmly opposing policies that directly fund or metal into the affairs of other countries we've seen the devastating effects of this over and over and over again funded by our tax dollars that we did not agree to pay for. And recently I saw a tweet that said that it only takes two to 3% of the US war budget to solve the COVID-19 crisis here at home. So shouldn't this be our priority, along with working towards poverty alleviation, universal healthcare and housing for all. So, when we think about building a movement for peace, we not only need to understand the issue from a foreign policy perspective, but we must not forget that this affects human lives right what COVID-19 has exposed for us is that the, the model minority myth of why was always conditional for Asian Americans, we Chinese and Asian Americans Americans can never hide from our ethnic origin and will always feel like we have a target on our backs so long as this Cold War rhetoric and propaganda persists. So, how can people here get involved in this movement. Well, first, being in this teaching is a great first step, and I encourage people to read and sign Pivot to pieces mission statement, we hold webinars on these types of issues and we get them all translated into Chinese captions so that we can really begin to mobilize and reach the Chinese American community to let the Chinese American community know that we do not need to live in fear because of the current conditions, but instead work together with the broader peace movement to fight back against this bigotry war and, you know, an aggression. And there is a point of unity there for this to be a multinational movement. This affects not only Chinese Americans, but all Americans. So this is really the perspective of pivot to peace, the type of work we do and again we encourage people to follow our work at peace pivot.org. Thank you so much. Thank you so much Sheila and for all the work that you are doing with pivot to peace and elsewhere and I hope everyone follows and participates in everything that Sheila mentioned. Next I would like to introduce Charles Xu. Charles is from the child collective, a collective of diaspora Chinese challenging us aggression on China. They aim to equip the US anti war movement with the tools and analysis to better combat the stoking of a new Cold War conflict with China. Thank you so much Charles welcome. Hi everybody. I'd like to start by thanking the people's forum for organizing this event, and by positioning ourselves as child collective. As Leon mentioned our website describes us as quote diaspora Chinese media collective, challenging us aggression on China. In doing so, we have to remember that the people's Republic of China once was within living memory a North Star from much of the Western left. And of course the two have largely lost contact and gone separate ways. I think we really need to examine the reasons why, and to heal this rift, especially with the new Cold War on China approaching a terrifying speed. After all the US left played the decisive role in the domestic movement to end the Vietnam War, largely because it's most radical elements identified so fully with the official enemy. So as for the diaspora Chinese part, both to be done Sheila have spoken to this very movingly, but again I want to reiterate we and child collective do belong to the Western left. By virtue of our geography our acculturation and our involvement in local struggles ranging from tenant organizing to police abolition. But we, and or our families hail from across mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia and as such we have a foot in both worlds, and we're in a unique position to bridge that divide. Now, as for the media collective component, hopefully all of us can agree that the relationship between the Chinese left and the Western left would be enriched by having all voices represented, especially those that usually get filtered out before reaching the other side. For example in the West, we rarely hear from those on the Chinese left, who broadly support the government, they're not uncritically, who don't openly advocate for Western style capitalist democracy, and who aren't some flavor of quote unquote dissident usually elevated by Western media. And we virtually never hear what original insights these people might have about American politics. This kind of intellectual gatekeeping is very kind of productive and harmful. So their translations of writings by for example to do she on the US electoral politics by to do on the George Floyd uprising, and by to chew on the US pandemic response all for a Chinese audience, we aim to start filling that gap. Conversely, the Chinese left isn't as much in dialogue that should be with the US revolutionary left. But many of us in China have thrown ourselves personally into the George Floyd uprising and into the ongoing movements for black liberation for police and prison abolition for indigenous sovereignty and decolonization. We have the immense honor of working alongside groups like black alliance for peace, red nation and anti conquista in a common front against us colonialism and white supremacy. We're especially indebted to our comrades at red nation for pointing out that the US military and circle man of China intensifies the colonial oppression of Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa and many other Pacific Islander peoples. And much of our Chinese language social media presence is actually dedicated to bring awareness of these shared struggles to a Chinese left audience. Honestly, we've been pleased to see these analyses picked up as talking points by high level officials as well. For example, while training spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry now routinely drops zingers and her press conferences about police lynchings or the genocide of indigenous people in the United States. Let's not be so quick to dismiss that as what about ism. It originated during the Cold War to deflect criticism of the horrors of Jim Crow apartheid in the US South. So called what about ism from the Soviet Union China and other social estates place tremendous worldwide pressure on the US government to give into many though of course not all demands of the civil rights movement. So those are some in those remarks we really hear echoes of China's bold proletarian internationalism during the Mao era, which is really what bound it so tightly at the time with the most revolutionary elements of the Western left. We want to encourage a return to that internationalism among our Chinese comrades yes but even more importantly among our Western comrades. The United States left should once again see itself as part of a common struggle by the nations and peoples of the global South, the darker nations as VJ Prashat puts it to free themselves from the shackles of neocolonialism. And we want as much of the Western left as possible to come over to that side of the struggle. That's why we're proud to work in such close collaboration with a tricontinental Institute, and of course the people's form and code pink. So building this divide between China and the US left and the broader anti war movement remains very much an uphill battle. As materialists we have to examine the real historical forces that led to this ideological parting of ways. So let's start with the basics. The mid to light 70 saw the end of the cultural revolution, the cementing of the sign of soviet split, and a growing diplomatic rapprochement between China and the US. All of this led the United States to pursue a strategy of so called engagement, which in reality meant incorporating China into global capitalism as a large but peripheral and hyper exploited partner, weakening its bonds of solidarity with the rest of the global south, and subordinating it to the geopolitical dictates of the US. That was the plan. China, on the other hand, entered this relationship with the intention of retaining full political sovereignty and strategically using Western investment to develop its own productive base. It may have started as the world's factory quote unquote but it's not content to remain there. Instead it's moving rapidly up the value chain is eating into Western companies share of the profits from Chinese labor and it's challenging the US high tech monopoly. China can thereby push for a truly multipolar world order from a position of security and strength. It lends immense material and diplomatic support to countries in the global south that are facing us economic strangulation and regime change, among them Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and the DPRK, much like the Soviet Union once did, arguably with even greater resources at a disposal. And of course, just as it did with the Soviet Union, the US tries to spin these displays of south south solidarity as a sinister plan for world domination. This way it seems to project or rather displace its own crimes and social ills onto China as a hyper capitalist imperialist power founded on racism and settler colonialism. Now of course, our government is only doing this so nakedly now because the strategy of engagement manifestly failed from the US perspective. Conversely, it's the fact that that strategy appeared so long to succeed that alienated the Western left from China and condition it to see in China, a reflection of America's own monsters image. Of course as to be pointed out on the domestic front the US propaganda machine, mostly works instead to position China as a great menacing Oriental other. In the pandemic and Trump's rhetoric about the China virus in Biden's attempts at one outmanship in a spasm of over and often violent anti Asian racism on the streets and at the state level, and the racial profiling and persecution of Chinese academics and researchers in this atmosphere the specter of McCarthyism looms large. The worry, you know will soon see a return to loyalty oaths to professional blacklist the most rigorous thought policing to ensure that no one of Chinese descent can contradict the favorite narratives of the State Department and remain in public life. And it's very concerning to us that many on the Western left seem intent on applying the same litmus test in our circles. As anti imperialist living in the imperial core we in child do insist that our primary responsibility is to disrupt the US war machine and not to debate the social or economic character of countries that are in its crosshairs. But within left spaces specifically we do also insist on the socialist direction of China's developmental path. We insist that yes is beset by many reversals and compromises, but in a deeply inhospitable world order, starting from a position of feudal poverty, semi colonial subjugation for an invasion and civil war. In particular as Marxist we insist on treating socialism with Chinese characteristics that often derided phrase as a process, a dialectical process right with contradictions but also replete with possibilities, not a static condition, much less one that China could somehow put a mere four decades in.  A monumental achievement, 850 million people freed from abject want in just 40 years, and when completely unheralded in the Western press, this absolute crickets and that includes most so called left outlets. So we really believe that the media landscape that buries or ignores such stories that limits itself exclusively to the discursive terrain set by our enemies is an impoverished one. It's one on which the left and the anti war movement are going to lose every time to a much more sophisticated and powerful propaganda apparatus. And it's one that's already cost countless lives, not just abroad by manufacturing consent for genocidal sanctions and regime change wars but also here at home. The blood of coven 19 many us victims is at least partly on the hands of media outlets, which in their in Orientalist arrogance, uniformly demographic denigrated Chinese response and foreclose the possibility of learning positive lessons from it. So, to sum up, in spite of the pandemic in spite of the trade war in spite of nonstop US aggression on all fronts. China has met its 2020 deadline for ending extreme poverty. The most often posed deadline is 2049, the centenary of the Chinese Revolution for becoming quote a modern socialist country. Sure. That's a vaguely worded goal. But who among us does not want China to meet it in some way shape or form who among us with any human decency would greet that prospect with anything but excitement, and who among us could do anything, but work to the almost to bring it to fruition. Charles, it's really great to have you I encourage everyone to please read carefully child collectives work on their website and platforms there's some really incredible resources reading lists articles and analysis that have certainly helped me quite a bit in understanding the unfolding situation. I would like to next introduce Molly Hurley. Molly is the prospect Hills Foundation inaugural nuclear program fellow and a recipient of rice university's Wagner fellowship. The Wagner fellowship provides funding for Molly's current work, studying nuclear weapon issues movement building and the role of art in both areas. The fellowship also provides funding for Molly to travel to Hiroshima Japan next year to continue her work and in addition to her fellowships Molly serves as a fellowship associate with grassroots organization beyond the bomb. In this role she helps to foster the next generation of anti nuclear activists by guiding them through the beyond the bomb seasonal fellowship program. Welcome Molly thanks so much for joining us. It's a pleasure to be here I'm so honored to be included on this panel so thank you to all the organizers. Yeah, so I am going to discuss China and US relations and a little bit of China's nuclear history to help give us an understanding of China's US relations vis-à-vis nuclear weapons. And I do have a presentation. Yeah, here we go. Okay, so first of all I think it's important that we get a layer of the landscape like what you see even going on with nuclear weapons right now because this is not a big topic of conversation since the end of the Cold War. But basically I'll give you a few highlights between the US and Russia they own over 90% of all the world's nuclear weapons. The next arsenal with the largest amount of weapons is China's at around 300 320 or so. North Korea is about 30 to 40 in case you're wondering what's going on with the DPRK. And then France is close behind China with about 290. Just a brief history of China's nuclear program China first got nuclear weapons in 1964. It was in October 1964 that they tested their very first nuclear weapon and they announced it and everything and now gave this great speech about it. It took them about nine years to develop this nuclear weapon they began development in 55. And they had some interesting policies regarding nuclear weapons in the beginning. In the very early years of their nuclear program, China's stance towards proliferation was the idea of socialist proliferation, such that they could help other socialist countries develop their nuclear program. I think an element of China's pursuit of nuclear weapons and their pride in success of this is the idea that they wanted to show other post-colonial countries that it is possible to catch up with the colonial superpowers. One of the key factors also is when this really famous Mao quote came out in which Mao referred to nuclear weapons as a paper tiger and this is often very confusing to Western to Western thinkers of like nuclear weapons are a weapon of mass destruction and yet he's calling them a paper tiger that they're not necessarily what Mao is going at we need a little bit more context to understand that what's important to understand is that at the time the ideology of things was definitely paramount to everything else and so Mao's reference to it wasn't just nuclear weapons it's weapons and technology in general but given China's history and at the time their attempts to sort of catch up with the rest of their world and you know they're still attempting modernization and everything. What Mao is really trying to emphasize is that it's the power of the people and proper politics and ideologies that is going to overcome hardships and it's you can't just blast your way through to success using nuclear weapons necessarily. He saw them more as tools of political coercion, as opposed to just these literal weapons of mass destruction. That's not necessarily China's stance or belief in the power of nuclear weapons right now but in the early years just to help contextualize that paper tiger quote that's kind of where it was coming from. From the very beginning China, like the day they announced they announced that they were going to have a policy called no first use which is a promise not to use nuclear weapons first in any sort of attack. They also promised that they would not use a nuclear weapon on any other state that does not have their own nuclear weapons. So China is the only country that has always had this in their policy India does say claim they have a no first use policy. It is China and India alone who have these policies. China has always wanted a more multi polar world and they've always wanted more equality and the negotiating table in 1970 there was a UN treaty called the non nuclear non proliferation treaty or the NPT China did not sign or ratify this in the beginning, because India and Pakistan have never signed it and some of the beliefs for these other countries that have abstained from it is that the problem with the NPT is it creates a nuclear apartheid. Basically the NPT says that the five established nuclear powers at that time which was China France UK USSR and the United States could continue to maintain their nuclear arsenal. So long as they made good faith promises to reduce their arsenals down to an eventual zero and in return all other countries in the world would not pursue nuclear weapons. China saw this more as a great powers type of model. And they wanted more multilateralism in it. So they did eventually join the committee on disarmament the CD in 1980 because the CD was specifically created as a multilateral environment for these negotiations. In 1992 they signed the NPT in 96 they signed the comprehensive test ban treaty, partially why they signed the NPT in 92 was well just kind of the way history went. It ended up that this was one of the only options to continue to maintain, maintain China's credibility on the world stage in terms of their commitment to non proliferation and eventual disarmament. I think what's really significant is the fact that they signed the CTBT in 96 China developed its nuclear weapons later than several of the other nuclear powers. And obviously, a really important part development of a weapon is being able to test new programs or weapons. And yet in 96 China limited itself to no longer conducting any nuclear tests. And I think this really shows a commitment to multilateralism and disarmament and trying to show the world that they are want to be a responsible nuclear power by taking on this limitation to their own arsenal by signing and adhering to this CTBT. In 1995 they released their first white papers, which is just a formal document outlining their nuclear strategy. The most recent white paper was released in 2018, in which let me see I took notes on this to make sure I said everything correctly. Okay, in which they call, they actually literally called it an open strategic challenge to the US but one that does not have to lead to conflict. It discusses their modernization and expands programs for their nuclear arsenal. China is not alone in modernizing nuclear arsenal in fact France UK us and Russia are also modernizing the nuclear arsenals. And yet people who kind of work on the nuclear side of US China relations, often like to quote China's modernization program as another reason to increase aggression towards China. And yet, I think, so this actually segues into some of the problems right now between the US and China with regards to nuclear weapons. So first of all, I want to look at Newstart which is a new strategic arms reduction treaty, it is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia that is set to expire this coming February. President Biden has promised he will extend it he has, he's not present yet so he hasn't actually done it yet but hopefully he will, because it is actually the very last remaining arms control nuclear arms control treaty left between the US and Russia. If this ends, it does very much open up the door to a second Cold War buildup of nuclear weapons. But the big hold up up until now, the reason Trump has not himself renewed it is because for a really long time, he was very adamant that there was not going to be any renewal of this treaty unless it became a trilateral deal between the US, Russia, and China. However, if we go back to my very first slide we're looking at the size of the nuclear arsenals this would be an extremely asymmetrical agreement in which China's arsenal is about 120th the size of the US and Russia's. So of course China was like, no way, we're not going to even enter negotiations for this come back to us when your arsenal is is on par with our side with the size of our arsenal. So if we get Pompeo likes to use this as an example of China being like problematic and uncooperative and everything. At one point there was, there were some meetings between the US and Russia to discuss new start and they invited China to it China did not show up. They posted a tweet of the empty seats, and they like photoshopped China's flags are in front of the empty seats but they did the flag wrong like the stars were in the wrong position and so whatever. As I said earlier, also let's talk about no first use is that China has had a policy of no first use since the very beginning the US is completely lacking in this. And of course no first use is not a replacement for complete disarmament or elimination of nuclear weapons but it's a really good responsible first step to deescalate things and decrease the chance of some mistake or are leading to a nuclear war. There is a bill going through Congress or that's we're attempting to put through Congress right now just the no first use bill. That's what my organization beyond the bomb is working on we are trying to get that through the US. We're slowly building support for that. I do want to point out a difference between the US is no first use in China's however, China has the additional stipulation that they're not going to use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear weapons day or in a nuclear weapon free zone. The US is simply we're not going to use a nuclear weapon first so there's still in my opinion a slightly missing element to the US assurance of peace. The last is this is definitely all about US hegemony. Where we are becoming so aggressive towards China because China is challenging US hegemony by going by still having relations with Iran and by, and like our relations with Africa and how we don't necessarily charge interest on our loans the same way like it does or something and by we I mean China. As opposed to the US where we literally could Bolivia because they wanted to nationalize their lithium. And so this goes back to my point about the modernization of Chinese nuclear arsenal. This is a threat while the US is also modernizing their arsenal and this kind of goes to the hypocrisy of US hegemony as well. We really the US really likes to demonize the DPRK North Korea as well for leaving the NPT in 2003 and then establishing their own nuclear arsenal. But if we try to be a little bit more understanding about why China feels like they should also modernize why the DPRK feels like they need these nuclear weapons is this. It is a matter of national security to these countries. The US loves to sort of force its way through things militarily as we can see through the Middle East as well. And after years and years of bullying the North North Korea, North Korea is like, okay, we, the US is probably going to try to overthrow is like literally any moment so we need some mechanism of defense and so they've established their nuclear weapons. And I'm not saying that I support North Korea having nuclear weapons but I feel like there's a lack of understanding right now and how we approach nuclear weapons in the East, and there's a lot of Orientalism and how we approach this as well. And if we think about India and Pakistan, we're really worried about them the conflict of our cashmere and everything. We like to characterize that as just like intractable conflict. And it's like one of the biggest flashpoints of a nuclear war and whether or not that's true. The beliefs behind that are very Orientalist in which we think that like, just Indians and Pakistanis are so like zealous, these religious zealots and everything and they can't be reasoned with because they are just like not Western white people. And this can be said about how we treat China sometimes to how is like the characterization of people who actually like and support the CPC in China, or just brainwash like just the complete denial of any ability to like think for themselves or whatever. But this is a really quick rundown of what's happening between the US and China with all of these things. See here I want to make sure that there wasn't anything else that I have left out. Yeah, this is this was a very condensed version of China's history with nuclear weapons has been much longer and there is a lot more. There's a lot more thinking that's gone behind the development of China's relations with nuclear weapons but the most consistent thing that China has always had is their commitment to a policy of no first use. It's really important. If you want to learn any more or you have any questions this is some of my contact information in terms of what you can do I really on the US side I really recommend checking out beyond the bomb we are we have our ongoing campaign right now to promote no first use in the US and get that bill passed through Congress it's going to be a really important first step. And let's hear that is all we have for now thank you. Thank you so much Molly that was really really informative and really laid that out in a way that we can better understand and hopefully we hopefully everyone has your is going to be able to follow and stay posted and and engage in your work. Well, at least I want to bring up Eric Spirling. Eric is the executive director of just foreign policy. He has worked as senior advisor and counsel in the offices of Congressman Ro Khanna and Congressman John Conyers. He has a JD from Georgetown University Law Center and a BA from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Thanks so much for being here Eric. Thanks so much for having me it's great to be here. It's very exciting to see this movement growing as it is that we need to create a new movement to avoid a new escalation new new tensions. It's very exciting and important few decades here as we build and build broad coalitions to to oppose any really scary conflict. I mean I think, you know, China is far more powerful, and the Soviet Union was in the last cold war so it's very, very dangerous. What about JFP just foreign policy we work on a wide range of issues. It's promote diplomacy and pose interventionism opposite that the US does that harms often harms the people that we're trying to help. JFP doesn't take official position underlying questions. It's not making assessments of international human rights violations. We have no doubt that, you know, many of the governments that we oppose aggression against have made mistakes and have harmed people have human rights violations. That's not our focus our focus is, it's not relevant to our work. It's the student in the Iraq war movement. You know, and the fact that there were human rights violations in Iraq did not mean that war was a solution in fact it ended up harming people, the same could be said of so many other countries. You know, and I think when tensions are raised it actually harms the space for people domestically who who may want to pursue changes as people of that country rather than people coming from abroad. So that's our focus as an American based organization and what can Americans do to make sure we're not causing additional harm abroad. So as I meant, as you mentioned, a staffer for a range of anti war members of Congress, worked on a wide range of issues, for example, starting on Yemen back in 2015. Back then, virtually no members of Congress had any awareness of the war, or even paying attention I remember our first effort had just two members of Congress who were calling on the US to evacuate. It's citizens from and from from Yemen, due to the risk of the Saudi led bombing that the US was involved with and, you know, over time we built you know after action after action each time we were able to add more people and add more people to the efforts that we were doing, whether it was a letter or an amendment or an eventually we built towards these war powers resolutions and many of you might know about that actually had support from progressives that far right conservatives that people would say were are are horrible and we agree on many other things, but they were able to come together for the good of the many people in this case. So I think that's kind of a model, you know, we're starting at that very early stage with US China relations right now. In Congress so you know there's nowhere to go but up is my belief I think I'd like to think that. And so, you know in Congress right now there really is a total basically a total consensus about this unclear vision of getting tough on China whether it's on trade or human rights violations or, you know, over the South China Sea. Many of our favorite progressives when leaders and so many of our key issues, such as Palestine or Bolivia or beyond. You know they haven't yet found a way to distinguish themselves and their rhetoric from those like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz who, you know I think most of us and most reasonable people know that those two are not concerned about the well being of the Chinese people. Unfortunately, our progressive friends have not found a way related to distinguish themselves from that approach. You know one thing I say that usually is very both humorous and sad I say, if you think Ted Cruz, you know cares about the Uighurs would just Google Ted Cruz Muslim. And the first thing comes up is him proposing all types of anti Muslim far right thing so the idea that these folks are concerned is, is, is not true I do think some of the progressives do believe they are reasonably concerned about trying to find them find ways for them to not be aligning with Hawks, who don't, who are really saying within a disingenuous way as part of a Cold War strategy. You know it's not going to be easy.  I was actually even surprised by how closed off staffers were to hearing from Chinese people are fearing everyone is, you know, the Chinese Communist Party and, you know, so that they're very closed off even knowing that someone has that bias they still were not interested in hearing it, even factoring it in and saying I know they're biased so, you know, we were actually on the high speed train from Beijing to Shanghai. And I was the only one who was able to say wow, this is really impressive development. This is very cool. People didn't even want to acknowledge a positive thing about China so it gives you a sense of where staffers are at at this moment on this issue. And so we have a long ways to go but I think there's a lot of opportunities for progress in Congress, you know we have to be willing to work people on all sides coming at it from all directions exploring every potential opportunity to work with those who support cooperation. Yeah, Toby and others have done fantastic work drawing these connections between Asian American anti anti Asian racism in the new Cold War. You know that gave us gave me a sense and gave me an idea to be able to work with the congressional Asian and Pacific Islander caucus on their hate crimes toolkit that they distributed to all members of Congress. And I was able to work with them and include language and they're showing how the new Cold War in dangerous Asian Asian Asian Americans, and that was distributed to all members and then the chair of K pack duty to then did interviews including working with the Quincy Institute many of you may know, denouncing the new Cold War and the way that it will impact her the community that she represents. So that's a sign that's one example of a small step. You know, I think this is kind of the process of looking for opportunities, you know, each person can look for as they follow the news, you know, sets and look for opportunities to make these connections. Another example was, you know, a generally conservative anti Iran Hawk Brad Sherman. We heard that he had unconventional views on South China Sea. He sees it as a, as a ploy for the defense industry to sell in new weapons systems in an era where a lot of, you know, the war is now asymmetrical and not really conducive the huge weapons systems. So we were able to encourage him to lean into this and as he ran for the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Race, and told them we would help get in progressive support for that position and he leaned into it, gave interview after interview talking about how South China Sea militarization is a problem. And he's a military industrial complex ploy. So that was the exciting win and I think, you know, it was another example of a baby step and opening up a little bit of space for for discussion on this issue. You know, then we were able to love the good press that he got so we able to convince him to, to lead a letter with other key people told me and people's action with huge on this, calling for the US to resume health cooperation with China. Trump had reversed an Obama policy and pulled Americans out of the Chinese health ministry, where we had people working with them who would have had access to very early information who could have relayed that back to the United States. And therefore, we wouldn't have had this issue that we, you know, didn't have access because we would have had continued trust that the Obama administration and even the Bush administration had supported and built. And so working with Toby and so many other groups we were able to get over 100 members of Congress, you know, this was, you know, just working with constituents, you know, reaching out to offices we got over 100 members to call for a return to health cooperation with China. So it seems like a very small, small step, just working on sharing information and skills on on health, but it's actually the first major step that any member of Congress had done since the start of the new Cold War to to call for cooperation rather than increased confrontation. So in the we later shared this with the Biden team, and they saw the huge number of people of members that were on it, and they adopted that as their official policy. So it was like an early win where we have the Biden team for the first time that we saw moving back in the direction of cooperation, rather than confrontation.  You know, ending the risk of conflicts of clashes accidentally in in the ocean or in the seas like the incidents that the unintended incidents that can spiral into a broader war and also in the air. So there's even going to be opportunities to work with the business community who have built ties with China, and don't want those ties to be eliminated. This has been really effective in the Cuba space. So a lot of folks that have that want to create jobs in the US by selling additional products as farmers it's all types of businesses and that's been a space that has been useful and Cuba advocates are supportive of that model. So I think the question is, you know, what can you do to get involved with these type of efforts. You know, I think first and foremost, the key thing a lot of people don't do is get to know the congressional staff both in the local office and the foreign affairs staffer in DC. One of the great things about COVID for advocates is that you can be anywhere and do a zoom call with the foreign affairs staffer in DC so you could call their office, get the person's name. If you can't they usually give it out with the email, or if not you could reach out to code paying for any of our organization I'm sure we can, we can share the foreign affairs staffer with you. And then you're going to be doing this regular lobbying 101 we've heard so much about lobbying. We've done for a negative purpose. And often in many cases, you know, big pharma is a massive lobby, incredibly powerful and scary for a lot of staffers a pack massive lobby, you know but we can use this for good as well. So you're going to be doing some of the tricks of the trade that lobby issues you're going to try to connect with that staffer on a personal level, you know, you know just get to know them if they're from the district you can bond over being from the district and over time they're going to know that you're the person that they're going to hear from if their boss takes a vote that or takes an action that's aggressive against China and is escalating tensions. And, you know, I think you'd be surprised how few constituents do this. It's someone that they really know and are aware of and, you know, it's something that all of our foreign policy movements can can do. And I think it's really, really important and then, you know, I think it's really crucial to that regardless of what your views are in China, we have to be aware of where the staffers are and where members are in China. So if you want to go in and start praising, you know, the same the Chinese Revolution is a blessing for humankind and so on. You know, you have to know your audience, you know target your message to your audience, and, you know, work people through kind of these key issues in the way that tension will harm Americans and harm the Chinese people that many of these members want to protect. And so then once you have these relationships, you know, as national groups like Code Pink run amazing campaigns. You know, you'll be able to be activated you'll be able to reach out to the staffer that you have already built this relationship with get that meeting you know bring in the information and hopefully get get them on to the next whatever the vehicle is that we're working on that's going to promote better relations and healthier relations that don't aren't going to harm both parties. So I think little by little, you know, we'll see that these movements are people's move our grassroots movement will create pressure that can counter the pressures that they're hearing. They're getting classified intelligence briefings, you know, they're getting, you know, visits from defense contractors, you know, and so our movement that we could create through this process will be something that can offset over time offset as we build it those those movements. So, I think that's at least the congressional outlook, and really looking forward to hopefully building this movement and winning peace between us and China. Thank you so much Eric. Thank you for laying that all out and giving us so much information on the congressional front. And thank you to everybody this has been really incredible to have everyone in the same conversation and to see such a wealth of work towards a peaceful and a better world and end to war and hybrid war and US like conflict. Certainly out of time there's been many questions coming in from many different directions and I think actually many of them have been answered throughout the contributions of different speakers. And I think also they can continue to be answered by staying in touch with all the different speakers, following social media platforms following all the websites that we've linked to being engaged and participating in these calls to action. So Jodi just for some final thoughts there's one question that I think is really important to just touch on as we close, and that was from one individual asking, what do you do if you feel totally overwhelmed by the situation and no matter how many signatures you add it's not going to do anything or if you feel pessimistic about acting so Jodi I don't know if you want to respond to that briefly before we close. Sure, sure. So the one thing we hope you feel after this is not overwhelmed, but that you have steps, and that the, as Eric said and so many have said that we've begun something and the community is growing. As the community grows, the foundation that we stand on gets stronger. The way the war machine works is to overwhelm you. So remember that that's their tool and throw it back at them and say no I'm not going to be overwhelmed, I have a step. I have something I know I can do Eric just told you make a friend of your member of Congress. I think we know that we can we get demoralized all the time. And so it's like we have an action for you every week because action the only recognizable feature of hope is action. And it is to be engaged and that is what keeps you inspired and connected. You just heard from amazing people today that are engaged. They've given you tools, go to them, get engaged it takes a community be part of one of the organizations. And all of us are having calls we're doing webinars, there's places to have the conversation and to learn, pull together your friends, learn with them together. Don't let this overwhelm me because that's that's their plan. And that's how they win. No, it's like one step at a time and don't try to convince somebody way over there, convince your friend. So who do you love you care about that you don't want them to be used by the lies and the eight. That's where we start right now in your communities in your relationships. And the most important thing is not to let the overwhelm shut you down, but to let the love and the and your desire for peace open you up and find the next step and the next step and the next step there are so many that were offered today. And I just want to thank everyone for the diverse points of view and ways in. Please follow everybody if you if you don't know what to do follow, you know, check on Twitter, follow one of these folks they're taking on the lies every day. Find an action that's listed on their sites if you sign up with all of us, we'll be giving you things to do every week. The most important thing is this affects everything and we all need to be engaged. So thank you so much for joining us. Thank you Leanne and Charles and Molly and Sheila and Toby and Eric for all you do. And let's create peace. Thank you Jody for all you do. Thank you everyone. Thank you so much everyone. Thank you everybody.


The question for the 26th annual Great American Think Off in New York Mills has been announced. This year's contestants will ponder this question. Which plays a larger role in shaping one's life, success or failure? It's a question that's meant to inspire thinkers from all walks of life. Did winning push you harder to be your best or did losing motivate continued growth to overcome? The Great American Think Off is an essay and debate competition held each year in tiny New York Mills just west of Wadena. It is free to enter and open to anyone and has received entries from all 50 states and a number of international countries throughout its history. The contest has received national acclaim, including coverage by C-SPAN, The New York Times and The Today Show. To enter, submit a 750 word essay by April 1st. Four finalists will be selected to receive $500 each plus travel expenses and a chance to win the title of America's greatest thinker at this year's annual debate held on June 9th in New York Mills. Go to the website on the screen for more information about how to enter. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.