Search Results

Have We Stopped Expecting Those In Power to Be Virtuous? Getty Images Summary This article explores the ancient expectation that leaders embody virtue, in contrast with today’s widespread moral decline in leadership. Public trust is eroding as lies become routine, conflicts grow, and compromise fades. The author warns of looming global instability and urges citizens to demand truthful, ethical leaders who prioritize cooperation over conflict, before it is too late. PHUKET—Belief that leaders should be virtuous is as old as civilization. Chinese philosopher Confucius, in the 6th century BCE, proposed that rulers must cultivate moral excellence to govern effectively. His Analects emphasized benevolence and moral integrity as the cornerstones of leadership. This ethos spread through East Asia, influencing systems of governance for millennia. In the West, Plato's Republic painted a vision of philosopher-kings, wise men with disciplined minds and souls. Aristotle later argued that leaders must possess practical wisdom, courage and and a sense of justice. Such Greek ideals shaped Roman statesmen such as Cicero, who advocated leaders be "servants of the people." According to legend, the Chinese Emperor Yao (traditionally c. 2356 – 2255 BCE), instituted a system of abdication under which leadership passed not to his son, but instead to the worthiest person. He put out a drum and encouraged citizens to use it to voice their concerns and make suggestions on how to improve governance. Another example was Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE), whose personal writings revealed a devotion to humility, self-improvement and doing what was right (versus what was easy or popular.) He endeavored to treat people of all classes fairly and to protect the rights of the poor and of slaves (who, for instance, could own property, marry and bear witness.) Ashoka the Great, King of the Mauryan Empire (322-185) which stretched across modern-day Iran and the Indian sub-continent, renounced war and developed the concept of dhamma, or pious social conduct, following Buddhism. In the 17th and 18th centuries, philosophers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant posited that leaders are duty bound to promote public good. Transparency, empathy, and accountability had come to define good leadership, and while the practice of power often fell far short of the mark, the ideal at least that good leadership required great virtue, endured. The Erosion of Virtue This century, one of unprecedented connectivity, has seen a sharp decline of virtue among global leaders. Dishonesty's grip has so tightened that I struggle to name a current leader whom I have not caught in a lie (well, I have yet to catch Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada in one, but perhaps he just needs more time.) Transparency International announced in February 2025 that 47 countries out of 180 surveyed had their worst showing in opinion of public sector corruption since they began the surveys in 2012. From the United States and Russia, to France and Venezuela, citizens think their leaders have become even more corrupt. Once hailed as pillars of society, many in positions of power now exhibit alarming moral bankruptcy. This erosion is manifested in systemic dishonesty, openly self-serving agendas, obvious self-enrichment, and a cavalier attitude towards public trust. Lying has even become acceptable — expected and routine. Most governments today constantly make up narratives and spin them through their mainstream media, stories far from the truth that are often designed to distract from it. Corporate leadership is arguably worse. Today's top executives are routinely caught orchestrating financial fraud on a colossal scale, even collapsing their companies out of pure greed and devastating thousands of lives. A single tweet today can make the billionaire tweeter even more billions overnight. Academic research proves the trend is worsening. Transparency International announced in February 2025 that 47 countries out of 180 surveyed had their worst showing in opinion of public sector corruption since they began the surveys in 2012. From the United States and Russia, to France and Venezuela, citizens think their leaders have become even more corrupt. Who is Responsible for Decadent Leadership and What Will Be Its Consequences? Probably the most common type of lie told by politicians today is a false accusation. When the speaker says something about his opponent or perceived foe that he or she knows to be untrue, is that not lying? The Speaker of the US House of Commons recently claimed that China is "the greatest threat to world peace," this just days after his country's military had illegally bombed Iran. The USA has overthrown or attempted to overthrow other regimes in 57 different countries, and has been involved in 137 different military conflicts. In contrast, the country Speaker Johnson calls the greatest threat to world peace last fired a shot outside its borders in 1979, in a four-week conflict in Vietnam, and has never attempted to overthrow another country's government. Lack of virtue is widespread and hardly unique to the USA. Moreover, in today's conflicts, both sides are usually to blame — though rarely equally. For instance, I blame the war in Ukraine mostly on unreasonable expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders, a US-assisted coup in Ukraine in 2014 (against a leader wise enough to seek neutrality), and refusal to reply to Russia's concerns. However, would the invasion of Ukraine — killing or severely wounding over a million people — have been a virtuous Russian leader's choice? And how could Ukraine's President Zelensky have decided to pointlessly continue the war, for what has now been three more years, rather than sign a peace deal reached in April 2022, only a couple of months after the war began? Similarly, while my main sympathies lie with the the long-suffering Palestinian people, victims of a terrible oppression by a people who should know better, does that justify Hamas' brutality against Israeli civilians and even children? As Mahatma Gandhi showed in colonial India, the oppressed can combat their oppressor by being morally superior, and more intelligent, rather than by sinking to their level and copying their crimes. In a further example, I think Iran is understandably shocked at the treatment of their fellow-Muslim Palestinians, and severely alienated since the UK and USA overthrew their nascent constitutional government in 1946 to keep their oil. But does a virtuous religious leader threaten to annihilate Israel, even if only posturing? Could that ever lead to peace? Worse by far is Israel's killing of 5% of the population of Gaza (quite possibly 10%), and starving the survivors, an ongoing genocide being committed by the government of a people who were themselves victims of the worst genocide in human history. In no way can that horror be justified by the horror of Hamas' attack. China continues to at least try to be a reasonable party, mostly speaking truth in my hearing of it, promoting peaceful global cooperation and avoiding international provocations as much as it can. For instance, in response to the Trump Trade War, Beijing recently granted zero tariffs on all types of imports from all 53 African countries, something the Western media largely failed to report. But China too is losing restraint. It has done a poor job in the South China Sea. It does need some small islands and atolls to defend itself from US encirclement, and ensure the USA itself does not take control of them via proxies. The USA makes every effort to foment friction and block resolution of disputes about them. However, all this notwithstanding, China has failed to strike amicable deals with its neighbours. Its idea of sharing resource rights around those rocks is a good one, but it remains unaccomplished, leaving itself open to accusations of bullying. Peace-making and peace-keeping require great willingness to compromise. Compromise requires mutual trust, while building that trust requires repeated demonstrations of honesty — of trustworthiness. Trust is the very foundation of our societies, a magic formula that has for millennia allowed us to do business with strangers. Instead of treasuring that trust, we are systematically trashing it, passively allowing cynical leaders to lie it into oblivion. As NATO members plan to spend $25 trillion more dollars on 'defense and security' in the next decade, most likely cutting social expenditure to pay for it, there is hardly an olive branch to be found, much less a dove that could offer one. History shows that at least a few 20th century leaders like Nelson Mandela were broadly inspiring for their principled honesty. Not everyone agrees with each other's picks for such veneration, but most agree that we do look up to a few 20th century leaders because of their outstanding virtue. What political leader is inspiring our children today? To my mind, the 21st century has yet to provide a single candidate. Unless societies demand moral accountability, the rot will continue, hollowing out the foundations of what little stability remains. We are all responsible and we must demand and find honest leaders, men and women who tell the truth even when it is unpleasant for them. We must have Heads of State and Government who are dedicated to compromise and cooperation, not aggravating conflict, not even with their perceived opponents or foes — especially not with them. Must we tolerate that some become billionaires at all? Is that not immoral in a world where the basic needs of so many hundreds of millions go unmet? At the very least, the exorbitant privilege of great personal wealth should require highly ethical behaviour and the payment of quite high taxes. If we cannot put better people in positions of great power, no matter what political or economic system a particular country has, then in the long run we the people will be at fault for what will follow. There will be no one else to blame. ———————————

Lying Has Become An Existential Threat by Bill Paton, 3 November 2024, Phuket In *The Three-Body Problem* aliens known as the "San Ti" are traveling toward Earth and initiate a dialogue before their arrival. Among themselves, they communicate their unfiltered thoughts directly, but when interacting with humanity, they use spoken language. In explaining human culture, their earthly correspondent recounts the children’s story of *Red Riding Hood*, where a wolf disguises itself as the girl’s grandmother to deceive her and ultimately eat her. The San Ti fall silent for a moment before expressing their shock and insisting on speaking to the wolf. A few minutes later, once they have grasped that the fairy tale is "not real", the San Ti angrily label it a "lie about a liar". For them, direct communication makes deceit impossible. They find the concept of lying so abhorrent that they declare, "We understand. A liar is someone whose words cannot be trusted. We cannot coexist with liars. We are afraid of you." With that, they end the conversation and continue their journey toward Earth in silence. That’s world-class, chilling science fiction. Perhaps even more chilling is the reality that our world is experiencing an unprecedented rise in lying. If we completely lose trust in what others—our media, politicians, each other—are saying, we risk shutting down communication entirely, like the San Ti, sinking into a quagmire of deceit that threatens our very survival. __________________ Lying is on the Increase Uncovering the truth about lying is challenging. People often lie even in anonymous polls, complicating survey efforts. We do know that lying varies across countries and cultural contexts. Trust levels also differ internationally. Gladwell points out that trust is the default mode for modern humans, essential for larger societies reliant on interactions among strangers. However, this trusting norm can have its drawbacks—Gladwell questions how Neville Chamberlain could possibly have thought he could trust Adolf Hitler? Considerable evidence suggests lying is becoming both more common and more accepted. People tend to prefer lying via video or over the phone rather than face-to-face, and are more willing to lie in emails than in person. This shift can be attributed in part to the rise of the internet and social media. Lies are more easily detected in small groups, making the internet—with a global audience—ideal for deception. A good part of the answer to the question 'why are people lying more' may be 'because it is easier than before.' Many, many books and articles have been written on how and why people lie, and there is little reason to think their reasons have changed much. Suffice it to say they are mostly not good. What has changed are the media and nature of lying. Ralph Keyes coined the term *The Post-Truth Era* in his 2004 book, describing deception as having become the modern way of life, something done much more casually than in past decades. Lying has greatly increased since then. "We are witnessing the greatest surge in lying in human history." Lying in All Types of Media Trust in legacy mass media has fallen to an unprecedented low this year, with the United States ranking lowest among 46 countries. It's now common for media outlets to entirely omit the other side of the story. Journalists used to at least make a half-hearted effort to contact the other party, often reporting that someone 'did not respond to a request for comment.' Today, however, one-sided stories frequently run as pure gospel, without acknowledging the existence of other viewpoints. Lying by omission in news media and governments is also on the rise. Consider the NordStream pipeline explosion. How did such a significant story, about a major act of international terrorism, quietly fade from public discourse? President Biden had publicly pledged to shut down the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine, stating, "I promise you, we'll be able to do it." What should have been a prize-winning story instead got lost in a farcical game of hot potato: Denmark, Sweden, and Germany all conducted 'investigations', swiftly concluded them and stated "there is not enough grounds for a case'"; it "it is not in our jurisdiction"; and—most amusingly—"Poland sabotaged our investigation and we will not be providing any further information". In most countries, trust in online media, social media, and even friends as news sources is even lower than in traditional media like TV, radio, and major newspapers. The surge of social media since the start of this century has been characterized by alarmist, negative and nihilistic content, lacking proposed solutions. The book *Revolt of the Public* argues that this trend has directly triggered public uprisings, citing examples such as the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo, Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Fake news is now the leading concern for internet users worldwide. Politics - The Golden Age of Lies For politicians, this shift has ushered in the golden age of lies, where dishonesty is more acceptable and carries lower risks. The rise of fact-checking sites has unintentionally normalized lying, treating it as routine. Being caught in a lie is no longer so damaging. A former American President who made over 30,000 false statements during his term, may be re-elected in a few days—something unthinkable not long ago, when he would have been discredited. Instead, his lying makes him irresistible to the press and can be seen as a witty strategy to win support. Even the most absurd falsehoods gain plenty of traction. For instance, a U.S. Congresswoman recently claimed that Hurricane Helene was intentionally created by Democrats, asserting that the government can control the weather and had used this power to create a hurricane targeting states with a Republican majority. "A person who lies deliberately without any shame is capable of any evil doing.” Abhaya Sutta (MN 58) from the Majjhima Nikaya, part of the Pali Canon (1) Lying Leads to Greater Wrongdoing We are witnessing the greatest surge in lying in human history, and a broader decline in ethical standards. A well-known Buddhist sutra (above), teaches that lying can pave the way for far greater evils. Indeed, most kinds of unethical behavior require lying. For example, the Global Anti-Scam Alliance reports a staggering worldwide rise in online fraud. In Southeast Asia alone, hundreds of thousands of people have been trafficked into scam operations. Victims are usually lured abroad by fake job offers, only to be taken captive on arrival and forced into scamming others. Between 2020 and 2023, over 100,000 individuals were trafficked into Cambodia alone, where international scamming now equals 40% of its official GDP. Warping Reality Dishonesty has also pervaded many other information flows. Products cost the same but mysteriously shrink by small amounts. Governments tinker with the definitions of unemployment or cost-of-living to make them lower. GDP figures, too, are misleading: For example, U.S. federal government spending will total $6.8 trillion in 2024, with only $4.9 trillion covered by revenue. The remaining $1.9 trillion, or 7% of GDP, is being borrowed. Yet, Americans are told that their economy is 'booming', "the envy of the world", with Gross Domestic Product projected to grow by 2.7% in 2024. In reality, 7% of that "Gross Domestic Product" is debt-fueled consumption, not production at all, nor investment, and with much of it borrowed abroad. There are also serious reasons to doubt Europe's claim to be growing. Industrial production there is in the midst of a two-year contraction; demand for services has also contracted; and construction too. EU growth last year was officially 0.6% (when inflation started the year at 8.6%), and projected to be 0.8% this year. In reality, genuine domestic production in the EU is undoubtedly shrinking. In a particularly Orwellian move, many in the West have been convinced that China's economy is the one in crisis, growing at 'only' 4.8% this year, "missing its target" (the target is "around 5%"). In reality, China's federal debt is a manageable $4.2 trillion, amounting to just 24% of its nominal GDP. It also holds massive foreign exchange reserves of $3.3 trillion. In contrast, U.S. federal debt has reached $28.2 trillion—100% of GDP—and is still climbing sharply, with its reserves low. Despite these facts, the narrative persists that Beijing is the one facing a federal debt crisis. Many would also be surprised to learn that the Russian economy is growing faster than the USA's or any other advanced economy. This kind of warped data interpretation molds false perceptions of the true state of affairs. Nonsensical policies are then designed to address imaginary conditions, drifting ever farther away from reality. The COVID-19 Pandemic Was Also an Outbreak of Lies The COVID-19 pandemic was a deadly example of how much increased lying has degraded our ability to choose and implement effective policies. Three months after the pandemic began, by late April 2020, people had already been arrested in 40 countries for spreading falsehoods about COVID. Some of these were actually spreading truth, such as the true numbers infected. Most, however were spreading the most spectacular confabulation of lies we have seen in modern times. Hundreds of qualified doctors were caught selling snake oil cures, many of which—such as inhaling peroxide—were quite dangerous. In Madagascar, President Rajoelina launched, and even exported, a herbal concoction as both a preventative and remedy. Its effectiveness was zero. President Trump famously recommended several useless remedies such as chloroquine, an old malaria medicine. Elon Musk tweeted in March 2020 that there would be 'almost zero cases in the USA by the end of April 2020' (instead there were over 100,000 cases by then and over 1 million Americans would die). All across the world, politicians lied and quarreled childishly about mask efficacy, social distancing, lock downs, vaccinations, border closures, lab leaks, racial immunity and on and on. To this day, tens of millions of people still believe all sorts of strange, false stories about the truly miraculous mRNA vaccinations that were invented, saving millions of lives. Many died unnecessarily after refusing them. International cooperation fell to an abysmal low, replaced by selfishness and a torrent of recrimination. The World Health Organization was scapegoated. Governments diverted each other's shipments of things like masks or ventilators. Border closures were based on political attitudes rather than data. Wealthy countries hoarded badly needed vaccines in unnecessarily large quantities, releasing them only when they were almost expired. Humanity's failure to work together, based on science as we learned about the fast-changing virus, was spectacular and shameful. Deliberate lies were a big part of that. Starting Wars With Lies Internationally, a major consequence of greater dishonesty has been a decline in diplomacy, especially in resolving armed conflicts or major disputes. There is little point in negotiating if neither side believes the other. Moreover, after a prolonged period of spreading falsehoods about an adversary, direct discussions can be awkward. Take, for example, the use of sanctions against a country on false pretenses, as a cover for stifling fair competition—violating World Trade Organization rules. If sanctions are imposed on dishonest grounds, how can they be thereafter lifted? What basis would there be for even discussing the issue with the other side? This erosion of truth complicates diplomatic resolution of disputes and undermines international cooperation. Lying has long been used to justify wars. Indeed, deceiving the enemy dates back to well before the Trojan Horse, while lying to one's own people about who started it is also a time-honored practice. For instance, Germany launched World War II by falsely claiming that Poland had attacked them. In reality, the Germans staged the incident, killing people at a border radio station, dressing them in Polish and German uniforms, and then setting off grenades while fabricating a film. President George H. W. Bush persuaded a hesitant American public of the need to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by using the false testimony of a Kuwaiti girl before the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The girl claimed to have witnessed Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators at a Kuwaiti hospital and leaving them to die. Her testimony was widely publicized and cited by the Senate and President repeatedly to justify military action against Iraq. In reality, the girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington and had not been to Kuwait during the war. Her real name had not been given. President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair told a staggering lie, first claiming that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks in the United States, and then falsely asserting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. These statements were entirely fabricated. The resulting invasion and occupation led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis, mostly civilians. Some estimate half a million children, alone, were killed. Of course, leaders lie the world over, sometimes quite amusingly. For instance, North Korean school curricula teach that their leader, Kim Jong-un could drive a car by the time he was three years old, while state media have claimed he personally invented a cure for AIDS, Ebola and cancer. However, the lies of great powers have greater consequences. Many were skeptical when President Putin justified Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine as a "special military operation" intended to protect ethnic Russians from supposed Ukrainian 'Nazis'. And when China and India both claimed in 2020 that the other started a gruesome battle with clubs and nails (because their soldiers were unarmed), leaving at least 24 dead on their high mountain border, which side was lying? Mearsheimer's research suggests that leaders of 'democratic' countries lie more frequently than 'autocrats'. This year, President Biden reportedly called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu "a f**king liar" after Israeli troops were sent into Rafah just days after Netanyahu had promised not to. Similarly, many question the sincerity of the U.S. government, which calls for peace in Gaza and protection of civilians, while simultaneously providing a steady stream of bombs to drop on them, now over 30 kilograms of explosives dropped per inhabitant. With hundreds of thousands facing starvation in northern Gaza, skepticism is also warranted about U.S. intentions in granting Israel 30 more days to open the border to increased aid—something that could be accomplished within hours. At best, it is cynically inconsistent with the humanitarian urgency on the ground. More likely it is a lie, intended to expire after the U.S. election, with little or no consequences for Israel. Could Lying Start World War III? Most chillingly of all, the global erosion of trust and the lack of diplomatic initiatives to secure peace are significantly raising the risk of nuclear war. In the Cuban missile crisis Presidents Kennedy and Khrushchev secretly agreed that if Russia withdrew its missiles from Cuba, the U.S. would promise not to invade Cuba, and a bit later on, would quietly withdraw its own missiles from Turkey, without publicly linking the two. Khrushchev decided to trust Kennedy, and Kennedy kept his word. Much has been written about the potential for a nuclear world war to begin through the accidental or rogue launch of a ballistic missile. If such an event were to occur next year, and the American President were to urgently call the Chinese or Russian President by phone or video to explain that it was not a pre-emptive attack, would they believe him or her? Would they dare take the risk, staking their nation's very survival on their faith in the other leader's honesty? The likelihood, today, is steadily declining, as trust between nations continues to diminish. We could, in fact, be lying ourselves to death. We Need a New Narrative, With an Emphasis on Truth The world urgently needs a new narrative, with better ethical standards (a world where the San Ti believe humanity to be still worth talking to). A crucial part of this new narrative must be a greater commitment to truthfulness. Education, for instance, needs greater emphasis on 'critical thinking' and 'evaluating information' if our children are to grow up to cope successfully with a flood of misinformation. Lying must once again be unacceptable, as when a person was "as good as their word". Honest potential leaders will then sense the trend and seize the opportunity. Such a movement, difficult as it will be, may well be the key to our survival. ————————————— 1) Buddhist teaching on the dangers of lying without remorse, and its potential to lead to further unwholesome actions, is found in the *Abhaya Sutta* (MN 58) from the *Majjhima Nikaya* of the Pali Canon. In this discourse, the Buddha explains that lying without a sense of guilt erodes a person's moral integrity, creating an opening for other immoral behaviors to arise. In Buddhism, lying is especially harmful because it distorts one's perception of reality and weakens the commitment to truthfulness, a fundamental virtue. The Noble Eightfold Path emphasizes "Right Speech" (*sammā vācā*), which includes abstaining from falsehood. Lying is often considered the root of other harmful actions because it undermines trust and leads to further ethical compromises. The Buddha further emphasizes in teachings such as the *Sigalovada Sutta* (DN 31) that a habitual liar cannot be trusted in other matters. This lack of reliability contributes to the decline of all other virtues, as severing the bond to truthfulness weakens one's moral constraints. Consequently, a person who regularly engages in lying may be more susceptible to committing even more severe wrongdoings, having already undermined a key ethical foundation. If you found this post interesting, please consider sharing it. To subscribe to receive future posts via email, see the bottom of this page. To unsubscribe, simply send an email to billpaton@qq.com.

With Its Internet Oligopoly, the USA Runs an Overall Trade Surplus With the World, Not a Deficit The US Internet Oligopoly has a Strangle-hold on the Earth Beijing，29 May 2025 Summary US firms dominate global e-commerce and services, earning gigantic profits and avoiding fair taxation. The US actually runs a trade surplus with the world—not a deficit—by 'off-shoring' sales of services just as it off-shored manufacturing. The author calls for global cooperation to tax companies' online revenue, thereby restoring balance in trade negotiations. IN February, I pledged to deactivate my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts for 2025, and to reduce my purchases of American goods and services, in protest at Trump's tariff blitz. Little did I realize just how tightly U.S. internet companies had wrapped their tendrils around me. De-activating Facebook and LinkedIn was not difficult. Unfortunately, I get less news of former colleagues, but others have reached out bilaterally. More difficult was to confront the massive penetration of so many U.S. companies into my other digital life. For instance, while 'Alphabet's' Google is not as good at searches as DeepSeek or Tongyi's AI, it is my login for countless accounts and G-mail my retrieval email address for many others. Google's Android runs my phone and tablet, while Google Play controls my non-Chinese apps. Like a metastised tumour, it is inoperable. Microsoft has sold me new accounts for installing Windows and Office on every new desktop or laptop for 32 years, and are now trying to rent me that same Office software! They sell me Dropbox every year, too, while Adobe ceaselessly tries to hook me on high monthly fees merely to use PDFs. Amazon sells me books on Kindle and Audible, and toys delivered to our grandson. Amazon Prime Video supplies some of my film fix (I watched better-quality films in the 1970s at repertory cinemas than I do today). Then there is the mammoth Netflix (U.S.), with its avalanche of series productions. For communications there is Whats App (U.S.), Zoom (U.S.) and Microsoft's Teams. US Share of Global e-Commerce US tech companies dominate the world's 50 biggest companies (see graphic below). Even China's (light and dark orange), are small by comparison and Europe's (most of the green plus the two yellow), are even smaller. Only Saudi Aramco stands out as a true giant (more than $1T), outside the USA. How does this compare with President Trump's cries of anger that the world is "ripping off the USA" by not buying enough of it's exports? The Trump administration's sole emphasis on the U.S. deficit in trade in goods, ignoring services, is a colossal lie about its actual position in the global economy. The USA not only runs a massive surplus in services with the world, more than half of the sales of its services worldwide are not reported as "exports"—because the company uses foreign subsidiaries. Avoiding taxation this way also avoids being counted as an "export." U.S. retail chains, for instance, are everywhere, owned by their foreign subsidiaries. There are 6,500 Starbucks and 5,900 McDonald's in China whose profits flow back to the USA. Most of this profit is not taxed nor counted as exports, but is rather classified as 'dividends'. The U.S. trade surplus in services is thus around $1.5T. After deducting its deficit in goods of $870B last year, it still had a very large net trade surplus, globally, of around $600B, and most certainly not a deficit. While reported U.S. exports of services in 2024 were $1.05T, additional services sold via foreign subsidiaries are estimated to have been worth another $1.4–1.7T,(1) for a total of $2.45 to 2.75T in U.S. sales of services outside the USA. Official imports of services were $720B. Even if other countries' actual sales of services to the USA were somehow double the amount reported (highly unlikely), the total would be $1.44T, compared to that $2.45 to 2.75T. The USA's de facto trade surplus in services would then still be a minimum of $1T. However, unlike in the U.S., in other countries the majority of foreign services sold are reported as exports. The U.S. trade surplus in services is thus around $1.5T. After deducting its deficit in goods of $870B last year, it still had a very large net trade surplus, globally, of around $600B, and most certainly not a deficit. The world is also running a bigger and bigger moral deficit with the U.S.. We grapple with this astonishing lie that the USA is a huge loser in the world economy. We suffer brazen bullying, wanton disregard for law and treaties, some very recently signed, and now, insistence that the USA has some sort of planetary eminent domain, able to annex territory when it "needs to." The USA's four percent of our planet's population—still enjoying over 1/4 of the entire planet's nominal GDP and 1/3 of its total wealth—are led today by a President on the warpath. Why? Because he wants more! And he figures he can just strong-arm the entire world into giving it to him. E-commerce today is unlike any previous form of commerce. Yanis Varoufakis argues that "techno-feudalism" describes an economic system where tech oligarchs like Amazon and Google act as feudal lords, extracting wealth through digital platforms and data monopolies while reducing users and workers to vassals dependent on their digital platforms, analogous to land in feudal times. "Big tech has replaced capitalism's twin pillars—markets and profit—with its platforms and rents. With every click and scroll, we labor like serfs to increase its power." Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism, by Yanis Varoufakis,2024. Ironically, Yanis' book was published on Amazon. No doubt he felt he had little choice, the same conclusion I have come to regarding my forthcoming first novel. U.S. companies are increasingly selling internet access from space. Originally this was companies like Iridium (U.S.), and Inmarsat (then UK but since bought by Viasat which is partly U.S.). Now it is Hughesnet (U.S.), Starlink (U.S.), and the latest—Smart WiFi (U.S.)). This orbiting spider's web has already begun to replace conventional WiFi and mobile telephony. Only China has its own setup. We face the prospect of near-global provision of broadband internet access by just a few enormous U.S. companies, who have the power to selectively cut it off. In China, where Google largely doesn't operate (but Apple and Microsoft do), the same phenomenon exists. Online shopping is dominated by Alibaba, searches by Baidu, communications by WeChat, e-payment by WeChat and Alibaba, and ride hailing by Didi. These companies still operate mostly inside China where they pay hefty taxes, and are only slowly expanding in such places as South-East Asia. Nor is the USA about to allow Chinese tech companies into the USA or their allies' economies to do what they themselves do. Witness the US hostility to Huawei and TikTok, in fact to any serious competitor. Taxation: A Good 'Card' to Play in Trump's Trade War Poker Game Alphabet's gross profit for the twelve months ending March 31, 2025 was $211B. Revenue was $360B (Alphabet is wildly profitable.) It paid income taxes of about 9% globally in 2024 and 6% in 2023, almost all of it in the USA though more than half of its business was abroad. Its profits are rising steadily at 16-17% per year. A $2T dollar company, it pays taxes at a lower rate than a local family-run restaurant in a Western country. Google, although it earned over half of its 2024 income abroad (54% or $194B), paid only 1.4% foreign tax in the countries where it earned that income. See Google's SEC filing. Microsoft, the world's most valuable company, worth $3.2T at present and making money from me as I type, paid an "effective tax rate" for the fiscal years ending June 2020 to 2024 that averaged 16.1%. It paid more taxes abroad than Google but still slipped oodles of cash through loopholes the size of Killer Whales. For instance, Microsoft Ireland (covering Europe), reported €37B in revenue in 2024 but paid corporate tax of less than 1%. Shortly after his new term began, Trump insisted U.S. companies—including tech monopolies selling services we can no longer avoid buying—must not be taxed in other countries. By threatening to double U.S. taxes on companies from any country taxing U.S. companies, he made it hilariously clear the USA itself taxes foreign companies and plans to go on doing so. Tech leaders attended President Trump's inauguration, including Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. Despite such blatant hypocrisy, Trump's daily shouts dominate the global news cycle with his accusations of gross unfairness towards the USA. However, the real global trade issue is not goods; it is services, especially the still-growing US online hegemony and its resulting huge trade surplus with the world. Countries need to show some spine and come together to impose real rates of taxation on the U.S. corporations dominating their online economies and extracting those surpluses. The E.U., at least, seems to be edging closer to doing this. Rather than fussing with complex determination of profit and location—a loser's game against battalions of US lawyers—countries should simply agree to tax companies for all online revenue earned in their countries at a standard rate of—say—15% (and yes, TikTok too). This automatic company tax could then be deducted from any income tax due to be paid in-country by that company. If Trump gets annoyed, they could raise the bar to—hmm—how about 30%? Perhaps, just for an initial 180 days? Trade negotiations could then re-start from there. :) ——————————————— 1) Altogether in 2024, U.S. multinational corporations sold an estimated $1.4–1.7 trillion in services through foreign subsidiaries that were not counted as U.S. exports, dwarfing the official U.S. services export figure of $1.05 trillion. This is data that is not generally available and must be sourced from each individual company report or in some cases, the WTO. That $1.4-1.7T included such transactions as generated by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms (e.g., Microsoft Ireland selling Azure licenses to EU clients, or Goldman Sachs UK advising European mergers.) Other exports were excluded from export stats because transactions occur locally (e.g., a Starbucks in Tokyo serving coffee isn’t a U.S. export, even though profits flow back to Seattle). The U.S. services sector is 60–70% larger than officially reported when including offshore subsidiary sales. The U.S. sells a variety of services abroad that are not categorized as "exports" in U.S. trade statistics. U.S. e-commerce annual revenue from abroad which is often not reported as exports, includes: 1. Online Retail Sales to Foreign Consumers (Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Etsy, Shopify), $120–$150B; for example, Amazon’s international sales (excluding North America) were $131 billion in 2023; 2. Digital Services & Subscriptions (Netflix, Disney+, Apple (App Store, iCloud), Microsoft (Azure, Office 365), Meta (ads), $80–$100B; 3. B2B e-commerce (wholesale & platform fees), $50–$70B; billion annually; 4. digital advertising (U.S. platforms selling ads to foreign businesses, Google, Meta (Facebook, Instagram), X (Twitter), $60–$80B. Google’s ad revenue was $237 billion globally in 2023, ~50%+ from outside the U.S.), Meta’s ad revenue was $132 billion in 2023, with ~60% from international markets. These are just the largest parts. There are so many others, such as online travel and booking services, Airbnb, and so on. In addition to the e-commerce sector, there is also large volumes of sales of intellectual property, financial services, telecommunications services and many other cross-border transactions. For instance, foreign profits paid to U.S. parent corporations as dividends are generally excluded from U.S. taxation and are not counted as exports. Additionally, foreign earnings retained overseas are usually not treated as exports. Other types of foreign income such as “Subpart F income” or “Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income” are also often not counted as exports. Exact quantitative shares are extremely difficult to total up. Some of the largest categories of U.S. service revenue from abroad, other than e-commerce, that is often not labeled an export, includes, annually: Royalties and license fees such as for pharmaceuticals and entertainment, ~$130–$150B; banking, insurance, and asset management, ~$80–$100B; telecommunications, computer and information services, ~$70–$90B; consulting, legal services, accounting and R&D, ~$60–$80B; tuition paid by foreign students, ~$40–$50B; shipping and air freight abroad, ~$30–$40B; streaming, film/TV licensing and video games ((e.g., Netflix, Disney, HBO), ~$25–$35B; healthcare and pharma services abroad, ~$15–$25B; infrastructure projects abroad, ~$10–$20B. Sources: Most of this information was extracted using Deep Seek from WTO reports and company accounts. If you would like more details ask Deep Seek the question: What amount of the sales of U.S. services outside the USA are not counted as exports? Or use another AI if you prefer. Contact: Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton Line: bmpaton Substack: @billpaton Telegram: @bmpaton Signal: @bmpaton.01 Bluesky: @billpaton.bsky.social

Truths About My Country (Part 1) 1 February 2026 by KAN Fengmin Summary Drawing on a lifetime shaped by China’s opening to the world and three decades studying in Europe and working with the United Nations, the author recounts how her extensive international experience strengthened her conviction that China’s success stems from the Communist Party’s leadership. She rejects Western portrayals of China as autocratic, emphasizing its merit-based governance, democratic centralism, long-term planning, anti-corruption efforts, and tangible improvements in people’s lives, while criticizing Western media bias and political hypocrisy. As a Beijinger, I was selected in 1972 for a group to go to the airport to welcome President Richard Nixon and his wife Pat. We also attended the large-scale cultural performance put on for them one evening at Beijing Capital Stadium. The President and his wife seemed to enjoy the friendly atmosphere, and my curiosity about the United States sprouted. Two years later, I majored in English language at university – giving me more access to information about Western countries in general and the United States in particular. Benefiting from the open-door policy introduced by the Chinese Government, I was able to go abroad to study in 1986, receiving a PhD in the Netherlands and going on to work abroad, mostly for the United Nations in different capacities and countries. Altogether, I lived in the Netherlands, the UK, Mozambique, Switzerland, France, the United States, Central African Republic, Japan, Kenya and Thailand. In addition, I visited more than 70 countries, usually for work. I remained outside of China for 30 years. I share with readers my experience because, quite contrary to the expectations of most Westerners, those three decades abroad, seeing the world, left me feeling lucky to be Chinese. I truly love my country and respect the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China and government. After my retirement, in January 2017, I moved back to China and spent most of the last nine years there, often traveling – from big new cities to small mountain villages – witnessing the unbelievable changes in people's lives. International English media are dominated by bias and lies against China, especially the Communist Party and its leadership of the government. Pro-China authors are targets of insinuations such that they are secretly paid by China and so on. Well, I am neither a Party member, nor I am paid by the Chinese government for writing this. As a UN retiree, I do not even draw a pension or have medical insurance cover from China. I am writing this article for two reasons. Firstly, I’m retired long enough to enjoy the freedom of speech whose false facade is so constantly used by anti-China politicians and media to hide behind. The second is that people around the world, whether they like or dislike China, should know the truth about the country. Indeed, they deserve a break from being manipulated by Western politicians and mainstream media, who are – for personal gain – so bent on deluding the people who voted for them. While people around the world are impressed by the speed and scope of development in China, many do not realize that this great transformation in incomes, social security, and so many other areas such as environmental protection, has been largely due to the Party’s visionary leadership, hard work by the Party-led government, and of course the dynamism of the Chinese people. Instead of collaborating with such a success, many politicians in the West feel threatened and jealous that they must share prosperity. Seeking to demonize any perceived foe, some Western politicians and mainstream media – especially in the United States and United Kingdom – stage ceaseless, often baseless attacks on China. Those usually-unfounded assaults reveal ignorance, dishonesty, and profound betrayal of their own professed principles such as 'telling both sides of the story'. China’s Party-led government has gradually gotten over their shock at this barbarism and become resilient to the attempted interference and disruption sponsored by Western countries. They continue to demonstrate their comprehensive capability to lead China further forward on the path of sustainable development and its great national rejuvenation. The ruling class and politicians from the West constantly accuse China of being an ‘autocracy’ or even a ‘dictatorship’. This has become almost a mantra in Washington and London and it is dead wrong. The truth is that the Party has tied its fate with the fate of the country and its people's livelihood since its founding in 1921. Its primary purpose is to serve its people wholeheartedly (为人民服务). This has remained unchanged during its 105-year history, and is even more the case today. Before the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, it was the Party which led the Chinese people and army to defeat the Japanese invaders and overthrow the Chiang Kai-shek regime – bent only on power and personal wealth, in cahoots with the USA. Since 1949 until today, it is this same Party, together with the people, that has progressively eliminated severe poverty nationwide, developed world-leading transportation systems, renewable energy, electric vehicles, medical systems, other cutting edge science and technology and much, much more. China continues to strive for its great national revitalization, no matter who tries to stand in its way. In China, the Party leads pretty well everything at all administrative levels. I understand this sounds shocking to anti-China, Western ears, but it is in fact a deep commitment to govern national development and administration. The Party-led governing system not only enables the Party to exercise strong leadership, but also demonstrates the Party's strong sense of responsibility and accountability for its country’s development and its people’s well-being. Most Chinese people judge the Party and the government led by the Party by what they do, and indeed, they do a great deal for the people. The transformation from the mostly rural, peasant landscape of 1940s China to today’s modern life is truly incredible, far beyond the imagination of people born in the 1940s and ‘50s such as myself. China's government is not a 'dictatorship' or 'autocracy.' The Party, based on Chinese history and reality, has chosen Democratic Centralism (民主集中制), as its core management principle, combining centralization with considerable democracy. This is a fundamental organizational principle, actually helping to prevent the dictatorship or autocracy found in a number of countries across the globe. Importantly, this core principle emphasizes that the primary cause of the Party is to pursue the interests of the Chinese people. Such a genuine commitment to serve may not be easily found in political parties in Western countries, and while in China too, individual officials go astray, the Party as a whole stays on track. Democratic Centralism fosters leadership based on collective wisdom, adopting a procedure that combines consultative democracy with voting democracy. A key level is the Party's Central Committee of just over 200 full members, elected every five years through the National Party Congress of nearly 3,000 deputies. The Chinese Politburo (24 members), and its Standing Committee (7 members), are also elected every five years by the new Central Committee. Of course, there is plenty of back-room negotiating, informal polls and consultation with party elders, but this is how representative democracy works. Unlike a multi-party system with parties as primary competitors (and competition within each party only secondary), in China’s way, primary competition is within one Party. As in any system, the top leader – the Party’s Secretary General, currently Xi Jinping – holds the most influence over the selection of candidates, but even they cannot always get what they want. Keep in mind that in Western systems, the Prime Minister or President often has the personal power to directly appoint all their cabinet members and many others, in some cases even their relatives or family members, often without the need for legislative approval. No one calls this dictatorship. Keep in mind too, that attempting to overthrow the constitutional order through illegal means, especially in collusion with a foreign power, is considered treason anywhere, and China is no different in this respect. At the grassroots level, there are also established procedures to make sure that Rural Party Branches are led by individuals with strong skills and commitment. At the lowest levels such as in villages or neighborhoods, leaders are frequently elected through direct voting. This overall governance system is intended to ensure a high degree of coherence, effectiveness and centripetal force – qualities sorely lacking in Western governments. Why has the Communist Party remained strong for more than a century? What enabled it to emerge strong from ‘the century of national humiliation’ – from the first Opium War with Britain to the ending of the Japanese invasion in 1945 – and go on to lead its people to their current national grand rejuvenation? Let me highlight three merits that may help one understand this success: The first merit of the Party-led government is their capacity to ensure consistency The Party's strong emphasis on high-level consistency prevents any successor from wiping the slate ‘clean’ and starting all over again – perhaps even heading in the opposite direction as frequently happens in some Western countries. As the Communist Party's purpose and organizational principles were clearly set out by the first generation of Party leaders, new generations adhere to them, building on what has been achieved and identifying what is needed next to advance further. Chinese national Five-Year Plans and programmes enable objective measuring of results before setting out measurable new priorities and targets in the next Plan. The process generally begins with a proposal from the Central Committee of the Party, followed by the State Council's draft outline, that is then submitted to the National People’s Congress for review and approval, releasing steadily more information about it until the entire text is publicized. This planning process is quite elaborate and the annual measurement of performance compared to targets set is quantitative, transparent and available online. Westerners mostly do not imagine that draft new laws in China are posted online for two or even three rounds of public comments before they are finalized. The Four Modernizations (agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology), are another source of consistency, a clear vision of a basic set of priorities for development. The concept was first proposed in 1954 at the first National People's Congress, but it was not until the Third People's Congress at the end of 1964 / beginning of 1965, that it was finally adopted. Premier Zhou stated: "The main task of developing the national economy in the future, generally speaking, is to build our country into a nation with modern agriculture, modern industry, modern national defense and modern science and technology within a relatively short historical period." And then they proceeded to do it, not without wrong turns and course-corrections, to be sure, but they did it. They did it very well. Another example of the high level of consistency of Party-led governance in China is the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in its Foreign Affairs dealings: 1) Mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, 2) mutual non-aggression, 3) non-interference in internal affairs, 4) equality and mutual benefit, and 5) peaceful coexistence. Those Five Principles, established in 1954, have remained the fundamental guidance underlying China's diplomacy. Present-day China has imbued this with ‘new-era connotations’ of a “community with a shared future for mankind”, and this is widely applied in its current international relations. Such a high level of consistency, in this case for over 70 years and despite great changes, has proved one of strongest merits of the governance led by the Communist Party of China. The second merit is a high level of competence In China, it is beyond people’s imagination to put the fate and future of the nation in the hands of a popular entrepreneur or other politically inexperienced person. Both the Communist Party and the government it leads are built through a long-established merit-based process for selection and promotion of the best candidates. In ancient China, the imperial examination system was pioneered as early as the Sui dynasty 581 - 618 AD, and widely used by the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties that followed. In present-day China, selection of civil servants is still based on extremely competitive annual entry exams. As competition is so high, one must score at the very top to be admitted. Then, to climb the career ladder, one must steadily succeed in increasingly challenging positions, according to numerous measured indicators in a scorecard used for each individual's quite rigorous annual evaluation. Any citizen above 18 can express their interest in joining the Communist Party, which has 100 million members throughout the country today. Acceptance is largely based on the observations and assessment by party members of the individual, based on their deeds and especially if they are behaving according to the Party’s overarching principle – to put the interests of the people and country first. Yes, like in any system, connections can help. Corruption exists too and at one point was too widespread, but these individuals were never the mainstream. Neither has there ever been much chance of advancement if your performance did not stand above the others, crony pals or not. Today, China enjoys an enormous, bubbling pool of committed Party-led officials at different levels, working hard towards clear and stable targets. The truth is that the Chinese people can always count on the Party and their government to perform, and especially in time of great need. For instance, during the unprecedented Wenchuan earthquake, or the Covid-19 pandemic, the Party and government’s response was swift and outstandingly competent. Though it was not without flaws, their performance was clearly superior. For instance, no Western government can build an entire, large, modern hospital in just eight days because of a sudden, urgent need. The third merit of the Party is periodic self-revolution to correct themselves While the standard Western narrative about Chinese governance is that it is calcified and refuses to change, making collapse inevitable, the exact opposite is true. It is a highly dynamic entity. The Communist Party of China has grown and thrived since its founding in 1921, despite great turbulence, because of its ability to change. As of today, the Party has undergone self-revolution six times, to correct itself after a wrong turn. Think, for instance, of the major changes in economic policy in the late 1970s that led to China’s great boom. In addition, the Party has also experienced more than 70 different political movements within itself. However, no matter how great the internal revolution and fermentation, the fundamental goals and principles remain the same. We all know that corruption is a common challenge for all countries and for fast-growing developing countries in particular, and China has been no exception. Corruption became so flagrant among some government officials that the Party realized it was seriously eroding the trust of the people, a dangerous state of affairs. Since 2012, the Party’s Central Committee led by Chairman Xi, has greatly intensified its anti-corruption efforts. Year after year the campaign has intensified, catching both ‘tigers and flies.’ Officials can be prosecuted for corruption even after retirement. The causes of corruption such as lax tendering have also been addressed and the result has been an amazing success – a relentless crackdown on all sorts of corruption, from major bribe-taking to excessively expensive dining on expense accounts. Far from tokenism, this campaign is now in its fourteenth year and still going strong. In 2025 alone, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervision organs nationwide received 4.2 million complaints, including 1.3 million accusations and denunciations. By the end of November, 983,000 individuals had received disciplinary punishment in the first 11 months of the year, including 69 quite senior officials. Punishments ranged from merely being criticized and educated, to being expelled from the post and the Party, to the recovery of stolen wealth. Following party discipline comes legal prosecution which sends many away for long prison sentences, and in the case of very serious corruption by senior officials, even for life. Contrary to Western insinuations, there is no immunity for any group, not even those closest to or chosen by the top leadership, as recent cases have amply demonstrated. Conclusion I want to emphasize there is no perfect party and government, nor is there any ‘magic formula’ for the best form of governance that can be universally applied. We are all bearing witness to the appalling disorder of US politics and governance today, which has for so many decades held itself up as a model in the world. China, however, is not trying to export its own governance model. It considers it uniquely Chinese. The Communist Party of China has undergone a history of continuous trials and tribulations. With clear vision and principles, the Party and its government – working with its people – have successfully achieved the four modernizations in record time and are now steaming towards the complete ‘grand rejuvenation’ of their country. The level of sustainable development in China speaks loudly and clearly that there would have been no new China without the Communist Party. We ordinary people, especially young people around the world, should not be fooled by the sweet, empty words that anti-China politicians and governments often use, citing democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, or equality and peace. The best way is to come and visit China yourself and reach your own conclusions. Have a look around and see what you think. If you do a bit of research, you will see that the development history of China is a history of self-reliance and hard work. In contrast, the development of countries led by the Western ruling-classes and their politicians, was based on a long history of blood-stained aggression, plunder, enslavement and colonization. Today, such ruling classes and politicians are bullying and robbing smaller countries; using economic sanctions to squeeze them to acquiesce to their demands, and spending tens of billions to finance clandestine activities aimed at inciting violent social unrest, and thus overthrow their governments to install ones they like. They seek to continue controlling the world as much as they can for their own interests, and not at all for the interests of their peoples. No doubt, China's success will continue to be accompanied by a never-ending, systematic, mind-boggling campaign to diabolize China in Western minds. My youthful respect and fascination with the USA and the G7 countries as a whole has long since faded to disdain. ——————————————— Dr. KAN Fengmin (China), is a retired senior official of the United Nations Secretariat, responsible for coordination of disaster response and disaster risk reduction. She served as Head of the Asia and Pacific Office of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, based in Bangkok, THAILAND, as Head of Africa Office for the same UN entity, based in Nairobi, KENYA, and as Senior Coordinator in Geneva, SWITZERLAND. Before UNDRR, Dr. Kan worked for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, based in Kobe, JAPAN, coordinating UN humanitarian assistance to Asian countries affected by disasters, as well as for the United Nations Development Program, headquartered in New York, USA, and in the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC on a peace-building programme. She joined the United Nations Peace Mission in MOZAMBIQUE in 1993, working for the International Organization for Migration as head of their program to assist the reintegration of 115,000 demobilized soldiers during the peace-building process. Dr. Kan has a Ph.D in Social Science from the University of Utrecht, in THE NETHERLANDS. Contact: Email: fengminkan@qq.com WeChat: Fngmin WhatsApp: +86 186 1113 4392

Contemporary Capitalism is Destroying Democracy Multiple Parties Summary Modern capitalism is concentrating wealth at unprecedented levels, with trillionnaires emerging and a tiny elite gaining enormous political influence. Concentrated wealth increasingly shapes policy and politics, threatening democracy globally unless stronger regulation, fairer taxation, and limits on elite influence are implemented. XISHUANGBANNA — The world will have its first trillionnaire after Space X goes public 12 June. This will be an individual with as much personal wealth as the world's poorest billion people. No one in human history has ever been as rich as is our new trillionnaire.(1) In 2024, the top 1% owned 43% of planetary wealth. The wealth of the world's 3,000 billionaires grew by 12% in 2025, while that of the top 10 wealthiest persons grew by 23%. Concentrated personal wealth is growing so exponentially that it is fair to speculate we will one day see an individual possess as much wealth as half the planet. This is the point at which Chinese peasants traditionally revolted, and scholarly officials then wisely decided the Emperor had "lost the Mandate of Heaven." We, however, seem to be going quietly along with this scandalous state of affairs, admiring the Earth's new oligarchs and avidly following their tweets. Declining Democracy and Increasing Elite Influence Western belief that economic freedom and political freedom reinforce one another dates back as far as Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Their citizens are taught that they are free, living in democracies. There were certainly decades when multi-party systems and capitalism thrived together. Today however, there is strong evidence that democracy is backsliding. The USA saw a 24% decline on V-Dem's Liberal Democracy index in 2024–2025 alone, dropping from 20th to 51st globally that year. The decline combines a drop in trust in institutions, weakening legislative constraints, increasing concentration of power and influence, reduced media independence, constrained political rights and falling freedom of speech. The overall Western trend is similar, if a little milder. Three long-term data sets (V-Dem, Freedom House and EIU.com), illustrate this. Freedom House, for example, reports two decades of global democratic decline, including in the United States, Hungary, France, Italy and the UK. To give an example: Peaceful protest in the UK is being criminalized. Anti-monarchy protestors at the time of the accession of King Charles III — just people holding signs such as "Not My King" — were arrested in an echo of past lèse-majesté laws. Australia raided a journalist's office because she was preparing a story on Australian forces committing war crimes in Afghanistan. Numerous countries have made pro-Palestinian protests illegal. An Ipsos survey across nine Western countries in 2025 found satisfaction with democracy below 50% in eight of them, with majorities worried about democracy's future. We should be. Growing Inequality Is the Most Important Factor Economic inequality is the strongest predictor of democratic erosion. Unequal nations are much more likely to elect leaders who undermine democratic norms. Helen Milner's article (2021), Is Global Capitalism Compatible with Democracy? concluded that rising inequality, economic insecurity, and concentrated economic power fuel support for populist movements that challenge democratic norms. Thomas Piketty demonstrated in Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), that wealth accumulation and concentration have been sharply increasing since the 1980s. Piketty contends that when return on capital outpaces growth (such as that 23% in a year, mentioned above), wealth concentrates quickly at the top. Simple math. Enormous, concentrated wealth converts into enormous, concentrated political influence, mainly through lobbying and financing campaigns. A good example is Elon Musk's $ 1/4 billion-dollar contribution to Trump's 2004 election campaign. Wealth also buys media ownership. For instance, Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and stopped it from endorsing Trump's opponent. Without the support of these billionaires it is unlikely Trump would have been re-elected. Most importantly, super-wealth buys access to elite networks such as Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate where a long waiting list of supplicants all seek to pay the $1m "Initiation Fee." We have no shortage of examples of elites' political influence in other countries. Russian oligarchs in the 1990s were particularly famous. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, a billionaire with a near monopoly on media became Prime Minister for several terms. India’s Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani are often discussed in debates about corporate influence, government contracts, and regulatory decisions. Then there are South Korea’s chaebols, large family-controlled conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG, that greatly influence public policy. A record five former South Korean former presidents have been convicted and imprisoned, mostly for corruption. Let's not forget Brazil's "Car Wash scandal" or the Marcos, Aquino and Duterte families in the Philippines. The Influence of Elites Continues to Grow, Even in More Equal Countries The data on democracy's decline are less severe in countries with greater equality, such as the Nordic countries, Canada or Australia, but we should not be reassured, for two reasons: Firstly, the Gini coefficient that illustrates greater equality in some countries is an income coefficient not a wealth coefficient. While the US income Gini is .48, its wealth Gini is .85, close to South Africa's soaring .9. India's income Gini is an amazingly low .26 yet its wealth Gini is a very high .75. Secondly, the inordinate political influence of a Samsung or Berlusconi is hard to deny, yet South Korea has relatively low income inequality with an income Gini of .31, and even acceptable wealth inequality at .63. Italy too has a modest income Gini of .32, if higher than the EU average, and a wealth Gini of .57 or about average for the West. Since both of these countries have been experiencing falling democracy ratings over the last 20 years in the various indexes cited above, it appears that extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of just a few persons, even if it is not enough to move the Gini needle much, can alone spur significant democratic decline. Norway may seem to have low inequality as measured by a low income Gini coefficient of .28, but its wealth Gini (officially unavailable), is estimated at a high .75. Norway has an "Inner Circle" of corporate directors who leverage influence through "serving" on government advisory boards. Wealthy owners of the same corporations then further their influence via corporate donations to right-wing parties. In Denmark, with similarly high wealth inequality of 0.75, a core of some 275 directors acts as "hardcore brokers," enjoying privileged access to legislative committees. The elite mostly favors technocratic governance, at times entirely drowning out public political debate. In Canada (income Gini .36), the wealth gap has just hit a breaking point. The top 1/5th now have 2/3 of net worth, while the bottom 40% have just 2.7%. This is mild by international standards and there is scant evidence it is causing democratic deactivation.(1) However, Canada is not immune to polarization and this may cause problems in future. In Australia (income Gini .31, wealth Gini .61), Clive Palmer donated $116m to the United Australia Party in 2022, an amount that dwarfs Elon's $250m for Trump if compared to Australia's GDP, and then gave $50m to his own "Trumpet of Patriots" political party in 2024/25. When Australia limited donations to $20,000 per party per year last year, major parties just set up "associated entities" that have no limits and no disclosure. Parliament then passed another new law blocking this but raising the effective limits. Most importantly, they set a limit of $90 million per party for a federal election campaign and $800,000 per House seat. That may make a difference, or it may spur the emergence of something like US "Super PACS", which have completely bypassed such laws there. In China, an income Gini coefficient of .36 approaches the USA's .42 and its wealth Gini of a high .7 approaches the USA's very high .85. Inequality soared during the reform era begun in the 1980s and political corruption by financial elites then ran rampant, threatening China's democracy (yes, I said democracy.(2)) Today, after more than a decade of anti-corruption work, political leaders are firmly back in control of the private sector's elite. A total of 15-20 Chinese billionaires have been detained or arrested in China in the last 7-8 years, either for corruption, financial violations including excessive debt and risk to the banking sector, or excessive political interference. Many others, including impressive numbers of senior officials and Generals, have also been convicted of corruption, mainly for accepting bribes from business people. Solution or Dystopia? With democracy declining in more countries than not, undermined by soaring wealth inequality and super-wealth, there is a clear danger for almost the entire world. Globalization has forced most states to compete with each other to lower taxes and offer other incentives to the world's biggest corporations and richest tycoons, enormously weakening public bargaining power. In most countries the very rich pay taxes at lower rates than the middle classes. The richest are permitted to openly buy political influence, such that it is difficult to win office without their 'generous support.' There are, however, signs that we are waking up. A minimum corporate tax of 15% has now been agreed to by 150 countries. That is an important step forward, though the United States insisted on a unique exemption for its own corporations. But it is far from enough to curtail the rampant enrichment we are witnessing. We are going to need to do much more, particularly to stop political power from being auctioned off. Without very strict limits on campaign contributions, elections alone are becoming insufficient for a government to claim legitimacy, while non-electoral political systems also mostly succumb to the rich. Our grandchildren risk living in a terrifying dystopia where one man or woman possesses more wealth than half the world's population — where voting has become pointless compared with their power and free expression is widely suppressed. It is up to all of us to ensure that doesn't happen. —————————— 1) To find someone who once possessed equivalent personal wealth proportional to the rest of the world, we need to go back 2,000 years, to Rome's Emperor Augustus, but that was a world of an estimated 170 million souls — a mere 2% of today's 8.3 billion. Mansa Musa in 14th century Mali was also a contender, mining vast quantities of gold, but likely had "only" $4-500 billion in today's terms. 2) Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU): "Improving. " Canada jumped to 9th globally in 2025 (up from 14th), with its score rising by nearly 0.4 points. It remains classified as a "Full Democracy" and is one of only three in the Americas. Freedom House: "Stable/Very High". Canada scored 97/100 in the 2024 report (covering 2023). While this was a one-point drop from previous years, the country remains "Free" and ranks in the top 5 globally. However, Freedom House criticizes long delays in Canada's courts, high legal costs, and inferior Indigenous access, while Quebec's secularism law has restricted religious freedom for public employees. V-Dem Institute: "Stable" but Canada ranks a lower 25th on the Liberal Democracy Index. The country fluctuates between "Liberal Democracy" and "Electoral Democracy" based on specific indicators like access to justice . 3) Westerners are usually incredulous to learn that the lowest, township or county level of representatives in China are all chosen in public elections. They in turn elect the prefecture level whose representatives then elect the provincial level, who elect the national level representatives who go to Beijing. All citizens over 18 have the right to vote and stand for election and voting is by secret ballot. Fully a third of those who make it to the People's National Congress in Beijing each year are not members of the Communist Party. See Kan (1 February 2026), "My China." Though far from perfect, this is a considerable degree of democracy that most Westerners know nothing about. —————————— Add comments below! —————————— Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton WhatsApp: +66 6 344 844 34

The entire world is witnessing China's abandonment of its attempt to keep Covid out. The Panda has now gone surfing on a deadly wave of infections. But whether it was zero Covid, or now living with Covid, the Western media continue to relentlessly criticize China's handling of the pandemic. Why? Of the approximately 20 million dead from Covid world wide, less than 30,000 were Chinese as of 30 October 2022. Now that the dam has burst, and a wave of Omicron variants has overwhelmed China's procedures (and an increasingly fed-up population), hundreds of thousands more Chinese will die. Few, however, believe that the toll will come even close to the 5 million dead that China would have had with an American death rate. Millions of lives have been saved. How can this policy be judged to have been wrong? by William Paton, Beijing 27 December 2022 For many months earlier in 2022, the Western narrative on China's Covid policy was extremely critical, usually something like: "China's wrong Covid policy continues to refuse to follow the West's example and open back up. It's government is stubbornly bent on locking down its citizens in a futile attempt to eliminate the virus. This is harming the Chinese economy and the world's and impinging on it's citizens rights. If only Beijing imported superior Western vaccines, then China too could open up and return to normal." Don't get me wrong. I detest wearing a face mask and I am very happy that I can finally travel abroad without having to quarantine for five days when I return. However, what the West's daily, anti-China rhetoric avoids mentioning is that of the estimated 21.6m (quite possibly 28m), people who have died of Covid, less than 30,000 of them died in China (see map) until now. You may want to read that sentence again. It's what Al Gore would call 'an inconvenient truth.' According to WHO, China's excess deaths since March 2020 until November 2022 were negative. This means that, due to reductions in deaths from other causes like flu and traffic accidents, China's Covid policy has actually also saved tens of thousands more lives. Deaths Due to Covid by October 2022 Source: The Economist, accessed 30 October 2022. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates So hang on. Did I lose the plot there? Why did so many Westerners and their media adopt a smug, superior attitude, criticizing China's coronavirus policies? Survivors elsewhere were happy that it seems to be nearly over. But didn't 1.2m USA citizens die of Covid? Don't tens of millions in just that one country now suffer from long Covid? How exactly was this 'superior?' If China -- with more than four times the population of the USA -- had experienced a death rate similar to the USA's, it would have lost 5 million souls. More likely, with its huge cities, dense population and less beds in hospital intensive care wards, the rate would have been double or 10 million killed. Instead, China rose to the occasion, swiftly implementing country-wide systems that worked -- or rather that worked until about a month ago. And contrary to the tales told abroad, the measures were not generally too onerous most of the time. Testing on the sidewalk in front of my place was free and fast with the result showing up the next day on my app. I was almost never required to stay home. Another claim was that China's economy was being too badly damaged by its 'wrong' Covid policy. Well, yes, GDP growth in China was about 3% in 2022. But is that so bad? The dam burst and it has caused a huge wave Now let's face it, China's policy of suppressing the spread of Covid failed, beginning late November. By the time protests about anti-Covid measures broke out, the writing was already on the wall. Omicron variants, especially the latest ones, are too contagious to contain. China's government, at this point, switched to Plan B and that didn't go smoothly at all. For about a week there was confusion and inadequate communication. Testing systems broke down in my neighborhood. But then you mostly didn't need a test anymore. The thermometers and QR codes to scan, the travel apps, had all miraculously disappeared. To their credit, as Covid began to spread very obviously, most citizens reacted stoically. Mask wearing shot up to above 99% and many people heeded government advice to upgrade to N-95 standard masks. The restaurants re-opened, but people voluntarily stayed home and cooked. An army of 60,000 delivery personnel here in Beijing alone was bolstered to replace the sick and ensure that everyone could continue to order take-out food or groceries delivered if they wanted. Shopping centres allowed free entry again, without showing proof of a recent Covid test, but most people decided that it was not a good time to go shopping. The switch from enforced compliance to robust voluntary compliance was breathtaking. While I moaned myself for a week that the government seemed to have fallen off the surf board, by week two they were back riding the wave. Tens of thousands of little testing booths set up on sidewalks during the control phase have been replaced by mini fever clinics in a number of major cities, with one doctor and one nurse able to sort out anyone seriously ill, and write a prescription and actually dispense the medicine on the spot for the rest before sending them home to bed. Pharmacies, too, were re-stocked. The self-administered Covid tests I ordered arrived (a few days late). And the government belatedly got a new booster-shot campaign going, finally targeting the elderly, including with a vaccine that is simply inhaled. A lot of people have already fallen ill with Covid, including my wife and I -- we are both now recovered -- and many of our friends. Most got a fever and recovered quickly, but not everyone. It is going to be a tough winter. Chinese humour survived. The traditional greeting 'have you eaten?' was replaced with 'are you positive?' in a rhyming way. And plans for travel home for Spring Festival 22 January are in full swing, though they will no doubt further Covid's spread. Sadly, many tens of thousands are going to die, something the government and country had gone to great lengths to try and prevent. Western media are blaring -- with poorly disguised schadenfreude -- that millions will die. However, the truth is that by keeping Covid at bay so long, until it faced less lethal variants, China has undoubtedly saved millions of lives. Compared to the 5-10 million who would have perished had they imitated the West from the start, even the colossal loss of hundreds of thousands of lives is a preferable outcome, a partial success. In the end, that is the best that China could do.

It is May Day break time With the pandemic and masks already a distant memory, China enjoyed GDP growth of 4.5% in the first quarter, despite the pandemic wave in January and the Spring Festival when the economy always slows for a month. Now it is the May 1st break. Many people have a least a week off and travel, some to the beach. I just took these photos in Hainan near Sanya, in the space of two hours or so on two consecutive days, just as the May Day break began. by William Paton, Beijing 1 May 2023

The US President Will Perform Theatre of the Absurd in a Polite Beijing 7 May 2026 Summary Trump’s long-anticipated visit to Beijing is shaping up less as a diplomatic breakthrough than a politely staged political spectacle. Beneath the photo ops and grand ceremony, the US-China trade war is intensifying across sanctions, payment systems, tariffs, technology, and energy. Any agreements announced will be symbolic, and fragile, leaving the deeper conflicts all unresolved after Air Force One departs. IN Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, two men endlessly wait for someone who never arrives, filling the time with repetitive conversations that expose the absurdity of human existence. President Trump’s visit to China increasingly resembles a parody of Beckett’s play: anticipation surrounding an event unlikely to produce anything meaningful. The heart of the China-US relationship is trade. Since China’s restrictions on rare earth exports pushed Trump to retreat from imposing the highest tariffs on Chinese goods, the conflict has not calmed. Instead, it has spread into new areas and continues escalating even as the US Air Force delivers “the Beast” — the presidential limousine — to Beijing. Preparations for the trip were reportedly so weak that Trump was not ready to travel at the end of March. The Iran War offered a convenient reason to postpone and begin actual planning. Yet “planning” means something very different for Trump, who favors improvisation, than for Xi Jinping, whose government prepares meticulously for every scenario. China has not even officially confirmed Trump’s arrival and may not do so until he steps off Air Force One. Trading Advance Blows Normally, summit meetings between major powers are preceded by months of negotiations that produce agreements ready for signing, perhaps with a few points to still be finalized face to face. This visit is different. Instead of preparing deals, both sides are trading blows in advance. Washington recently announced new sanctions on Chinese refineries buying Iranian oil. Western media then reported that China had “blocked sanctions against 5 Chinese companies.” What actually happened was more significant: Beijing began enforcing a 2020 law allowing compliance with certain US sanctions to be treated as illegal in China, a highly significant counter-move. The United States currently maintains roughly 70,000 sanctions, including measures against 1,300 Chinese entities. Until now, Washington could enforce them easily by restricting access to cross-border banking. Because most international payments move through US-linked CHIPS and SWIFT systems, the US can effectively cut entities out of global finance, something it has already done to companies and individuals in around 20 countries, sometimes amounting to the entire country. Now companies operating in China may increasingly face a choice between violating American law or Chinese law. They may also have to choose which international payment network to rely on in order to avoid penalties from the other side. China’s CIPS payment system processes nearly ¥1 trillion in transactions daily and is expanding rapidly. Total annual volume is expected to reach around ¥300 trillion this year, up sharply from ¥180 trillion in 2025. While Western media often note that the yuan accounts for only a small share of SWIFT transactions, CIPS is an alternative to SWIFT. Meanwhile, transaction growth in America’s CHIPS system has stagnated since 2001. BRICS is also preparing to launch BRICS Pay in India later this year, promising faster and cheaper international transactions outside US-controlled systems, this for 45% of the world's population enjoying the majority of global economic growth. Another confrontation emerged in March when the US Trade Representative launched investigations into “structural excess capacity” involving 16 trading partners, including China, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the European Union, and Southeast Asian nations. The argument now emerging in Washington is that countries capable of producing competitively priced exports at large scale are effectively “cheating” through "excess capacity". The investigations are intended to provide Trump with a legal route to impose higher tariffs again after the US Supreme Court struck down most of his earlier efforts. China strongly objects and would likely answer any renewed tariffs with further restrictions on rare earth exports, reluctantly repeating the cycle. These are only a few examples of widening trade-war hostilities. The conflict now includes technology bans extending beyond semiconductors, myriad selective tariffs such as on Chinese dock cranes!, China’s recruitment of scientists from the United States where science funding is being cut, a US blockade on Chinese energy supplies through the Gulf of Oman, and tighter control over Venezuelan oil exports, much of which are going to China. Trump’s visit is unlikely to resolve any of it. It will mostly be political theatre, though probably flamboyant theatre as Xi is wise enough to know what a narcissistic, megalomaniac craves. Waiting for Trump — The Show For Trump, the Beijing trip is about short-term optics and boosting weak domestic approval ahead of November midterm elections that Republicans will probably lose badly. He will want memorable images: perhaps smiling alongside Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People or posing with the two first ladies if Melania Trump attends. Xi approaches politics from a long-term strategic perspective, while Trump has little patience for long-term commitments. That mismatch makes meaningful progress unlikely, whether on trade, Ukraine, the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, technology, or AI. Still, Xi will almost certainly provide the ceremonial grandeur and hospitality Trump enjoys, perhaps a quick Great Wall visit. Trump will want to claim victory on tariffs, soybean exports, and access to rare earth minerals. Beijing may offer limited concessions to help him declare success while securing some benefits of its own, perhaps reaffirmation of US commitment to One China and the three U.S.-China Joint Communiqués regarding Taiwan Province (台灣省). Neither side fully trusts the other to honor promises. China knows Trump may reverse course quickly, while Trump mainly needs any agreement to survive until November so he can present it as a triumph at home. China is also less vulnerable to US tariffs than before. American demand now accounts for only about 11% of Chinese exports and could fall to roughly 7% by 2030. China increased its exports by 5% in 2025 compared to 2024. Meanwhile, Chinese imports of American agricultural products never fully recovered after the first trade war. Brazilian soybeans remain cheaper, meaning any future increase in US purchases would mostly represent a partial reversal of earlier Chinese cuts rather than new demand. After two days of ceremony and oversized announcements, Trump will return to Florida proclaiming “an incredible deal” with his “good friend Xi Jinping.” He will describe the visit as historic and successful. In reality, little of lasting significance is likely to have changed. The spectacle will end with the sense that everyone was waiting for Trump to arrive so that something meaningful could happen, but that nothing did — as if an American President had simply never shown up. —————————— Add comments below! —————————— Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton WhatsApp: +66 6 344 844 34

How Can the Next UN Secretary-General Make a Difference? 3 May 2026 Summary The author recalls a 1998 UN diplomatic success under Kofi Annan, contrasting it with today’s divided, ineffective Security Council. Growing dishonesty among world leaders — a deficit of virtue and a new era of “Coldness” — is weakening the United Nations and the wider world. The upcoming selection of a new Secretary-General risks prolonging the decline unless an outstandingly principled, inspiring leader emerges and meaningful reform is achieved. Phuket — In February 1998, I was working for the United Nations in New York, responding to wars around the world and their aftermaths. One day, hundreds of us gathered in the foyer of UN Headquarters to greet Secretary-General Kofi Annan, returning from meeting Saddam Hussein to prevent another war — a mission he described as his “sacred duty.” The United States and Britain had assembled a massive fleet in the Gulf, preparing for what could have been a devastating conflict. But not that day. The Secretary-General had secured a diplomatic solution that defused the standoff, allowing Iraq to sell more oil if it complied fully with weapons inspections mandated by UN resolutions — an arrangement widely seen as fair. As he entered the lobby, staff broke into a tremendous cheer — a hero’s welcome. I still choke up remembering that moment. The world was watching as the UN fulfilled its potential. Return of "Coldness" In the 1990s, the UN Security Council experienced a welcome thaw and functioned relatively well. China and Russia worked with the United States, while Britain and France ceased using their vetoes. An unprecedented number of peacekeeping missions were authorized to help resolve the proxy conflicts of the Cold War era. International unity in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was also striking: the Security Council worked as intended. Arguably, the UN’s most recent, truly "star" global moment was the signing of the Paris climate agreement at UN Headquarters on Earth Day 2016. For the organization to remain relevant, it must continue to capture the public imagination — and inspire. Today, however, the UN has been sidelined in major conflicts. It has no political role to play in ending the Iran War — once again justified by a non-existent threat of weapons of mass destruction. The war in Ukraine grinds on with catastrophic losses, yet a divided Security Council cannot agree on meaningful action there either. Other wars — in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere — receive limited attention. The Security Council still controls multilateral mediation and peacekeeping, but in its current state of dysfunction, it can do very little. Its members often refuse to cooperate, then blame the UN itself for inaction. A new era of “Coldness” has set in. Decline of Virtuous Leadership The idea that leaders should be virtuous is ancient. Confucius emphasized benevolence and moral integrity. Ashoka the Great renounced war and promoted ethical governance. In the West, Plato envisioned philosopher-kings, while Aristotle argued for practical wisdom, courage, and justice. Later thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant maintained that leaders are duty-bound to serve the public good. The ideal endured, even when reality fell short. Today, however, many leaders are markedly less virtuous, often betraying public trust. Dishonesty has become routine, with governments constantly generating false narratives. Transparency International’s 2025 survey found that 47 out of 182 national governments reached record highs in perceived corruption. The UN, by contrast, still enjoys relatively strong global support. Pew Research finds that over 60% of people view it favorably, and over 70% do so in countries such as Sweden, Kenya, and Indonesia. In many places, the UN is trusted more than national governments. This is a tremendous opportunity with the potential to have historic consequences. It will be up to the next Secretary-General to take advantage of it, before it is squandered. The Next UN Secretary-General Five candidates have been officially nominated for Secretary-General, though one has withdrawn. Nominations remain open. Surely there should be more than four applicants for such a top job? The laudable expectation that the Secretary-General be a woman for the first time, along with respect for regional rotation, has considerably narrowed the field. The selection process is likely to be especially contentious this time given pressure from major powers. In the United States, proposals in Congress include a zero contribution to the UN core budget, a 60% cut to peacekeeping (both Charter obligations), and the '"complete elimination" of support for almost all UN agencies. Such cuts would merely weaken the organization, not reform it. Behind the scenes, candidates will face many undisclosed demands that further limit UN independence. There is even a risk of deadlock, leaving the current Secretary-General in place by default or requiring a caretaker — outcomes that would further disable the institution. Ultimately, the Security Council’s permanent members must agree on a candidate to recommend to the General Assembly. The General Assembly should not then rubber stamp the recommendation as in the past. They should instead scrutinize the candidate's merits, for instance inviting them to meet with different groupings. If too many member states are unconvinced, the Assembly should ask the Council to find someone more suitable. “It is for all UN member states to choose a Secretary-General, not just the permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly must make full use of its leverage in the appointment of a recommended candidate, including the prerogative to reject a recommendation."(1) The next Secretary-General will have tools available to improve the role — from appointing stronger envoys to raising issues before the Security Council(2) — but these have often been underused. There is also a strong case for a high-level General Conference to consider reforms to the UN Charter, particularly regarding the Security Council. While recommendations could be made without a veto, implementation would still face that singular power. Will the major powers support a candidate capable of shepherding real change? Or will they prefer someone merely compliant? There is a real risk that with weak leadership, reform will stall for another decade. Combined with more funding cuts, the UN’s effectiveness would be eroded more severely than ever and the public's confidence could wane. To avoid that outcome, the next Secretary-General must be willing to take risks — even at the cost of a second term. At the same time, they must maintain cooperation among member states, a difficult balance. They will need deep knowledge of the UN system, diplomatic skill, and independence. They may also need to appear more flexible than they truly are during the selection process, then demonstrate resolve once in office. Strong communication will be essential. The UN’s voice today is far too quiet. It must speak more clearly and more forcefully about peace, justice, and its own role in the world. The Secretary-General must themself be a highly talented communicator, both in English and in at least one other UN language. Above all, this moment calls for a leader of genuine integrity. Someone who inspires trust, acts with independence, and is committed to peace, justice and sustainable development. If the world believes in the United Nations Secretary-General — in their moral authority and purpose — then a single decisive act at a critical moment, like that mission to Baghdad, could prove transformative. It could change the world. ————————— 1) Al Hussein, Zeid Ra’ad (1 May 2026,)The choice of the next Secretary-General could decide the UN’s fate, The Elders Newsletter, https://theelders.org/news/choice-next-secretary-general-could-decide-un-s-fate. 2) See Ryan, Jordan (26 April 2026), The Secretary General This Moment Demands, Policy Brief, Toda Peace institute, https://toda.org/publications/policy-briefs-and-reports/the-secretary-general-this-moment-demands/. ————————— Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton WhatsApp: +66 6 344 844 34

Humanity Desperately Needs to Renew a Common Vision Dreaming of Peace, Steve Karro Phuket, 16 April 2026 Summary The post-WWII and Cold War order has collapsed into anarchy, with the current US-Israel assault on Iran and the Gaza genocide dominating a grim landscape. The UN is paralyzed by three veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, the US, Russia and China, blocking action on wars in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and Iran and the Strait of Hormuz in particular. We are all responsible. Our collective complacency enables today’s psychopathic leadership and senseless conflicts. We stand by while an Israeli/US genocide in Gaza continues and then watch as they launch a war on Iran. Humanity has the power to change this. We can bring about reform of the UN Charter, achieve more democratic global governance and end these endless wars. The US/Israeli attack on Iran and its counterattacks rage on, with the Ukraine war faded into the background despite casualties that will soon total two million. Other countries' wars, such as Sudan's horror where 14 million people have fled, are also offstage.(1) We wait to see what will happen next in the Middle East. We learn what a loony US President has said today, despite the absurd unreliability of anything he utters. It seems the successor arrangement to the post-Cold-War era is anarchy under a failing, flailing, US hegemony. Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada was widely praised for saying at Davos this year that the past order has been ruptured and is not coming back. Without naming the USA, he called for middle powers to band together to protect themselves from superpower predators. That is welcome advice, but it is merely a coping strategy for a dark time. Collectively, we do make history together through our myriad choices: How we shop, what we watch or read, how we vote, what we say to each other, when we speak out, when we finally go out onto the streets with placards to protest and — most tellingly — when we remain silent. Faced with the most bullying superpower leader since Adolf Hitler, our collective behaviour has been tragically disappointing. Nearly the entire world has acquiesced to his outrageous, criminal behaviour, flattering him obsequiously, making absurd investment promises and agreeing to abusively asymmetric trade deals. Our collective passivity is enabling truly psychopathic behaviour including an agonizing genocide in Gaza, now well into its third year. Trials were held after other such modern genocides. In Nuremberg after World War II, 12 defendants were convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. In Arusha, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted 62 defendants, sentencing them to up to 30 years in prison. Alas, despite the UN finding of 'overwhelming evidence' Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza (in accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide), with US complicity, there is little prospect justice will be done. Nor is the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes including deliberate starvation, likely to be carried out. In Venezuela, the kidnapping of a country's President (whatever you may think of him), killing 100 others in the process, is another major violation of the UN Charter. Encouraged, the US President then joined Israel in an illegal war of aggression against Iran. When Iran responded by counter-attacking US bases and other infrastructure in the countries hosting them, the Gulf States universally condemned Iran, some even calling its attacks 'unprovoked.' Not one Gulf state pointed out that the USA and Israel had illegally attacked Iran first, and for the second time in less than a year. Around the world, the extent of tepid push back was the refusal by a few countries to allow the USA to use US military bases on their territory for illegal attacks against Iran, nor to join the war. However, apart from 7 countries, Spain, China, Italy, Egypt, Türkiye Russia and Brazil, governments remained meek in the face of Trump's crimes. The action of one crazed man, should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed for 6 months or more, will reduce global GDP by 2 to 5%, thus possibly causing a global recession, yet the governments of over 180 states remained silent. United Nations Reform Most citizens of the world fault the United Nations for its failure to maintain peace, lacking an understanding that the UN is but a forum for states themselves to come together and collectively practice international governance. It is not only UN staff, not even the UN Secretary-General, who determine how well it functions. Above all, it is member states. They chair the committees and General Assembly, set the agendas and vote. Their Embassy staff also sit on the Boards of each organization of the UN, deciding budgets and policies for its staff to execute. They under-finance the UN, and largely through voluntary contributions which they commit only for short periods and often whimsically withdraw. The United States is especially fond of withholding its obligatory financial contributions (illegally), and is perennially billions of dollars in arrears. Control resides especially with the three great powers still wielding their vetoes, the USA, China and Russia. The United Kingdom and France have not used their vetoes for over 36 years now, since the end of the Cold War. If only the other three veto holders, especially the USA and Russia, would follow their example. Historically, China has also shown remarkable restraint (see Donut Chart). In the photograph below, the General Assembly voted nearly unanimously to lift all sanctions on Cuba. Amazingly, despite 187 votes in favour and only 2 against, the resolution was not passed. This is because the vote of the USA (representing just 4% of the earth's population), is sufficient to block the will of the other 96% (the other vote against was Israel's.) The results are the same every year, shown in the photograph below in 2023. Scarily, the exercise of the veto is increasing. The seven vetoed draft Security Council resolutions in 2024 were the most since 1986. In 2025, there were four vetoes: two by the US on a draft resolution on the war in Gaza, and two by Russia on amendments to a draft resolution on Ukraine. Anticipation of the exercise of the veto also creates a perverse incentive to deliberately draft resolutions unacceptable to another great power, to force them to veto it and then point a finger. Most recently, China and Russia vetoed a draft UN Security Council resolution on re-opening the Strait of Hormuz. Russia's Ambassador explained that the resolution presented Iranian actions as the sole source of tensions while attacks by the United States and Israel were “not mentioned at all”. China's Ambassador said the draft “failed to capture the root causes and the full picture of the conflict in a comprehensive and balanced manner.” (2) Clearly, the UN Security Council is not functioning properly if the majority of its members vote in favour of a resolution regarding a war without even mentioning who started it — studiously overlooking who flagrantly violated the UN Charter and attacked another country in the first place. Renewing Humanity's Common Vision I have discussed in a previous article in 2024 some of the tactics member states might use to pressure great powers to reduce their use of and eventually give up the veto, giving our world a promising new era of "One Law for All". The current international disorder and dominance of great power privilege is embodied in a dominant school of international affairs theory known as 'Realism,' which cynically accepts the status quo of wars as inevitable consequences of great power politics. We can and must do better than this self-defeating doctrine, through a forward-looking 'internationalist and multilateralist' theory of international relations aiming to build a better, more peaceful world. There has not yet been a single year in recorded human history without war. Are we really resigned to that? Could we not aspire to the goal that one day, our planet finally passes a year without war? To achieve 'the first year without war' we will need much better enforcement of the laws against armed aggression and of crimes committed in internal armed conflicts. Provision was made in Article 109 of the UN Charter for its modification as necessary, beginning with the calling of a conference (which cannot be vetoed). Such a conference can recommend changes to the UN Charter by a simple 2/3 majority vote (which again cannot be vetoed.) Permanent members must then agree to and ratify the changes, which is the major hurdle to overcome as they can then exercise their vetoes. But they will have do so in the face of world opinion.(3) Even a failed first attempt to revise the Charter, vetoed by a recalcitrant permanent member of the Security Council, would serve a purpose — underlining our aspiration for a fairer world and the recalcitrance of the offender. There is an active coalition to reform the UN charter, now called Article 109. At its most recent meeting, the keynote speech was made by former Irish President and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. Shamefully, their activities and ambitions — critically important for all the world — are almost uncovered in Western mainstream media, perhaps because they have now dragged on for an even more shameful 40 years. The Charter has been modified four times, in 1963 to expand the Security Council to its present 15 members; in 1965 and 1968 to adjust Article 109 slightly, and in 1973 to enlarge the membership of the Economic and Social Council. There have, however, been no more amendments in over half a century, a poignant illustration of the state of world affairs and a major factor in growing global instability. With a modified UN Charter curtailing use of the veto and revising Security Council membership to make it more representative of the world, the UN could function more as was originally intended 80 years ago. Instead of anarchy, there could be more democratic global governance, often actually resolving matters of burning global importance through voting. Ideally, only a 2/3 majority would be required to pass a resolution whether in the General Assembly or in the Security Council, without any vetoing. States that illegally attack other states, even great powers whom we lack the armed might to confront militarily, could be reigned in by collective pressure designed to create internal pressure for peace within an aggressor state. Just brainstorming, one example that illustrates how we might possibly do this might be a global suspension of the issuance of tourist visas or visa-free entry for nationals of countries committing the crime of aggression (allowing for humanitarian exemptions). If a government is illegally waging war, then its citizens have work to do at home first before they go on holiday abroad. This example would of course only be appropriate for some countries, mostly upper income. Other measures could be crafted in different circumstances. 'Might makes right' could be severely curtailed if not eliminated. But to do that, there must be no more cowardly acquiescence. People the world over must demand leaders that will stand up for what is right, no matter how great the power they confront and the risk of retaliation. A country, any country, guilty of armed aggression — wantonly killing — must be ostracized by other nations in thundering unison. A more democratic and peaceful world is an ambition humanity set out to achieve 80 years ago when it created the United Nations. We will continue waiting for that vision to be realized until we insist that our governments fight for it courageously. Take to the streets in our millions if we must. We have the power to make peace happen. Because we are better than this. ——————————————— 1) The International Sudan Conference was held today in Berlin but Sudan now receives little international attention outside of the international aid and diplomatic community. Fourteen million displaced people have been largely forgotten. 2) https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/04/1167261. 3) Article 109 of the UN Charter 1. A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference. 2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including the permanent members of the Security Council. 3. If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council. —————————— Contact: Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton WhatsApp: +66 6 344 844 34 Line: bmpaton

Truths About the National People's Congress 3 April 2026 by KAN Fengmin Summary This article argues that China’s system of democratic centralism and the National People’s Congress (NPC), form a sophisticated and effective model of governance rather than the “rubber stamp” it is portrayed as in Western discourse. Democratic Centralism blends grassroots consultation with centralized decision-making to ensure unity and accountability. The NPC, China’s highest state body, consists of nearly 3,000 Representatives from diverse sectors who are elected through a multi-level system and usually serve part-time while maintaining regular professions. Working alongside advisory bodies like the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Representatives research issues, submit proposals and oversee legislation. Much policy discussion occurs before annual sessions, enabling efficient decisions and reforms that address both national development and everyday concerns. I n Part One, I paid tribute to the Communist Party of China for its leadership in transforming an impoverished land of close to 600 million people in 1949 into a strong nation of 1.4 billion today, enjoying modern lives. In Part Two, I paid tribute to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army – a force for peace not war, protecting its people from the suffering caused by international power politics and the lawlessness that prevails. In this article, Part Three, I will explain how Democratic Centralism and the democratic China's National People's Congress – routinely dismissed in the West as a 'rubber stamp' – is in fact the heart of a highly sophisticated, well-functioning and dynamic system, playing a critical role in national decision-making and implementation across all walks of Chinese life. Democratic Centralism Democratic Centralism is a secure, coherent and effective system for leadership and implementation, with clear responsibility and accountability. It was written into the Chinese Communist Party’s Constitution in 1927 and came into practice at the Zunyi Conference of the Communist Party in January 1935, during the Long March of the Chinese Red Army. Over the next 91 years it progressively developed into a sophisticated, dynamic and well-functioning system. This fundamental organizational principle has strengthened the leadership of the Communist Party, developing a productive and sustainable intra-party relationship, addressing the daily needs of the Chinese people while deciding on priority areas for development of the country as a whole. Democratic Centralism combines centralization based on democracy, with democracy under the guidance of centralism. In this system, democracy and centralism are mutually conditional, complimentary and indispensable. In other words, democracy in China promotes structured bottom-up consultations around issues of majority concern and is a prerequisite for responsible centralism. It promotes unified implementation through a top-down process. Without democracy, centralism would become a personal dictatorship and autocracy. Similarly, without centralism, democracy could well devolve into overly extreme competition and ultimately, anarchy. In this system, the National People’s Congress – the highest organ of state power – can consolidate and merge the results from both bottom-up and top-down processes, fostering national unity and creating powerful synergy for national rejuvenation. The Representatives of the National People's Congress In China, Representatives are democratically elected, not appointed. There are five levels of representation in line with administrative levels. People’s Representatives at the township and county levels are directly elected by people in their constituencies. Municipal, provincial and national representatives are indirectly elected by the next lower level of People's Representatives. Together, Representatives at the five levels represent the interests and will of the people, and exercise state power to fulfill their duties as conferred by the Constitution and laws throughout China. Unlike Western countries, the elected Representatives for People's Congress are not full-time politicians and are not paid by tax-payers. About 30% of Representatives are not members of the Communist Party. Representatives have their own professions for making a living, very often key personnel in their occupations. Coherent with the Communist Party's fundamental goal, they are elected for the honor of serving the people of their constituencies and of course, the country they love. They must hear the concerns of their constituents and introduce policy proposals for change as needed. The term for national, provincial and municipal Representatives is five years and for local Representatives, three years. Most of the Representatives work hard to meet expectations and the trust placed in them, despite some who have been found guilty in recent years in the on-going anti-corruption campaign. Let’s take the National People’s Congress (NPC), as an entry point, to understand how it is: 1) sophisticated, 2) well-functioning and 3) dynamic, and not at all the weak body Western politicians and media routinely smear it as. Sophistication The sophistication of the NPC comes from its close cooperation with different parties, associations and organizations. Horizontally, the annual, national session of the NPC in Beijing is organized back-to-back after the China National Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). The beauty of this arrangement is that it enables patriotic parties and individuals to offer their suggestions, based on their special talents and knowledge, for social economic development in China, forming greater synergy across parties and organizations. The CPPCC plays a significant role in advising government on issues of common concern, especially for national development. The CPPCC includes representatives from eight recognized parties such as the China Democratic League and the China Peasants and Workers Democratic Party, and Taiwan Democratic Self-government League ( a political Alliance Composed of People from Taiwan Province) , together with the active participation of non-partisan individuals and representatives from various people’s organizations and sectors. As everything in China is under the leadership of the Communist Party, these parties function as important, supplementary political entities and have quite powerful influence, from central government to local government. Many choose to join these parties to pursue advisory roles, instead of being responsible for oversight and implementation. Instead of the endless shouting and accusations of each other among Western politicians and political parties, CPPCC representatives take their policy advisory role professionally and seriously and do very in-depth work before each annual Conference before the NPC. For example, for the 2026 meeting, the CPPCC received 5,992 proposals, of which 5,061 were registered and accepted for processing by   the   relevant government departments, focusing on formulation of the 15th Five Year Plan, consultations for which lasted two years. Additionally, some of the CPPCC representatives also are invited to participate in the NPC, attend its opening session and listen to, and comment on, the government’s annual work report. Another example of the sophistication of the NPC comes from the wide diversity of its Representatives, rooted in society as a whole. There are 2,977 Representatives of the 14th National People's Congress elected for the 2023-2028 term, from 35 electoral units including provinces, the Army and special administrative regions. Women Representatives comprise 27%, ethnic minorities 15%, the Army and People’s Armed Police 9%, the Party and government officials 33%. What is more, all 56 ethnic groups are represented at each NPC. Although the specific number can vary from year to year, their average 14% representation at the NPC is protected by law. In addition, the NPC also has 36 Representatives from Hong Kong, 12 from Macao, 13 from Taiwan, and 42 from among overseas returned Chinese. Such diversity aims to ensure that major issues and concerns from different groups among the 1.4 billion people of China are included and discussed in the NPC. Only 27% are re-elected from the previous NPC. No matter what you do in Chinese society, it is possible to become a Representative, even without being a party member. Well-functioning NPC Representatives are responsible for both legislative and oversight work, generally on a part-time, unpaid basis. Their responsibilities include deliberation on laws and national constitutional amendments, participating in the election or appointment of key state officials, taking part in inspections and oversight. They also review and comment on government annual work plans as well as on reports on national economic and social development plans and budgets, while submitting proposals, motions, criticisms and opinions regarding various aspects of the government’s work. NPC Representatives must actively prepare their inputs and proposals, based on in-depth investigation and research such as field visits, document reviews, interviews and meetings. They must obtain first-hand information and knowledge to play their oversight function. Proposals are often strategic, to further China’s socio-economic development, while other proposals are down-to-earth, addressing people’s daily needs. Those without knowledge of Chinese society or the Chinese language cannot understand that about 90% of criticism, proposals, consultation and discussion, have been done by Representatives or groups of Representatives before  each annual session even begins. Representatives attach great importance to the whole process of their five-year term; much of their work also requires additional effort from their constituencies and others, done for many months before and after the actual NPC. When Representative meet at the annual sessions in Beijing, they focus on those issues that still require further collective effort to compromise, as well as approving the majority of measures and decisions that have already been successfully agreed in advance, either on an individual or group basis. They discuss and review the government’s work report for the year before and the national development priorities and budget for the new year, submitting inquires to the government, courts and procurators in accordance with the law. They vote on various resolutions and regulations and participate in the election and removal of leaders and members of state organs at the same level. In 2025, NPC Representatives made nearly 8,000 suggestions by March 2025, demonstrating that representatives take the roles and responsibilities they are elected for very seriously, the whole year round. By November 2025, this had increased to 9,160 suggestions. In response to these proposals, government departments handled 8,754 suggestions from NPC representatives, with a 95.6% completion rate. While completion of thorough, formal consideration of each suggestion does not always result in its complete adoption, quite often it does, sometimes in modified form. Additionally, in 2025, the NPC and its Standing Committee (NPCSC) enacted 6 new laws and approved major changes to 13 more laws. On March 7th, 2026, at the group meeting among Shanghai NPC representatives at the 14th NPC, a female Representative – a lawyer – proposed to re-name the country’s ‘property management’  companies ‘property service’  companies, to return to the essence of this industry. The perception that the company is the ‘manager’ and not the community ‘service-provider’  has caused confusion and strife for years at least among 30 million families. On 9th March, two days after her proposal, while the 14th NPC was still in session, the Representative received the official response that her proposal had been accepted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, which will now start work on replacing its Property Management Regulations with new Property Service Regulations. This is just a small example among many that demonstrate the effectiveness of the NPC’s work, mostly conducted in a very cordial and constructive atmosphere. While the NPC Representatives work on improving people’s lives by accelerating construction of affordable housing, urban village renovation and upgrading of rural heating, they approved 109 major national projects in the 15th Five-Year Plan. Over 60% focus on new growth drivers such as technological innovation, modern industrial systems, national security and infrastructure. The goals are to boost new-types of productivity and key energy projects involving private enterprises. Dynamic The NPC is a truly dynamic political mechanism, well-accepted by the Chinese people. The ‘Two Conferences’, namely the NPC and CPPCC, are a highly significant event each year, not only for legislators and government, but for the Chinese society as a whole. One hears the phrase – ‘ go to the Representatives of the People’s Congress if you have any problems’,  demonstrating strong trust among ordinary people and reflecting the good work of Representatives elected at the grassroots level. Representatives of the People’s Congress deepen the roots of democratic centralism year by year through their good work in national development. Improvements of many types are easily seen and felt in daily life. Factors that make the NPC dynamic include, but are not limited to, the NPC's constructive relationship with the other political parties under the framework of CPPCC. Secondly, NPC representatives also have developed productive collaboration with government departments for making changes needed. Thirdly, NPC representatives come from all walks of life, from scientists to farmers, from educators to workers, based on three or five-year terms and mostly not repeated, preventing large political elites from emerging in China as they have in Western countries. Over the years, the NPC has gone through great changes, but without deviating from the practice of democratic centralism. In the 99 years since Democratic Centralism was proposed, the NPC has, in fact, successfully created a whole-of-society democracy, benefiting every citizen.   Conclusion Democratic centralism originated from the in-depth analysis of Chinese society and its history, as well as the goals of the Communist Party.  The system emphasizes the combination of centralization based on democracy and democracy under the guidance of centralization. The NPC is the most important mechanism to promote democratic centralism. Through its diversity and relationship with the CPPCC, it is deeply rooted in people’s lives, and plays a large role in advancing social and economic development. In China, people often say that facts speak louder than words. Politicians and media in Western countries who smear the NPC as a ‘rubber stamp’ are mostly ignorant of China. Many have never even visited it. They spin anti-China narratives for personal gain, making them up as they go along.  Lack of responsibility and accountability for their misconduct encourages such politicians and journalists to enjoy an easy ride to make their living. This indeed has become a major weakness in the Western form of democracy. ——————————————— Dr. KAN Fengmin  (China), is a retired senior official of the United Nations Secretariat, responsible for coordination of disaster response and disaster risk reduction. She served as Head of the Asia and Pacific Office of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, based in Bangkok, THAILAND, as the Head of their Africa Office, based in Nairobi, KENYA, and as Senior Coordinator in Geneva, SWITZERLAND. Before UNDRR, Dr. Kan worked for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, based in Kobe, JAPAN, coordinating UN humanitarian assistance to Asian countries affected by disasters, as well as for the United Nations Development Program, in New York, USA, and in the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC on a peace-building programme. She joined the United Nations in the Peace Mission in MOZAMBIQUE in 1993, working for the International Organization for Migration as head of their program to assist the reintegration of 115,000 demobilized soldiers. Dr. Kan has a Ph.D in Social Science from the University of Utrecht, in THE NETHERLANDS. Contact : Email: fengminkan@qq.com WeChat: Fngmin WhatsApp: +86 186 1113 4392

More Truths About My Country 1 March 2026 by KAN Fengmin Summary The author defends the People's Liberation Army against Western claims it is a menace. The Chinese Army, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, firmly adheres to the Chinese government's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, including never attacking first. The Chinese Army has never launched any war against any country, never joined anybody else's war, never subverted any other country’s government nor pushed for regime change — in the Chinese Army's entire history since the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949. In Part One, I paid tribute to the Communist Party of China for its leadership in transforming an impoverished land of close to 600 million people in 1949 into a strong nation of 1.4 billion, enjoying modern lives today. The Party and government have consistently placed the country’s fate and the people’s well-being as their first priorities since it came to power in 1949. This remarkable success clearly demonstrated that a country’s development can be well advanced, peacefully, without exploiting other nations or peoples. In Part Two, I will pay tribute to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, now so often depicted as a menacing threat by Western politicians and media, seeking to justify still greater military expenditure and to cover their aggressive military provocations around China. Such irresponsible propaganda has poisoned the minds of hundreds of millions of innocent people, with some even afraid to visit China. To implement China’s five principles of peaceful coexistence with other countries, the People’s Liberation Army has never launched any war against any country, never joined anybody else's war, never subverted any other country’s government nor pushed for regime change. The Chinese Army is a genuine force for peace, aiming to protect its people and motherland from unnecessary suffering caused by international power politics and the law of the jungle that prevail in the world still today. Happily, tens of millions of foreigners now take advantage of China’s visa-free policy for visits to China and have discovered a modern, friendly, very safe country. They are helping to reveal the truth, including about the People’s Liberation Army. This article uses a few factual stories to briefly illustrate how the People’s Liberation Army perform their core functions in the past 76 years and why it is actually a force for peace both in China and the world. As indicated in its name, the People’s Liberation Army comes from the Chinese people voluntarily and serves the Chinese people in return. Its purpose is to serve and protect the interests of the vast majority of people and the interests of the entire nation in China. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, the three core functions of the Army are safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development. As of today, the Chinese Army has done a very good job carrying out these three functions, helping to create an enabling and peaceful environment for China to modernize itself and for the Chinese people to come to enjoy modern lives. The Chinese Army prevailed in a couple of unnecessary wars and armed conflicts around its own borders over the last 76 years, most notably its reluctant entry into the Korean War in 1950. This was its biggest military operation since the People's Republic of China was established in 1949 and I will tell that story below. The Chinese Army has never fought in a major conflict under any other circumstances. Instead, the Chinese Army (including armed the Armed Police), has progressively become the largest peacekeeping force in the United Nations (UN), contributing about 19% of the UN budget for peace missions. China poses no threat to any country, nor in fact to anybody except those who attack its motherland. On the contrary, military provocations and threats from the West, especially the G7 and English-speaking Five-Eye countries, have not stopped to date. They even carried out military provocations in China’s territory in the Yellow Sea and South China Sea, timed to take place during Chinese New Year 2026, just as they have in previous New Years. Sadly then, our world is far from peaceful. Enjoying lasting peace is in many places a kind of luxury, unattainable for many. Instead, wars kills millions and trample even more innocent people’s basic rights, even their right to survive or their children’s right to go to school. Just take a moment to look at the world: Wars, big or small, are commonplace across the globe, including at times in China’s bordering countries. Fortunately, China has an Army with clear goals and strong discipline. Their military operations have remained in line with China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in its Foreign Affairs dealings: 1) Mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, 2) mutual non-aggression, 3) non-interference in internal affairs, 4) equality and mutual benefit, and 5) peaceful coexistence. At the same time, the Chinese Army always heeds the Party’s call and are ready to fight when necessary. The Army has demonstrated they will sacrifice their interests, even their lives, for the sake of the country (despite the discovery of some bad apples at the top recently.) The Chinese government and people can always count on the Army to help them in the event of large disasters, and even in the cause of large development projects, while remaining ready to defend the country and defeat the enemy whenever foreign aggression occurs on our doorstep. The primary function of the Army is to safeguard Chinese sovereignty and security, repelling any foreign aggression or threat in any form, at any time. In the more than 75 years since the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, until today, the Chinese Liberation Army was dragged into a couple of wars and small-scale armed conflicts, in order to safeguard the country’s sovereignty and security. These were the Korean War with US-led troops, 1950-1953, a relatively minor armed conflict on the border with the Soviet Union in 1969, a short war and limited armed conflicts on the border with India in 1962, 2020 and 2022, and a war (lasting only a fortnight), and minor armed conflicts with Vietnam (1974, 1979, 1988). All of these occurred on China’s borders in response to foreign aggression or provocations. The Chinese Army are not belligerent. The data speak for themselves: Every time, it was on China's border and never was it farther away. The Army adhere to the principle: ‘We will not attack unless attacked.’ However, when China’s sovereignty or security are endangered, they are willing and able to fight and win – at any cost one can imagine. A potent example is how the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army fought in the Korean War to defend our motherland. Less than a year after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China on October 1st 1949, a civil war between North and South Korea broke out – on June 25, 1950 – with North Korea moving first. China made it clear to the leader of North Korea then that it would not join the war, but would focus on rebuilding our country after eight years of the Anti-Japanese War, followed by three years of civil war. As the new China was not accepted as a member of the United Nations, China asked India, as a diplomatic channel, to deliver China’s request to the UN to respect the 38th Parallel which divided North and South Korea. During the same period, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 82 which determined that North Korea‘s attack constituted a breach of the peace and demanded the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel. Resolution 83 then recommended UN members provide military assistance to South Korea to repel the attack, while Resolution 84 authorized a Unified Command to be led by the United States, with the eventual participation of 22 countries under United Nations auspices. The US-led military forces, together with other 16 countries military forces, landed at Inchon on September, 1950. They not only launched counter-offensives but crossed the 38th parallel into North Korea and advanced further north towards the Yalu River, which divides North Korea from China. China’s early request for respecting the 38th parallel to the United Nations had been completely ignored. Instead, the US-led military force moved further towards China’s border, conducting heavy bombing. To support the US-led operation, US President Truman ordered the Seventh Fleet to pass through the Taiwan Strait to deter the Chinese forces. These military moves left China feeling that they were facing an existential threat, especially as China was not yet even recognized as a member of the United Nations. The situation was clear given the USA’s avowed determination to see the defeated government, led by Chiang Kai-shek which had retreated to Taiwan, overthrow the government of the newly established People’s Republic of China with — US help. Despite its stated intentions not to get involved in the war, China then felt it had no choice but to take military action for its survival and push the US-led troops back behind the 38th Parallel — an artificial line created by the United States and the Soviet Union at the end of Second World War, much as in Germany. This was a very difficult decision for China — the last thing desired after 11 years of war. Reluctantly, it was decided that China must fight and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army crossed the Yalu River into North Korea to fend off the US-led forces, engaging in fierce battles from 1950 to 1953， at huge human cost. Defending our motherland in the Korean war was the biggest military operation of the Chinese Liberation Army since 1949 to date. One may ask what made the Chinese Army so strong that it even defeated the US-led Unified Command with its more modern weapons and greater finances? There is no simple answer, but strong loyalty and belief in the leadership of the Communist Party equipped the military officers and soldiers with a selfless, strong determination and discipline to fight against foreign aggression to defend national sovereignty and Chinese people from experiencing war-related suffering once again. The Army fought bravely and suffered very heavy casualties, generating many stories of tragedy and heroism. On the night of October 19 in 1952, a 21-year-old Chinese volunteer solider, Mr. Huan Jiguang — on a mission to blow up enemy machine-gun nests — destroyed many machine-gun nests together with his comrades. Running out of ammunition, he crawled towards an enemy bunker and used his own heavily bullet-wounded body to block the enemy’s last machine gun, allowing the Chinese Army to capture the strategic highlands on the west side of Shangganling (The Battle of Triangle Hill to Americans.) In another well-known tragedy, an entire Unit froze to death in November 1950 during the battle of Chosin Reservoir. They came directly from the semi-tropical south of China and were not yet equipped for the -40 Celsius weather; many more officers and soldiers of the 9th Army froze to death while lying in ambush at positions such as Dead Eagle Ridge, choosing to freeze to death rather than expose their ambush position. There are many such stories. Our nation and people have not forgotten these selfless sacrifices in defending our motherland and their heroic deeds have inspired generations of young people to join the army. Ultimately, the Unified Command led by the United States was forced to sign an armistice agreement, maintaining relative stability on the Korean Peninsula and protecting China's national security, but without ever formally ending the war — not to this date. The Chinese Army has similarly demonstrated selflessness and courage in conflicts with India, the Soviet Union and Vietnam. Uniquely, once the Chinese Army defeats an intruding foreign army and pushes them back, they always then quickly return to their regular duty stations within China, never staying to occupy foreign lands. The Chinese Army safeguards national development, as well as people’s lives and property in big disasters. As I mentioned earlier, one of the three functions of the Chinese Army is to safeguard national development; they have a long tradition of participation in the national development process. The Chinese Army is an army with strict discipline, from obeying orders to not taking even a needle or thread from civilians. The Chinese Army possesses highly efficient organization, strong personnel and equipment advantages that enable it to rapidly accomplish urgent, difficult and dangerous tasks whenever needed. Such a function is also clearly mandated in the national defense law. More importantly, the Chinese Communist Party, government and Army share the same goal that they should serve the people wholeheartedly. Therefore, policies and actions from them are well integrated, with strong coherency. The Chinese Army has also played a large role in infrastructure construction and resource development, including railways, highways, airports, and energy, and improving infrastructures in remote, mountainous and impoverished areas. These logistical capabilities are also integral to military capability, just as is industrial capacity. The Army who were the pioneers of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone (across from Hong Kong.) They played a critical role in transforming a backward county of fishing villages and farms into a world-renowned city, now China’s number one manufacturing powerhouse — host to 25,000 high-tech enterprises such as Huawei, Tencent, BYD, DJI And ZTE. In response to the Party’s call, about 20,000 infrastructure engineering corps started moving into backward finishing villages in successive groups at the end of 1979 and carrying out large-scale construction of infrastructure between 1980-1983. They were then collectively demobilized and absorbed into state-owned enterprises in response to the call of the Party to continue their participation in Shenzhen development process. They were the spark that lit the fires of development. In times of crisis caused by large disasters, the strong organization and execution capabilities of the Chinese Army enable them to perform high-intensity search and rescue missions and immediate medical support. For example, a powerful earthquake occurred on May 12, 2008, with a magnitude of 8.2, in Wenchuan County, Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan Province. The death toll and casualties were huge, with a total of 45.5 million people affected. Within 48 hours, more than a 100,000 troops had been deployed to the disaster area to carry out search and rescue, and immediate relief. They penetrated the affected region using extreme methods such as parachuting troops and relief supplies into disaster areas, in complex weather conditions and with limited ground intelligence within the epicenter. They cleared roads on foot, rescued the wounded, cleared rubble to secured transport supplies, and eliminated the danger of landslide-dammed lakes. Such operations further strengthen the relationship between the Army and civilians, helping to maintain social stability in such trying times. The Chinese Army makes a significant contribution to the Peace Missions of the United Nations around the world China’s Army also makes a large contribution to UN peacekeeping missions, having deployed over 50,000 peacekeepers across 25 UN missions since 1990, for years now the largest troop contributor among the UN Security Council’s permanent members. In addition, China has registered an 8,000-strong, standby force for UN peacekeeping operations. As of 2024, China also provides about 19% of the UN peacekeeping budget, ranking second globally (and always paying on time.) China initially focused strictly on non-combatant UN roles, focusing on engineering, medical services and transport support. They were sometimes, such as in Sudan, the first to go in. Today, China’s participation has evolved to match the UN's needs, including larger, more heavily armed units including specialized infantry battalions and rapid response forces, to support and protect civilians and other peacekeepers. At present, China is providing peacekeeping services in seven UN peace missions including South Sudan, DR Congo and Lebanon. As of 2025, more than 20 Chinese peacekeepers have lost their lives on duty, while its peacekeepers have built and repaired more 17,000 kilometers of roads and 300 bridges, as well as providing medical treatment to 246,000 individuals. Conclusion The Chinese Army, led by the Chinese Communist Party, has done a great job in performing their three core functions, namely to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development, in line with the Chinese Government's 'peaceful coexistence foreign policy'. Seventy-five years ago, the Chinese Army, poorly-equipped with weapons and war materials, was not afraid of a more powerful enemy, the US-led military force, and succeeded in getting them to the table for peace talks. The Unified Command led by the United States was forced to sign an armistice agreement, safeguarding China's sovereignty. That success in the 'Korean War' created an enabling environment for China's national development, just as the Chinese Government had so ardently sought. Fortunately, the Korean War remains the only large war that the Chinese Army has had to fight since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Although there are constant foreign provocations around Chinese territory, constantly testing China's defenses in the air and on the sea, the People’s Liberation Army are capable of keeping them at bay, allowing China's grand rejuvenation to continue. China is a peace-loving country, thus the Chinese Army is a peacekeeping force both at home and abroad. In three quarters of a century, the Chinese Army, under the leadership of the Communist Party, has never invaded another country, never overthrown or attempted to oust another regime – indeed it has never instigated a war. Instead, it has been the biggest contributor among the UN Security Council’s Permanent Five veto holders of troops to UN Peacekeeping Missions in the world. Such an Army is not a threat to any country, big or small. China has one of the best records of peaceful coexistence with other countries, and comes first by far among the UN Permanent Five. Modernization of China's defense is necessary for defending China from foreign military aggression. Such aggression occurs constantly around Chinese territory near the Yellow Sea and South China Sea, including deliberately during China's New Year celebrations in February 2026. Of course, these military provocations, from 10,000 kilometers away, leave almost empty-handed as the Chinese Army always meet them either in the air or in the sea during combat-readiness patrols and are capable of dealing with them professionally (and patiently indeed.) The remarkable record of the Chinese Army makes anti-China Western propaganda about the 'growing Chinese military menace' absurd, indeed quite ridiculous. Note: China has but one small foreign military base, in Djibouti, alongside the military bases there of the USA, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, and soon – Saudi Arabia. China’s main military activity from that base is to participate in UN anti-piracy patrols off the Somali coast. ——————————————— Dr. KAN Fengmin (China), is a retired senior official of the United Nations Secretariat, responsible for coordination of disaster response and disaster risk reduction. She served as Head of the Asia and Pacific Office of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, based in Bangkok, THAILAND, as Head of Africa Office for the same UN entity, based in Nairobi, KENYA, and as Senior Coordinator in Geneva, SWITZERLAND. Before UNDRR, Dr. Kan worked for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, based in Kobe, JAPAN, coordinating UN humanitarian assistance to Asian countries affected by disasters, as well as for the United Nations Development Program, headquartered in New York, USA, and in the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC on a peace-building programme. She joined the United Nations Peace Mission in MOZAMBIQUE in 1993, working for the International Organization for Migration as head of their program to assist the reintegration of 115,000 demobilized soldiers during the peace-building process. Dr. Kan has a Ph.D in Social Science from the University of Utrecht, in THE NETHERLANDS. Contact: Email: fengminkan@qq.com WeChat: Fngmin WhatsApp: +86 186 1113 4392