Search Results

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

'Might Makes Right' is Failing by Bill Paton, Xishuangbanna, 31 March 2025 China's new maglev train in Shandong has a top speed of 600 kph, the fastest train in the world. An old German military quote holds that no plan survives the beginning of battle. While it is not evident the Trump administration has any clear plans, a growing body of evidence suggests the U.S. Trade War is producing unintended consequences. Far from crippling China's economy, as both Trump and Biden intended, US trade wars have especially accelerated China's technological independence and innovation. They have also diversified its trade relationships, forced beneficial structural reforms that make its economy more resilient, demonstrated superior Chinese crisis management, forged strategic counter-measure capability, and—perhaps once and for all—shattered any lingering belief around the world in the USA's 'moral superiority'. 1. Accelerating China's Technological Independence One of Trump‘s primary objectives, copied by Biden, has been to stifle China's technological advancement through export controls and sanctions, particularly targeting semiconductors and advanced computing. These measures have instead galvanized China's push for technological self-sufficiency and leadership. As noted by Chinese scholar Wang Wen, "It wasn't until events like the 2018 arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou and the crackdown on Chinese tech firms [notably, Tik Tok], that the country fully committed to innovation" . By 2024, China had achieved remarkable progress in semiconductor manufacturing, with chip exports reaching $159 billion—nearly double 2018 figures and surpassing even smartphone exports. China's research and development spending tells a similar story. During Trump's first administration, China raised its R&D spending dramatically, now an impressive 2.7% of GDP. Top centres of innovation such as Shenzhen can reach 6.5%. Past investments, as part of China's industrial strategy, brought success in many new industries such as electric vehicles, lithium battery technology, and solar panels—where China is now the global leader. The scope and scale of Chinese innovation today is soaring. Today's investments are in future science and cutting edge technology, including on neutrinos, robotics, AI and fusion power. The world's first commercial fusion/fission power generation plant is now being built in China and will go online in 2031-33. Countless other advances include new photonic micro-chips, using light instead of electricity, that may one day replace conventional microchips, and the most advanced gallium chips. Another startling area of innovation is quantum computing and communication, where China has the first functional quantum communication links, by satellite, most recently with South Africa. There are also important new cures for cancer coming out, including a new drug that showed 100％ survival after four year for patients with advanced lung cancer, an often fatal disease. Chinese treatments are expected to be more than ten times cheaper than their Western equivalents. Xpeng, meanwhile, has begun building a factory in Guangdong that will manufacture flying cars, an industry they now expect will become much bigger than EVs. Food delivery by flying drone is already a part of daily life in Shenzhen where Meituan made 100,000 flying deliveries of takeout food last year. Shenzhen-based DJI is the world leader in drone technology, with 70% of the market. China has also successfully tested a jet engine capable of flying 20 times faster than a passenger airliner (Mach 16). 'Space Technology' has successfully tested its prototype airplane, and will test fly a first edition of its full-scale passenger airliner in 2027, that can fly a 10-hour flight in just 2 hours. It will begin commercial operation in 2030 (in China, such things are almost always completed on schedule). Flying at Mach 4, the plane produces almost no 'sonic boom', and so can use any airport or route used by conventional airliners. COMAC, maker of China's C919 and C929 airliners, has designed a supersonic passenger plane, the C949, that flies at Concorde speeds (Mach 1.6), but much further, without the sonic boom, and carrying all passengers in business-class style seats. It will fly from Shanghai to Los Angeles in 5 hours and compete with Space Technology. I doubt many readers in the West will have heard about these spectacular advances, for their corporate press know they don't want to. This is despite the fact that leading figures such as Singaporean diplomat, Kishore Mahbubane, or American economist, Jeffrey Sachs, have been pointing out for years that the U.S.A. can't stop China's rise. The Western corporate media's reaction to such thinkers is, for example, to stop publishing Sach's work, even as bodies such as the European Parliament invite him to speak. While the technological deceleration Trump sought to impose instead became an accelerant for Chinese innovation, politicians like himself can still bluff for now, adequately mollifying their constituencies with frequent, loud bursts of braggadoccio. However, over the next decade it will become increasingly difficult to avoid confronting reality, all too apparent that in many new fields, China is taking the lead. 2. Diversifying China's Global Trade Relationships Trump's tariffs have compelled China to reduce its reliance on the U.S. market and cultivate alternative trade partnerships, particularly with the Global South. This strategic diversification has made China's trade profile more resilient and balanced, a key stroke that countered Trump and Biden. Between 2018 and 2024, China's trade with non-Western nations grew by over 40%, while its dependence on U.S. trade declined from 17% to just 11% of its total trade. Trade during those years also grew steadily. The Belt and Road Initiative has been particularly successful in deepening these relationships, with annual trade growth exceeding 10% with most of China's Global South partners, and that rate holding steady. Both ASEAN (16%) and the EU (15%), have become more important markets for Chinese exports than the U.S.A. This geographic diversification has insulated China from overexposure to any single market, including America's, and poised it as perhaps the most resilient power in any trade war. The maximum impact Trump's new tariffs could have on China is a 0.48% reduction in GDP in 2025 compared to its target of 5% growth. Additionally, any such impact is likely to be easily offset by increased trade with other countries, both the current steady growth and also additional growth as other countries also diversify their trade and engage with China more in reaction to Trump's tariffs. 3. Strengthening Domestic Economic Foundations The trade war has prompted China to undertake structural economic reforms that have strengthened its domestic foundations. Facing external pressure, China is making more progress re-balancing toward domestic consumption and innovation-led growth. China's persistent trade surpluses were actually sub-optimal, representing capital that could have been better invested domestically to raise productivity and living standards. The trade war has helped China to address this imbalance, focusing more on domestic development, something Beijing had as a goal for years but struggled to accomplish. Recent policy shifts reflect this re-balancing. China's 2025 economic priorities emphasize maintaining stable growth through higher deficit-to-GDP ratios, rate cuts, and ultra-long-term special treasury bonds. The Politburo has also committed to more active counter-cyclical adjustments, representing the greatest policy shift since 2008. These reforms have made China's economy less dependent on exports, with the total exports-to-GDP ratio falling to 18%—still higher than the U.S. and Japan, but moving in the right direction. Trump's trade war gave Beijing's long sought economic re-balancing a new sense of urgency. 4. Demonstrating China's Crisis Management Superiority The trade war has provided opportunities for China to showcase its effective governance model in contrast to America's political dysfunction. A striking example occurred in January 2025 when both countries faced natural disasters simultaneously. A 6.8 magnitude earthquake in Tibet saw Chinese authorities swiftly transition from emergency response to recovery, relocating 50,000 residents within a day. Meanwhile, wildfires in Los Angeles raged for over 10 days amid political infighting, causing unnecessary damage surpassing the 9/11 attacks. Such demonstrations of effective governance during the trade war period have bolstered China's international image and domestic confidence. 5. Forging Strategic Countermeasures Capability China has developed sophisticated tools to respond to U.S. trade actions, turning tariff battles into opportunities to assert economic sovereignty. Recent moves demonstrate China's growing confidence in these asymmetric responses. When the U.S. added Chinese companies to restricted trade lists in December 2024, China retaliated by banning exports of rare minerals like gallium and germanium—with estimated costs to U.S. industries exceeding $3 billion for that one restriction alone. China also launched an antitrust investigation into Nvidia, targeting America's AI chip dominance, a muscular monopoly backed openly by Washington. In early 2025, as Trump threatened new tariffs, China prepared countermeasures including tariffs on U.S. agricultural products. It also filed a WTO complaint and expanded export controls on strategic minerals. These calibrated responses show China's ability to identify and exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, a strategic approach contrasting with Trump's blunter threats. 6. Shattering any Lingering Belief in U.S. 'Moral Superiority' For decades, the U.S. has trumpeted democracy and human rights while simultaneously overthrowing elected governments, torturing prisoners and holding them for 20 years without trial in Guantanamo Bay, supporting genocide in Gaza, hogging Covid-19 vaccines until they expired, and on and on. Despite such outlandish hypocrisy, there still persisted an irrational belief in 'U.S.A. the saviour' among some in the West. Trump, thankfully, has delivered the coup de grace to that illusion. Finally we have a U.S. President who openly admits he feels no moral obligations whatsoever, nor any allegiance to longtime allies, nor any particular preference for countries governed through multi-party elections, nor any concern for human rights, including in many cases, the rights of Americans. Trump's hatcheting of aid is predicted to cause nearly three million extra deaths of people living with HIV/AIDS, for lack of treatment, this despite the fact that the U.S.A. commitment to fighting AIDS was launched under Pres. George Bush Jr. and has created the very dependency on funding drug supply which may now kill so many. " 'America' (since we're renaming the world map), is all of North, Central and South America. It is not just one country, any more than Germany is 'Europe'." Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement for the second time, and utter denial of climate change, stands in stark contrast to China whose non-fossil-fuel power capacity has just topped 59% of its total installed power capacity, and is expected to meet China's declared target of 60% non-fossil fuel power generation (green plus nuclear), by the end of 2025. This is a truly amazing feat by 1.4 billion people. Most revealingly, Trump has openly stated that he would invade Greenland if that is the only way the U.S.A. could take possession of the island, invade Panama if necessary, take Gaza, and force Canada to submit to annexation, through economic coercion. Trump's threats are serious and should not be dismissed, as he does not have a record of giving up on his mad causes. The U.S.A.'s open betrayal of the most basic rule of the post-WW II international order—respect for the sovereignty of other states—has shocked the entire world. Domestically, the turmoil of America's dysfunctional politics had entered a new era, one in which it is attacking itself and its own supposedly cherished values, including separation of powers among the executive, judiciary and congress, freedom of speech and rule of law in general. Amazingly, Trump has made it clear that he is "not joking" that he intends to accost the constitution somehow, in order to remain in power after his second term, possibly leading the U.S.A. into a post-democratic era. China, in contrast, looks reassuringly stable and sensible, not given to invading other countries, nor given to starting wars. China does not fester in endless domestic political turmoil, and remains committed to keeping its—well—commitments (such as Paris), including its trade agreements, its promise to promote free trade, to support (not suppress), the development of the Global South, and to respect all other international accords it has signed. It is impossible to overestimate the damage to any future prospect of U.S. leadership that has been done already this year by Trump's 'my might makes right' mantra. No significant remnant of U.S. 'moral leadership' will remain. Without that respect, not even begrudgingly as before from its former allies, U.S. leadership will in future be based on fear and force alone, entering the next phase of 'America's' long decline. By the way, 'America'—since we're renaming the world map—is all of North, Central and South America, not just one country, any more than Germany is 'Europe' or China is 'Asia'." Conclusion: The Unintended Consequences of Economic Conflict Donald Trump's trade wars have produced outcomes diametrically opposed to their intended effects. Rather than weakening China, they have: 1. Accelerated China's technological independence through forced innovation 2. Diversified China's trade relationships away from U.S. dependence 3. Strengthened domestic economic foundations through necessary reforms 4. Showcased China's governance advantages during parallel crises 5. Developed sophisticated asymmetric response capabilities, and 6. Demonstrated U.S. moral bankruptcy. By 2028, Chinese citizens may indeed look back at this period and say, as Wang suggested, "thank you, Trump"—not for his intentions, which were highly dishonourable, but for the unintended competitive advantages his policies created. The ultimate irony of Trump's trade wars may be that in seeking to make America great again, he will have inadvertently helped make China greater—more innovative, more self-sufficient, more strategically positioned in the global economy, and more appreciated. As China continues to turn challenges into opportunities, the long-term beneficiaries of Trump's trade policies will not likely be American workers; there is little chance of that. They will most likely be Chinese scientists, workers and professionals. ——————————————————————— Contact: Email: billpaton@qq.com WeChat: bmpaton Line: bmpaton Substack: @billyyy Telegram: @bmpaton Signal: @bmpaton.01 Bluesky: @billpaton.bsky.social

The War of the Fleas by Bill Paton, 7 February 2025, Phuket ______________ The United States Government, led by President Trump, is trying to bully you. Yes you. Trump has now threatened more than half the world with tariffs, including Canada, Mexico, the EU, Brazil, China, Russia, India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Denmark and Columbia. If you are not on the list yet, your turn will come. He has made it clear he believes he can bully the whole world into buying more American services and goods, plus pretty well anything else he wants. Never mind that it won't work, that balancing trade and hosting the world's main reserve currency are mutually exclusive. This is called the Triffin Dilemma , wherein the supplier of the global currency must run a deficit to generate that supply. But it is not apparent that President Trump even cares that it won't work. It is all in the bullying, designed to impress upon his constituents—and above all, himself—what a powerful leader he is, getting what he wants by twisting everyone's arm until they say 'uncle'. I am not going to buy more American exports. Instead, I am joining my compatriots in Canada to buy far less American goods and services. Global per capita consumption of goods and services exported from the USA in 2024 was over €500 per adult, on average, worldwide. You yourself probably spent more than that buying US exports last year. Think about it: Netflix? Facebook? Amazon? Disney? LinkedIn? Apple? Starbucks? 7 Eleven？MacDonald's? Nike? Pfizer? Google? I could make a very long list, that would still not include many other American businesses operating abroad whose names you might not recognise. Did you spend €1,000 buying American products and services in 2024? Perhaps more? Trump's complaint that the world is not buying enough American products is absurd. From movies to drugs to weapons to junk food, the world is awash in a glut of American offerings, often overpriced and with little alternative. Here in Thailand, you can often see the next 7 Eleven from the doorstep of the one you're at, leaving little else available other than their appalling selection. Here is a picture of the streaming apps offered on my television in Thailand: The apps featured are Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, Prime Video and Samsung TV. They are all American except for the Samsung TV brand's own app, which has more US channels than anywhere else except Thailand. Search for other apps and you will find only two more—Apple TV and one Asian company, AIS. You may well ask, what difference will it make? Well, as with recycling, your personal action will only make a small difference. But together, a global boycott of the USA could make a very great difference, a concept perhaps best described in The War of the Flea by Robert Taber: “The guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog’s disadvantages: too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous, and agile an enemy to come to grips with.” We can at least have the satisfaction of fighting back a little and hold back some of that money we are sending to US oligarchs. The day after this article is published I will deactivate my Facebook, LinkedIn and Amazon accounts, and more, for at least this year. This will not be so easy. I will have to give up some valued social contacts who may not find me on another app. I will have to find alternatives to buy books and apps and music. Google is a particularly invasive species to weed out of my life. But I am going to see how far I can go. When connecting with people I will tell them I prefer to use Line or WeChat or Signal, rather than WhatsApp. I will boycott Starbucks and any other American stores or brands. For my next phone, I can go back to Huawei and their excellent new operating system, Harmony. Most people in the world must choose between Android, Apple and Microsoft, all three of which are US-owned. Harmony also runs laptops and desktops just fine. You may not find it comfortable to stop buying all American services. Perhaps you're addicted to Doritos? Like a python's embrace, it can be very difficult to break free. But it is not so hard to reduce your consumption of some American goods and services, at least loosening their grip. You may have noticed the oligarchs that were standing in the front row at President Trump's inauguration. They are selling you literally trillions of dollars worth of services and goods. Much of that does not count as 'exports' as they do so much of their business all around the world. Altogether, Trump has invited 13 US billionaires to join his administration and help 'govern'. Trump has also issued an Executive Order withdrawing from the new global minimum 15% tax on corporations, signed up to by 135 countries so far. In a complete reversal, he has threatened any country that dares to tax an American corporation, even one doing business in—say—Thailand with the doubling of taxes on their corporations doing business in the USA. Could it get any more outrageous? Mark Zuckerburg (Facebook), Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Elon Musk (Tesla), at President Trump's inauguration, 20 January 2025. Donald Trump is an odious man. I believe that many people and countries see that and will stand up to him, proving that insulting and threatening the entire world is unacceptable and that voodoo economics don't work. While inflation swells again in the USA behind its tariff walls, most countries will choose mutually respectful cooperation and positive-sum relations. Together, we can go forward, into a future when the USA is less and less capable of pushing us around. _________________ PS: Contact me on: billpaton@qq.com www.billpaton.com WeChat: bmpaton Signal: @bmpaton.01 Line: (email me....) Telegram: (email me....)

.... by Bill Paton, 28 January 2025, Phuket 1050 words ______________ The pace of global events is accelerating and the risks for 2025, especially of a great war, bigger than ever. We need our leaders to avoid reckless driving and slow down a bit, carefully navigating the many dangerous bends in the road ahead. Despite what we think, or wish to believe, the pace of technological change is now slower than it was in the 20th century.(1) Home robots or fusion power, for instance, are slow in coming. In contrast, it is the pace of geopolitical and geo-economic events that is now faster than ever, scarily so. Since the Covid-19 pandemic ended, we have seen a number of new wars, beginning with the re-start of the war in Ukraine in early 2022, a war in Sudan since April 2023, and new outbreaks of war in the Middle East just over a year ago. In addition to pulverizing Gaza, systematically murdering its people en masse (genocide), Israel has also attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon (who were attacking them), as well as other targets in Iraq, Iran (who attacked back), Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen (who have been choking off Western shipping through the Red Sea in retaliation for the Gaza genocide). All of this has been done using heavy U.S. weapons, and heavy U.S. diplomatic cover and cover fire. Just in the last month or so we have seen Trump's tumultuous re-election, protests rocking Georgia in the continuing tug of war between Russia and the West, an absurd declaration of martial law in South Korea, a collapsed government in France and collapsed coalition in Germany—Europe's two biggest economies—cancelled elections in Romania, deadly riots and a state of emergency in Mongolia, and the fall of the Syrian regime to Islamist rebels. Bizarrely, the rebels were assisted by the U.S., UK and France, while at the same time a $10m U.S. bounty remained on the head of their leader, a former Al Qaeda fighter. It is apparent that world events are occurring faster and faster. Even a dedicated news-reader can find it hard to keep up with events, much less understand them. While serious efforts at measurement largely demonstrate that the pace of global political events is indeed accelerating, there is little agreement on why. Some argue that the decline of the perceived legitimacy of American hegemony is causing a period of growing, global social unrest. Others link the acceleration to the accelerating production of information. Viral memes, for instance, have shorter and shorter lifespans, illustrating how the pace is constantly picking up. Others argue we have transitioned from a post-war era to a pre-war era. Climate change is also contributing to the chaos. This author sees the rise of the developing world, China foremost, as the key-most factor, creating a newly multi-polar world order and thus a thirst for fairer representation in global affairs that is supplanting U.S. leadership. President re-elect Trump is not going to help matters, priding himself in being 'the great disruptor'. He has already long since declared plans to disrupt world trade, upend several wars, forcibly re-impose American supremacy including the dollar's dominance, bring revolutionary change to America's governance systems, stop China's rise, ignore climate change and generally cause as much havoc as he can. We are facing an unprecedented number of major risks in the coming year. For instance, we can expect a further intensification of the 'tech war' between the U.S and China. Beijing recently stopped export to the U.S. of a number of rare earth metals, over which China has a near monopoly, that are essential in manufacturing semi-productors. The U.S. continues to curb tech exports to China, most recently adding 140 more Chinese companies to its blacklist. We can also expect a heating up of a broader trade war, led by President Trump who has so far threatened to impose tariffs on dozens of countries, from Canada, to Mexico, to China to Europe, its four largest trade partners. To this we must factor in a recent free trade agreement between Europe and most of South America, which President re-elect Trump's White House will no doubt try to bully enough EU governments into not ratifying, and thus blocking. We are even witnessing a widening of economic disparities among countries, a gap that had been narrowing for some time. Poorer countries, and especially their poorer segments, are slipping behind again—their growth slowed since the pandemic—and the fight against poverty has stalled. Many developing countries are thus still pursuing freer trade and greater globalization in their determination to raise their own living standards, while the U.S. will stubbornly try to row the boat in the opposite direction, back into trade protectionism intended to restore the status quo ante. The threat of war looms in several regions, including the possibility of a further-expanded war in Europe, where Russia has now menacingly revised its nuclear weapons policy to allow their use against an attacker assisted by a nuclear-armed power, meaning Ukraine and the Western nuclear powers. Trump's boast that he would end that war soon after his election has instead spurred Russian advances and the prospect that the Ukrainian front could collapse. Meanwhile, the U.S. is getting ready to deploy nuclear-capable launchers in Germany in 2026, while China steadily builds a large enough nuclear arsenal to withstand, and thus deter, a first strike. We are living in scary times, with a frenetic pace. With regime change in Syria, and an Islamist regime likely taking power there, the Middle East seems destined to continue to smoulder if not escalate into more open war, possibly the largest war there ever. There are also major risks on the Korean Peninsula, in the South China Sea and surrounding Taiwan, and numerous, 'forgotten wars' in places like Congo and Myanmar. Sane cooperation between the U.S. and China, the two greatest powers, in the interest of peace and mutual development, is all it would take to bring back a good measure of global stability, beginning with an end to the war in Ukraine. Sadly, greater, senseless confrontation seems far more likely. Even in places as far as the Arctic Circle, friction among the U.S., Russia and China, in particular, is intensifying. As the threads between all these events are woven ever thicker, they are ever more unpredictable in their consequences. Let us hope key international leaders will not practice reckless driving, accelerating into the curves of 2025. May they instead, wisely touch the brakes and slow down a bit, before what will be an unprecedented number of dangerous bends in the road ahead. __________________ 1) For instance in 1927, Charles Lindbergh made the first flight across the Atlantic Ocean (and then cockily flew into Orville Wright's place in Dayton, Ohio, for dinner). Just 42 years later, in 1969, Lindbergh was invited by Neil Armstrong to witness the Saturn V launch that took him for a stroll on the moon. If you found this post interesting, please consider sharing it. To subscribe to receive future posts via email, see the bottom of this page. To unsubscribe, simply send an email to billpaton@qq.com.

The West vs. The Rest A bitterly cold winter has arrived in relations between an entitled, USA-led West, and the global South, 'the Rest'. Fed up, and with fast-growing economic strength, the Rest is about to seize a fairer share of power. by William Paton, Beijing 30 July 2023 Writing in 1987, Paul Kennedy proclaimed that in economic terms, a multi-polar world had already arrived. [i] Ironically, Kennedy’s book – The Rise and Fall of Great Powers – was instead followed by the dissolution of the USSR and the dawn of a newly ‘uni-polar world’. President Biden is congratulating himself today, for having used Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine to draw the rich world closer together in a formidable military block. The North, however, seems not to have noticed that the global South skipped the party. While many developing countries tepidly supported a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s invasion, they pointedly declined to take NATO’s side in applying sanctions. The conflict with Russia is not the world's most important rift today. Nor is it US vilification of China, also aimed at uniting the West — in this case against the renewed ‘yellow peril’. No — the most dangerous division the world faces today is the growing alienation of the global South from the global North. Economic multi-polarity In 2025, China’s real GDP PPP will be over 37 trillion dollars or more than 19% of the global economy. The USA will have 15%; India, third, will have slightly more than half the USA’s share, or 8%. [ii] A multi-polar global economy has, apparently, dawned. While the USA is busy ‘de‑coupling’, ‘friend-shoring’, ‘de-risking’, applying myriad sanctions and banning things galore, the rest of the world is not keen to follow. For instance, after the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), many of its closest allies – Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand – proceeded without it. Developing countries, in particular, know they need growing trade to continue improving living standards. Free-trade agreements are proliferating in Asia Pacific in particular. China is in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) of 15 Asian nations, the renewed ASEAN Free Trade Area ACFTA, another Asia-Pacific FTA, and bilateral FTAs with 14 more countries. It is negotiating or consulting on new FTAs with eight more regional groupings and a further 15 countries worldwide, altogether the majority of the world. [iii] By 2040, the ‘Emerging Seven’ or E7 will account for double the GDP PPP of the G7 (the E7 is China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey and Nigeria). While the global economy should more than double in size by 2050, the EU27’s share will by then shrink to less than 10%, substantially smaller than India’s. [iv] Capital accumulation follows this trend more slowly. The world’s staggering private wealth of over 500 trillion dollars in 2023 is ever-more unequally distributed and mostly still concentrated in the North. Private wealth grew at a record 12.7% in 2021, yet the majority of adults worldwide had wealth of less than $10,000. [v] However, emerging countries are catching up faster in public investment. By 2019, China’s public capital was $20-35,000 per capita, the same range as most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Only the USA, Japan and a few others are higher and in many developed countries, especially the USA, public capital is falling — as depreciation outpaces new investment — while private wealth continues to soar. [vi] Military uni-polarity Kennedy’s thesis about Great Power competition was that military and economic power must go hand in hand. [vii] If military power too greatly exceeds a nation’s economic capacity, then the burden drags it down. By the 1700s, The Netherlands and Spain became secondary economic powers, thus lost their military edge to Britain, who by the end of that century had developed the world's leading financial system, underpinning its military rise and beating even France. [viii] However, if a nation acquires great wealth without adequate defences, then it is conquered or weakened by a stronger power seeking its riches. Ming Dynasty China was the greatest empire in the world in the 1400s, its huge fleets of oaken giant ships dwarfing Europe's. But China then abandoned its navy, thinking the greatest risk was overland. This left the global seas open to European conquest and, eventually, the invasion of China itself it by the 1800s, when the emerging West seized Hong Kong, Macau and parts of other coastal Chinese cities, including Shanghai. Today, the USA's 4.4% of world population continues to dominate the world militarily. Official US defence expenditure in 2022 was $944 billion — higher than publicised but not the total. Excluded are such items as budgets for bigger wars (including trillions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan), and much of the cost of its nuclear arsenal, weapons’ research, intelligence-gathering, domestic defence and veterans affairs. [ix] Total USA military expenditure exceeds 1.2 trillion dollars per year or 5% of its GDP and in years with bigger‑than‑usual wars, 6%. [x] [xi] Add another $300 billion in expenditure by its NATO allies, for a total of 60% of total global spending on defence and offence by this dominant block. [xii] China’s military expenditure today is second largest. [xiii] It was $487 bn in 2022 in GDP PPP, a fairly steady 1.6-1.7%. This is successfully depicted by the USA as a ‘growing threat’ to world security, yet no soldier in China’s military today has been in combat, other than a border skirmish or UN Peacekeeping. [xiv] The threat, of course, is to US hegemony. China aspires to be able to defend itself in its own region. However, the USA, determined to remain supreme, will continue spending 5-6% of its GDP on its military. At present, the USA is surrounding China with yet more military bases (it has already has 800 foreign military bases in 83 countries), along with aircraft carriers and submarines that each carry more than a hundred nuclear weapons, all patrolling the Chinese coast, air space borders and nearby seas. Hogging power The global South feels sees a multi-polar world arriving, but also sees a global North determined to go on dominating, just as before, not only with military might but also through the control of global institutions and systems, particularly for finance. Take the World Bank : Located in Washington, the US always nominates a single candidate to become the Bank's head and is the only country with veto power. [xv] China has about 5% of voting rights at the Bank's main arm, the United States 16%, and the other six G7 nations, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, have a further 25%. At the International Monetary Fund, Chin a has 6% of votes, less than Japan and the USA has 17%. The G7 combined have 43%. As at the Bank, a ‘super-majority’ of 85% is required for major decisions, giving the USA the sole veto. [xvi] In the World Trade Organization, USA influence is also greatest by far, for instance blocking the appointment of new appeal judges for years, thus halting the resolution of cases against its rollout of myriad, illegal trade barriers under the guise of 'national security'. Developing countries in the WTO have reduced voting rights, yet less and less differential treatment in exchange.[ xvii] [xviii] At the Bank for International Settlements , based in Basel, Switzerland, the governing board reserves permanent seats for the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy and Belgium. Western countries hold a large majority of votes, despite nearly 70% of currency deposits coming from the Asia-Pacific region. [xix] [xx] International payment systems are also under the control of the US, which can block any country it wishes from using them, and seize other countries' dollar assets abroad, at will. The dollar is also used to extend American law abroad, requesting extradition of non-US citizens they accuse of breaking US laws. The accused need never visit the USA, only use a bank that handles dollars. Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, was arrested and held in Vancouver for three years at US insistence, based on two Power-Point slides she had allegedly showed an executive of HSBC (a British Bank), at a café in Hong Kong! Frustrated at such brash overreach, China has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), based in Beijing. China has also out-spent the World Bank over the last decade, investing more than $1 trillion dollars during 2013-2023 on infrastructure and other works in other developing countries, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), of course provoking nothing but scathing accusations in a jealous West. [xxi] Reform is not likely soon at the United Nations, either, the world's preeminent multilateral organization. The West’s three vetoes out of five in the Security Council — with not so much as a seat for India or Brazil — continue to be non-negotiable. Hypocritical, warlike and selfish Hypocrisy is a major grievance of the global South. The USA, in particular, combines abrasive preaching with astonishingly hypocrisy. It preaches nuclear non-proliferation, then signs a deal to sell nuclear submarines to Australia, and deliver it copious plutonium. Then it signs another deal to begin stationing a nuclear-armed submarine in South Korea, just hundreds of kilometres from Shanghai. Preaching respect for individual human rights, it detains people for deca des without trial (in their military base in Cuba which the USA continues to 'rent' there for a coercive $3,386 per year). It refuses to join the International Court of Justice or ratify the Ottawa Ban on Land Mines. Preaching multi-party democracy, it steadily supports authoritarians it likes, and covertly tries to overthrow any government it does not.[xxii] Preaching international rule of law, it places itself above it, refusing to ratify many international laws including the Law of the Sea (all the while, loudly accusing China of breaching it), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Vienna Convention on Treaties, to name just a few out of many. It invades other countries such as Iraq without UN Security Council approval and secretly uses drones or cruise missiles (such as in Yemen or Somalia), ironically calling this a 'rules-based order'. War mongering is a particularly damming charge. The US post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan caused an estimated 387,073 violent deaths of civilians in those countries. An estimated 3.6-3.7 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones. There have also been thousands more deaths from many hundreds of US airstrikes elsewhere, now mostly unmanned drones, in Burkina Faso, Chad, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Niger and Somalia (202 such strikes in Somalia alone). President Biden continues to routinely authorize drone strikes in countries 'outside of regular war z ones' meaning, in effect, anywhere he likes.[xxiii] Selfishness is also high on the list. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there was an appalling lack of assistance to developing countries. The Western block mostly took care of themselves, not even making adequate contributions to the UN's fund for vaccines for developing countries. Washington was able to quickly find five trillion dollars to help itself though, more than 1,000 times more than it found to aid the rest of the world. Germany found $1.2 billion for international vaccines and $810 billion to help itself. Japan's domestic Covid stimulus exceeded 50% of its GDP. Combined, Western gorging sparked the worst inflation in 40 years, driving up prices worldwide, especially for food. Power is taken not given Developing countries as a group are thoroughly, irreversibly, alienated and actively seeking ways to balance the scales. This August's meeting of BRICS in South Africa is a milestone -- a potential "BRICS Revolt". BRICS' original five members already represent 40% of global population. Twenty-two more countries have formally applied to join BRICS, and another twenty-two have expressed interest. The list includes Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.[xxiv] BRICS set up the New Development Bank in Shanghai, with a rotating presidency. At the top of their agenda is de-dollarization of trade and the creation of a digital trading currency. The expansion of BRICS into an international organization of developing countries, with ambition s to favour local currencies over the dollar, has the potential to bring a seismic shift in the global distribution of national power. Twenty-four countries have expressed interest in using a new BRICS currency for trade instead of the dollar. [xxiii] It was also remarkable that National Security Advisors from BRICS countries met in Johannesburg in late July to discuss setting up their own security cooperation mechanis m.[xxv] Conclusion -- The World Order in Transition The USA and global North's captain-ship of the world has finally shipwrecked. The global South, having endured slavery, colonialism, imperialism, wars, inadequate and self-serving aid, corporate domination and even open scorn (Trump famously called them 'shithole countries'), senses today that their time has finally come, and they are eager to seize it. Many see cause for celebration in this but there are also fearsome risks in such a split. The more the USA tries to surround and intimidate China, and no doubt soon India too, the harder they will try to develop military power sufficient to repel the threat. The more the Western media hypes the impression that other countries are lining up to take the USA's side, and vilifies every non-ally, the less the silent majority will believe it. The more the dollar is weaponized, the more it will be attacked. Understandable alienation in the global South may once again split the globe, not between the West and the East — this time between the West and all the Rest. The result will be a stormy, unstable era. Instability, provoked by northern selfishness, risks reducing cooperation on planetary destruction at a critical time, and heightens the risk of large-scale war. __________________ [i] Paul Kennedy (1989), The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 , Introduction (New York: Vintage Books). [ii] IMF (2023), World Economic Outlook database: April 2023 . [iii] Asia Regional Integration Center: Tracking Asian Integration, Free Trade Agreements; ADB: https://aric.adb.org/fta. [iv] Price Waterhouse Coopers (2017), The World in 2050: The Long View – How will the global economic order change by 2050? or OECD (2021). [v] Credit Suisse Research Institute, Global Wealth Report 2022: Leading perspectives to navigate the future, Zurich. Visual Capitalist (28 February 2023), Visualizing the Global Share of US Stock Markets , nominal exchange rates. [vi] IMF (2021), Investment and Capital Stock Dataset: Estimating the stock of public capital in 170 countries (May 2021 update). [vii] Paul Kennedy (1989), Ibid. Introduction. [viii] Paul Kennedy (1989), Ibid. Ch. 2,3,4. [ix] US Defense Department, News Release , accessed 3 May 2023. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2638711/the-department-of-defense-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-defense-budg/. [x] The Costs of War Project , Brown University, https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic/budget ; Budget Basics: National Defense , Peter G. Peterson Foundation. [xi] These figures are exceedingly complex and this figure of 1200 billion is an estimate. For instance, funds to replace munitions sent to Ukraine in 2022 were handled by $35.7 billion in “supplemental funds” not included in the publicized “defense budget”. [xii] NATO (2023), Secretary General’s Annual Report 2022, Annex: Defense Expenditure. [xiii] For an exhaustive look at expenditure items not included in China’s official defense budget, similar to the practice in the USA, see: Nan Tian and Fei Su (2021), A New Estimate of China’s Military Expenditure , Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. [xiv] China’s last actual combat beyond a minor skirmish was in 1979 in northern Vietnam, both across the border and at sea, and involved a total of at least large, if short, skirmishes until 1987. Some soldiers and sailors have also been involved in UN peacekeeping operations and naval operations to combat Somali pirates. [xv] World Bank website. [xvi] IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/About/executive-board/eds-voting-power . [xvii] Aileen Kwa (1998) ‘ WTO and Developing Countries ’ (1998), Institute for Policy Studies, Washington. https://ips-dc.org/wto_and_developing_countries/ [xviii] Clara Weinhardt & Till Schöffer (2022), 'Differential treatment for developing countries in the WTO: the unmaking of the North–South distinction in a multipolar world,' Third World Quarterly , 43:1,74-93. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2021.1992271. [xix] See https://www.bis.org/about. [xx] Catherine R. Schenk (10 April 2020), The Governance of the Bank for International Settlements, 1973–2020, Cambridge University Press online. [xxi] Christoph NEDOPIL WANG (January 2023), ‘China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Investment Report 2022’ , Shanghai: FISF Fudan University, Green Finance & Development Center. [xxii] Kinzer, Stephen (2006), Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, New York, Times Books. Wikipedia, U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. [xxiii] Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Costs of War , Brown University, https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic/budget ; https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians. [xxiv] Watcher Guru (accessed 26 July 2023), Brics - Full List of Countries That Want to Join Alliance, https://watcher.guru/news/brics-full-list-of-countries-that-want-to-join-alliance, [xxv] Zongyuan Zoe Liu and Mihaela Papa (24 February 2022), Can BRICS De-dollarize the Global Financial System? Cambridge U. Press, online. Watcher Guru (accessed 26 July 2023), Twenty-Four Countries Ready to Accept BRICS Currency, https://watcher.guru/news/24-countries-ready-to-accept-brics-currency. _____________

Developing Countries, Warts and All, Are Showing Leadership by Bill Paton, 5 October 2024, Phuket In "The Wizard of Oz," Dorothy and her eclectic companions—a straw scarecrow, a tin man, and a cowardly lion—journey along the Yellow Brick Road in pursuit of their dreams and the Emerald City. Eventually, they triumph over the Wicked Witch of the West by dousing her with water. Recently, Türkiye has sought to join BRICS, and will be attending their next meeting in Kazan this month, chaired by Russia's President Putin. BRICS is also a wildly diverse coalition united by a common goal, and like Dorothy and her friends, they should not be underestimated. ___________________ Russia is set to host the 2024 BRICS Summit from October 22-24, bringing together leaders from over 20 major emerging economies. While some skeptics predict a dysfunctional gathering and doubt the ability of these countries to collaborate, the leaders of BRICS are united by a shared vision: creating a more equitable world with a more balanced distribution of international power. BRICS members include India, Brazil, and South Africa, which have functional multi-party systems; China with its unique one-party structure; Russia's constitutional strongman regime; Saudi Arabia's monarchy; the UAE's federation of absolute monarchies; Iran's Islamic theocracy with an elected government; and Egypt's dictator, sustained by US support a decade after a military coup. It's an ironic twist for the West—often so intolerant of differing systems—that this diverse coalition can collaborate, overcoming significant political differences in pursuit of greater global democracy. BRIC was established by Russia in 2009, along with Brazil, India, and China, aiming to challenge the US-dominated global order and transform it into a multi-polar system. South Africa joined the group in 2010, expanding it to BRICS. This year, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates also became members, though Argentina's newly-elected far-right president backed out. The 10 BRICS members now account for 45% of the world's population, compared to just 9.5% for the G7. BRICS' combined GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) has risen to 35% of the global total, surpassing the G7's 30%. In nominal GDP, both groups are nearly equal, each contributing about 30%. However, BRICS countries produce nearly half of the world's oil and 40% of its exports, and are growing significantly faster than the G7, with a projected growth rate of 3.6% in 2024, compared to the G7's 1%. At the core of this rivalry is a deeply moral conflict. Western nations, at times justifiably and at times not, highlight human rights abuses within BRICS countries, such as the treatment of women in Iran. They portray China and Russia as repressive regimes, while framing life in their own countries as the embodiment of 'freedom.' Many in the West accept this narrative, believing their moral superiority justifies their continued dominance on the global stage. However, most in the Global South increasingly reject the West's claim to the ethical high ground and world leadership. A recent poll by *Politico* revealed growing negative perceptions of the US worldwide, and including in Europe. The US and its allies' repeated opportunism—tolerating and even materially supporting widespread human rights abuses by their own partners—has led many to view the US as a hypocritical moral authority, resembling a pedophile priest. While loudly sermonizing about the virtues of its type of democracy, and proclaiming itself its champion, the US often works to block democratic outcomes in international affairs. It also routinely undermines democracy in countries where it dislikes the results, most recently in Pakistan (where Washington prefers military rule). At home, the US electoral system itself has become remarkably dysfunctional. Meanwhile, brutal wars continue to ravage many regions, with the Russia-Ukraine-NATO conflict and the Israel-Gaza-Lebanon crisis drawing the most attention. Neither conflict would be feasible without vast supplies of US weapons. Even fundamental rights, like those protected under the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, are selectively upheld or ignored depending on Washington's strategic interests. More than 200,000, mostly civilians, killed in Gaza are just the most recent, stark example. (1) It’s no surprise, then, that 34 additional countries are expressing interest in joining BRICS, viewing it as a coalition against US dominance. If they were to join, BRICS would represent 56% of the world’s population, further solidifying its role as a counterweight to Western influence: Algeria, Afghanistan, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Comoros, Cuba, D.R. Congo, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Türkiye, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Türkiye's bid to join BRICS comes as a surprise because it is a NATO member, though it may just be an attempt to balance its relations between BRICS and the West. While Turkiye has strongly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it also recently defied intense US opposition by accepting delivery of Russian S-400 air defense missiles. President Erdoğan’s recent statements, particularly at the UN Summit in September regarding Gaza, have been strikingly outspoken and powerful: "Along with children in Gaza, the United Nations system is also dying, the truth is dying, the values that the West claims to defend are dying, the hopes of humanity to live in a fairer world are dying one by one." "Those who are supposedly working for a ceasefire continue to send weapons and ammunition to Israel behind the stage, so that it can continue its massacres. This is inconsistency and insincerity." （https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1q/k1q3qd2bmm - from minute 8:00.) A Dose of Cold Water One of BRICS' most critical upcoming activities is the introduction of a new international trade currency, tentatively called the "Unit." Approved by the BRICS Business Council, it will now be a central topic at the upcoming meeting in Kazan, where it may even be announced or launched. The Unit is expected to be backed by up to 40% in gold and the rest by the national currencies of BRICS members. The momentum behind the Unit grew as the US increasingly weaponized the dollar and the SWIFT inter-bank messaging network for political purposes, such as when the US and Europe seized more than $600 billion in Russian assets, shut Russia out of SWIFT, and went on to threaten any country that did not comply with that edict. Although the arbitrary seizure of another nation's foreign assets is widely considered illegal, the precedent set by the US and EU has raised concerns that in future they could easily target any other country they disfavor in the same way. The United States has long benefited from what former French President Charles de Gaulle famously called the "exorbitant privilege" of having the dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency. This status allows the US to borrow at lower interest rates than it otherwise could, and finance massive deficits without significantly devaluing the dollar. A key element of this system was a 50-year-old agreement with Saudi Arabia to sell its oil exclusively in dollars, regardless of the buyer, effectively anchoring the global dollar-trading system. It is difficult to comprehend but the US insists, even today, that China—indeed all countries, including the Euro zone—must pay Saudi Arabia for its oil with US dollars rather than with euros or renminbi! However, there are indications that Saudi Arabia may soon abandon this bizarre deal, further undermining the dollar's shrinking dominance. Additionally, the rise of digitization and e-currencies is increasing the vulnerability of both the dollar and the SWIFT system to disruption. Despite these shifts, the US remains brazenly insistent that other nations must continue to conduct trade in US dollars in their transactions with third-party countries: "You leave the dollar and you're not doing business with the US because we are going to put a 100% tariff on your goods." (Donald Trump addressing the Economic Club of New York on September 5, 2024) This US stance only deepens the erosion of confidence in the dollar. Over the next decade, its influence is expected to continue to steadily decline, eventually leading to a tipping point: a sudden collapse in its value and a sharp rise in US borrowing costs. While this will come as a severe shock to the US, the reaction in the Global South is likely to be schadenfreude, a moment akin to Dorothy's triumphant delivery of a bucket of cold water. The dollar's continuing decline is likely irreversible. China today already conducts 53% of its cross-border trade in renminbi. With a post-crunch US dollar worth perhaps only 1:5 against the renminbi—compared to the current 1:7—China’s economy, even in nominal GDP, will then overtake the US by a large margin almost overnight (if it hasn't already). What is hastening the US's decline is not just economic shifts, but a combination of arrogance, loss of any moral compass, and thus fading respect for its leadership. The US is increasingly seen as a force holding back global progress by refusing to share power equitably or uphold the values it claims to champion. Recently, the US and its European allies have also moved to defend their long-standing advantages in global trade, attempting to sabotage high-value exports and technological advancement from the developing world. Having become used to selling high-value goods while buying cheaper wares, they now label any change in these trade dynamics as "unfair." For example, they accuse Beijing of somehow miraculously making money by selling electric vehicles (EVs) at a loss, even as they themselves subsidize the purchase of EVs at home. While these actions are mainly aimed at China today, countries like India recognize that they too will be targeted in the future. The irony in the BRICS narrative is palpable. Many of the nations the US and its allies still consider inferior have begun showing genuine leadership together on the global stage. Like Dorothy’s diverse band of companions, BRICS members—despite their flaws and differences—are united by a shared belief in their mission, giving them the courage to push on down the road. ________________________ 1) The death toll in Gaza has continued to climb, despite many media reports that suggest it has somehow remained static at around 40,000. According to an estimate from *The Lancet*, for every Palestinian killed by bombing, another four have died due to hunger, disease, or other illnesses left untreated due to the war. They estimated the real total killed at 186,000 in July. Additionally, thousands of bodies remain uncounted, buried beneath the rubble. Gaza’s entire remaining population of 2 million is being denied basic protection, even the minimum of food, slowly starving in makeshift shelters, with the majority of their homes, hospitals, schools, and water infrastructure destroyed. See: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext. Ralph Nader has estimated the real toll may have already exceeded 300,000. See: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/9/10/ralph_nader_gaza_death_toll. If you found this post interesting, please consider sharing it and subscribing to receive future posts via email (see the bottom of this page). To unsubscribe, simply send an email to billpaton@qq.com

Wonderland Without Alice by William Paton 16 J une 2024 Just when I thought my morning news feed couldn't get any sillier, the Biden administration raised tariffs on near-imaginary Chinese electric vehicle imports from 27.5% to 100%. Europe followed suit by also raising it's tariffs, angered that 8% of its electric vehicles are imported Chinese brands, at competitive prices. They studiously ignored that another 12% of its EVs are imported Western brands, made in China by Tesla and Germany's own BMW, while a healthy 80% are made in Europe. Europe's own automobile industry was largely against the move. Meanwhile, three meetings discussed the war in Ukraine. The G7 pledged ten more years of weapons -- for a 'forever war'. Germany held a meeting that discussed starting reconstruction during the war, though some works will probably be re-bombed. Switzerland yodeled about hosting a 'peace conference' of 90 countries to discuss the fantasy of imposing an utterly one-sided peace in Ukraine, declining to even invite Russia. Can it get any nuttier? __________________ I have owned two cars in China. The first was a Japanese brand, imported from Dubai. The second was a German brand, made in Beijing. My elder brother's first car, in Canada in the 1970s, was a used Volkswagen imported from Germany, and his second was a brand new Datsun, imported from Japan in the 1980s. My first car, in London in the early 1990s, was a used SAAB from Sweden. Neither I nor my brother have ever owned a domestic brand car, and all but one was imported. So what the heck is going on here? Two of the three places that have exported most of the world's cars for more than a century, Europe and the USA, have suddenly decided that selling cars in another country more cheaply is a violation of their rights and must be due to some unfair behaviour by the dreaded Chinese. The unpopular truth is that China long ago saw the future was green and electric, and so devised an industrial strategy to prepare for it. They invested consistently for two decades, building cost-effective supply chains and economies of scale for things like solar panels, windmills and EVs. Initially they subsidized purchases of EVs, just as Europe and the USA are doing now, but have gradually reduced those subsidies. Beijing also made sure new electric vehicle companies had access to financing for their risky ventures, as many such startups failed. It paid off though, and China is now producing the best value-for-money, highest-quality electric cars on the planet. Four decades ago, China began allowing foreign companies to come to China and make vehicles, jointly with Chinese companies, beginning with the famous Beijing Jeep in 1984. By this century almost every brand of car in the world was being manufactured in China for the domestic market. For over two decades, most cars in China were foreign brands, either imported or manufactured in-country. China became the largest car market in the world, huge for companies such as Toyota, Mercedes-Benz or General Motors, who made equally huge profits there. A few years ago, Tesla built an enormous 'giga-factory' in Shanghai which they wholly own, and is selling cars both in China and abroad. Only in 2022, did China's own domestic brands achieve 51% of their own market. Much of this was not due to imitation of legacy technology and old-fashioned combustion engines, but rather the explosive growth of EVs. With their electric motors, regenerative braking, lithium batteries and tablet-based controls, electric vehicles are a new, homegrown technology that China is now ready to export. This is only fair but the USA and Europe cry foul. China, they maintain, has only achieved this due to some evil plot by its dreaded Communist Party, who have figured out how to get rich by selling cars at a loss. Concern about climate change is absent from this agenda, though blocking less expensive, better quality electric cars will delay the switch to green energy. The Biden administration's stance is particularly absurd. EV sales were about 800,000 in 2022 or 6% of US vehicle sales. Tesla dominated with 65%, followed by Ford and then Hyundai and Kia. China exports only a small number of EVs to the USA, worth only 389 million dollars in 2023 or just 2% of imports of EVs into the USA. (1) This was despite a special 25% tariff on Chinese EVs, for a total of 27.5%, before it was raised to 100%. Incredibly, the truth is that most of the Chinese-manufactured cars imported into the USA are Buicks and Lincoln's! American tariffs on these cars will remain at 2.5%. General Motors alone sold 2.1 million cars in China in 2023, mostly made in China. Ask an American friend if they have ever even seen  a Chinese car. Overall, China's global exports of cars may or may not have overtaken Japan's in 2023, depending on whose figures you choose, but both exported more than 5 million vehicles. China's domestic sales in 2023 were 21 million vehicles compared to Japan's 4.8 million. No other major automobile manufacturing nation sells as small a proportion of their production abroad as China does. So why, exactly, does the West call this 'overproduction.' Chinese EVs are cheaper and very good quality, with attractive new designs, and so will of course increase sales in future as the rest of the world finally goes electric. China did increase its total car production in 2023 by 12% compared to 2022 so they're on a roll for sure. But does that make a 100% tariff fair? Won't it only lead to more bailouts of a coddled, noncompetitive Detroit car industry just as Japanese competition did, long ago? China will meanwhile sell EVs on a greater and greater scale to the rest of the world, gaining even greater economies of scale. The new USA 100% tariffs are not an industrial strategy. They are an election strategy. Like Europe's, they will actually damage the American automobile industry by overprotecting it from healthy competition. Just when geopolitics seemed as bad as it could get, the disconnect between intelligent policy and what voters like to hear is getting even worse. Policies now no longer have to make sense at all, or even contribute to the alleged goal. In fact it's simpler if they don't, as politicians can then explain them with utterly fantastic reasoning. Europe can pass a policy to protect it's auto industry, against the wishes of who? Of it's own auto industry! Who rightly fear retaliation against their lucrative Chinese businesses. And the USA can slap a 100% tariff on nearly non-existent electric car imports from China. We have entered a Western Wonderland -- but one sadly lacking the delightful Alice. The G7 can pledge to support Ukraine fighting for another decade, until the whole country has been reduced to a depopulated rubble, and receive loud, imaginary applause at home. I say imaginary because most Europeans polled said they prefer a real diplomatic solution between Russia and Ukraine rather than continuing the war. The war is in Europe, remember, but the USA wants this guarantee that it will be as long as possible. In Wonderland, many things are very strange. Now Switzerland, too, has shamed itself. Once an iconic symbol of neutrality and conservative common sense, Bern just hosted an utterly one-sided 'peace conference' -- an event with zero hope of bringing peace. It would have been better named a 'war conference'. Russia responded to their non-invitation that they would not have come anyway to such a peace conference, where the agenda was entirely Ukraine's. Germany's contribution was to hold discussions in that country on rebuilding Ukraine while it is still being destroyed. No doubt the World Bank will set up an enormous, glacially slow fund that will disembowel Kiev's sovereignty by raising the specter of Ukrainian corruption. Hiding behind this Boogeyman, it will proceed to 'transparently' award donor countries' own companies most of the contracts. Before the war, the USA bought just 2% of Ukraine's exports, making it a smaller trade partner of Ukraine's than Egypt. Somehow, it will still win most of the 'competitive' bids for contracts, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, to re-build infrastructure that is still being bombed, and in a war where Ukraine uses mostly US weapons to fight back. This will be the largest post-war reconstruction since WWII, less like Wonderland I'm afraid and more like something out of Joseph Heller's imagination. This is the year of many elections around the world. Combined with the continuing erosion of interest in truth, basic logic or just common sense, the polls are prodding politicians to invent some of the most absurd, nonsensical policies we have seen in my lifetime. No doubt, there will be more cause to giggle, or moan, coming very soon. It will not make the world a better place. Just a sillier place. _____________ 1) U.S. International Trade Commission (April 2024), Chinese Vehicle Exports: Electrified , David Coffin and Jeff Walling, Office of Industry and Competitiveness Analysis, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_china_ev_exports.pdf