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

The Global Effect of Naked Malevolence Phuket，20 January 2026 Summary U.S. foreign policy has long been coercive, illegal, and imperial. What has changed under the Trump II regime is the abandonment of any pretense of moral justification, revealing an unapologetic “might makes right” posture. This new nakedness, though shocking, is more a change in style, tone, and tempo than in historical behavior. By exposing the illusion of U.S. moral authority and 'leadership', Trump is in fact catalyzing the transition to a new, multi-polar world, necessarily grounded in international law, diplomacy, and peaceful cooperation. I n 2025, I went through something resembling the stages of grief, from incredulity, to anger, to near despondency about the state of geopolitics. I never reached the final stage though -- acceptance. Instead, it slowly dawned on me that it was more the style of U.S. foreign policy that had changed than the substance. Did the US already have a history of bullying other countries to get what it wanted? Check. Did the US have a previous, long history of slapping on abusive tariffs when it felt like it? It sure did; after the USA's founding, tariffs were the sole source of revenue. It has launched tariff wars periodically ever since (see article ). Did the US already ignore international law whenever it wanted? Check. Did it refuse to sign or ratify scores of international treaties such as the Ottawa Treaty on landmines, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the only refusenik), the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court? Check. Did it have a habit of withdrawing from UN agencies in a huff when it didn't get what it wanted, or refusing to pay its dues in order to extract even more concessions? Check. Did it have a record of regime change? Hah! The CIA has led over 100 such operations since 1947. That's what they do. Did the US routinely invade countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, steal their resources or abduct their leaders? Ask Manuel Noriega of Panama, kidnapped by the U.S. military in 1990 and sentenced to 40 years in jail. Okay, he was a despicable character but it was still outrageously illegal. So too was the recent abduction of Venezuela's President Maduro. Ask Honduras, which has been invaded by the USA at least seven times (the first time to further the interests of US banana plantations!) Ask Grenada or Haiti or Cuba or Nicaragua. Throughout its history, the USA has been consistently violent and very greedy. After a successful genocide of tens of millions of Native Americans, cooping up the survivors apartheid-style, the Thirteen Colonies broke away from Great Britain and annexed Vermont. Next, they purchased greater Louisiana from France (together with its thousands of slaves), and annexed West Florida from Spain. Then they annexed Texas, 'acquired' Oregon from Britain, 'extracted' the Mexican Cession, and claimed Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands (for guano.) In 1867, the year of Canada's independence, the USA bought Alaska from Russia, and annexed Midway. In 1898, they overthrew Hawaii's Queen to annex the islands on behalf of U.S. plantation owners, hungry for more land. 'Negotiations' then extracted the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam from Spain. The USA also took Eastern Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone and Guantánamo ('rented' from Cuba), annexed Kingman Reef and Swains Island, and occupied Kiribati. Then the Mariana Islands, Caroline Islands, and Marshall Islands also fell into U.S. hands. Let us not omit the USA's role in the U.K.'s annexation of Diego Garcia and expulsion of its entire population, so as to establish a joint military base there. The USA has been at war for all but 17 years since its birth, or over 233 years, and in the process it has increased its total territory by 36 times. What has really changed? So, if this is all business as usual for the USA, conquering and so on, why does it feel like everything is so different under Trump II? The world's best geopolitical analysts (1) , serve up cogent analyses: First and foremost, the dawning of a multi-polar world, ending the USA's post-Cold War undisputed hegemony. That new multi-polarity revolves of course around the new, second pole -- China. All of that is true. It explains much of Trump's erratic behaviour, railing against an inevitable future, against China -- indeed, against practically everyone. But China has been steadily rising and multi-polarity growing for decades now. Trump's re-election didn't suddenly discover these truths. What has changed is the new nakedness, the now unconcealed, pure malevolence of US foreign policy and indeed U.S. governance as a whole. Far from pretending to uphold 'universal values' such as: respect for individual human rights, including freedom of speech, impartial justice, functioning houses of representatives, a free press, the 'rules-based order,' humanitarian aid, including drugs for HIV/AIDS poverty reduction, the development of poor countries, the promotion of multi-party democracy or the holding of 'free and fair elections. We are instead witnessing, to paraphrase: 'We don't actually give a damn about any of that! We only care about ourselves! Might makes right, so we will take everything we can get from you, even your President and presidency if we want. Your oil? It's ours if we want it. We will even take your territory if we want it. Because we can. We are staying on top. We will continue to rule the entire world, by force.' This is indeed a shock. It apparently stems from a single man without a moral compass. The conquering of Venezuela to take its oil, without even offering a flimsy moral pretext as before, is open imperialism from another age. The confrontation with Europe over Greenland stretches credulity. This is behaviour the U.S. has desisted from for several decades in preference for more torturous tactics. But it is a dramatic change in style, tone and tempo -- not in deeds. Trump is an odious character, narcissistic, vindictive, ego-maniacal, intellectually mediocre, a sociopath.... In the immortal words of Jeffrey Epstein, years ago, Trump is 'borderline insane'. Jeffrey even wondered if Trump had 'early onset dementia' but in Donald's case, it started in his 20's. Somehow this most prolific liar in human history, has revealed the stark truth about his country. It is that revelation which has been so disturbing, the shattering of an illusion for so many around the world. Could naked US malevolence turn out to be good? There is no doubt that the Trump II regime is currently undermining respect for the UN Charter and the sovereignty of nations. As Trump put it to the New York times, "I don't need international law." That is of course wrong. Even great powers need order, not anarchy. Precedent matters and violations of sovereignty invite others to do the same. It is for this reason they are rare. For instance, when Russia took Crimea it pointed to how the US-led Western alliance had taken Kosovo from Serbia. Why then do I remain optimistic? It is because I think Trump's atrocious example, his bald return to imperialism, is a wake up call -- an important reminder of what a less civilized world order is like, and the illusion of fairness we have been living under. When he and his merry band are gone, as they soon will be, the world will breathe a sigh of relief, thinking 'I'm glad that's over.' They will have been the exception that proves global rule of law is the only viable future. We will emerge from this crisis more convinced than ever of the importance of systematized international cooperation, foremost in the United Nations, but also in other organizations like the World Trade Organization. Diplomacy, not the exercise of raw power, is the only sane method of resolving disputes, even for crazed leviathans. After 80 years of US domination, all the while maintaining they had the moral high ground, that domination and that illusion of moral authority are now dissolved, along with the very idea that a single lead country can provide global order. No other country, not even China, will try to 'replace' the United States as hegemon, and that is a very good thing. There are unmistakable signs that the world is moving past the USA. Trump's more than 600 impulsive changes to US tariffs have shown the world that protecting global trade is a must, now led in this respect by China and the rest of BRICS. World trade grew by 7% in 2025 compared to 2024, equivalent to US$ 35 trillion at market rates. In contrast, US total trade fell from $5.3 trillion to 4.7 trillion. Yes, Its trade deficit did shrink -- but only by $150 billion. The bigger point is that it's share of global trade shrank by 11% in a year when total world trade apart from the USA grew by 11%. Witness the signing of the EU/Mercosur free trade agreement, one of the biggest such trade deals in history, suddenly finalized after 25 years of glacial negotiations. Witness the welcome detente between China and Canada, which has dropped its tariffs on Chinese EVs from 100% to 6% while China resumes purchasing Canadian canola oil and seafood. Witness the beginning of mobilization of symbolic European troops to Greenland to defend it from the USA! The world is in fact coming together without the USA, with reaffirmed commitment to freer trade, continuing globalization, and greater international cooperation. We'll get through whatever the Trump regime throws at us in the next three years. He won't drag us into WWIII, despite recklessly skirting that precipice. Then he'll be gone. What he will have accomplished is to shatter once and for all the fiction that the 'rules-based international order' was ever fair or even 'rules-based'. As Prime Minister Carney put it in a speech at Davos yesterday: " For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. [...] We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim." The breaking of that illusion of many decades is a major step forward. Having realized the deep flaws of the fiction we have been living by, we may now finally get on with the task of building a better-functioning, multi-polar order. This will be an order no longer based on hegemonic hypocrisy, but rather on much fairer application of international law, and much greater use of professional diplomacy to achieve mutual understanding and peaceful compromises. This could be the dawning of a much better world. ——————————————— 1) See for instance, Jeffrey Sachs，John Mearsheimer and Yan Xuetong. Contact : Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton Line: bmpaton Telegram: @bmpaton Signal: @bmpaton.01

How the Sino-Soviet Split Foreshadowed China’s Trade War Resilience  by Doug Kou, Beijing, 1 April 2025   This article explores how the Soviet Union’s harsh sanctions during the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s forced China to innovate and adapt, leading to milestones like its 1964 nuclear bomb. Drawing parallels to the modern U.S.-China trade war, it argues that external pressures continue to fuel China’s self-reliance, turning challenges into opportunities for a now-global economic powerhouse. Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Soviet Union’s fallout with China was indeed a brutal test. The USSR didn’t just pull aid; it yanked thousands of technical experts, halted industrial projects midstream, and left China scrambling during the Great Leap Forward—a period already marked by catastrophic famine and economic chaos, with estimates of 15 to 45 million deaths. China’s population was overwhelmingly rural, its industrial base embryonic, and its literacy rates abysmal. The Soviet bloc’s embargo was a full-spectrum choke hold, far more severe than today’s U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, given China’s near-total isolation and lack of alternative partners at the time. China didn’t just survive—it adapted. The rupture forced Mao’s regime to pivot inward, accelerating domestic tech development out of sheer necessity. The nuclear program is a standout example: despite the loss of Soviet blueprints and expertise, China detonated its first atomic bomb in 1964, a mere four years after the split went nuclear (figuratively and literally). This wasn’t just a technical feat; it was a middle finger to the idea that external powers could strangle China’s ambitions. Mao’s quip about giving Khrushchev a “1-ton medal” drips with irony—he saw the sanctions as a perverse gift, a spur to self-reliance that echoed through decades. Fast forward to today, and the U.S. trade war looks like a lighter jab by comparison. China in 2025 is a global economic titan—urbanized, educated, and networked with trade ties across the Global South, ASEAN and the EU. Trump’s tariffs and Biden’s tech restrictions, while disruptive, hit a China with far more room to maneuver than the shaky state of the 1960s. Growing semiconductor self-sufficiency, R&D spikes, and trade diversification all mirror that earlier playbook: pressure breeds innovation and adaptation. The U.S. might slow China’s roll, but choke it? That’s a taller order when you’re dealing with a $18 trillion economy that’s already stress-tested by history. The Kissinger pivot in 1972 is the kicker—America eventually had to reckon with China’s staying power, just as the Soviets did. If the Sino-Soviet split taught anything, it’s that a nation of China’s scale and determination can turn isolation into a grindstone. Trump’s policies inadvertently boosted China: sanctions don’t kill giants; they sharpen them. Mao’s ghost might be chuckling again, handing out imaginary medals to Washington this time. —————————— Doug Kou, Chinese, lives and works in Beijing.

AFP No text necessary.

Destruction in Bakhmut Summary   Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has led to immense devastation, with over 1.5 million soldiers killed or wounded. Despite Ukraine’s valiant resistance, Russia continues to escalate attacks. A settlement remains elusive due to entrenched positions: Ukraine insists on NATO membership and territorial integrity, while Russia demands annexation of unconquered parts of Ukraine. The war’s end demands compromise—Ukraine must drop its NATO ambitions; Russia must drop its claims to territory and regional capitals that it does not even occupy. Trump’s unpredictable role complicates matters, yet he is trying for peace. With a face to face meeting between Trump and Putin now likely, the only right time to make a balanced and durable peace – is now. K IEV AND PHUKET— The war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, was dramatic from the start. Ukraine was not ready, neither technically nor organizationally. Moreover, President Zelensky – despite numerous warnings from the West – reassured the people that Russia was also not ready for a full-fledged war, and would not dare attack. President Putin, meeting with top Western officials less than a month before, assured everyone Russia was not planning to occupy a country inhabited by "the Ukrainian people, fraternal to the Russians," repeating the phrase to President Macron just three weeks before invading. President Putin had, however, long made it clear that he would not accept further expansion of NATO into Ukraine. Already by 2008, the USA's Ambassador Burns in Moscow wrote to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin) [and is widely seen as an existential threat] .” The Government of Ukraine, for its part, rightly saw this as their own sovereign decision. While neutrality might be a prudent choice, imposed neutrality would not do. The USA and other NATO members remained unwilling to even discuss Russia's security concerns with Moscow, and strongly supported Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, more than 150,000 Russian troops entered and began annexing further territory than that already annexed in 2014, including Crimea and parts of the east. Troops of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, controlled by Russia, also joined the hostilities. At the peak – by March 2022 – Russia occupied 27% of Ukraine's territory (together with Donbass and Crimea), but by December this figure had dropped to 18%. Putin and his generals failed to capture Kyiv and establish a puppet government, or achieve later goals including annexing the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and creating a land corridor to Transnistria. By October 2022, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to liberate about 50% of Kherson region (along with the main city of Kherson, though Russia is currently still trying to cut it off), as well as almost 100% of Kharkiv region. Facing this defeat, Putin announced the annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia into Russia – despite half of their territory remaining under Ukrainian control. About 70% of their population either still lives in the Ukrainian-controlled parts or has moved to central Ukraine. The Costs Losses on both sides are enormous. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in Washington, Russia has had a million killed or seriously wounded, at the front, and Ukraine approximately a half million. These numbers are disputed but most agree that, altogether, one and a half million, mostly men, have been killed or badly wounded. The UN estimates that over 14,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed including at least 700 children, 35,000 wounded, 6.6 to 6.8 million refugees disbursed within Europe and 7 million more internally displaced. Mass graves and bodies with obvious signs of torture have been discovered in the de-occupied territories, though this is also disputed. Russia's actions were sharply condemned by the majority of the world's states. UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 recognized Russia as an aggressor state and called on it to withdraw its troops from the territory of Ukraine. 141 states voted for the resolution, 5 voted against, 35 abstained and 12 were absent. There was however, a notable reluctance among some non-Western powers, including China, India and Brazil, to take Ukraine's side. Russia's military actions led to a precipitous decline in the Ukrainian economy, cessation of air and sea transport, sharply rising food and energy prices. Russia's economy, on the other hand, more successfully withstood the shock of Western sanctions and was even stimulated by a huge investment in arms production. However, this has now caused inflation with Central Bank interest rates at a historically high 21%. Increased attacks in 2025 After a successful autumn campaign of 2022, the Armed Forces of Ukraine began experiencing a severe shortage of weapons, ammunition and ammunition, contributing to the loss of conquered territories. However, the losses have not been catastrophic. In 2024, the zone of Russian control increased by only 0.5% of the total area of Ukraine. Beginning in January 2025, Russia sharply increased the number of missiles and drones launched at cities in Ukraine, primarily Kyiv, launching 29,000 attack drones by July, 11 times more than in the same period in 2024. A record 6,600 drones were launched in July alone. While 5,600 were shot down or neutralized by electronic warfare, 1,000 got through.... In addition, over the first seven months of 2025, Russia launched 951 missiles at Ukraine, of which 56% were shot down or neutralized. In June alone, Russia fired 238. Ukrainian air defense forces now face an unprecedented volume of attacks, and constantly changing enemy tactics. Without more anti-missile/drone capacity, more and more civilians are being killed and injured, including in Kiev, while the gruesome losses at the front grind on. Why not settle? Assessing the almost catastrophic situation, one might ask: “ Wouldn't it be better for Ukraine to meet Putin's demands, by abandoning plans to join NATO and ceding territory?”  However, it is not so easy. In the fall of 2018, the Verkhovna Rada  (parliament) of Ukraine approved a bill amending the Constitution, enshrining the strategic course for Ukraine's full membership in the European Union and NATO. To change the Constitution would now require two sessions of Parliament, with the abolition of the relevant article gaining at least 2/3 of the votes on the second reading, or more than 300 out of 450 deputies. This is very difficult. As for ceding territory, Putin lays claim to four complete regions, yet half of Donetsk is under Ukrainian control and nearly half of Kherson and Zaporizhia, including their capitals. The great majority of the residents of Kherson City (300,000), and Zaporizhia city (750,000), do not want to fall under Russia control or become Russians. After daily bombing, family and friends killed and homes destroyed, they will not welcome their occupiers. If it were  decided to transfer these regions to Russia entirely, Ukraine would have to carry out a mass evacuation, a difficult task logistically, and politically – nearly impossible. Further Impediments to Peace It is a sad truth that wars are harder to stop than to start and that the longer they continue, the harder it becomes. If Ukraine was to agree now to what are much like Russia's original demands, it would seem that the war was fought for nothing. Every second Ukrainian has lost a family member or friend. Every fourth Ukrainian family has, under Orthodox or Catholic icons in their home, photographs of their killed or wounded, with memorial candles burning. Russia, for its part, feels it is advancing, albeit slowly, particularly around Pokrovsk, and is hitting Kiev harder than ever, thus they have been less in a mood to negotiate. European leaders mostly feel that Russia must not be allowed to impose its will on Ukraine. As Russia would like to forge a new relationship with Europe, one not based on hostility, a peace agreement largely on Russia's terms would neither satisfy Europe nor meet Russia's own aspirations for real detente. The Trump Factor Matters are now especially complicated by President Trump, in at least three different ways. Firstly, his boast last year that he could end the war in 24 hours left him much weakened as a negotiator. Even after he revised this timeline several times, Russia saw he was still in a hurry. He has also completely reversed US policy on peace in Ukraine, albeit more realistically. While in late April 2022, the USA and UK strongly advised Ukraine not to make the peace deal being negotiated with Russia in Istanbul, including non-membership in NATO, now – one and a half million dead and wounded later – President Trump is pushing Ukraine to make much that same deal, with US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, calling the Instabul Draft Protocol of 2022 a "guidepost"  for future negotiations. Secondly, Ukraine if it is to agree to remain neutral, will require some sort of 'security guarantee' – essentially a guarantee of backup should fighting resume, and most likely a peace-keeping force for years to come. While this needs to involve the USA in some way, as chief sponsor of a proxy war, Trump's unpredictable nature makes it difficult to pin anything down in what will be a very delicate formula. Thirdly, Presidents Trump and Putin sometimes seem to be on a collision course in their intensifying contest of wills. The recent (supposed and silly), deployment of two US nuclear submarines to somewhere near Russia is an example. This could overshadow the urgent need to get a workable peace agreement. President Trump, unable to impose his will on President Putin, may even be tempted to try to 'win' militarily, with the potential for Armageddon. Yet the two leaders are also reportedly close to actually meeting face to face to discuss a solution, possibly next week, possibly in United Arab Emirates, hopefully followed by a trilateral meeting together with President Zelensky. Could this be the key opening? Or will it come to naught? What Way Forward? While neither Ukraine nor Russia may be ready to compromise sufficiently to stop the war, some elements – similar to the draft Istanbul Protocol – will undoubtedly remain on the table. Each side is also guilty of placing an impossible bargaining chip on that table, two big chips that represent «aspirational defiance»  and are major obstacles to peace. Ukraine's «aspirational defiance»  chip is to join NATO, the fundamental reason for Russia's decision to invade again. Joining NATO is not going to be possible if there is to be a peace, nor can a country at war join NATO (or NATO would be automatically at war). Sooner or later, two thirds of Ukrainian parliamentarians will come to realize this bitter truth. They need change only a few words, perhaps, in the constitution, to make peace possible. Importantly, the Kremlin has stated several times that Ukraine has a “sovereign right to join the EU,”   so that part could remain in the constitution. Ukraine could then focus on qualifying for EU membership and future prosperity, rather than on joining an alliance that has already brought them to ruin. Russia‘s «aspirational defiance»  chip is to demand to annex unconquered territories, merely because they have already claimed them under Russian law. This is completely unrealistic, and a deliberate obstacle to peace. However, promisingly – in early August – Russia indicated that both Ukraine and Russia might refer to the other halves of these territories as 'temporarily occupied,' neither formally recognizing the other's claim – and just leave it at that, at least for a long while. This is a welcome glimmer of sanity. Finally, a security guarantee will have to be provided by a representative selection of states, not only US allies or Russian allies, but a combination of the two together with more neutral states. This is the very spirit of a UN Peace-Keeping Mission (such as has remained in Cyprus since 1964). Despite US antagonism to the United Nations, the UN Security Council remains the only body where Russia, the United States and China all sit, can exercise vetoes, and has the experience and legitimacy to deploy and maintain such a complex operation. Ernest Hemingway asked "For Whom the Bell Tolls?"  And his answer was, it tolls for you. Elderly Europeans will remember the time when their own cities were destroyed and millions killed. Today, Ukraine is the front line in another such European war. It must be ended. Ukraine will not be able to simply capitulate to Russia's demands, nor will it be able to insist on everything it wants. A true and lasting peace will require compromise on both sides and for crying out loud, they should do it now. ——————————— Prof. I. G. Mantsurov is a distinguished Ukrainian economist, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, and a Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. He currently serves as Ambassador at Large and Country Director of the Representative Office of the International Human Rights Commission (IHRC.) Dr. Mantsurov has worked with UN agencies, including the IOM, ILO, and World Bank, advises the Ukrainian government on national economic strategies, lectures abroad and has authored over 250 publications. Dr. Mantsurov was seriously wounded by shrapnel in his stomach early this year, while leading a survey of destruction near the front. After a lengthy convalescence, he fully recovered and has since returned to the east to lead another such survey. Dr. William Paton, a Canadian, is a former UN official at the Assistant-Secretary General level. He served as leader of the UN System in Congo, Tajikistan, and briefly in Somalia; as Director of the UN's Pandemic Influenza Contingency based in Geneva; Director of Country Programs globally at the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in Geneva; and Deputy Director General/Special Envoy of the International Development Law Organization based in Rome. He has also worked for the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing. He lives in China and Thailand.

Predicting the Post-Trump Future Gazing Into a Crystal Earth Ball Summary After reviewing the tragic comedy of Trump's trade war on the world so far, the author goes out on a limb to try and predict the outcome of this rampage, and its ultimate, possibly positive global consequences. What really happened in the trade war so far? Here's my take on the US trade war on the world so far, followed by my prediction: Firstly, President Trump badly overestimated US relative economic strength, and thus his bargaining position. He thought he could take on the whole world and win, but the US economy is not strong enough. Total trade worldwide in 2024 was US$ 33trn , driven by services and developing countries or 30% of total global GDP . The US imported $3.3trn in 2024 in goods compared to exports of $2.1trn. That $3.3trn in imports was 10% of world trade in 2024, and just 3% of global GDP of $110trn. Trump's second miscalculation was to think tariffs would not cause great self harm to the US economy. The IMF has now predicted that Trump's tariffs, as they presently stand, will cause a 0.9% reduction in US GDP in 2025, compared to 0.6% in Canada and 0.5% in China. The biggest loser from the USA's new tariffs is clearly going to be ... the USA. The height of absurdity was 'Liberation Day' . After a long buildup and great fanfare, Trump announced huge tariffs on the whole world, and then immediately choked on them as markets fell. Just as with Mexico and Canada weeks earlier, he quickly 'suspended' his gigantic new tariffs and turned on China, the county he knew US citizens love to hate. Then he made his third, and worst, mistake: He assumed that China would cave in. Yet, any amateur student of China knows how a Western power once again bullying China would go over in Beijing. China jacked up their own tariffs against the US and dug in for a fight. This time, Trump's morning-after hangover was even worse, as the gravity of his latest binge sank in: He had imposed tariffs of 145-245% on imports of many of the USA's own products, including their beloved iPhones. Oops. Trump promptly lifted the tariffs on such American electronics, leaving his spokespeople stumbling to explain this latest reversal: 'We will, uh, be imposing other tariffs on such items, uh, later.' Now, they're left tripping over themselves again as Trump has fathomed that tariffs on steel and parts will strangle the US auto industry, not revive it. One of Trump's great strengths is his awesome ability to lie. U.S. prices, he tells us, are falling (they are rising, due to his tariffs). He has done 200 trade deals since he threw down the gauntlet. Uh huh. And do we have any specifics about just one of these "200 deals?" Nope. Tariff revenue is already $2bn per day, he lies. In truth it may have reached $500m. In this tragic comedy, Trump insists that scores of countries are 'kissing his ass' , and that 'China wants to make a deal' . 'They [China] are talking to us' , he insists. 'No we aren't' , replies Beijing, repeatedly and emphatically , canceling orders for up to 50 new Boeings. Beijing's position is that the US must drop all new tariffs before talks can even begin. How will it end? Now I will go out on a limb and try to predict the future, especially shaky with a character like Trump: Firstly, China will of course aim to have Trump come out looking even sillier than before, and will not agree to anything early. Beijing will instead observe how talks go with other countries, while itself pursuing freer trade with many countries. By 8 July, after Trump's 90-day pause, Trump will repeat his first mistake and attempt to simultaneously arm wrestle with the entire world again. He will announce a few 'deals', perhaps with South Korea, or even Japan, but the USA's largest trade partners, Canada, Mexico and the EU, will not be rushed. Market turmoil will thus be worse than in early April. Trump, having also repeated his second mistake—underestimating US vulnerability — will balk again, twisting and turning like a white water kayaker who has lost control in the rocks. Angrily (as always), he will up the ante further, most likely widening the war into the financial sector in an even more desperate gamble to come out 'on top'. Trump will no doubt be keen to repeat his third mistake as well, and try once more to strong arm Beijing. There are many ways for the USA and China to senselessly harm each other's economy and security. China has made provision in the Hong Kong stock market in case Washington tries to de-list Chinese companies from US exchanges. Some fear Beijing might dump its US Treasury bonds, but I predict a more gradual sell-off. Beijing will also refuse to authorize sale of US Tik Tok, forcing Trump to grant it another extension or face millions of disappointed youths. More variants will be tried of the idiotic game of 'sure, I lose, but I bet you will lose even more' . By the end of this year the US will at the very least have a decline in GDP for a quarter, possibly a recession, and world GDP will be seriously dented. Despite snow storms of Trump's lies, it will become apparent that his tariffs were a gargantuan failure, that the US trade deficit hardly declined, and that the federal budget deficit has increased after tax cuts. The circus act that made cutting off whole limbs of the US civil service into a macabre performance art form will yield limited savings . Musk, having chainsawed off several of his own fingers in the process, is quietly leaving the ring. US unemployment figures will rise, despite the Secretary of Labor's moving the data to a new website and adding a dubious, 'seventh definition' of it. In truth, Trump's shenanigans will have deadened the business climate. Many businesses and farms, suffering reduced exports, will have lain off workers. Yes, a few business leaders have helped Trump feed his narrative with grand investment announcements and they will proceed, slowly. Some small firms, too, are hastily setting up simple final assembly in the USA. However, overall investment will slump; consider that by the time a large new US plant built from scratch reaches full production, Trump will be almost gone.... China's economy will suffer, and there are already signs. Companies whose buyers are mostly in the USA have already begun layoffs or reduced shifts. World-class DJI drones just won't sell as well in the USA at twice the price, nor will those old inflatable Santas. But China's trade with other countries, especially the growing Global South, will continue to increase by about 5% a year, enough or almost enough to compensate for reduced trade with the USA. By 2027, the world will have entered an exceedingly dangerous period, with the biggest global arms race in history in full swing and China and the USA continuing to back away from economic ties. Legal and congressional curtailment of Presidential over-reach will have brought Trump's executive ordering to a near standstill, his popularity continuing to sink along with his dream of an unconstitutional third term. Trump will then want to do what lame duck Presidents do, and turn his attention wholly to foreign affairs. However, his tariff wars will have left him with no real supporters internationally, only a ghostly assembly of plastic smiles and sarcastic grins, all wishing him ill. How does a world class narcissistic egomaniac react in such a humiliating situation? Will he just retreat into an ever-more self-delusional state as his term wears on and on? While Trump, to his credit, maintains that he dislikes war, he has threatened to attack Greenland, Panama and Iran in just his first few weeks back in the White House. If he's choosing between being a 'loser' and starting a war, I would place my wager on the latter. China, though, is too close to his own size and too plucky to dare pick on. Nor will bombing of Iran suffice as that is Israel's idea. No, it will be time for something nice and safe, but original — something meant to dazzle us with his audacity — perhaps reminiscent of the pathetic US invasion of Grenada in 1983. Annexing territory makes for a solid legacy, but his confidants will have talked him out of taking Greenland. So he will improvise, targeting some small country with lies and then meanly invading it, claiming it is a 'threat to national security'. The Post-Hegemonic World Order Takes Shape Soon after such a final catastrophe, Trump will be gone, back to his regular life of golf, tweeting and court appearances. His party, disorganized, will lose an election that will nearly become a civil war. Eight years of haphazard US Democratic Party rule will follow, but of less consequence to the world as the USA remains in pitched battle with itself. The world, however, will never go back to anything like the state it was in. The turmoil Trump is causing will indeed change it, by giving an enormous push to a pendulum swinging between global anarchy and renewed internationalism. Imagine a crowded room immediately after a loud and dangerous bully finally leaves. The atmosphere abruptly relaxes, in an instant becoming more convivial. Unburdened of flailing US 'leadership', many will gravitate together. It will be far from ideal, with many leaders loathe to admit it, but after Trump goes, cooperation between countries will be smoother than before. In his wake, those huge waves he caused will have left countries more inclined to strengthen international cooperation, in order to prevent that kind of turbulence. The West will be diluted while BRICS will grow stronger, adding more members and becoming the leading proponent of multilateralism and peace. Mediation in wars by non-Western countries such as Brazil or Turkey will become the new norm, and with greater success than their predecessor. New free trade agreements will be signed, pushed by developing countries hungry for growth. A slightly less dim awareness will even dawn of the frightening risk of apocalypse, with new efforts at trilateral nuclear arms control. A few years later, an expanded UN Security Council will finally be agreed to (after nearly 40 years of talks), a landmark achievement despite the veto remaining. The Paris Agreement, led by a determined China on track for zero carbon 2060, will breathe new life. Average temperatures, though, will go on ominously rising. In short, a new world order based on greater multilateralism and greater global openness and interdependence will begin to take shape, ever-flawed, but somewhat better than before, and sooner than would have otherwise occurred. Trump, by providing such a terrifying example of our dark alternative path — of humanity's lurking collective psychopathy — will have inadvertently changed the world for the better. Imagine that. ——————————————— Contact : Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton Line: bmpaton Substack: @billpaton Telegram: @bmpaton Signal: @bmpaton.01 Bluesky: @ billpaton.bsky.social

Two centuries of U.S. tariffs have often been conjoined with war by Bill Paton, Xishuangbanna, 7 April 2025 Trade Wars Were Started by the U.S.A. Both Before and During the Great Depression Tariffs are especially integral to U.S. history, dating to the first months of the young country's newly-established Congress. Tariffs on imports were a near constant, both for revenue and for protection, often causing conflict and often linked to wars. Despite this long history, Trump's new Global Tariff War is unprecedented for the scale of the tariffs and of the trade affected. One can only hope the same will not be true of the scale of any military conflict to follow. Early tariffs and trade wars Tariffs are ancient, recorded as early as the 3rd millennium BCE in Anatolia, and in ancient China which sometimes levied duty on imported horses, woolen goods and exotic foods. Ancient Greece relied on tariffs in part to fund its armies and navies, as did Egypt and Mesopotamia. Indeed, European trade wars usually led to full scale war; ancient Rome charged 25% duty on incoming grain, thereby covering 1/3 of its military budget. In the 1500s, Britain seized the lead in combining trade and kinetic warfare, conducting the Anglo-Spanish Wars (1568–1807), and the Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652–1784), both fought over control of trade routes, shipping and colonial markets. Britain attacked China in the Opium Wars (1839–1860), to cover its trade deficit by forcing the Chinese to buy its opium. Trade negotiations were conducted by cannon. China was forced to legalize opium and cede Hong Kong, weakening the Qing Dynasty and reshaping world trade. Tariffs—a key instrument of U.S. economic policy since its founding For more than two centuries, tariffs and trade wars have been repeatedly started by the U.S.A.(1) The Tariff Act of 1789, was one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the newly-formed U.S. Congress, to raise revenue following the War of Independence in 1783. After the War of 1812, U.S. manufacturing expanded in the north, and the Tariff of 1816 was passed to protect domestic industry from imports. The South relied on exporting agricultural goods and feared retaliatory tariffs against them. Subsequent tariffs were extremely high, such as the Tariff of 1828 or the "Tariff of Abominations" as it was derided in the South—increasingly alienated. A Compromise Tariff lowered tariffs slowly but soon the Union government was at it again, imposing the much higher Morrill Tariffs of 1861 to finance the war it saw coming with the South, the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). It applied more and more tariffs to fund the war as it dragged on. After the war, U.S. industry boomed. Titans such as Rockefeller, Carnegie and Vanderbilt grew rich behind tariff walls specifically constructed for them against imports of oil, steel and railroad infrastructure, respectively. The South was again opposed, paying more for manufactured goods and once more facing retaliatory tariffs against their plantations' exports. McKinley Crashes the U.S. Economy With Tariffs President Trump greatly lauds the McKinley Tariff of 1890, named after the head of the House Ways and Means Committee at the time, who went on to become President. When McKinley's bill raised duties to almost 50%, mainly for protectionism, the resulting steep increase in domestic goods' prices cost the Republicans the election of 1892, bringing the Senate, House and Presidency all under Democratic control. A major recession then followed, beginning in 1893, followed by four or five years of galloping double-digit unemployment. It is unclear why President Trump considers this a great example. We do know he likes the McKinley era for its complete lack of income taxes, generating a revenue surplus almost entirely from tariffs. At one point back then, still higher tariffs were justified by the Republican Party as a way to reduce the U.S. federal budget surplus, arguing that the resulting big reduction in imports would outweigh the increase in duty. Revenue, however, rose. The tariffonomics of the day were dead wrong. Next was the Dingley Tariff of 1897, introduced to fund the coming Spanish-American War, raising duties even higher than McKinley's. There was already a clear pattern of tariffs conjoined with military warfare, both to to fund it, to prepare for it and to provoke it. A decade or so later the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 was passed under President Taft, bowing to public sentiment that tariffs were too high, and then further easing them under the Underwood Tariff of 1913. Successful re-introduction of a national income tax in 1913 went on to replace tariffs as the main source of federal revenue, as well as to fund U.S. participation in WW I. Tariffs Help Crash the Global Economy, Leading to World War II The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922-1929 raised U.S. tariffs against Europe to 38% to protect U.S. industries post-WWI, triggering retaliatory tariffs. Trade tensions and economic instability escalated, leading to the start of the Great Depression in 1929. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930–1934 then placed tariffs on 20,000 goods, to shield farmers during the Depression. It was the first time the U.S.A. declared a tariff war against the whole world and it was a colossal error. Retaliatory tariffs from 23 countries reduced global trade by a whopping 67%, hugely worsening the Great Depression. In 1931, Britain abandoned its policy of free trade (mostly within its own empire), erecting tariffs. The collapse of global trade by 2/3 was an important precursor to World War II. The Free Trade Era (1945-2018) At the end of WW II, the world economy was decimated and the U.S. began an era of unprecedented dominance. No longer needing to protect its industries, it sought instead to open global markets to its exports. It first formed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and then its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), seeking reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers. The World Bank and IMF towed the line, forcing developing countries in need of credit to open their markets to the West. When President Clinton championed China joining the WTO, in 2001, the resulting, further surge in global trade growth helped raise China's GDP from 6.9% of Global Product in 2001 to 19.3% in 2024. This followed a previous, spectacular leap in China's share of Global Product from less than 2% in 1978, when its population was 23% of the world's, to 6.9% in 2001. It was not all smooth sailing. The "Chicken War" (1962–1964), imposed EC tariffs on U.S. poultry. The U.S. retaliated with tariffs on European trucks and brandy. The “Pasta War" (1985–1987), followed, with U.S./E.U. tariffs over citrus and pasta. The, EU then launched the "Banana Wars" (1993–2009), favoring Caribbean banana imports under the EU/Africa-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) trade initiative, intended to help developing countries' export more. The U.S. objected strongly, as U.S. companies owned many banana plantations in Latin America, leading to 8 WTO disputes. Famously, when the U.S. felt threatened by Japan's rise, it accused Japan of unfair practices in the automotive and electronic sectors and started the U.S.A./Japan Trade War (1980s and ’90s). In 1985, the U.S. forced Japan to sign the Plaza Accord which raised the value of its Yen. Combined with a series of 'voluntary' export restraints, and further tariffs and bilateral agreements with the U.S., this is blamed for the stalling of the Japanese economy or its 'Lost Decade' . President Trump is now after a similar deal with all its major trade partners, referred to as the 'Mar-a-Lago Accord' . GATT and the WTO led to an era of extraordinary globalization. Between 1945 and 1994, world trade grew from US$ 56 billion to $4.61 trillion. Under the WTO, it then swelled much further to US$ 33 trillion in 2024, a revolution. Some poor countries, particularly in Asia, became rich, while others rose to Middle Income status. Many African countries developed new exports, such as fresh flowers or string beans exported by air. Economic disparities among nations fell, though internal disparities often rose. There was much relocation of labour-intensive manufacturing to developing countries, particularly from the U.S.A. to Asia, and especially China. The Global Trade War (2018/2025 - ) President Trump's 2018 arrival in the White House marked the end of the U.S. free trade era, and the beginning of the U.S.-China Trade War, now the Global Trade War, the biggest since Smoot-Hawley (1930–1934). Suddenly, the global free trade regime which the U.S.A. had started, staunchly promoted—even enforced through the IMF and World Bank— was now 'unfair'. Chinese companies' success in such markets as telephony or social media were 'security threats'. Their 20-year investment in developing solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium batteries, was 'cheating' and 'over-production'. In the era of the 'Super-Whopper', lying is fundamental to the new tariff campaign, particularly about the cause of the U.S. deficit ("countries ripping off the USA"). Then there are whoppers about the amount of other countries' tariffs. Trump's public tables claim that China's tariffs and other barriers against U.S. imports amount to 67% and so he is 'only' 'reciprocating' with 34% or half (this was his current narrative as of 5 April 2025). His figures were arrived at by a rather bizarre formula that does not consider tariffs or tariff barriers at all. Map 1 Map 1 shows that global tariff rates are (or perhaps 'were'), much, much lower than that. China's tariff rates, according to the WTO, were in fact just 3% overall compared to 2.5% in the U.S.A. The Effectively Applied Tariff Weighted Average (customs duty) for the world was 4.04%. Never mind that Trump only talks about goods, which accounted for just 2% of world trade growth last year. In services, the U.S.A. has a large surplus trade balance with the world, of nearly $300 billion, and world trade in services grew by 9% last year. In fact, Trump insists that U.S. companies operating abroad should not be taxed and that he will double the taxes on their own companies operating in the U.S. if they are. Economists widely agree that shotgun tariffs will not accomplish anything positive, and almost universally scorn Trump's assertion that the U.S. trade deficit is other countries' fault: " Consider this. If you are an employee [... and ...] you spend exactly what you earn, you are in current account balance. Suppose that you go on a shopping binge, spending more than your earnings by running up credit-card debt. You will now be running a current account deficit. Are the shops ripping you off, or is your profligacy driving you into debt?" Jeffrey Sachs Even seen through the lens of U.S. tariff history, the new Global Trade War is extreme: Firstly, wacky thinking behind the tariffs is poisonous, blocking sensible negotiations. Secondly, these tariffs were imposed by the U.S. President acting individually, without an act of Congress; thus they are not open to reasonable discussion and are volatile. Thirdly, the scale of world trade affected is unprecedented, US$33 trillion: Because that is both exports of $33trn and imports of $33trn, global trade in 2023 accounted for 64% of global GDP ($104 trn).This War could not be any bigger. The relative increase in tariffs is also huge, for instance to 46% on Vietnamese exports to the U.S.A., and so is the U.S. tariffs' coverage—virtually the entire world. The Global Tariff War has been launched at a time when trade wars and military wars continue to be ominously conjoined; look at the sabotage of the NordStream pipeline under President Biden during the first year of the Ukraine War, depriving Russia of gas sales revenue and redirecting it to the U.S.A. Heavy trade sanctions were also imposed on Russia by the U.S.A. at the start of that war. Most alarming is the combination of Trump's original U.S./China Trade War (2018-present), and the mounting military tensions between the two great powers. Tariffs reduce reliance on other nations—enemies in particular—thus are an important step in preparing to go to war with them. Consider too, the recent dissolution of U.S./European solidarity within NATO. The U.S.A. has not been unique among nations in using tariffs against other countries' imports. But tariffs have been especially important in U.S. history and development, first as a source of revenue, then as protection. Then, from 1945 to 2018, the U.S. pushed and pushed to lower tariff and non-tariff barriers, in order to export more U.S. goods and services. African farmers, for instance, suffered as they could not compete with international grain prices and lacked sufficient protection. Now, suddenly, the U.S. has attacked the entire world in an unprecedented reversal and act of economic warfare, utterly rejecting and undermining the WTO it itself built. We can expect that many nations, not just China and Canada, will spunkily apply reciprocal tariffs, further raising the stakes. We can also expect that Trump will then, in some cases, apply 'reciprocal reciprocal tariffs', further escalating an already very dangerous situation. The lessons of history above would indicate that this Global Trade War will at the least reduce global trade and Global Product, if not crash the world economy. It will of course hurt the poor and poor nations the most, and it will not help the U.S. economy where it will likely cause a recession. We can only hope that the U.S.A's history of its tariffs contributing to starting major new wars will not also be repeated. ——————————————————————— 1) MASTERS, Alexander (February 2025), Tariff and Trade Wars: An Historical Analysis of Protectionism, Kindle Direct Publishing. I have relied on this excellent new book for much of the history of U.S. tafiffs from 1789 to 1934. Contact: Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton Line: bmpaton Substack: @billyyy Telegram: @bmpaton Signal: @bmpaton.01 Bluesky: @billpaton.bsky.social