Wednesday, May 03, 2023

Mother Jones Organized Against Child Labor 120 Years Ago: Let’s Resume Her Fight

This May Day, in a moment of resurgent child labor, let’s take time to remember and be inspired by Mother Jones.

A colorized photo depicts a child laborer standing among machinery in a cotton mill in Newbery, South Carolina, 1908.

To the shock of many, the issue of exploited child labor has been grabbing headlines in the United States In late February, The New York Times published a major exposé that documented how migrant children as young as 12 are working as roofers and food deliverers, in slaughterhouses and industrial factories, for major corporations and private equity firms, suffering injury and even death, while authorities have ignored warnings and punished whistleblowers.

All this comes as a barrage of states, driven by corporate lobbying and billionaire dark money, move to weaken child labor laws. For example, Iowa’s new legislation loosening child labor regulations was virtually written by industry lobbyists and secretive think tanks funded by wealthy far right donors.

A big reason these developments feel so startling is because the battle against child labor at the state and federal level was — so we thought — fought and won long ago through a decades-long campaign that began in the late 19th century and ended with the passage and upholding of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.

It is an apt moment to revisit that fight against child labor: This year marks the 120th anniversary of the famed protest, the 1903 March of the Mill Children, led by the legendary labor leader, Mother Jones.

Called “the most dangerous woman in America” by West Virginia District Attorney Reese Blizzard for her ability to “[crook] her finger” and have “20,000 contented men lay down their tools and walk out,” Mother Jones may have been the most famous woman in the U.S. during the early 20th century. An unmatched orator driven by a bottomless love for the working class, she overcame personal calamity to reinvent herself as the adored mother figure of the labor movement and as a crusader against child labor


Bills Enabling Child Labor Can Be Traced to This One Conservative Lobbying Group
The Foundation for Government Accountability has backed bills to expand child labor in at least three states.
By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT
April 24, 2023

This May Day, as the injustices she fought against rear their heads once again, the history of Mother Jones — her 1903 children’s march, as well as her indomitable spirit that inspired thousands to fight — are as relevant as ever.

“She Was the Walking Wrath of God”

“She had force, she had wit, above all she had the fire of indignation — she was the walking wrath of God.” So wrote the famed muckraker Upton Sinclair sometime after the 1914 Ludlow Massacre in a fictional description of Mother Jones. By then, she was already an icon, the most notorious labor leader in the U.S.

But before she became Mother Jones, she was Mary Harris, born in Cork, Ireland, in 1837. The Great Famine drove her family to Toronto in the early 1850s. After stints as a teacher and seamstress in Chicago, Harris moved to Memphis, Tennessee, and married George Jones, a proud member of the Iron Molders Union. She soon bore four children, but disaster struck in 1867 when a yellow fever epidemic ripped through Memphis. In the span of a week, Mary Jones’s entire family perished.

Mary Jones almost never mentioned this catastrophe later in life, but it drove her transformation into Mother Jones.

“This is really the most important event in her life, and of course, it’s not the sort of thing one gets over, even if you don’t talk about it,” Elliott Gorn, author of the definitive biography of Mother Jones, told Truthout. “I really think that was what put the emotional dynamite into her life that allows her to go out and be this fearless organizer — she had nothing left to lose.” She soon moved back to Chicago and set up a dressmaking shop. It burned down in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

For the next 25 years, Mary Jones virtually disappeared. We know from her autobiography that she attended workers’ meetings, and joined the Knights of Labor. Then suddenly she reemerged toward the end of the century in a new public persona, Mother Jones, defender of workers’ rights everywhere.

Clad in an ornate, black Victorian dress and hat with her fluffy white hair falling into wire-rimmed spectacles, she mesmerized throngs of miners and mill workers with a piercing voice that flouted genteel etiquette, berating them like an angry grandmother to fight.

Portrait of Mother Mary Jones, the famous labor leader, on December 18, 1918.
Portrait of “Mother” Mary Jones, the famous labor leader, on December 18, 1918.

Gorn stresses how Mother Jones intuited a reworking of dominant ideas about gender and age to create a character that gave her power and influence to serve the labor movement.

“A poor, elderly, Irish immigrant woman: that is not a place of power in American society, or even in labor unions, which are mostly very male,” said Gorn. “But the character of Mother Jones gave her a source of power: the mother of the labor movement, the fearless protector of her brood.”

She even lied about her age, claiming she was a full seven years older than she really was. “She’s increasing her venerability,” said Gorn. “She wants to be able to go to a group of tough coal miners and say, ‘If me, an old woman, can be out here risking my neck, certainly you men can be doing the same.’”

From the late 1890s through her death in 1930, Mother Jones would become a national celebrity, and, for many workers, an almost mythical figure: the matron of the family of labor; the mother of soot-covered coal miners from Pennsylvania to Colorado; the nemesis of robber barons; speaking profanities in her Irish accent, urging workers to unite across divisions of race, gender and nationality, facing down armed mine guards, enduring arrests and prison time with aplomb.

As Gorn writes, “The first half of Mary Jones’s life prepared her for the task of becoming Mother Jones.” She was a survivor. She was angry. She carried with her a “suppressed rage” that she channeled into the fight for justice. She wanted workers to fight.

And nothing drew her wrath more than child labor.

“Well, I’ve Got Stock in These Children”

According to the 1900 U.S. census, one in five children under 16 years of age were employed (though that is certainly an underestimate). Then, as now, many of them were immigrants.

In 1903, nearly 75,000 textile workers struck in Philadelphia, including 10,000 children — “stooped things, round shouldered and skinny,” wrote Mother Jones. Pennsylvania was second only to Alabama in its number of child laborers, and, according to Mother Jones, when she asked reporters why they refused to cover the issue, they responded that they couldn’t because the mills’ owners had stock in the newspapers.

“Well, I’ve got stock in these little children,” she said, “and I’ll arrange a little publicity.”

She assembled a crowd of children in the city’s historic Independence Park, shouting at and shaming nearby city officials. “I held up their mutilated hands and showed them to the crowd and made the statement that Philadelphia’s mansions were built on the broken bones, the quivering hearts and drooping heads of these children,” she later wrote. “That their little lives,” she added, “went out to make wealth for others.”

She berated local officials as they passed by, lifting up gaunt children and yelling, “Some day the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit.”

Met with only shrugs, Mother Jones concocted a brilliant public relations move: She would take the mill children on a weeks-long march from Philadelphia, up through New Jersey, past New York City, and all the way to Theodore Roosevelt’s summer mansion on Oyster Bay, Long Island. They would demand to speak to the president.

Mother Jones announced the march to the public on July 7, 1903, and soon set off with around 100 children carrying placards that read “We want time to go to school” and “We want time to play.” The media following them from town to town as they stopped in cities like Trenton, New Brunswick and Princeton, where Mother Jones spoke to a large crowd gathered near the town’s storied university about “higher education.”

“Here’s a textbook on economics,” she said, pointing to a “little chap” of 10 years who was “stooped over like an old man from carrying bundles of yarn that weighed 75 pounds.”

“He gets three dollars a week and his sister who is 14 gets six dollars,” she shouted. “They work in a carpet factory 10 hours a day while the children of the rich are getting their higher education.”

She lambasted not only the mill bosses but also their owners on Wall Street — the bankers and investors who were the ultimate profiteers behind child labor.

Gorn says the children’s march was a major success. “It was just a constant drumbeat of news. She just had this remarkable flair for the dramatic.” He emphasizes that while moral outrage drove Mother Jones’s hatred for child labor, it also symbolized, for her, capitalism’s cutthroat degradation of all workers.

“She understood that it’s a mistake to think of child labor as a separate category from all of labor,” he said. “One of the reasons you organize the children’s march is not just because it’s terrible exploitation of children, but because their cheap labor undercuts the work of adults.”

Mother Jones continued the march — smaller after a torrid heat wave shrunk its initial numbers — through Manhattan and Coney Island and finally, on July 28, to Oyster Bay, where Roosevelt refused to meet with them.

Nevertheless, the march was a resounding success, with the media closely covering the high drama. “She gained invaluable publicity for the issue of child labor,” wrote Gorn.

Moreover, the march was an important early catalyst for the reform movement that, in stops and spurts in the decades to come, ultimately won federal regulation regulating child labor.

“Pray for the Dead and Fight Like Hell for the Living”

After her death in 1930, Mother Jones faded softly from national memory, though not in the coal-mining communities that were her strongest base.

The award-winning actress Kaiulani Lee first learned about Mother Jones while performing in Appalachia during her tours with the NYC Street Theatre in the 1970s. She remembers visiting a miner’s cabin with an image of Jesus Christ hanging on the wall. Nearby, she saw another picture of an “old woman in Victorian garb.”

“I recognized Christ, but I didn’t know who she was,” Lee told Truthout.

Lee read Mother Jones’s autobiography and never forgot about her. Decades later, Lee decided to use her incredible writing and acting talents to bring Mother Jones back to life. “I knew hers was the voice that could speak for workers,” she said.

You can get a sense of what Mother Jones’s powerful presence must have felt like by watching Lee’s performance in the highly lauded new film, Fight Like Hell, praised by everyone from the Amazon Labor Union’s Chris Smalls to the Association of Flight Attendants’ Sara Nelson.

The 55-minute film takes place around the time of the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, perhaps the most violent strike in U.S. history. Mother Jones is in a secluded cabin in the woods of West Virginia.

“There is a war between the classes,” she begins, in her faint Irish brogue. “I have been present in that war for half a century.” What follows is an acting masterpiece, a one-shot monologue, where Lee takes you through the intense drama — and unfathomable tragedy — of Mother Jones’s life, all in the labor leader’s own words. The film is tense, brilliant, emotional, and most of all, invites the viewer to join in struggle.

Lee’s Mother Jones discusses the issue of child labor and recounts the children’s march.

“Struggle and lose, struggle and win,” she says during one of the film’s dramatic crescendos. “That’s the story down the stairway of the ages.” The film captures the spirit of struggle that drove Mother Jones’s life, and by example, pleads with us to continue that struggle today.

I watched the film from beginning to end twice, and both times it left me teary-eyed and filled with fire and fight, eager to dash to any rally or picket line within reasonable distance. I hope it is shown widely in union halls, left-wing bookstores and college campuses across the country.

Others are also keeping Mother Jones’s legacy alive. During the historic 1989 Pittston coal strike, dozens of women, mostly miners’ family members, banded together as the “Daughters of Mother Jones,” waging militant action to support the strike.

The Chicago-based Mother Jones Museum & Heritage Project holds regular events in her honor and, after years of campaigning, won permission to build a Mother Jones statue at a prime location in the Windy City.

In 2021, when striking Warrior Met Coal miners in Alabama staged a national solidarity rally, a 12-foot inflatable replica of Mother Jones, her fist in the air, greeted the gathering.

There’s a reason Mother Jones lives on: Through personal tragedy, she emerged as the very embodiment of labor’s struggle, a transcendent voice, mothering and thundering, that could wipe the fear and lethargy from the eyes of workers and embolden them to fight. When workers across the world today invoke her most famous slogan — “Pray for the Dead and Fight Like Hell for the Living” — they are recalling that spirit of solidarity and struggle that she embodied and tried to bestow on others.

One-hundred-and-twenty years after the iconic children’s march, with migrant kids filling factories and slaughterhouses, with our own modern-day robber barons strong-arming a rollback of child labor laws, and with thousands of workers, from coffee shops to warehouses, recreating anew labor’s militant tradition, the legacy of Mother Jones is as relevant as ever. She inspires workers today just as she did over a century ago.

The U.S. Should End Child Labor in Agriculture | Opinion

MARGARET WURTH , SENIOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS RESEARCHER, HUMAN RIGHTS 
ON 5/2/23 

An important national conversation is happening on the harsh reality of child labor in the United States after it was revealed that many unaccompanied immigrant children are involved in hazardous work. But a group of often disregarded U.S. child workers—those working in agriculture—have been largely left out of the discussion and desperately need greater protection.

The U.S. Department of Labor has seen a sharp increase in child labor violations in recent years. It recently found over 100 children working dangerous, overnight shifts in meatpacking facilities. In late February, the Biden administration committed to step up child labor enforcement efforts.

Enforcement is essential, but it can't help children who are working dangerous jobs that are completely legal.

Over the last decade, I have researched the dangerous conditions children face while working in U.S. agriculture. I interviewed a 17-year-old boy who had two fingers sliced off in an accident with a mowing machine. A 13-year-old girl felt so faint working 12-hour-shifts in the heat that she had to hold herself up with a tobacco plant. An eighth grader said his eyes itched and burned when a farmer sprayed pesticides in a field near his worksite.

These were not children working on their own families' farms. These children were working as hired laborers, often on large commercial agribusiness operations.

Unlike situations in which children are working in meatpacking plants or on construction sites, almost none of the child labor I documented violated U.S. law or regulations. That's because children working in agriculture lack even the basic legal protections given to children working in all other workplaces in the U.S.

Longstanding exemptions in U.S. labor law allow children as young as 12 to work legally as hired laborers on commercial farms for unlimited hours with a parent's permission. At 16, children working on farms can do tasks considered particularly hazardous. In every other workplace, children have to be 16 to work full-time and 18 to do hazardous work.

The agricultural exemptions in U.S. labor law date back to New Deal-era legislation. They were intended to exclude Black workers from the rights and protections given to white workers, preserving a system that allowed employers to continue to profit off of racist exploitation, denying Black workers opportunities for economic advancement. The exemptions continue to have racist impacts, with Latinx children and families now most harmed.

Farm workers clear out hosing which was used to irrigate an okra field on July 13, 2022, near Coachella, Calif.
MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES

The weak protections are of great concern because more children die working in agriculture than in any other sector. Like the children I interviewed, thousands are injured or sickened each year while working on farms.

Members of Congress will soon reintroduce the Children's Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety, or the CARE Act, legislation to provide children working in agriculture with the same protections as children working in other sectors. The legislation would raise the minimum age for children's work on farms, and set the hazardous work age at 18, in line with all other kinds of work. The bill has never reached a floor vote. Congress should enact the legislation without delay.

Even without passage of a new law, under the leadership of Acting Secretary Julie Su, the Labor Department has a responsibility to update narrow, 50-year-old regulations governing hazardous work in agriculture. It should open new rulemaking on the topic swiftly.

Enacting better protections at the federal level is more important than ever as at least 10 states have moved to roll back child labor protections and put younger children to work in more dangerous conditions.

A strong legal framework will not end child labor overnight. Farmworkers need a living wage so they can support their families, and workers must be able to exercise their rights to organize and collectively bargain. Strong social protection programs can also provide relief to families experiencing economic insecurity.

But strong child labor laws are the foundation for protecting children from hazardous and exploitative work and set reasonable expectations for employers and companies to follow. It gives labor inspectors basic minimum standards to enforce. And most important, in line with international human rights law, strong laws affirm that children have a right to be protected from dangerous work that could harm their health and development or interfere with their schooling.

Child farmworkers in the U.S. lack that basic foundation.

U.S. leaders will not fix the country's child labor problem unless they commit to protecting all children from exploitative and hazardous work, including those working on farms.

Margaret Wurth is a senior children's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Entire Super Mario Bros. movie was posted to Twitter, seen by millions

The animated film based on the Nintendo classic game has grossed over $1 billion in theaters. The film was posted to Twitter over the weekend.



Photo by: Nintendo and Universal Studios via AP

By: Scripps News Staff
Posted May 02, 2023

It's possibly one of the biggest entertainment surprises of the season, as the animated film "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" has seen success grossing over $1 billion at the box office since its release.

Another surprise came over the weekend after someone posted the entire film to Twitter, where it remained long enough for millions of people to watch the movie for free.

As Forbes reported, when Twitter employees were dealing with large-scale layoffs after billionaire Elon Musk's high-profile takeover of the social media giant, one contractor who worked with moderation on the site said, "I’m just really fearful of what’s going to slip through the cracks."

A significant number of employees with Twitter's trust and safety teams were made redundant, while video length allowances were hiked from 140 seconds to 60 minutes.

Gamespot cast doubt on Twitter's ability to now prevent piracy, which is still a large concern for the Hollywood.

Cartoon Brew reported that multiple verified Twitter accounts leaked the film, along with "Avatar" as well.

While Forbes reported that millions potentially viewed the film, others say it's hard to know exactly how many saw it or reproduced it. But what is clear is that it appeared that over 9 million accounts saw the tweet before Twitter took it down and suspended the account.

 

Burnt by Charity Models, Club Q Shooting Victims Support Survivor-Led Mutual Aid

Survivors of the Club Q shooting allege that they have not received all the charity funds raised on their behalf.

Bread and Roses Legal Center's Queers for Q fundraiser held on April 21, 2023.

Survivors of the Club Q tragedy say they are still waiting to receive money that was fundraised on their behalf, criticizing national LGBTQ organizations for using the shooting for their own financial gain.

After a gunman attacked the gay club on November 19th, 2022 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, national LGBTQ organizations like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign released statements in mourning of the victims — Raymond Green Vance, Kelly Loving, Daniel Aston, Derrick Rump and Ashley Paugh — and directed supporters of the survivors to donate to the Colorado Healing Fund (CHF) and One Colorado.

“GLAAD used this event in a way to attract media attention and resources and legitimacy for their organization, but in reality most [survivors] never talked to GLAAD or got to interact with them,” according to Z Williams, Co-founder of Bread and Roses Legal Center, which prides itself on having supported and continuing to support victims of the Club Q shooting with the organization’s survivor-led healing and mutual aid model. Williams told Truthout that GLAAD “picked a group of people that were supposed to be the representatives of the community, and it was three white men.”

In December, GLAAD invited survivors of the shooting, James Slaugh and Michael Anderson, and the owner of Club Q, Matthew Haynes, all white men, to provide testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform regarding anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, extremism and violence.

Advocates have also stressed that CHF, a nonprofit that provides funds to victims of mass casualty crimes in Colorado, retains 10 percent of all funds donated for those impacted by mass casualty events in the state. While this policy has been reversed after advocates criticized the fundraising model as unethical, with 100 percent of proceeds supposedly now going directly to the victims of the Club Q mass shooting, one survivor told Truthout that the process to access funds was very difficult to navigate.

“That is an organization that I have seen constantly re-victimize people because of their model and especially, I think, in this setting we saw it even more because of the size of the group of victims, the age of the group of victims and just the complete unfamiliarity with what it means to work with queer folks,” Williams explained.

VictimsFirst, a network of surviving victims of mass casualty crimes that advocates for accountability for survivors, sent CHF an open letter in December criticizing the fund for its lack of transparency and predatory model.

“We are sick of the gaslighting and attempts by the Colorado Healing Fund to cover its tracks. First, the Colorado Healing Fund diverted donations away from mass shooting victims. Now they are diverting attention away from the facts as they continue to divert donations to nonprofits under the guise of ‘victim services’ without any transparency about where those donations are headed,” the letter reads.

In addition, advocates have also alleged that CHF and the other groups that fundraised in the aftermath of the Club Q shooting were not well versed in how to support the LGBTQ community.

“There just was a lot of lack of understanding around pronouns and names and relationships and so many of those things that I think are so important when you’re working with queer community,” said Williams. At one point, CHF asked Bread and Roses Legal Center if binders, a piece of clothing commonly worn by transmasculine people, could be purchased at Home Depot, according to Williams.

Bread and Roses Legal Center advocates for survivor-led mutual aid predicated on a queer solidarity approach which rejects charity models that “raise a bunch of money and give it out to people,” as Williams stated, or come into the community with a plan and use media generated from events for an organization’s own gain.

“Mutual Aid is saying, we respond to this event because also like taking care of our community is like taking care of us,” Williams explains. “Even if we didn’t know these folks like these are our family and our community. And another piece of it is not just thinking about mutual aid like how do we respond to an event, but what is the long-term investment in a community and what is the relationship with the community?”

Survivor-lead mutual aid models are increasingly important as mass shooting incidents continue to skyrocket — 2022 was the worst year for school shootings and this year we are seeing a record-setting number of mass killings. NPR reports that so far this year, more than 88 people were killed in 17 mass shootings. While there is no national database that tracks the number of survivors of mass shootings or the financial toll of surviving a mass shooting, research estimates that just the cost of initial hospital charges for patients injured in mass shootings total more than $64,900 per person.

The long-term physical and psychological costs of surviving mass shootings is undoubtedly higher. The National Center for PTSD estimates that a third of people who have survived a mass shooting develop an acute stress disorder and 28 percent of people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Additionally, survivors of hate crimes experience high levels of psychological distress that may exacerbate the financial costs of healing after a hate-crime motivated mass shooting.

Bread and Roses Legal Center recently hosted its second mutual aid event for survivors of the shooting, in which multiple family members of victims of the shooting were present. At the first Queers for Q event, Bread and Roses raised over $140,000 which were entirely distributed to more than 50 people who were impacted by the shooting. Survivors have used these funds to obtain groceries, medical prescriptions, legal name and gender-marker changes, glasses, gender-affirming health care, transportation, rent and job training. Funds will also cover a headstone for one of the victims of the shooting who was killed.

For Bread and Roses Legal Center, mutual aid is a long-term commitment and an investment in a community. “It’s like whatever people need,” Williams explains. “Basically, anything that people need that they say will help them feel safer and more complete in their communities, that’s what we want to do.”

Note: The author will be externing at Bread and Roses Legal Center in Summer 2023.

Washington Is Obstructing the Path to a Political Settlement in Ukraine

The U.S.’s rejection of China’s proposal for a negotiated settlement reveals that it is drawing benefits from the war.

People pay their respects as flowers are laid in front of a damaged multistory residential building, where a Russian strike killed 23 people, in Uman, Cherkasy Oblast, on April 30, 2023.

Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

The way President Joe Biden’s administration reacted to China’s offer to facilitate a political settlement of the Ukraine conflict clearly reveals Washington’s undeclared objective regarding that war. The contrast between the administration’s attitude toward China’s position and the attitudes of some of the United States’s allies is striking.

When Beijing published its “Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis” on February 24, marking the beginning of the second year since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, Washington immediately dismissed the initiative as a mere decoy, with President Biden telling ABC’s David Muir, “Putin’s applauding it, so how could it be any good?” He then added, “I’ve seen nothing in the plan that would indicate that there is something that would be beneficial to anyone other than Russia, if the Chinese plan were followed.”

And yet, other leaders saw what Biden couldn’t see — or didn’t want to see — which is that the very first of the Chinese declaration’s 12 points reaffirmed a principle that went against Russia’s interest in the ongoing war and in favor of Ukraine’s; namely, the principle of “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries.”

This is indeed why Russian President Vladimir Putin did not “applaud” China’s position, contrary to Biden’s claim. In the joint statements to the press that Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping gave on March 21, during Xi’s recent visit to Moscow, the Russian president declared, “We believe that many of the provisions of the peace plan put forward by China are consonant with Russian approaches and can be taken as the basis for a peaceful settlement.” Many of the provisions — in other words, not all of them.

Whereas Putin could fully support provisions such as “abandoning the Cold War mentality” (point two) and “stopping unilateral sanctions” (point 10), he could obviously not subscribe to the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, nor to point eight that states, “the threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy understood that quite well for his part. In blatant contradiction with Biden’s assessment, he declared on the day China’s position was released, “China is talking about us…. I think what they are saying looks like respect for territorial integrity. It doesn’t mention the country, but it’s our territorial integrity that has been breached. Nuclear security was mentioned as well. I think this is in line with the interests — global interests and Ukrainian interests.” It is this very different attitude that allowed the April 26 phone call between Xi and Zelenskyy to happen, which Ukraine’s president commented as follows:

There is an opportunity to use China’s political influence to restore the strength of the principles and rules on which peace should be based. Ukraine and China, as well as the vast majority of the world, are equally interested in the strength of the sovereignty of nations and territorial integrity…. In compliance with the main security rules, in particular, the inadmissibility of threats with nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world.

In fact, China did mention Ukraine specifically more than once when talking about territorial integrity. In explaining China’s official position on the war two days into the Russian invasion, on February 26, 2022, then-Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi clearly stated that, “China stands for respecting and safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and earnestly abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China’s position is consistent and clear, and it also applies to the Ukraine issue.”

A few days later, on March 5, Wang reiterated the same to his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Ten days later, Qin Gang, China’s then-ambassador to the U.S. and its present foreign minister, published a piece in The Washington Post clearly stating that, “The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine, must be respected.”

One key reason why Washington has closed its ear to Beijing’s implicit repudiation of the Russian invasion is, of course, that it does not want to hear what goes along with the Chinese position, especially the above-mentioned provisions that Putin could happily endorse but also China’s first point that also stated: “Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed.… Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.”

After all, the very idea of respecting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries is alien to Washington as much as it is to Moscow. Whereas Washington champions these three principles against Russia in the case of Ukraine, it has violated them over time more than any other government and continues to do so — by means of drone and missile strikes, even if not by deploying troops on the ground since the 2021 Afghan debacle.

Contrasting reactions to Xi’s visit to Moscow last March followed the same pattern: condemnation on Washington’s part, along with insisting prophecies of imminent delivery of weapons by Beijing to Russia, whereas European Commission Vice President Josep Borrell, the high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, commented that Xi’s visit “reduces the risk of nuclear war” because the Chinese president has “made it very, very clear” to Putin that he wants “to minimize the risk of being associated with the Russian military intervention” — a comment that has hardly been reported by the media. Taking the opposite view to Washington’s prophecies, Borrell added that Chinese leaders “are not engaged militarily and there is no sign that they want to engage militarily.”

The very idea of respecting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries is alien to Washington as much as it is to Moscow.

Since the beginning of the present Ukraine crisis in 2021, this is the second major occasion on which the Biden administration has indulged in the business of predicting in a way that looks very much like if it actually wished for its prophecies to become self-fulfilling. When Moscow submitted on December 17, 2021, a draft agreement for a political settlement of the crisis around Ukraine, it was likewise dismissed by Washington. Instead of engaging in negotiations with Russia for an overall agreement to prevent the looming threat of war, the administration made repeated and frenzied announcements over several days that Russia was going to attack the next day — until it eventually happened.

There is good reason to believe that, far from trying its best to prevent the war, Washington wanted it to occur for the simple reason that the Russian invasion would be, and has been, a godsend for the U.S.’s hegemonic designs. One is entitled to believe likewise that Washington did very little to deter Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait in 1990 (some even maintain that then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, let Hussein believe that Washington would not even mind) because that invasion was equally a godsend for its hegemonic designs. In both cases, Washington’s global hegemony and allegiance of its Cold War allies were greatly enhanced, after years of decline.

If so, then what could be Washington’s goal in discarding collaboration with Beijing, which is the only possible way toward a political settlement acknowledging Ukraine’s territorial integrity? This, at the very moment when several indications, including the recent Pentagon leaks, point to Washington’s lack of belief in Ukraine’s ability to repel Russia’s troops out of the territory that they have occupied since last year, let alone inflict a massive defeat on them.

How should we explain the very important gap between Washington’s stance and European attempts to build on China’s offer of mediation, as illustrated by recent visits to Beijing by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock? Baerbock declared in Beijing, for instance, that, “In the same fashion as how China mediated between Iran and Saudi Arabia, we want China to use that influence to urge Russia to end its war in Ukraine.”

The key to this contrast lies in the fact that Western Europe is eager to see the war in Ukraine come to an end for the obvious reason summarized by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a major bipartisan strategic think tank: “Our European partners and allies are suffering far more from the economic consequences of their support for Ukraine and rise in global energy costs than Americans” whereas the U.S. stands to derive “grand strategic benefits” from inciting Ukraine to pursue the war — “an investment whose benefits greatly exceed its cost.”

Zelenskyy grasped that difference very well a month into the war, when he very lucidly confessed to the London Economist on March 25, 2022, the following:

There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives. This is definitely in the interests of some countries. For other countries, it would be better if the war ended quickly, because Russia’s market is a big one [and] their economies are suffering as a result of the war.

Very true indeed, and as much as it is right to help Ukraine defend its territory and population against Russian aggression and wrong to seek to force it into capitulation, it is also in the best interest of the Ukrainian people to do everything possible to bring the war to an end on the basis of an acceptable compromise instead of thwarting every possibility to negotiate such a compromise — as Washington has been consistently doing before even the war started.

Prism is an independent and nonprofit newsroom led by journalists of color. We report from the ground up and at the intersections of injustice.