Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt

 Cyn Huang: Can you explain the terms of the conflict between China and the United States? Where does it come from?

Éric Toussaint : Today, we are witnessing a conflict between two superpowers. However, I would argue that they represent two distinct forms of imperialism. China is an emerging imperialism, whereas the United States embodies an established, consolidated imperialism that is currently in relative decline and exhibiting a high level of aggression.

To understand the evolution of relations between China and the United States, it is crucial to consider the historical context. Following the Chinese revolution of 1949, the United States supported the nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek, which had retreated to Taiwan, and refused to recognise the People’s Republic of China, led by Mao Zedong, which was in the process of transitioning to socialism. Relations were particularly conflictual during the Korean War. In the early 1960s, China supported armed struggles in various countries deemed strategic by the United States. Notably, Beijing provided assistance to North Vietnam, under Hồ Chí Minh, as well as to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF) also, known as Viet Cong.

Faced with the impasse of the Vietnam War, the United States then made a strategic shift and moved closer to China. This rapprochement was symbolised by the historic meeting between Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong in the early 1970s, as illustrated by the famous photograph of their handshake in 1972. The United States had recognised the Beijing authorities as the legitimate government of China prior to this meeting. The United States subsequently withdrew its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and accepted the principle that Taiwan was part of Chinese territory.

This change had concrete consequences. Until 1971, China was represented on the United Nations Security Council by Taiwan (see box: China at the United Nations, the IMF IMF
International Monetary Fund Along with the World Bank, the IMF was founded on the day the Bretton Woods Agreements were signed. Its first mission was to support the new system of standard exchange rates.

When the Bretton Wood fixed rates system came to an end in 1971, the main function of the IMF became that of being both policeman and fireman for global capital: it acts as policeman when it enforces its Structural Adjustment Policies and as fireman when it steps in to help out governments in risk of defaulting on debt repayments.

As for the World Bank, a weighted voting system operates: depending on the amount paid as contribution by each member state. 85% of the votes is required to modify the IMF Charter (which means that the USA with 17,68% % of the votes has a de facto veto on any change).

The institution is dominated by five countries: the United States (16,74%), Japan (6,23%), Germany (5,81%), France (4,29%) and the UK (4,29%).
The other 183 member countries are divided into groups led by one country. The most important one (6,57% of the votes) is led by Belgium. The least important group of countries (1,55% of the votes) is led by Gabon and brings together African countries.

http://imf.org and the World Bank World Bank
WB The World Bank was founded as part of the new international monetary system set up at Bretton Woods in 1944. Its capital is provided by member states’ contributions and loans on the international money markets. It financed public and private projects in Third World and East European countries.

It consists of several closely associated institutions, among which :

1. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, 189 members in 2017), which provides loans in productive sectors such as farming or energy ;

2. The International Development Association (IDA, 159 members in 1997), which provides less advanced countries with long-term loans (35-40 years) at very low interest (1%) ;

3. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), which provides both loan and equity finance for business ventures in developing countries.

As Third World Debt gets worse, the World Bank (along with the IMF) tends to adopt a macro-economic perspective. For instance, it enforces adjustment policies that are intended to balance heavily indebted countries’ payments. The World Bank advises those countries that have to undergo the IMF’s therapy on such matters as how to reduce budget deficits, round up savings, enduce foreign investors to settle within their borders, or free prices and exchange rates.

). Following the Sino-American agreement, the People’s Republic of China took China’s seat on the UN Security Council. A few years later, in 1980, Beijing replaced Taiwan at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

At that time, China was still undergoing a transition to socialism, which was characterised by a high level of bureaucratisation and significant contradictions, particularly those exposed during the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966. Deng Xiaoping initiated reforms from the 1980s onwards, gradually facilitating the restoration of capitalism in China.

 Cyn Huang : The development of China’s political economy and the evolution of its position within the global system are remarkable. As you have just demonstrated, the United States has not always viewed China as its primary strategic adversary. Furthermore, beginning in the 1990s and continuing through the first decade of the 21^st century, the American ruling class regarded China as a crucial economic partner from which it could profit Profit The positive gain yielded from a company’s activity. Net profit is profit after tax. Distributable profit is the part of the net profit which can be distributed to the shareholders. , and believed it could be integrated into a world order dominated by the United States.

Éric Toussaint : From the 2000s onwards, China emerged as a significant destination for foreign investment, especially from the United States. Major American corporations – including Apple, Microsoft, and others – established factories in special economic zones in China. For years, both the US government and large multinationals believed they were gaining substantial benefits from this arrangement: they were able to exploit a low-paid Chinese workforce, enduring particularly harsh working conditions, while extracting considerable added value.

Using Karl Marx’s categories, we can discuss the transfer of value through unequal trade, whereby a significant portion of the added value generated by Chinese workers was appropriated by American capitalists. Simultaneously, China’s substantial exports led to the accumulation of enormous trade surpluses and significant dollar foreign exchange reserves. These reserves exceeded $3 trillion—an amount comparable to France’s GDP GDP
Gross Domestic Product Gross Domestic Product is an aggregate measure of total production within a given territory equal to the sum of the gross values added. The measure is notoriously incomplete; for example it does not take into account any activity that does not enter into a commercial exchange. The GDP takes into account both the production of goods and the production of services. Economic growth is defined as the variation of the GDP from one period to another. in 2025—of which more than $1.3 trillion was invested in US Treasury bonds in 2013. In essence, China reinvested part of its surpluses by lending money to the United States. Following this, China scaled back its purchases of Treasury bonds and is projected to hold $700 billion directly by 2025.

Throughout the period from the 1990s to 2014-2015, the United States believed that it was benefiting greatly from its relationship with China. However, from 2014 onwards, with the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative, China was no longer content to simply export goods. It began to export its capital abroad on a massive scale, lending money to many countries and investing in infrastructure, businesses, and natural resources in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and even the United States.

From that point on, China reached such a level of economic power that the United States—from the end of Obama’s term and even more clearly from 2016–2017 onwards—began to feel that it was no longer benefiting as much as before from this relationship. It began to take protectionist measures and strengthened its military presence around China. This situation must be described as military encirclement: more than 20,000 American soldiers are stationed in South Korea, more than 50,000 in Japan, and around 10,000 on the island of Guam, not to mention other deployments. Additionally, the United States maintains an alliance with Taiwan and provides it with weaponry.

From the Chinese point of view, the United States is therefore encircling China in its own periphery. From the American point of view, China has become a rapidly expanding capitalist rival power, gaining market share Share A unit of ownership interest in a corporation or financial asset, representing one part of the total capital stock. Its owner (a shareholder) is entitled to receive an equal distribution of any profits distributed (a dividend) and to attend shareholder meetings. and consolidating lasting positions on several continents, including what Donald Trump calls ‘the Western Hemisphere’, from Greenland and Canada to southern Argentina and Chile.

For example, China controls Peru’s main seaport and owns mining and oil extraction companies in many countries. The United States therefore considered that the area it had historically dominated was beginning to be seriously threatened. Under Trump, this logic is brutally assumed: the United States claims the right to act freely in its hemisphere, to attack Venezuela for its oil and appropriate it, to kidnap and hold the Venezuelan president and his wife hostage in New York, and to seek control of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal while demanding that China abandon its positions in this area.

 Cyn Huang : How does Trump define China in the National Security Strategy NSS 2025? Would you like to summarise what you wrote in your article entitled ‘Why Washington has made China its central strategic adversary’ ?

The National Security Strategy document published by the Trump administration in early December 2025 clearly designates China as the United States’ main strategic adversary. Washington seeks to reduce China’s presence in the Western Hemisphere and strengthen its military encirclement in the Indo-Pacific region. Officially, the United States acknowledges that it has 375,000 soldiers and civilian military personnel in this region, 66 permanent military bases, and more than 80 non-permanent bases. This is an absolutely colossal military presence.

Faced with this situation, although China has thus far adopted a strategy centred on economic and peaceful expansion, it is possible that certain factions within its political leadership are gaining influence by advocating preparations to confront the United States directly, citing self-defence. Consequently, we are approaching an extremely precarious situation.

Historically, Trump’s policy bears resemblance to that of the latter half of the 19^th century and the early 20^th century, during which the United States engaged in direct military interventions to expand its sphere of influence. Notable examples include the war against Mexico in 1847, which allowed the United States to annex Texas, New Mexico, and California. In 1898, Washington waged war against the Spanish colonial empire, subsequently taking control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Additionally, the United States occupied Haiti beginning in 1915.

After the Second World War, the United States persisted in its aggressive foreign policy, most notably through the Korean War in the early 1950s and the Vietnam War from 1960 to 1975, which involved the deployment of up to 500,000 soldiers. Additionally, the Gulf War in 1991, the military intervention in Taliban-led Afghanistan from 2001 onwards, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are significant examples of this trend.

In the 21^st century, we are witnessing a resurgence of classic imperialist policies, as examined by Lenin, Trotsky, Hilferding, Bukharin and Rosa Luxemburg. These Marxist theorists have demonstrated that such confrontations between imperialist powers inherently lead to conflict. Following the Second World War, despite the occurrence of extremely violent wars in Korea and Vietnam, these conflicts, while involving multiple nations, did not escalate to a global scale. However, in the current climate, influenced by Trump’s policies, the prospect of a shift toward a new world war has become a tangible threat once more.

 Cyn Huang : What gives Trump the impression that China could be ‘controlled’?

A Washington strategy with potentially catastrophic consequences

Éric Toussaint : I believe that Donald Trump and his administration are attempting to contain China’s international economic expansion through various economic, trade, diplomatic, and military strategies. These strategies include enhancing economic and trade protectionism by implementing various barriers aimed at reducing Chinese imports into the United States while promoting US exports on the global market. Additionally, they are exerting pressure on the United States’ trading Market activities
trading Buying and selling of financial instruments such as shares, futures, derivatives, options, and warrants conducted in the hope of making a short-term profit. partners to increase their purchases of US-made products and urging companies in the United States and other nations to either increase their production within the US or repatriate their operations there. Other measures involve increasing subsidies to US companies, asserting control over territory and natural resources in the Western Hemisphere and beyond, and engaging in tough negotiations with China to encourage a reduction in its economic expansion beyond its borders. Regarding military measures, it does not necessarily imply that Trump is directly preparing for war with China. Rather, his intention appears to be to impress Beijing by demonstrating overwhelming military superiority. The aim is to convey to China that, in the event of armed conflict, it would stand little chance against the United States, given the extensive US military presence encircling China, both in the Indo-Pacific region and globally.

The United States is therefore operating on the assumption that it can intimidate the Chinese leadership and, in this way, limit its economic expansion. However, there is no guarantee that China will agree to scale back its strategic and economic objectives under pressure. On the contrary, it is likely that Beijing does not want a direct military confrontation, but that it will be increasingly forced to face one as the United States steps up its threats and military posture.

In this context, Trump’s calculation appears extremely dangerous. It poses a major risk not only to Sino-American relations but also to humanity as a whole: the populations of the United States, China, and, more broadly, the entire world.

 Cyn Huang : How do you currently perceive the balance Balance End of year statement of a company’s assets (what the company possesses) and liabilities (what it owes). In other words, the assets provide information about how the funds collected by the company have been used; and the liabilities, about the origins of those funds. of power between China and the United States, and what is Russia’s place in this situation?

Russia, Europe and the global strategy of isolating China

Éric Toussaint : To get an accurate picture of the current international landscape and Donald Trump’s strategy, it is crucial to incorporate an analysis of both Russia and Europe.

Trump’s primary objective is to create a rift between Russia and China. Over the past fifteen years, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have forged a significantly closer relationship. This rapprochement has led to the establishment of BRICS BRICS The term BRICS (an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) was first used in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, then an economist at Goldman Sachs. The strong economic growth of these countries, combined with their important geopolitical position (these 5 countries bring together almost half the world’s population on 4 continents and almost a quarter of the world’s GDP) make the BRICS major players in international economic and financial activities. and the enhancement of trade, financial, and military agreements between Russia and China, particularly in the wake of the sanctions imposed by Western powers on Russia following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. These sanctions were further intensified after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Russia’s ties with China have inadvertently strengthened due to the sanctions imposed on it. In light of this situation, Trump has formulated a distinct strategy: he is subtly offering Vladimir Putin a deal. The essence of this message is as follows: you can act in your regional environment – that is, in the space of the former Soviet republics that have become independent states – in the same way that I act in the Western Hemisphere. In simpler terms, Trump asserts his right to intervene in Venezuela or other locations in Latin America while simultaneously bestowing upon Russia a form of legitimacy to act in its own neighbourhood.

Following this logic, Trump is proposing a ‘deal’ to Putin: he will allow Russia to pursue its objectives in its own region, including Ukraine, in exchange for a commitment to distance itself from China. The strategic aim of the United States, therefore, is to isolate China by creating a rift between it and Russia, while simultaneously providing Russia with assurances regarding its imperialist ambitions.

Let us be clear: Russia has become an exceedingly aggressive capitalist imperialist power, as evidenced on numerous occasions. Consequently, we are witnessing a potential agreement between two imperialist powers: Russia, characterised as aggressive yet second-rate, and the United States, which stands as a dominant and hyper-aggressive imperialist power. This agreement appears aimed at weakening and isolating China.

However, the effectiveness of this strategy remains uncertain. Trump’s current conciliatory stance towards Putin, exemplified by his invitation to the ‘world peace council’ he organised during the Davos meeting on 21 and 22 January, could shift unexpectedly. Should Putin decline to distance himself from China or reject an agreement with Trump that compromises Ukraine, a sudden reversal in the US position is entirely plausible.
It is important to note that we cannot conduct the analysis of US-China relations in isolation from Russia’s stance. US imperialism is actively pursuing an agreement with the Russian government to reduce China’s economic, political, and strategic influence.

 Cyn Huang : What internationalist position should we adopt?

Éric Toussaint : Faced with this situation, the essential question for us, as revolutionaries and internationalists, is this: which side are we on? Our answer is unequivocal. We stand with the people, opposing the calculations and confrontations of the great powers and the various forms of imperialism.

Concretely, this means that we support activists in Russia and Ukraine who oppose Russia’s war in Ukraine. We support workers, students, and social movements in China that are fighting for their rights, better living conditions, and greater political freedoms. We also support workers and the popular masses in the United States who are fighting against Trump’s policies. Finally, we defend the sovereignty of countries in the Western Hemisphere and other parts of the world against the aggressive strategy of domination by the United States. We support the people’s fight for self-determination and control over their natural resources. We oppose all imperialist and colonialist aggression, whatever its origin. In Europe, we oppose the imperialist and neo-colonialist policies of our governments and denounce their complicity with the neo-fascist Netanyahu government, which is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. We oppose the inhumane policies practiced by the majority of governments around the world toward migrants and refugee applicants. We support all internationalist solidarity activities.

We defend a genuinely internationalist perspective. We choose the side of the people against their oppressors. We are actively participating together with other forces to the preparation and organisation of the anti-fascist and anti-imperialist conference in Porto Alegre, Brazil (March 26–29, 2026). We support the International Call for the Strengthening of Anti-Fascist and Anti-Imperialist Action.

The authors would like to thank Gabriella Lima and Maxime Perriot for their review.